The Right of Return: Tyranny Cannot Erase
Adel Bashqawi
April 12, 2025
Introduction
It is neither a secret nor a surprise—indeed, it has become public knowledge—that the Russian state places numerous obstacles in the way of the Circassians’ return to their homeland. This approach has been a hallmark of Russian policy since the vast majority of the Circassian nation was deported to the Ottoman Empire.
The deportees were subjected to extreme weather conditions along the Black Sea coast for months, both in summer and winter. They endured severe poverty, hunger, and widespread disease, having lost their homes, villages, crops, livestock, and any semblance of stability.
Traveling across the Black Sea in unsafe and unseaworthy vessels only compounded the danger. The horrors of the deportation journey were unimaginable. Yet, the Russian government and its central and regional authorities continue to act as though this history is either unknown or unworthy of recognition—persistently ignoring and obscuring the truth.
Endless Legislation of Injustice: Exclusionary Laws vs. Human Rights
This long-standing policy is deeply embedded in a tradition of manipulating language and legal terminology, aiming to reshape laws affecting peoples whose lands were colonized by the Russian Empire—lands taken through war, genocide, and forced deportation. Over 160 years later, colonial ambition and imperialist greed still prevent rightful return to ancestral homelands.
An article published on April 3, 2025, titled “The Language Paradox of Repatriation: Problems of Implementing Mr. Zatulin’s Bill,” appeared on the Kabardino-Balkarian Regional Human Rights Center website. Written by Valery KHATAZHUKOV, Chairman of the Center, the article highlights the importance of the “Right of Return.”
Chairman Khatazhukov criticized State Duma Deputy Konstantin Zatulin for introducing a bill on March 25, 2025, requiring that anyone seeking to return to their homeland must be proficient in Russian—the language of the occupying state.
The article explains that, according to Article 2 of the proposed draft law, repatriation rights may only be granted to a foreign citizen or stateless person “recognized as a compatriot and who speaks Russian and freely uses it in family, everyday, and cultural spheres.” [2]
Khatazhukov points out that this requirement effectively disqualifies members of non-Russian indigenous peoples from returning to their historical homelands, as mastering the Russian language in the absence of a supportive language environment is nearly impossible. Such a requirement is inherently discriminatory on the basis of nationality. [3]
He emphasizes that this is not Zatulin’s first attempt to restrict the return of indigenous peoples. A similar effort in 2022, when Zatulin proposed amendments to the Federal Law No. 99-FZ “On the State Policy of the Russian Federation with Respect to Compatriots Abroad,” was met with strong opposition and ultimately rejected after public backlash and disapproval from government bodies and regional authorities. [4]
Khatazhukov offered a more equitable alternative:
- Knowledge of one of the state languages of the republics of the Russian Federation should be sufficient for repatriation, aligning with constitutional rights.
- Russian language training should be provided after return to the homeland.
- The successful integration of previous waves of repatriates should serve as a model. [5]
A Mirror to This Reality
In a related development, on April 10, 2025, Faruk Arslandok, General Chairman of Turkey’s Pluralist Democracy Party (ÇDP)—a party committed to diversity and inclusion—sent an open letter to key Russian Federation officials:
- Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation
- Vyacheslav Volodin, Chairman of the State Duma
- Sergey Lavrov, Foreign Minister
- Kazbek Kokov, Head of the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria
- Murat Kumpilov, Head of the Republic of Adygea
- Rashid Temrezov, Head of the Republic of Karachay-Cherkessia
- Hauti Sakhrokov, President of the International Circassian Association
In the letter, Arslandok rejected Zatulin’s proposal and demanded the immediate withdrawal of the bill, stating that if passed, it would deny Russian citizenship to those lacking fluency in Russian. [6]
The proposal sparked a wave of public outrage. The requirement for Russian language proficiency to return to ancestral territory was widely condemned. [7] Arslandok also addressed Zatulin directly, warning that his proposal threatens the federal structure of Russia, violates the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination, and undermines peace and social cohesion.
He noted that the proposal contradicts Article 68 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. [8]
Ultimately, decisions made without inclusive dialogue will reach a tipping point where the voices of indigenous peoples can no longer be ignored. These rights, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—including the List of 30 Basic Human Rights [9]—must be upheld in accordance with international laws and norms.
Right of Return Principle
The right to return has a strong foundation in international law. It is recognized across key international human rights instruments, reaffirming that individuals forcibly displaced from their homes have the legal right to return.
— The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 December 1948)
Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states:
“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”[10]
— Full Text of Article 13 of the UDHR:
- Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
- Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. [11]
— Human Rights Committee General Comment on Article 12 of the ICCPR (November 1999)
In November 1999, the Human Rights Committee (HRC)—the authoritative UN body for interpreting the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—issued a detailed commentary on Article 12, further reinforcing the right to return. [12]
— The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966)
The right to return is most clearly enshrined in the 1966 ICCPR under its provisions on freedom of movement (Article 12). This includes:
- Article 12(1): Internal freedom of movement within a country.
- Article 12(2): The right to leave any country, including one’s own.
- Article 12(4): The right to enter one’s “own country.” [13][14]
— Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (28 July 1951)
International refugee law and international human rights law reinforce each other on the right to return. This Convention establishes protection mechanisms for those displaced, with an emphasis on voluntary repatriation. [15]
— United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) – 11 December 1948
Resolution 194 remains one of the most explicit endorsements of the right to return. It declares:
“11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date…” [16]
An extended excerpt adds:
“…and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.
Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement, and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees, and the payment of compensation…” [17]
Conclusion
The right of return is a fundamental principle that no tyranny can erase. Legal, historical, and moral grounds all support this right, especially in the case of displaced peoples subjected to political repression. It is a matter of justice and recognition—an enduring call to confront historical wrongs.
Denying indigenous peoples their rightful return ties into larger issues of accountability, sovereignty, and human rights. As long as this injustice persists, so too will the resolve of those who stand against it.
********************
References:
[1] https://www.zapravakbr.ru/index.php/cont-14178
[9] https://thehaguepeace.org/site/what-are-the-30-human-rights/
[10] https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/israel/return/iccpr-rtr.htm
[11] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
[12[ https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/israel/return/hrc-gen-cmt-rtr.htm
[13] https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/israel/return/iccpr-rtr.htm
[14] https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/israel/return/iccpr-rtr.htm
[15] https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/israel/return/crsr-rtr.htm
[16] https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/israel/return/un194-rtr.htm
[17] https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/israel/return/un194-rtr.htm
