Rafael Khakimov: ‘On 30 August 1990, all people celebrated — the ‘corporation of Tatarstan’ appeared’

Jubilation of people, start of stability and 'corporation of Tatarstan'

Mr Khakimov, could you tell how 30 August 1990 stuck in your mind?

It was fantastic. All people celebrated, all people came to an agreement and spoke the same language. The concept of Tatarstan people appeared at that time. The 'corporation of Tatarstan' appeared regardless of ethnic and political views. All people understood it was our motherland and we needed to work for it. The very procedure lasted up to midnight – the meeting ended by 12.

People were in the Liberty Square. I remember it clearly because I was in the meeting hall. Moreover, both opponents of the declaration and its supporters were in the square because the declaration was common. It was possible to win by votes, that is to say, by the majority of votes, but Shaimiev required a consensus, no one was to be against it.

Who and how created the declaration?

There was a group of about 30 people. It consisted of deputies, public organisations, different forces. In general, there were two big groups: nationalists and so-called democrats – a pro-Moscow group that included both Russians and Tatars.

'The 'corporation of Tatarstan' appeared regardless of ethnic and political views. All people understood it was our motherland and we needed to work for it.' Photo: (Russian brothers! Sovereignty of Tatarstan for your and our freedom!) 1991.lenta.ru

Initially, we had a long text, each clause was discussed, it was quite a difficult procedure. Shaimiev said: 'Prepare a short variant just in case' because when such big debates take place, an agreement is reached on key questions, which can't be too much. And it all resulted in two positions: so-called 'Tatar' (and it consisted of Tatar people) and pro-Moscow, which required being in agreement with Moscow, no separation from Russia was supposed. The two positions were included in the declaration.

'It was possible to win by votes, that is to say, by the majority of votes, but Shaimiev required a consensus, no one was to be against it.' Photo: Mikhail Kozlovsky

Conservation of the Soviet Union and furious Nazarbaev

In your opinion, was it possible to conserve the USSR?

The Soviet Union could have been saved. Who was totally against it? They are three Baltic republics who thought they were annexed in 1939 (but far from it in fact). The USA has never admitted their annexation to the Soviet Union, they even had a law on it. Belarus had no idea of it. And Middle Asia just 'celebrated a wedding': at that moment I was in Tashkent, and when they heard of it, they did not understand, it came like a bolt out of the blue. Nazarbaev was furious just because he was made independent behind his back – he did not want it. As for the South Caucasia, there were different forces there. But they would stay in the USSR in the end. This is why we would not have lost the three Baltic republics. So what? Moldova did not think about it, it is having problems now. We lost Finland, Poland during the Revolution, and it's fine.

What do you think about the dissolution of the USSR? Vladimir Putin thinks it was the geopolitical catastrophe of the century.

It is, of course. The Tatars are state supporters because they did not destroy but built the state unlike the opinion published in books. We fail to understand how you can just destroy a powerful country with your own hands and demolish the defence industry and the entire economy then. Moreover, it was done deliberately (I know for sure it was done deliberately). Shaimiev went to Moscow and persuaded: 'Leave military colleges and enterprises because you need an army'. He also said: 'Tatarstan doesn't need it, but you do'.

Once Tatarstan wanted to join the Russia-Belarus Union on equal rights with both countries…

Yes, Shaimiev expressed this idea. It seemed that the USSR was recovering. We could not be against it because we were against the dissolution of the USSR.

'Driver of the economy and orientation to high technologies'

What did you manage and fail to fulfil within the scope of the declaration?

I think we wanted to do more than we were able. We wanted more but resources, people and some conditions were needed for it. It is possible to talk about it. But try to go to the square, speak to people, raise the economy, provide people with salary when oil price dropped to $10… Go and work, probably you could have done it better. Only now we can say we could have done more.

'Shaimiev went to Moscow and persuaded: 'Leave military colleges and enterprises because you need an army'. He also said: 'Tatarstan doesn't need it, but you do'. Photo: Mikhail Kozlovsky

Did you manage to achieve the economic sovereignty?

