Recent statements by Syimyk Japykeeva in Ernist Kyazov's podcast about Chinghiz Aitmatov, which he referred to as "five kopecks," have sparked widespread resonance in Kyrgyz social media. Many supported his "bold position," noting that he voiced thoughts that many are afraid to say out loud.
However, the question is not whether it is permissible to criticize Aitmatov's work, but rather the depth of the problem itself. It is much more serious than just the acceptability or unacceptability of statements.
"I read Pasternak, but I condemn him"
The well-known phrase that emerged in the late 1950s during the persecution of Boris Pasternak has gained new relevance. This phrase symbolizes a rejection of critical thinking and confidence without factual knowledge, reflecting modern reality.
Syimyk Japykeeva openly admits that he is not familiar with Chinghiz Aitmatov's works, is not interested in them, and does not intend to delve into this issue. However, despite this, he boldly issues a "verdict" on his creativity. The unwillingness to read is his right, but condemning books that have not been read is, in essence, intellectual self-exposure.
To speak lightly about Aitmatov's works would be wrong, as he is not only part of the school curriculum and the Kyrgyz brand but also a figure of significance in the global humanitarian tradition of the 20th century.
Aitmatov is not just an author; he is a figure of an era.
According to Japykeeva, literature should inspire and prompt action. However, Chinghiz Aitmatov is not a personal growth coach; he did not promise "hidayat" and did not sell "success." His work touches on more complex themes such as human nature, memory, violence, and the meaning of life.
The mankurtyzm discussed in his works is not just a plot but a serious warning that a society that forgets its memory becomes an easy victim of manipulation.
Aitmatov vs. Bruce Lee
The comparison of Aitmatov with Bruce Lee, proposed by Japykeeva, also highlights the current problems of our time. Bruce Lee is undoubtedly an icon of mass culture, but Aitmatov represents a completely different type of greatness. His works require deep internal dialogue, unlike the instant impression created by Lee.
One inspires action, while the other provokes thought. However, reflection requires more effort and does not always provide immediate results.
In an era of short attention spans and clip thinking, deep thoughts often remain in the shadows.
Japykeeva's judgments that Aitmatov "praised the Union" and fixed a person to a specific profession also represent a simplification of reality. Aitmatov reflects on the internal responsibility of a person and the dignity of labor, not just social elevators. To distinguish these nuances, one must read, not just skim through pages without grasping the essence.
The Soviet reality in Aitmatov's texts is not an object of praise but a context for conflict. This is why his works were in demand both in the USSR and beyond, as he spoke in a universal language.
Reasons for the Discussability of Japykeeva's Statements
Syimyk Japykeeva's statements about Chinghiz Aitmatov are not so much about him as they are a symptom of our time, when loud statements replace deep reflections, and confidence and audacity become more important than competence.
No one prohibits criticizing Aitmatov. Moreover, this may indicate a healthy cultural environment. However, it is important to distinguish between constructive criticism and a demonstrative refusal to understand. When a public figure claims not to have read something, that it is not interesting, they are not talking about Aitmatov but about their own limitations.
The refusal to engage in serious discussion is a refusal to address deep questions and reflection.
When culture is replaced by motivation, philosophy becomes an instruction, and literature is merely "inspirational content," society loses its depth. A simplified society becomes an easy target for manipulation. Mankurtyzm begins right here.
Chinghiz Aitmatov does not need protection—his work has long outlived its critics. However, Kyrgyz society must protect its intellectual values from the growing mediocrity that is mistakenly accepted as honesty and freedom of opinion.
