Svetlana Yudina: “Everything begins with itself”

Today, expensive accessories made of precious metals and stones are replaced by accessories made from natural materials in ethnic style. The new trend opened new names for the world – young and talented masters. Handicraftsman from Central Asia, whose culture and history serve them as an inexhaustible source of inspiration, have succeeded in creating unusual ornaments in the national style. The opening for the British public was the ethnic designer from Kazakhstan Svetlana Yudina, who presented the line of accessories “LkM” in the capitals of Great Britain and Sweden. Svetlana Yudina was awarded with the diploma Best Ethnographic Accessories of the year at the VI OEBF festival in Stockholm. Svetlana Yudina is not only an ethnic designer, she is also an experienced psychologist and a talented writer, the author of the book “How to love yourself?”. This talented Kazakhstani woman told in an interview with OCA how in her life came creativity that inspired her to start writing and shared plans for the future.

At the end of November this year Svetlana Yudina was elected a member of the Advisory Council of the Eurasian Creative Guild (London).

OCA: Svetlana, tell us a little about yourself, what did you do before you began to write?

My Motherland is a small Kazakh village of Karatuma, East Kazakhstan region. My father worked in the agrarian sector for a long time and is an experienced expert in this field, my mother built a career as a deserved teacher of history and geography of Kazakhstan. My parents were an example to me in everything and thanks to them, I became a certified specialist, manager (head of the consulting company “International Master Class”) and a psychologist. Ten years of my life I devoted to improving my professional skills and for the last three years I have been training, individual master classes and teaching people the secrets of success (not only in professional but also in personal life), so I created the company “Yudin’s Sisters Development Center “Drevo Jizni” (Tree of life), I also mastered the ethnic designer profession and am the owner of the” Love to Mother “brand workshop for making accessories in the Kazakh national ethnic style.

OCA: Tell us how you came to write your first book? What prompted you?

Daily work with people who can not break out of the trap of persistent problems and are looking for their own Way in life, but do not know where to start, I got the idea, write an autobiographical book of life recommendations of immersion in myself and show by my own example how I managed to overcome everything in these difficulties. I wrote this book in ten evenings, being able to concentrate and putting my whole soul into it.

OCA: What is your book about? For whom is it written?

The title of the book speaks for itself and it was written for a wide range of readers. Moreover, since I am a patron of art and constantly support not only public associations of disabled people, orphanages, but also often work with students and youth in support of the programs of the Head of our State N.Nazarbayev “A look into the future: the modernization of public consciousness” I wanted to create a tool in PocketBook format not more than 100 pages, using which, everyone can turn on the mechanism of transformation of themselves and their life.

OCA: Was it difficult to write? Tell us about your first experience?

Of course, it was difficult to write, because I did not have previous experience, because this is my first literary project. Perhaps many will find this book imperfect, will find misprints, technical mistakes, although the presence of all this, only confirmation of the authenticity of my work and the lack of plagiarism. I wanted to convey the author’s emotions and help those people who lost themselves. And if it helps at least one person get out of difficulties by a winner, then it means that my work was not in vain.

OCA: Should we expect a new book for readers? What will it be about and when will it be published?

In 2018 I plan to release the second edition of my book “How to love yourself?” and expand the chapters, adding them to the tools of my three-year work in psychology, coaching and individual master classes, and to translate the new edition into english and kazakh. And also write in the coming years, a whole series of books on psychology, personal growth and prosperity.

OCA: Tell me, is there a place in your life and other forms of creativity? What are your hobbies?
Having opened my heart for love to myself, there were places for me, and for my relatives and for my country, and since for a long time I studied the history of ancient Turkic culture in general, and Kazakh, in particular, more than a year ago I came to the idea to open own workshop on making handmade accessories in the national and ethno style of Kazakhstan. This knowledge was embodied in my designer works of accessories in the Kazakh national ethnic style. Moreover, my works were awarded with the diploma of the participant of the contest “Fashion House International” in Moscow, for the best ethnic-design of accessories and all these works are in demand not only in Kazakhstan, but also in international countries: Germany, France, Turkey , in Russia.

