Violence and warfare are not the only factors destroying ethnic cultural identity. Amir Alecperov reveals that in the former Soviet regions of Karabakh and Tatarstan, cultures have been slowly suppressed without overt violence – but with serious long-term consequences
In the evolving discourse on human rights, the concept of ‘cultural erasure’ is gaining recognition as a serious, though often overlooked, human rights violation. Cultural erasure is the systematic suppression or destruction of a group's cultural identity, language or historical presence. It often occurs in the shadow of more visible human rights violations.
Cultural erasure strikes at the very core of collective dignity and belonging. Two post-Soviet examples, the prolonged suppression of Azerbaijani culture in Karabakh, and the erosion of Tartar cultural autonomy in Russia's Republic of Tatarstan, illustrate how governments can target cultural identity without resorting to violence.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 changed the political map of the world. It also brought to the fore issues of national identity that Soviet-regime ideology had for decades suppressed or strictly regulated.
To understand the scale of this problem, we must consider two historical scenarios:
Karabakh is one of the most striking examples of the 'hot' conflicts of the early 1990s. Here, cultural erasure was a direct consequence of war and occupation. Over three decades, territories under the control of Armenian forces experienced the systematic destruction of Azerbaijani traces. Armenian forces destroyed mosques, eliminated cemeteries and renamed places. The physical displacement of a population was accompanied by the erasure of its historical presence.
Tatarstan, by contrast, enjoyed considerable autonomy in the 1990s. But the republic gradually faced a process of 'quiet' centralisation. Since the early 2000s, and especially since 2017, the government has applied administrative and legal mechanisms, including the abolition of compulsory Tatar language studies, to narrow the space for national culture. These measures, presenting cultural erasure as 'state unification', deprive future generations of a living connection to their native language and history.
The aim of cultural erasure is to deprive a group of its identity and right to historical continuity. This creates a global challenge for the human rights protection system
Comparative analysis of these cases shows that the ultimate goal of cultural erasure is the same, regardless of method. It aims to deprive a group of its identity and right to historical continuity, whether through destruction of monuments during war or the gradual removal of language from schools. The problem then transforms from a local dispute into a global challenge for the human rights protection system.
After the early-1990s conflict, Karabakh and adjacent territories remained under the effective control of Armenian forces. During this period, more than 700,000 Azerbaijanis were forcibly displaced, and Azerbaijani cultural heritage was almost destroyed. Mosques were desecrated or repurposed, cemeteries destroyed, and historical monuments ignored or rewritten. Cultural continuity, as a living experience and historical presence, was deliberately disrupted.
We should see this systematic destruction of cultural heritage in the broader framework of human rights. The right to cultural heritage is inextricably linked to the right to identity, community and memory. All are part of the broader scope of Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protects minorities' rights to express their culture. While physical violence makes international headlines, the slow violence of cultural destruction often escapes accountability mechanisms.
Within the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tatarstan has long occupied a unique position. It is a region with its own language, rich history and constitutional right to cultural autonomy. However, since the early 2000s, and especially since 2010, federal policy has increasingly undermined this autonomy. A 2017 law abolishing compulsory Tatar language instruction in schools was a serious blow, signalling a shift towards linguistic assimilation. Cultural institutions and educational structures are under increasing pressure to fall in line with the centralised Russian narrative.
While cultural destruction is happening through conflict in Karabakh, the government in Tatarstan is using administrative tools and legal reforms to erode cultural identity
Unlike in Karabakh, this destruction is not happening through conflict. Rather, the government is achieving it through administrative tools, legal reforms and rhetorical marginalisation. However, the cumulative effect is no less serious. Tatarstan's youth are growing up in a system where native language is optional, history is peripheral, and cultural identity is eroded. This raises fundamental questions about the right to preserve cultural identity in a multinational state.
Both cases demonstrate the tension between state sovereignty and cultural rights. More importantly, they reveal the selective silence of the international community. Global forums have largely ignored the longstanding destruction of Azerbaijani culture in Karabakh. In Tatarstan, the slow erosion of minority rights has rarely raised concerns among European institutions, which in other cases promote linguistic and cultural diversity.
Framing cultural destruction as a human rights issue is thus not purely symbolic. It requires legal consideration, documentation, and political measures that go beyond post-conflict reconstruction or symbolic multiculturalism. Whether through occupation or centralisation, the denial of cultural identity deserves greater attention in the human rights debate. It is not only a matter of dignity, but a prerequisite for real equality.
Framing cultural destruction as a human rights issue is not purely symbolic; it is a prerequisite for real equality
Global institutions' selective attention to issues of cultural survival creates a dangerous hierarchy of rights. Some cases they recognise as humanitarian disasters; others they consider internal affairs of states. However, the history of the post-Soviet regions proves that ignoring cultural erasure only lays the foundation for deep conflicts and social isolation.
True recognition of the right to culture requires shifting from the rhetoric of 'symbolic diversity'. Instead, we must create strict legal mechanisms of accountability that protect the destruction of communities' identity, and prevent slow extinction under the pressure of state centralisation. We must recognise cultural integrity as an indispensable condition for equality. Only then will the international community overcome the deafening silence that surrounds these tragedies today.
