Elmurod Najimov, First Deputy Director of the Cultural Heritage Agency, has responded to objections raised by Alisher Qodirov, leader of the Milliy Tiklanish party, who argued that there is no need to preserve a historic house in Tashkent. Qodirov's remarks sparked widespread debate. In particular, he said: "In the middle of Tashkent, some old building that could be demolished is being guarded as cultural heritage, with lawsuits, scandals, and brawls. Nobody needs it; it was some Russian artist's house. It should be removed, why do we need it? What is its value as cultural heritage? What significance does it have? Does it compare even one-thousandth to Shohi Zinda? Regardless of who the artist is." He also emphasized that the agency is not an agency of universal values but of our national culture, and it should focus primarily on our national culture.

The Cultural Heritage Agency clarified that the discussion concerns a two-story building at 7 Bobur Street in Tashkent. As the newspaper has reported several times, disputes around the building have continued for many years. It has been repeatedly removed from and re-added to the national list of immovable property objects of material cultural heritage. In 2018, former Tashkent mayor Jahongir Ortiqxo'jayev allocated the land plot where the house stands to Universal Packing Masters for the construction of a multi-story residential building. Later, the construction right was transferred to Jemchug House. Most residents have been relocated. The company tried to evict the only remaining owner through court. In early September, the Cultural Heritage Agency appealed to the Prosecutor General's Office to give a legal assessment of the former mayor's decision.

Emphasizing the historical significance of the building, the agency stated: "An object of cultural heritage is not evaluated by the criterion of 'do we need it today or not?' The building at 7 Bobur Street was constructed in 1935. Open historical and expert materials note that this building is associated with the name of prominent architect Aleksey Viktorovich Usev, who worked in Tashkent. However, the history of the building is not limited to its architect. Over the years, scientists and professors who made significant contributions to the development of science and culture in Uzbekistan lived here, including academicians Toshmuhammad Qori Niyoziy, Vasiliy Shishkin, as well as specialists such as Rahim Otajonov and Natan Mallayev." The agency added that this is not just about an old residential building, but one linked to the development of architecture, science, and urban culture in Tashkent in the 20th century. The architectural design of the building is also of interest from the perspective of the formation of Tashkent's historic urban environment in the first half of the 20th century. The legal status of the object is also of particular importance.

In 2020, the Scientific-Expert Council under the agency approved the inclusion of this building in the national list of immovable property objects of material cultural heritage. In 2021, a proposal to remove the object from the national list was rejected. On August 5 of this year, another appeal was received by the agency to remove the building from the list, and the agency again responded with a refusal. Notices on the doors of house No. 7 also indicate that disputes continue.

First Deputy Director Elmurod Najimov stressed that behind the excuse "This is a Russian artist's house, why do we need it" arises a fundamental question: "Since when has a person's nationality come to determine the historical value of a building? Cultural heritage has no nationality. It does not lose its value just because a representative of another nationality is associated with it. Moreover, the history of Tashkent is a history shaped by the labor, knowledge, culture, and contribution of representatives of various peoples." He noted that trying to divide cultural heritage into "ours" and "theirs" based on national identity is an incorrect approach. "If today we start determining the value of a historical object based on the nationality of the architect, artist, scientist, or other person associated with this history, where will we draw this line tomorrow? Such statements could take the professional issue of preserving cultural heritage from the legal and scientific plane to the plane of national confrontation. And this in itself could lead to unnecessary social tension," he said.

According to Najimov, we must not allow cultural heritage to become a weapon of national division. "Cultural heritage is part of our common history. It does not belong to one nation and does not become alien due to the origin of the person associated with it. Our task is not to decide whether a particular historical object is 'needed' today. Our task is to determine its historical and cultural value and ensure its preservation in accordance with the law and professional expertise. Today one can ask, 'Why do we need this house?' But tomorrow society may ask us, 'What have you done to preserve the history entrusted to you?' Therefore, the agency will continue to rely not on personal views, but on the law, scientific expertise, and the principle of preserving cultural heritage for future generations," he concluded.

In conclusion, the agency emphasized that this is not just about one building, but about how we relate to our history. "The history of Tashkent cannot be imagined without various architectural schools, scientific traditions, and different cultures that shaped the city's appearance over decades. Erasing certain pages of this history just because they are associated with representatives of other nationalities is an artificial impoverishment of Tashkent's own history. Therefore, the question should be posed not as 'why do we need this house,' but first of all as 'what is the historical and cultural value of this object and what should we do to preserve it in accordance with legal requirements.' The agency's answer is clear: professional, legal, and scientifically grounded. Cultural heritage has no nationality. It is history. And history is not divided into 'ours' and 'theirs,'" the agency emphasized.

Source: www.gazeta.uz