OCA: Where do you get ideas for your work?

The idea of this workshop originated long ago in my head, since my mother was a teacher of History and Geography of Kazakhstan, she taught all pupils from the school years love for our Motherland, in her lessons we studied, saw and realized – all the power and beauty of our Kazakhstan, starting from ancient times to the independence of the Country.

OCA: In November, your work was presented at the VI International Literary Festival. How did the Swedish audience accept your accessories?

At the festival, the entire line of my brand accessories was presented – “LkM accessories” (which means – Love of the Mother). I think they liked my work, because the ethno-style can not leave any person’s heart indifferent.

Sharaf Rashidov’s 100th birth anniversary: remembering the Uzbek statesman and a writer

This year marks the 100th anniversary since birth of Sharaf R. Rashidov, the first secretary of the Uzbek communist party (in office from 1959 until 1983). Rashidov was born on November the 6th 1917, the day before the Bolsheviks under Lenin seized power in Russia. His birthday seems symbolical as he would become the highest ranking official in Soviet Uzbekistan. In addition, this Uzbek man was one of two Central Asians (the other one being Dinmukhamed Kunayev, a Kazakh) to play a special role in the Soviet hierarchy and history. 

According to eyewitnesses, Rashidov had an oustanding intellect and charisma. A native of Jizzakh in Uzbekistan, he was not just a politician, but also an excellent communicator, diplomat and a writer. With a degree in philology from the Uzbekistan’s University of Samarkand, he started working as an editor of a Samarkand newspaper Lenin Yo’li (Lenin’s Path). The Second World War forced Rashidov to take a break and go to fight in the Northwestern front of the Soviet army. He fought bravely but was sent home after being wounded in 1942. Upon his return to Jizzakh, he resumed writing and became an editor of Qizil O’zbekiston (Red Uzbekistan) in 1947. Rashidov quickly rose as a prominent writer and got appointed as the head of the Uzbekistan Writers Union in 1949. 

Simultaneously, he pursued his career as a politician. His interest in public life leads him to become secretary of Samarkand province’s party organization in 1944. Six years later (1950), ambitious Rashidov was in Tashkent, as a member of Uzbekistan’s Politbiuro – the highest governing body of the republic’s party. In 1959, Sharaf Rashidov became the chief of the Uzbek communist party. During his long-term service up until his death in 1983, Uzbekistan got many benefits including investments in agriculture, the establishment of factories and plants. The capital, Tashkent, got an underground network, the first in the region, and was widely recognised as a cultural and literature center of the USSR. 

Rashidov’s knowledge enabled him to act as a diplomat too. Although he never held an ambassadorial post, Rashidov helped to negotiate a number of important international agreements on behalf of the Soviets during the Cold War.  He co-led numerous Soviet delegations to Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Birma, Vietnam, China and Mongolia; participated in Bangdung conference, the first ever large-scale Asian–African Conference (1955) and organised Asia and Africa Writers’ Conference with a participation of over 50 countries in Tashkent (1958).

Cooperation with India was particularly dear for Rashidov not least due to cultural similarities and strong historical ties between the two countries. Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, often mentioned Babur, the Timurid born in Andijan and the founder of the Moghul Empire in India, as a remarkable example of a unique link between the two nations.  Rashidov used this historical tie to build an effective relationship between the Uzbek SSR and India at a modern time. In 1955, Rashidov was on a diplomatic goodwill mission for USSR to Kashmir. A year later, he wrote a novella titled “Kashmirskaya Pesnya” (Kashmir Song) acknowledging Dina Nath Nadim’s opera “Bombur ta Yambarzal”.  It is no coincidence that the Kashmir theme will be significant for Rashidov in the years to come. Following the ceasefire in Indo-Pakistani war over Kashmir, he got into talks between the two adversaries and organised a meeting between India’s Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistan’s Ayub Khan and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Although the 1966 meeting was officially led by Alexei Kosygin, Rashidov made sure to have it in no other place but Tashkent. As per the Tashkent declaration (1966), India and Pakistan agreed to pull back to their pre-conflict borders and decided to restore economic and diplomatic relations. The declaration expressed the India and Pakistan leaders’ gratitude to “the Government and friendly people of Uzbekistan for their overwhelming reception and generous hospitality”. 

