Honored Architect of the Kyrgyz SSR and candidate of architecture Ishenbai Kadyrbekov expressed his views in an interview about the complex situation surrounding the historical and architectural heritage of Bishkek, as well as discussed the legality of excluding iconic objects from the lists of cultural monuments.
- The developers of the master plan for Bishkek have expressed concern about the loss of historical and architectural monuments. Many objects have been excluded from the list of monuments. Residents of St. Petersburg are worried, while the people of Bishkek remain silent. What is really happening?
- It is difficult to describe the situation, as emotions overwhelm. I have touched on this topic in a previous interview. The cultural heritage of a nation is its spiritual foundation, and the loss of cultural identity is equivalent to the loss of sovereignty. I hope that the demolition of monuments is not part of a deliberate policy. After all, we are not mankurts.
Architecture serves as a physical reflection of the culture of a nation and is a practical art that demonstrates the values of society. Traveling abroad, both as tourists and ourselves, we learn about a country through its architecture. It is like an excursion into the past that provides aesthetic pleasure and emotional impressions.
The history of architecture in Kyrgyzstan spans many centuries. Examples of this include the Burana Tower, the 15th-century Tash-Rabat caravanserai, the minaret and three mausoleums in Uzgen, as well as the 14th-century Gumbaz Manas monument. These structures date back to the 11th to 15th centuries. Later, until the 20th century, there was a decline.
The revival of architecture began in the 1930s and then in the 1950s, when buildings were erected that can be considered works of art. Although there are few of them, they are valuable to the people of Kyrgyzstan. This is our heritage, left by our ancestors who not only created an independent country but also left us architectural masterpieces. However, to please investors, some of these objects have been excluded from the lists of historical and cultural monuments, which is saddening.
- How do you comment on the statements from the Ministry of Culture that the demolition of excluded objects is not planned?
- If that is the case, then why were they excluded from the lists? It seems insincere.
- However, the building of the Supreme Court on Abdymomunov Street was not demolished, but rather restored. Have they changed their minds?
- It is difficult to call the new design of this building a restoration. It is more of a "garment" that can be characterized as a Kyrgyz innovation. The project authors did not bother to preserve the original appearance and did not spend funds on real restoration. Perhaps this is a temporary measure so that in the future, when the building loses its status as a cultural heritage site, it can be demolished. A simple and "genius" solution. No one in the world has yet thought of such "rationalization" in the field of world heritage protection.
Now, when the architectural appearance of the surrounding buildings does not match the new style of the Supreme Court, it will be possible to demolish them as well. For example, in the square where the fountain by the famous sculptor Olga Manuilova, built in 1953, is located. And then the square itself, which is a unique dendrological park and a favorite place for city residents to relax, can be destroyed. It occupies too large an area, where profitable high-rises could be built.
- I understand your sarcasm, but your words could be used against you by those fighting against historical and cultural heritage.
- Yes, that is possible, and it is sad. It is sad that this is happening to us while the whole world protects its heritage like the apple of its eye. I fear that the excluded objects will be demolished, and this will become an irreparable loss. I hope I am wrong.
The building of the Supreme Court (formerly the building of the Supreme Soviet of the Kyrgyz SSR), in question, was designed by architect Y. V. Dubov in 1936. This object is not only a unique work of architecture in the post-constructivist style but also a significant historical structure. It was in this building that the V Extraordinary Congress of Soviets of the Kyrgyz SSR began its work, and in 1937, the first Constitution of the Kyrgyz SSR was adopted, which allowed our country to become a sovereign state.
- Last time, you expressed concern about the draft law initiated by the Cabinet of Ministers "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts." According to this draft, heritage objects were proposed to be transferred to private ownership within the framework of investment agreements. What stage is this draft law at now?
- This draft law has been withdrawn by the initiator. Common sense has prevailed.
- Why do you think the draft law was withdrawn and at whose initiative?
- I am sure that two reasons contributed to this. The first: during the discussion of the project in the Jogorku Kenesh, serious disagreements could have arisen that would resonate with the public. Public opinion is a powerful force. The most dangerous thing for the authorities is when the people's opinion is discussed "in kitchens." And in this situation, the discussion about the demolition of monuments is quite active and negative.
The second reason may lie in the will of the president. As the head of state, he considers any decisions with an eye toward the future. His status obliges him to do so. The question at stake is: what is more important — the desires of investors or the historical heritage of the people.
When a leader demonstrates prudence and political will, it benefits the country. The return of Kumtor, the construction of the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan railway, and the resolution of complex border issues all testify to the presence of will. I do not idealize the leadership, but if the president has stood up for the spiritual foundation of the people in matters of cultural heritage and stopped the madness, it speaks to his understanding of the importance of history for the people.
- We hope that the status of the remaining objects will be restored.
- I, like many citizens, hope for the president. The exclusion of objects from the list occurred in violation of the current legislation. The president can annul the Cabinet of Ministers' decision by his decree.
According to the Law of the Kyrgyz Republic "On the Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Heritage," the procedure for including objects in the list is extremely complex. Each object undergoes scientific expertise, and the state body forms a commission that includes scientists, cultural figures, and representatives of the public. A personal passport is created for each monument.
As for changing the list, the law's norm states clearly and does not allow for other interpretations. Article 27 states: "The list of objects of historical and cultural heritage is supplemented... The exclusion of objects of all categories from the lists is prohibited." If an object is lost or destroyed, a note "lost" is made. That is, supplementation is possible, but exclusion is not. This corresponds to international practice and the norms of the Convention on World Heritage.
Nevertheless, the Cabinet of Ministers, referring to articles 27 and 36, began to make a note "lost" for a number of objects, thereby removing them from the list. However, these monuments were neither lost nor destroyed! All of this would be funny if it weren't so sad.
The reference to Article 36 is also inappropriate. It allows for the demolition or alteration of objects only in the event of sudden destruction due to a natural disaster. The objects excluded from the list have not undergone sudden destruction. Threats of loss do not equate to loss. In the event of a threat, according to Article 24, the state body is obliged to take measures to protect the monument, not to demolish it.
Understanding the fragility of references to the law, the Cabinet created an interdepartmental commission for the inventory of buildings. However, Article 36 of the law is titled "Prohibition of Demolition, Relocation, Alteration of Objects..." and has nothing to do with the creation of such commissions. A legal collision arises. According to the legislation, in the case of a collision, subjects must be guided by the act that has a higher legal force — that is, the law. Therefore, the resolutions on the exclusion of monuments from the list are illegal.
In conclusion, I want to address the members of the interdepartmental commission. Dear experts, have you had time to familiarize yourselves with the documents of your predecessors? Do you have evidence that their scientific justifications were erroneous? If so, they should be made public, as heritage is the property of the people. If there is no evidence, is it ethical to ignore the opinion of the expert community and the law? This appeal especially concerns my colleagues — members of the Union of Architects who signed this conclusion.
