There are many diverse groups living in Central Asia and the Caucasus, who use a wide variety of names identify themselves, as indeed do others. The first task is to explaining the selection of groups included, given the numerous differences between them. We also outline the spatial and temporal frames of the study.
The focus is on those communities designated for centuries by the umbrella term Gypsies (Цыгане in Russian). This designation was used in statistics, censuses and other official state documents by the Russian Empire, by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and is still used, not only in the Russian Federation but also in the newly independent states of Central Asia and the Caucasus. Only rarely do documents add a clarification, such as Armenian Gypsies (Цыгане армянские) or Central Asian Gypsies (Цыгане среднeазиатские). The umbrella designation is used by the surrounding population and even by the communities themselves.
The reasons for this are to be found in the history of Central Asia and the Caucasus over the last several centuries. The Russian Empire’s penetration of the Caucasus began at the turn of the seventeenth century and of Central Asia a century later. In the nineteenth century these regions were attached to the Russian Empire, with only the Emirate of Bukhara and the Khanate of Khiva retaining some autonomy as states “under the protection” of the Russian Empire. Later, both Central Asia and the Caucasus were incorporated into the USSR. After the breakup and the emergence of newly independent states in 1991, they remained bound to a common post-Soviet space. Therefore, our study does not include the whole of Central Asia in a geographical sense, but only Russian/Soviet/post-Soviet Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan) and the Caucasus (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and part of the Russian Federation).
The Russian designation Цыгане (Gypsies) is currently used not only in the Russian Federation but also in Central Asia and Southern Caucasus (or Transcaucasia), where the Russian language continues to be widely used in everyday communication, in the media and academia. In most of the countries in the region it has had official status as the “language of transnational communication” at different periods and even nowadays. The new independent states, which lack their own designation for these communities, are using the Russian term Цыгане for administrative purposes, sometimes modified and adapted to the local language form, as for example Cығандар in Kazakhstan (Ведомственный 2004).
The designation Цыгане is from the perspective of a Russian-speaking public and a cultural discourse within the, so-called, Russian world (not in its modern geopolitical interpretation, but from a historical perspective). In translating this designation into English, which is nowadays a lingua franca in academia, serious problems arise. The word Цыгане is usually translated into English as Gypsies, but in the English-speaking world, including in scholarly jargon, this term is used to signify diverse nomadic communities, regardless of their ethnic origins and identity (Hancock 2010: 95–96). We do translate the Russian word Цыгане as Gypsies with the proviso that this is to be understood as what Matras (2004: 55–56) terms Gypsy 2 (an umbrella term reflecting the common origins and underlying unity of the heterogeneous communities whose ancestors migrated from the Indian subcontinent) as opposed to Gypsy 1, a far looser term repeatedly used in academic texts to describe the social phenomenon of service nomads regardless of their origins or identity, including, for example, the so-called Sea Gypsies of Southeast Asia (White 1922; Ivanoff et al. 1997).
The content of the designation Gypsies is constantly changing. Over the past two decades in common European (and global) political and public discourse this centuries-old exonym (and its analogues in other languages) was considered pejorative and the word Roma gained dominance in its place, as a term considered more politically correct. However, it is obvious that this designation is also problematic, thus gradually more and more international institutions (first in Europe) start by clarifiying what is meant by the politically correct term Roma, then each institution usually offers its own interpretation. This terminological switch also impacts academia.
The best illustration of the terminological development can be found in the publications of the European institutions (primarily the Council of Europe and later the European Commission). In 1987 the Council of Europe published the book by Jean-Pierre Liégeois entitled Gypsies and Travellers; in 1994 a second edition was published under the title Roma, Gypsies, Travellers; the third edition appeared in 2007, now under the name Roma in Europe (Liégeois 1987, 1994, 2007).
Thus today we see a mechanical replacement of the previously used designations with the term Roma and the issue of the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the politically correct terminology is not on the agenda. Instead, at policy level, there are attempts to bring together the different communities once all labelled as Gypsies, under one umbrella term. It is enough to quote some of the current “official” definitions for an idea of the lack of relevance to the objective existing realities and accordingly to academic knowledge.
For instance, the Fundamental Rights Agency in 2010 uses the definition: “The term ‘Roma’ is used as an umbrella term including groups of people who share more or less similar cultural characteristics, such as the Roma, Sinti, Travellers, Ashkali, and Kalé. These groups also share a history of persistent marginalization in European societies” (FRA 2010). On the basis of this definition the European Framework of National Roma Inclusion Strategies from 2011 postulates: “The term ‘Roma’ is used—similarly to other political documents of the European Parliament and the European Council—as an umbrella which includes groups of people who have more or less similar cultural characteristics, such as Roma, Sinti, Travellers, Kalé, Gens du voyage, etc. whether sedentary or not” (European Commission 2011). This definition is misleading because, for example, the Roma living in central, southeast and eastern Europe have many “more or less similar cultural characteristics” with the surrounding population in their respective countries than with the Sinti and Kale in Western Europe or even fewer when compared with the Irish and Scottish Travellers or the Gens de voyage in France. It is also unclear why no other nation in Europe is defined according to its cultural characteristics (one criterion that opens the door to free interpretation and dispute); and why it is only used for Roma (whatever is meant by this term in this case).