Rashidov was also involved in an important Cold War episode, perhaps the most challenging one. Desperate for a counter balance after the US deployed missiles in Turkey, Nikita Khruschev, the Soviet boss, wanted to “reciprocate” via Cuba, torn between the revolutionaries and Batista forces. Nobody knew what Fidel Castro would say to an offer to place Soviet missiles on Cuba’s soil, which in theory contradicted his goals. Despite the Soviet Ambassador to Cuba, Alexander Alekseev’s open disagreement, Khruschev decided to risk it. He needed a skillful communicator for the mission. According to some observers, he had been long watching Rashidov’s efforts in developing the USSR’s ties with Asia and Africa, so he cherry-picked Rashidov for the job. In 1962, Sharaf Rashidov set off to Cuba together with Marshal Sergei Briyusov, commander of the Strategic Rocket Froces, disguised as a simple engineer “Pavlov”. The USSR media described Rashidov’s visit as a “visit of irrigators and meliorators led by the head of an agricultural, cotton-producing republic”. This was a bogus claim concealing the Soviet offer to deploy missiles on Cuba. The nukes and the personnel were supposed to be shipped on vessels pretending to transport machines for irrigation. Given that such vehicles were made in Uzbekistan, his trip to Cuba was not expected to raise suspicions. At first, the Soviet delegation bewildered Castro. Yet, after listening and consulting with Che Guevara, Castro agreed to the proposal saying “If that is necessary to strengthen the socialist camp…”. Reportedly, Castro was encouraged by Che Guevara’s approval who said “Anything that can stop the Americans is worthwhile”. 

When the Soviet missiles on Cuba were discovered, a major international outcry occurred. The US navy attempted to quarantine the island and the situation escalated.  It was then time for John Kennedy’s intellect and diplomacy to resolve the Cuban missile crisis peacefully. For some, the situation was a dangerous game that put the world at the risk of a nuclear annihilation. From a rational point of view, the Soviets pursued the matter knowing that Kennedy was an intellectual and a pragmatic who would avoid a nuclear strike at all costs. The risk did in fact play off. In a secret agreement, the US agreed to Khruschev’s demand of shutting down its bases in Turkey and Italy (the main reason launching the Cuban adventure of Rashidov), and guaranteeing the non-invasion of Cuba. In return, the Soviets fully dismantled their missiles in Cuba.

Despite Sharaf Rashidov’s success and contribution to the USSR in general and to Soviet Uzbekistan in particular, later in life he had to go through difficulties. With Leonid Brezhnev’s passing and a new leadership of Yuri Andropov, Rashidov came under the scrutiny of the new Moscow top official. For years, the whole Soviet system had been operating based on falsifications of production in return for allocation of resources from the center. Uzbekistan was no exception, yet the the so-called “Uzbek affair” became a true scandal due to an internal USSR power struggle. Following the allegations and criminal investigations against Uzbek officials in the early 1980s, Sharaf Rashidov found himself under constant and not entirely fair pressure. It seems that he suffered a heart attack after a call from Andropov, who deliberately demanded more cotton from Uzbekistan knowing that there was none. 

When Rashidov passed away on the 31st of October 1983, a purge in the establishment followed. Many Uzbeks felt that Uzbekistan was unfairly singled out as the investigations were not handled objectively but “ordered from the top”. Yet, a year later, some of Rashidov’s supporters were denouncing him publicly blaming him for every economic crime in the country. The absurdity reached its peak when the grave of Rashidov was transferred from central Tashkent to a remote cemetery. For years to come, none of Rashidov’s merits was mentioned in any official press. It was not until the independence of Uzbekistan, when the statesman’s reputation was rehabilitated by the resolution of Uzbekistan’s first president Islam Karimov (1938-2016).  

