Babaryka Said Bykau Prioritized Economic Sovereignty Over Belarusian Language. Navumchyk: "I Never Heard Anything Remotely Similar from Bykau."

Vasil Bykau

Former Supreme Soviet deputy and journalist Siarhiej Navumchyk reacted to this phrase on Facebook. He writes:

Besides personal acquaintance with Bykau, joint work as part of the BNF Seim in Minsk in the 90s, correspondence, and meetings during Vasil Uladzimiravich's forced life abroad, I also had the opportunity to be the compiler of two collections of Bykau's journalistic works ("Bykau on Svaboda," 2004, second expanded edition — 2005, "Vasil Bykau 100," 2024). These collections included only a part of Bykau's statements on political and social topics — but I believe I have read almost everything, at least from the beginning of the last wave of national Revival since the late 80s.

I never heard or read anything from Bykau remotely similar to what the esteemed Viktar Babaryka said.

However, I can cite dozens of statements to the contrary. But I will recall only a few that provide insight into Bykau's true attitude towards the Belarusian language and its role in the nation's destiny.

"If We Miss the Moment, the Language Will Disappear"

I will start with the thesis of the economy's priority over language, allegedly expressed by Bykau. In reality, Bykau considered national Revival (and language as its foundation) to be the main guarantor of the Belarusians' existence. "Language is the basis not only of national culture but also of the nation's existence, the existence of an ethnic group," he said ("Bykau on Svaboda," 2005, p. 48).

He was convinced of the priority, urgency, and immediacy of solving the language problem, believing that the issue of saving the language could not be relegated to the background, because "if we miss this moment, our language will disappear within a few years in conditions of totalitarianism's resuscitation and the threat of reintegration into a single empire" (ibid., p. 61).

That is why Bykau was among those who, in 1986, signed the appeal drafted by Uladzimer Sodal to the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Mikhail Gorbachev (the legendary "letter of the 28") regarding the catastrophic situation of the Belarusian language (I was deeply impressed when, in a conversation with Gorbachev, I heard him mention that letter — many years later, Gorbachev recalled it himself; I hadn't asked).

As one of the founders of the BNF, Bykau believed that the struggle for national revival should be a priority of this movement — alongside the fight for Independence and democracy. He supported the Popular Front's program provision on granting the Belarusian language the status of the sole state language in the relevant law.

Speaking of the Law on Languages, it is usually recalled that it was adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the XI convocation, which did not have a single BNF deputy. Indeed, the Supreme Soviet of that convocation was elected in 1985, several years before the formation of the BNF.

But in January 1990, when the Law was adopted, there was a deputy in the Oval Hall who was not only a member of the BNF but also its governing body — the Seim. The name of this deputy was Vasil Bykau.

I will add that Piotr Sadouski (who would be elected a deputy of the next, XII convocation) was part of the working group for drafting the Law, and he consulted, among others, Vincuk Viachorka, a member of the BNF Seim.

So, the Front members were directly involved in the Law adopted by the Supreme Soviet, which was formed during communist times.

One would like to think that for that vote (as well as for the vote on July 27, 1990, for the Declaration of Sovereignty and on August 25, 1991, for Independence), communists will be forgiven in heaven, if not all, then at least some earthly sins.

But there was one "sin" in the law itself. This was the period for the entry into force of certain of its provisions, which extended — to the astonishment of those who perpetuate the myth of "rapid and violent Belarusification" — for as long as 10 years. Ten years! In the legislation of no other former USSR republic will you find anything similar (terms are usually strict and concise) — despite the fact that nowhere was the state of the titular nation's language as catastrophic as in Belarus.

Bykau voted for the law, but criticized the excessively long term: "All these laws were officially adopted by the Supreme Soviet and stretched, stretched the establishment of the Belarusian language's state status over a decade. Of course, it was already clear then: in conditions of societal instability — what could one expect in ten years?" ("Vasil Bykau 100," 2024, p. 28).

The Deceptive "and then..."

Being at the forefront of the struggle for the preservation of the Belarusian language, Bykau perceived Lukashenka's policy as a national tragedy: "The enemies of the national idea understood the situation and took countermeasures. One of the decisive actions was the referendum, at which, under the guise of language equality, formal consent was obtained from the people for a policy of actual destruction of the Belarusian language. And now this policy is being actively pursued by the executive power. I see no hope for improvement in the near future." ("Vasil Bykau 100," 2024, p. 30).

Sometimes Bykau's lines from "Long Road Home" are recalled, stating that BNF leader Pazniak strived for an ideal Belarus, while Lukashenka spoke to the people in terms that were understandable and primitive, like "a cow's mooing," and this is presented as if Bykau disagreed with the BNF leader. Absurd! Bykau knew perfectly well that the Popular Front had developed several economic programs and dozens of legislative drafts, whose provisions formed the basis of economic reforms (even if crumpled by the post-communist nomenklatura).

This can easily be confirmed by watching a YouTube recording of his speech on Belarusian Television as a trustee for presidential candidate Pazniak in June 1994. Bykau meant something entirely different — namely, how people were deceived by believing Lukashenka's populist, irresponsible slogans. In this, there is not an ounce of criticism of the BNF and not a drop of agreement with Lukashenka.

And it is here, it seems, that we arrive at a topic that was relevant in 1994, in 2020, remains relevant today (as evidenced by Viktar Babaryka's current words), and will not lose its relevance in future democratic elections. This is what has been heard for over three decades: "Let's postpone the issues of national Revival and language, which are unpopular among a significant part of the population, and tell people what they want to hear; they will vote for us, we will come to power — and then…""

As if just uttered, I hear the words spoken to me in the spring of '94 by Viktar Hanchar, when he proposed I join Lukashenka's team: "Siarhiej, you see how the situation is developing, now it's important to seize power! And then…." Life confirmed that there would be no "then." Nothing good comes through deception.

"Our Movement Is Not for Five Years; Our Cause Is Sacred"

Before me is a typescript with the author's corrections of Bykau's speech at the IV BNF Congress, which Vasil Uladzimiravich gave to me after his address. This was on April 10, 1995; the next day, 19 deputies of the BNF Opposition declared a hunger strike against Lukashenka's referendum. I will conclude with a fragment of that speech — it is precisely about populism and "...and then."

"Populism, as the only possible relatively acceptable means, is also worn out, tainted, and in our conditions, essentially odious, like other means from the rich arsenal of our opponents. It is hardly fitting for the BNF to use them. Yet there is something higher than political or other expediency, higher than obvious and pragmatic political calculation. Is it proper to forget, even in difficult times, certain imperatives from Christian ethics, evangelical morality, human conscience, finally?

In this sense, the moral rigor of the Belarusian Popular Front and its leader is a valuable asset that few parties possess today, and not only in Belarus. This moral force, with an undeniable political effect, is perhaps directed not so much at the present as at the future.

Especially considering that our movement is not for five years, that we aim for a distant historical perspective, even if it will not belong to us. But in any case, it will belong to Belarus.

We do not flatter ourselves with a quick and easy victory — an easy victory, it seems, will not come. But even an obvious defeat should not deter us from our cause, for that cause is sacred. It is for the people, for our neglected nation, for humanity and humaneness. For democracy and history, finally."

• 33
• 1
• 2
• 9
• 1
• 0
• 0
• 0