Yes, in large part. The same Tatneft remained. It was and still is an important moment. Rakhimov lost Bashneft because of his games, so what? How does modern-day Bashkiria look like? The main meaning of the economic sovereignty was to create our own policy. I'm not speaking about low taxes from the beginning, the construction business gave a good lesson to us. When the economy was in a bad state, liquidation of ramshackle houses became a driver of the economy. We imposed a 1% income tax ourselves, so 330,000 families moved to new apartments for free. Even today it seems to be a fantasy. Nowadays all people have mortgage loans, while at that time we built the whole city, and the whole economy started to function.

We created our own economic policy that considerably differs from the Russian one. We set a task to refine oil up to 30m tonnes instead of feedstock economy (I think we will achieve it in 2-3 years). Secondly, we chose an orientation to high technologies, not oil conjecture. And today Russia is suffering because oil prices dropped, and there is no alternative economy. Meanwhile, Tatarstan is, on the contrary, growing because we arranged both petrochemistry and high tech, KAMAZ flourished, we built Innopolis, etc. In 1996, we managed to change the direction of the economy thanks to the sovereignty, of course.

It is told that bilingualism is what you failed to achieve during this era. Why did you fail?

This problem can be explained in different ways. First of all, books were very bad. You can't imagine how bad they were. Not only the Russians but also Tatars did not like them. People had a hope: parents who did not speak Tatar thought they kids would be able to learn the language. But our scientists were stubborn, so our books consisted of affixes and suffixes only – what is not needed – instead of teaching people to speak, listen and read in Tatar. We also could not explain the importance of the Tatar language not only in Tatarstan, not only for political well-being but also business. Where will you sell the product? In Europe? As if they were waiting for our KAMAZ lorries and our helicopters. But Asia was the market where people speak Turkic languages, they will forget the Russian language soon: it is forgotten in Turkmenistan, only an older generation speaks it in Azerbaijan, only Tashkent speaks it in Uzbekistan.

'When special services checked peoples' moods by their own means, it turned out that the Russians and Tatarstan similarly supported the administration of the republic. There was no any real opposition that could support these actions with a heavy-handed approach.' Photo: 1991.lenta.ru

'The unity we had became the reason why the Chechen variant was impossible'

Why did not TASSR repeat the scenario of Chechnya?

We are a bit different population… What stopped Moscow: when special services checked peoples' moods by their own means, it turned out that the Russians and Tatars similarly supported the administration of the republic. There was no any real opposition that could support these actions with a heavy-handed approach. The unity we had and that appeared when the declaration was adopted became the reason why the Chechen variant was impossible.

It is a special day for me, and it is very personal. I remember the first years after it – what celebrations took place at that time, what happened on the streets… This scale terrified Moscow a bit. Photo: 1991.lenta.ru

'Not the sovereignty but Republic's Day and City's Day should be mentioned...'

Were not you disappointed after the events in the 90s?

People say: 'Sovereignty was lost'. But the history doesn't always make progress. There is a certain recession after some rapid processes, revolutions. This is why, in the early 2000s, when the vertical power structure appeared instead of federalism, there was was a recession. And the sovereignty was pressed. Suffice it to say to our people 'the vertical power structure' and people will start to imitate it – it is not very attractive when you want to rule, not to think. Now it is clear that the vertical structure worked out extremely inefficiently, it was rock bottom. An opposite process — liberalisation — will begin.

There is patriotism, but there is no ideology, which is also bad. How come? Patriotism is not an ideology. It doesn't say how to build an economy, policy and international relations. It says: 'It is the enemy'. Today the USA is the enemy, then Ukraine played this role, then Turkey. Then it was said the USA is not an enemy as it was supposed to be, Turkey became a friend again, now there is ISIS (Editor's Note: the organisation banned in Russia), there will be another enemy. The economy is the main political question today. All your patriotism is of no use if there is not any economy.

How will you celebrate 30 August? What exactly will you celebrate?

It is a special day for me, and it is very personal. I remember the first years after it – what celebrations took place at that time, what happened on the streets… This scale terrified Moscow a bit, and they constantly insinuate that 'we should not celebrate it so', 'not the sovereignty but Republic's Day and City's Day should be mentioned'. And our people listen to them. This is why there is not such a great celebration.

In the past 500,000 people were to the streets. But it is in my soul, I recognise it… This year I have even written an article that the foundations of the economic progress we laid are seen today. Then Shaimiev called me and told: 'Look, that's right. I even did not think the return of that sovereignty, which was founded in the 90s, started to appear only now'.