Sharaf Rashidov is probably one of the most interesting historical figures in modern Uzbekistan history. His diplomatic and organizational skills brought many benefits to Moscow. Despite the controversies of his “reign”, he also played a crucial role in raising Uzbekistan’s economic and cultural profile. During his service, Tashkent started playing a special role in maintaining and building the USSR’s ties with Asia and Africa. He personally engaged in projects aimed at the development of Uzbekistan’s rural areas. Until now many people in Uzbekistan remember him as a leader and compliment his good manners, knowledge, modesty and exceptional organizational talent. In 2017, for the first time Uzbekistan is likely to celebrate his birthday on an official level. As the years went by, Uzbekistan opted to look at this individual’s legacy objectively. Like any prominent politician’s life, Sharaf Rashidov’s path was neither black nor white but had multiple shades of grey. 

WWW.OCAMAGAZINE.COM #26 SUMMER 2017  text by Zaynab M. Dost

 

Off the Beaten Path Christopher Schwartz

When I first met Andrew Wachtel during an unseasonably warm April day in 2015, what struck me most about him – that is, besides the flash of chrome gray hair, pearly white short sleeves and electric blue plants – was his combination of ambition and realism with a sense of self and mission.

Now, sitting together during an unseasonably cool August day in 2016, he still strikes me as groomed and no-nonsense, yet off-beat, as the saying goes: following the tune of his own drummer. That tune has led him all the way to Kyrgyzstan, and I want to find out where it may be taking him next.
“Surprisingly, coming from America out here to Kyrgyzstan has made me unemployable back home,” says Wachtel in a way that almost sounds like the drummer has bumped headfirst into a tree.
Off-beat, and as it turns out, off the beaten path.
From Berkeley to Bishkek
Wachtel began walking his path as an undergraduate at Harvard University, where he earned a Bachelor of Arts in History and Literature in 1981. Six years later, he completed his Doctorate of Arts in Slavic Languages and Literature at the University of California-Berkeley.
After three years at Stanford University, he was offered a tenured position at Northwestern University in 1991, eventually becoming the chair of the Department of Slavic Languages and Literature in 1997.
Wachtel’s years at Northwestern proved formative for his career. By 2002, after writing and editing numerous academic volumes and articles on topics ranging from themes of death and resurrection in Lev Tolstoy to the dissolution of Yugoslavia, he had become Northwestern’s Bertha and Max Dressler Professor in the Humanities.
Then in 2003, Wachtel was elevated to the deanship of Northwestern’s Graduate School, a position he held until his move to AUCA in the Autumn 2010 semester. During this period, he carved out time to simultaneously serve for six years as the director of Roberta Buffett Center for International and Comparative Studies, as well as chairing numerous committees.
What stands out in Wachtel’s curriculum vitae is not actually his administrative experience, but how he managed to combine his duties with scholarship: eight authored books, 11 edited and translated volumes, 17 editorials and policy papers, 57 interviews and book reviews, and a phenomenal 91 articles and book chapters according to the most recent summary of his works on the AUCA website.
What seems to be the core of his research interests – the former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union; the role of history, especially the theme of origins, in the imagination of Slavic authors; the connections between authors and cultures during transitions – suggest a mind intrigued by construction, collapse and reconstruction. It seems the path Wachtel’s drummer has brought him down leads to ruins.
Amidst the ruins
It is a fascination I share. Ruins are nothing to fear or lament; to the contrary, as much as they may embody a failure, they also signal a promise. Think of them as nature’s great cyclic principle whispered within human history.
This sense of promise was one of the reasons that I found myself out here in Kyrgyzstan. After all, where else does one find the choicest ruins than on the edge of the map?
Wachtel clearly was already onto this notion long before it occurred to me.
“It would have taken me a decade or more in America to climb the pyramid,” he explains. “Even then, it might not have happened. So I thought to myself: why stay on that pyramid? Why climb it?”
“But it was also never just that, and it’s still not just that,” he adds. “What gets me up every morning is this feeling, knowing that I am building some kind of future here in the lives each of my students.”
