Hujum: The Implications of Soviet Gender Policy in Central Asia

By Bella Brown

Trigger warning: sexual assault and violence.

At the dawn of Stalin’s rule, the Soviet state envisaged a n ew, unwaveringly socialist Central Asia. The Uzbekistan Communist Party declared a hujum (assault) in Central Asia that attacked Muslim women’s practice of veiling their faces in late 1926. The party alleged this proposal was launched to free women and create a more equal society when in reality, it was part of the Soviet Union’s ideology of scientific atheism, an anti-religious policy. Other attempts which stripped Uzbeks of their culture were ongoing - such as the closing of Mosques - and part of a wider goal to create a homogenous and loyal socialist state. In the instance of hujum, women were to remove their chachvons and paranjis (face and body veils) in demonstration of their newfound liberation. The veil was seen as symbolic of women’s seclusion from society and therefore the unveiling illustrated that communism had ‘freed’ them. Whether this policy liberated women, as it supposedly sought to, will be deliberated.

To persuade women to unveil, public demonstrations of unveiling and mass meetings were held. In these large gatherings of Muslim women, party members made rousing speeches encouraging women to unveil and liberate themselves. Veils were torn off by women and burnt in bonfires, inciting intrigue, and encouraging even more unveiling. In some instances, women were inspired to march through the streets singing revolutionary songs. Initially, the campaign had some success: the party reported that 100,000 women were unveiled in the months following the 8th March 1927, when the hujum was formally announced. This does not resemble the reality - it is likely an overestimation - and many women quickly re-veiled.

Shortly after launching this campaign, there was a violent backlash from Uzbek men. The opinion of the mahalla (an all-Muslim Uzbek neighbourhood) critically influenced the backlash, as they argued the campaign negatively shaped the perception of unveiled women. Unveiled women frequently faced murder and rape because unveiling was associated with prostitution and sexual misconduct, yet there are no reliable accounts of the murders which occurred during this time from the OGPU (the Soviet secret police). Reports suggest that murders were mostly by the victim’s husband or their husband’s families, illustrating that these actions were primarily amongst the Uzbek communities and had little to do with the state. In Mahram, party members raped an unveiled woman, leading to 100 out of 170 women putting their paranjis back on in fear. Here, the mahalla was key to lessening the spread of unveiling.

The reasons for the violence following the imposition of the hujum is debated. Douglas Northrop argues the veil represented a conflict between the socialist project and Uzbek identity, claiming this tension was rooted in colonialism. Marianne Kamp proposes that it was instead based on a conflict of identity and modernity, as the Uzbeks rarely enacted violence towards Russians. An important consideration is the common misconception that Eurocentric ideas of gender equality are universal, which Kamp implies. Some Uzbeks may have preferred their way of life to this forced liberation from outside their culture. The brutality that occurred can be seen as a combination of both Northrop and Kamp’s explanations, as the Uzbeks attempted to reclaim their identity, which they felt was being lost due to the imposition of hujum.

Mumina-khanun Khakimova, a member of the Komsomol, recounts feeling a “great faith in the new life” during the hujum period. Women were able to unleash their own personal power and rebel against the patriarchal system that upheld society. So, despite these problems, women’s agency in the public domain increased from unveiling. A woman’s choice to unveil was public and a direct reflection of their husband’s views, so by unveiling they demonstrated themselves, or their husband, as loyal members of a communist society. Hence, women became ‘loyal’ Soviet citizens because they were offered a newfound sense of liberation, not because they necessarily truly believed in the premise of Soviet communism. However, this switch was no easy feat. The choice to unveil was a battle for Uzbek women, between the mullah which dictated that they remained veiled, and the state which opposed this. Women were hence placed in a unique position in which they could exercise their own power, by choosing to resist either authority. Their clothing was a symbol of change and provided empowerment. Much like the foot-binding campaigns occurring in China, whilst these were cultural impositions, they also gave women an opportunity in an otherwise restrictive society.

Did the hujum have any long-lasting impacts? It’s debatable. The consistency of pushing for the unveiling was scattered throughout the 1930s but veiling nonetheless decreased throughout this period. The prevalence of the paranji gradually withdrew; by the 1950s it had largely been phased out. The greater consequences of the hujum were extreme violence and increased tension as opposed to causing masses of women to unveil. Despite these violent consequences, the announcement of the hujum and the complex reaction amongst Muslim women had the effect of allowing women to exert agency and authority over their own bodies and dress.