Valery Borshchov

VALERY BORSHCHOV: Although there are disputes concerning the composition of political prisoners, their very existence, I feel, is not within doubt. I often visit prisons and meet these people in cells. Not so long ago in Butyrka I met such a prisoner. He asked to be transferred from his “normal” cell, holding three people, to a common one. He wanted to agitate for his views there. I told him: “You fool, there will be someone watching you. You might not find a common language with him. Provocations against you may be initiated there.” “No, I want to go there.” This is how such people are formed, political prisoners.

Of course, they are different. I suppose, recalling the ‘70s and ‘80s, we will not find common criteria for a clear and succinct definition of a political prisoner. A council of experts, as proposed here, may find characteristics in these people. The nature of their personality and work, their motives, nature of the judgement and so on. Our next task is to decide how to treat them. It is clear that few would show much sympathy towards Tikhonov and Khasis, as opposed to political prisoners. But then this is a question of the freedom of choice.

The main thing I wanted to emphasise, was that in the 70s and 80s there was a movement of aid and assistance for political prisoners. There were many aid centres. Above all the Chronicle of Current Events monitored the situation of political prisoners; who is in prison and who is having problems, whether in prison or the family at liberty. We also had such a centre which worked with the Solzhenitsyn Foundation. But Vadim Borisov only gave me the addresses. I never took any money from him. And I was brought buckwheat and canned meat which we sent to the camps. This was an entire movement, considerably strong and ever consolidating. I remember that while Felix Svetov was in exile, we, people of his parish, sent him a sheepskin coat. It was an important and common cause. Zoya, has the coat been kept?

ZOYA SVETOVA: It has..

VALERY BORSHCHOV: But it was conducted in different ways. Of those present here, Alexei Korotayev would confirm how we helped Robert Nazaryan at his suggestion. And when he was freed, he arrived aggrieved that those who helped him were not Armenians. He was helped by Russians, Jews, even Armenians, but they didn't know the Armenian language and that was unpleasant for a nationalist like Robert. It was a consolidating movement. I would say the most important task for us is the need to organise a new, broad social movement for the assistance of political prisoners, using the experiences of the 1960s—80s.

The legal aspect is that the authorities very clearly and consistently define “anti-state” crimes. Crimes against the authorities. The articles on “extremism” consist of vague formulas and can be applied to almost anyone if the authorities need. But watch as to how they carefully identify a “social group.” Today in Yekaterinburg, criticism of the law enforcement agencies is punishable under Article 282. This is an extremely dangerous trend. Here I would refer to Milovan ?ilas and his excellent work The New Class, where there is such a term as the new class. And something similar is happening now. The authorities are forming a legal basis for their defence, the defence of their structures through the use of repression under the Criminal Code. Although it is still vague and not clearly established, this trend is highly dangerous. Thank you.

Next ›

Back to Overview of Part II ›