Henry Kissinger once remarked about academia, “Never have the politics been so vicious for stakes so small,” and I have heard these words applied quite disparagingly to Wachtel by others. Yet, the man speaking to me right now could not be further from Kissinger’s snide dismissal.
Wachtel does not mince words with himself, noting, “I am too good at making enemies,” and when he talks about his students, he is all the more genuine, not to mention idealistic.
“My students are very professionally inclined – in a good way. They understand the harsh realities ahead of them, and they want the knowledge and skills necessary to have meaningful adult lives. And many of them will have such lives; many of our alumni already have.”
The stakes are indeed quite large for Wachtel. “This region has so many problems. It is really only through education that it will have any chance.”
This immediately brings to mind Kyrgyzstan as the choice for Wachtel’s hopes. Its neighborhood of authoritarian and teetering regimes is notorious to say the least. Is this country in any way special?
“It is true that Kyrgyzstan is the most open country in Central Asia and one of the most open in the former Soviet Union. Why that is the case is debatable. The Soviets’ mental mapping was very consistent across all these societies, so trying to argue about an essential element in Kyrgyz culture is dubious. Nonetheless, the choices that were made here since independence were certainly different.”
Wachtel pauses, thinks for a moment, then comes to the essence of the matter: “Whatever the reasons behind how Kyrgyzstan evolved, it presents a unique opportunity in this region. I can build something here.”
Building anew
Wachtel and I are in the new campus of the American University of Central Asia (AUCA), and all around us are those themes of rebuilding from wreckage.
The original facility was in an ancient, some would even say somewhat dilapidated, Soviet-era government building in the heart of downtown Bishkek. Professors and alumni from that period of AUCA’s history still remember fondly the old murals of Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx on the walls. Indeed, the old campus was nothing less than a relic.
The new facility is enormous and fresh: an 180,000 square foot rectangular cuboid housing 60 classrooms within its nickel-on-ash checkerboard facade and angular gabled rooftop. Designed by Henry Myerberg, principle architect of the New York City-based firm HMA2, according to the company’s official statement of design philosophy, the new campus “speaks to nature and culture”, combining “local nomadic traditions of mobility and hospitality” with “an American style liberal arts education”.
However, for Wachtel, “It is also about light and transparency. There are hardly any enclosed offices here, a high proportion of the walls are made from clear glass, there are no true corridors but instead wide walkways. Everything is open – literally.”
Indeed, the heart of the building is a 5,000 square foot multi-purpose atrium. Natural light pours in from above and all of the major walkways revolve around it.
“This is an important statement in a country and in a region that has serious problems with corruption and dim ‘behind-closed-doors’ deals, not just in government, but in education, as well,” he explains.
The new campus is nothing short of an achievement, and without meaning to sound sycophantic, I cannot help but feel that it is a monument to Wachtel’s own character.
No wonder, then, that he is frustrated by his professional prospects in our mutual homeland.
An “aloof outpost”
In a bullet-point hidden away in Wachtel’s online curriculum vitae he writes about his time as president of AUCA: “Changed image of AUCA from aloof outpost of American values to partner in making a better Kyrgyzstan.”
Indeed, having steered the university for approximately the past five years, one would naturally expect that an ambitious man like Wachtel might already be itching for new endeavors. It is through this question that the topic of America arises.
“The system back home is really risk-averse,” he explains with the tone of a man surprised by his own insight. “Presidents are selected from what turns out to be a very small pool of people – provosts or vice-presidents of Ivy League and Big Ten universities and places like that.”
Fair enough. As any good historian would know, as empires mature and consolidate they tend to increasingly look inward for their human resources. Gradually, they develop a mainstream leadership culture that re-creates itself through institutional means. Yet, the United States is not a normal empire, more Athenian than Roman in character. One would expect it to be far more open to difference.
Alas, this is not the case, says Wachtel. “The decision to come out here is seen as crazy by my colleagues in the United States. The reasons to come out here were and remain clear to me, but not to them.”