In 2012 the European Commission started the process of implementing the European Framework of National Roma Inclusion Strategies and provided a new definition:
The term ‘Roma’ is used here, as well as by a number of international organizations and representatives of Roma groups in Europe, to refer to a number of different groups (such as Roma, Sinti, Kale, Gypsies, Romanichels, Boyash, Ashkali, Egyptians, Yenish, Dom, Lom) and also includes Travellers, without denying the specificities and varieties of lifestyles and situations of these groups (European Commission 2012).
This definition includes even more communities, such as the Dom and Lom who live outside Europe, and adds no more accuracy to the issue, on the contrary, it only further complicates it. Neither better nor more precise is the definition in the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on the Rise of Anti-Gypsyism and Racist Violence against Roma in Europe , adopted on February 1, 2012:The term ‘Roma’ used at the Council of Europe refers to Roma, Sinti, Kale and related groups in Europe, including Travellers and the Eastern groups (Dom and Lom), and covers the wide diversity of the groups concerned, including persons who identify themselves as ‘Gypsies’ (Declaration 2012).This definition is misleading because it not only puts European Gypsies under the cover term Roma, but also even more non-European communities; at same time it directly excludes large groups of European people who do not identify themselves as Gypsies, but whose surrounding population considers them (and refers to them) as such.
The extensive scope of available designations of Roma does not end here. In 2015 the Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Roma Issues (CAHROM) adopted a new definition:The terms ‘Roma and Travellers’ are being used at the Council of Europe to encompass the wide diversity of the groups covered by the work of the Council of Europe in this field: on the one hand a) Roma, Sinti/Manush, Calé, Kaale, Romanichals, Boyash/Rudari; b) Balkan Egyptians (Egyptians and Ashkali); c) Eastern groups (Dom, Lom and Abdal); and, on the other hand, groups such as Travellers, Yenish, and the populations designated under the administrative term ‘Gens du voyage’, as well as persons who identify themselves as Gypsies (CAHROM 2015).As can be seen, the number of communities included under the term Roma continues to grow. In the case of the Abdal from Asia Minor, the non-Roma identity of this community is not taken into account. The two main criteria for defining somebody as Roma continue to be used simultaneously: the Indian origin of the communities in question; and the nomadic way of life (current or as led in the past). If the application of the second criteria continues to expand it is logical to expect that we will be obliged to also call Roma such communities as the Burakumin from Japan, the Batwa/Abathwa from Rwanda, and the Midgaan/Madhiban from Somalia—as already proposed by some Roma activists (Çingenelerin 2009–2010)—as well as many other nomadic and peripatetic populations across the world.
Other international institutions have created their own definitions of the term Roma, as recently offered by the United Nations:The term ‘Roma’ refers to heterogeneous groups, the members of which live in various countries under different social, economic, cultural and other conditions. The term ‘Roma’ thus does not denote a specific group but rather refers to the multifaceted Roma universe, which is comprised of groups and subgroups that overlap but are united by common historical roots, linguistic commonalities and a shared experience of discrimination in relation to majority groups. ‘Roma’ is therefore a multidimensional term that corresponds to the multiple and fluid nature of Roma identity (Report 2015: 2).Based on this definition, the cover term Roma includes even more communities: “Roma groups are also present in Central Asian countries, where they are known collectively as Lyuli. While those groups are distinct from American and European Roma, they share the experience of exclusion and marginalization from local majority populations” (Report 2015: 3). Adding to the criterion “shared experience of exclusion and marginalization” in this definition opens up new horizons for expanding the scope of the term Roma and only the future will show how many communities (ethnic, religious, racial, sexual, etc.) will be covered by this umbrella term.
Official reaction was interesting after this definition of Roma became known. Several months after issuing the Report on the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Director of the National Centre for Human Rights of the Republic of Uzbekistan replaced the hitherto officially used term Цыгане with the designation Roma in his speech, with the explanation “Roma, known among local population as ‘Lyuly’”, and he underlined that “Roma in Uzbekistan” have no problems with regard to their human rights and did not experience discrimination in any sphere (Выступление 2015). According to this, however, they have not “shared experience of exclusion and marginalization” and thus should not be considered Roma.
We will not analyze now whether all these definitions are accurate and adequate, when used in academic discourse or from the point of view of the commu...