Of course, one can criticize anyone, and formally there is nothing prohibited in his judgments. However, the real problem lies not in the permissibility of expressing opinions, but in much deeper questions.
"Haven't read Pasternak, but I condemn"
This well-known phrase emerged in the late 1950s during the campaign against Boris Pasternak after he received the Nobel Prize for his novel "Doctor Zhivago." It became a symbol of the rejection of independent thinking, condemnation without knowledge, and brazen ignorance.
Syimyk Japikeev openly admits that he is not familiar with the works of Chingiz Aitmatov and does not wish to "burden himself" with such questions, yet he boldly delivers his "verdict" on his literary works. In principle, the lack of desire to read Aitmatov and other authors is his right. But to evaluate books he hasn't even opened and to do so publicly is already a self-revelation from an intellectual standpoint.
Such superficial attitudes are also observed in attempts to simplify the writer's works, as Chingiz Aitmatov is not only part of the school curriculum and a Kyrgyz brand. He is a phenomenon, a writer-philosopher and thinker, whose creativity is part of the global humanitarian tradition of the 20th century.
Aitmatov is a figure that reflects the scale of his era, not just personal preferences.
Syimyk Japikeev believes that literature should inspire and "give a push." But Chingiz Aitmatov is not a personal growth coach or a preacher who promises "hidaya" or "success." He deals with more complex issues, discussing through his characters themes of human nature, memory, violence, and the meaning of life.
Mankurtyzm is not just a "trivial plot," but a metaphor of a civilizational level, warning that a society that has renounced memory becomes easily manageable and vulnerable, turning a person into a mere function.
Comparison of Chingiz Aitmatov and Bruce Lee
Syimyk Japikeev places Chingiz Aitmatov alongside Bruce Lee, which is also a symptom of our time. But not because Bruce Lee is less significant; on the contrary, he is an icon of mass culture. However, the comparison of Aitmatov and Lee is incorrect.
One inspires action, while the other provokes thought. But thinking is harder, and it does not provide an instant "wow effect."
The modern era of clip thinking, podcasts, and short attention spans often places thoughts at a disadvantage compared to external effects.
Syimyk Japikeev's judgments that Chingiz Aitmatov "praised the Union" and fixed a person in their profession are primitive and caricatured. Aitmatov did not write about social elevators; he discussed the internal responsibility of a person for their role, the dignity of labor, and the tragedy when the system takes away choice. These are different things, and to distinguish them, one needs to read, not just skim through the era through the eyes of modernity. The Soviet reality in the works of Chingiz Aitmatov is not an object of apology, but a scene of conflict. That is why his books were read both in the USSR and beyond, as he spoke about universal meanings, not slogans.
Reasons for discussing Japikeev's statements about Aitmatov
The discussion of Syimyk Japikeev's statements about the works of Chingiz Aitmatov is not just a question about Japikeev himself. It reflects the symptoms of our time, when loudness replaces depth, and confidence displaces competence.
No one forbids evaluating Aitmatov. Moreover, constructive criticism is a sign of a vibrant culture. However, there is a fundamental difference between criticism and a demonstrative refusal to attempt to understand.
When a public figure states, "I haven't read it, I'm not interested, it's trivial," he is not talking about Chingiz Aitmatov, but about his own intellectual limits. Such a position generates public resonance, as Aitmatov is a marker of the level of discussion about himself. Refusing this conversation is a refusal of reflection, of complex questions, and of history as experience.
When culture is replaced by motivation, philosophy by instruction, and literature by "inspirational content," society simplifies.
And a simplified society is easily managed. By the way, mankurtyzm begins precisely with this.
Chingiz Aitmatov does not need protection. He has long outlived his critics. However, Kyrgyz society requires protection from the triumph of intellectual mediocrity, which is often passed off as honesty and freedom of opinion.