“Not only is Kyrgyzstan in their perspective a backwater, but because it’s got a ‘-stan’ tacked onto the end of its name, it’s also somehow a weird and dangerous place. Anyone who would willingly come out here, not just as a visiting researcher but really to have a career, must be by extension a weird and maybe dangerous person.”
American power encompasses the globe, which itself is increasingly, inexorably interconnected in no small part due to the enormous inventiveness and open-mindedness of American culture. Surely American society cannot afford to be so introverted, especially considering the myriad ways, from immigration to terrorism to transnational economic integration, that it is continually pried open?
“Being a provost or vice-president of some well-established American university is simply more intelligible to them than being the president of a small liberal arts institution in a distant country,” Wachtel replies with a shrug. “It’s a signifier of professional distinguishment, respect for an established system, ability to work within and navigate that system, and so on.”
“Look, I obviously don’t agree with them. It’s their problem.” A pause. “Although, unfortunately, because it’s their problem, it becomes our problem, too.”
And as Wachtel says this, he looks at me.
Tulgan jerdin topu…
If at the age of 57 Wachtel is facing the final crest of his career, by dint of my younger age I am further behind in the trail, facing the first significant crest of mine – getting my first decent journalistic publications in some years while entering the academic hierarchy as a full-time lecturer at none other than AUCA itself.
I also came to Central Asia to build. Yet, like Wachtel, I do not just want to help build the human terrain here, but also dig out the path of my own life.
It is thus a little bit daunting to hear that our similar professional choices may have inadvertently run the risk of exiling ourselves far from home. Immediately, the Kyrgyz proverb comes to mind: Tulgan jerdin topu-ragy altyn – The sand of one’s homeland is as valuable as gold.
“Well, alright, in any given academic year there’s something like 150 American colleges and universities looking for new presidents,” Wachtel says after seeing the look on my face. “I’m sure that one of those would hire me. The real question is: would I really want to work there after here?”
And he is right. Of course, a key part of a scholar’s life exists beyond time and place. For the other parts that are firmly rooted in the tangible, Central Asia has so much to offer. For all of the famed American discourse on innovation and flexibility, the actual structure does appear to be remarkably crystallized.
“As president of AUCA, I have to be involved in every aspect of the operation, from human resources to fundraising to the design of the campus,” says Wachtel. “If I was the president of some small liberal arts college in the United States, my job would be very clear and fixed. It is just more challenging and interesting to be in a context like this.”
Beyond the ruins
Speaking of challenges, we finally come to the crucial question: what lies ahead on the path?
“I don’t know,” he says bluntly. “I’m keeping my eyes open for what may be beyond Kyrgyzstan, but I’ve still got a lot to do here.”
Wachtel’s hoped-for projects seem to rouse him as much as his students. He talks at length about two important ones, both still in the negotiation phase: incorporating the Kyrgyz Institute of Seismology into AUCA and establishing a medical school, replete with a modern hospital.
If these projects are realized, then AUCA will have firmly established itself in Central Asia as an institution of higher education in the fullest sense and provide crucial services to Kyrgyzstan in particular.
“There are at least two really critical bodies of knowledge that are needed for a mountainous and economically struggling country like Kyrgyzstan,” explains Wachtel. “Earth sciences, like geology, hydrology and seismology, and health sciences, especially medicine.”
Regarding the seismology institute, who is AUCA’s immediate neighbor here in its new campus, Wachtel sings its praises, commending it as “Kyrgyzstan’s sole true scientific body,” with reputable peer-reviewed publications in important journals. He is of a radically different opinion regarding the current state of Kyrgyzstan’s healthcare system, including its medical schools: “It’s a horror.”
Both of these projects are ambitious, and by now one would expect nothing less of Wachtel. They are also the type of endeavors that require long-term commitment – and he knows it.
“I’m coming to a crossroads. There’s definitely no going back, but if I don’t turn left or right, I must continue going straight.”
As Wachtel says this, I can sense that if his path does continue straight, he would be deeply content with such a fate. And when I look ahead at my own path, with all its unknown twists and turns through ruins and beyond, I find that I am very much looking forward to the journey.

WWW.OCAMAGAZINE.COM #23 AUTUMN 2016