Kyrgyz film, Kyz Ala Kachuu, wins Busan International Film Festival award, shedding light on the still deeply entrenched practice of bride kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan

Kyz Ala Kachuu is an obvious and unapologetic form of protest by Mirlan Abdykaylkov against the archaic and violating nature of the bride kidnapping traditions in Kyrgyzstan, writes Silvan Lochteken in this commentary for commonspace.eu. Its success at the Busan International Film Festival not only brings the international spotlight on the controversial practice, but reignites the contested debate on bride kidnapping that has polarized the Kyrgyz public for decades.

Kyz Ala Kachuu or Bride Kidnapping in English, has won the Kim Jiseok award at the 28th Busan International Film Festival. The success of the film at one of the most prestigious Asian film festivals showcases Kyrgyz cinema on the international stage and by extension, highlights the controversial practice of bride kidnapping that has long marred Kyrgyzstan’s  human rights record.

The Kim Jiseok award that Kyz Ala Kachuu won in Busan on 13 October 2023, is dedicated and named after the late Kim Jiseok, the co-founder and former head programmer of the festival and awarded annually to the two best films by Asian directors that already have more than 3 feature film productions under their belt.

The film, directed by Mirlan Abdykaylkov and produced through the Bishkek based film company Oy Art, focuses on the widespread practice of bride kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan. The plot is based on numerous true events and follows several young Kyrgyz people whose lives are heavily affected by the still widespread social practice. Abdykaylkov builds an increasingly tense narrative, following the individual storylines from the pragmatic perspective of an outside observer, culminating in the kidnapping of one of the two main characters, by the family of the other. The film showcases the trauma and broad prevalence of the practice and is a clear protest of these deeply entrenched violating practices masked as tradition.

What is bride kidnapping?

“Ala kachuu” or bride kidnapping is a practice in Kyrgyzstan that mostly takes place within the ethnic Kyrgyz community who make up 77.7% of the population as of 2023. According to Human Rights Watch, the practice occurs in both rural and urban areas and typically targets women under the age of 25 which can include minors. Bride kidnapping is often considered deeply rooted in Kyrgyz tradition and is therefore regularly defended as legitimate. Bride kidnapping can occur in several forms, ranging from completely non-consensual abductions to staged kidnappings with consent from the abductee and her family. In the non-consensual instances, abducted women are often kept during a period of captivity where they may be subjected to physical abuse, attempts of persuasion by the abductor’s family to agree to the marriage, and even sexual assault, until the abductee grants consent or no longer rejects the marriage. The controversial tradition often repeats itself in a cyclical nature, where formerly abducted women forced to marry through bride kidnapping become complicit in future kidnappings orchestrated by their family.

How prevalent is bride kidnapping?

Bride kidnapping is outlawed in Kyrgyzstan in Article 155 of the criminal code, punishable by a fine or prison sentence, and is additionally illegal in Islamic law which prohibits marriages without consent of both parties. This is relevant, as the majority of bride kidnappings take place in Muslim communities and are often officiated by a local Imam. However, even with the illegality surrounding bride kidnapping, the practice has not only managed to survive, but has had a significant resurgence since Kyrgyzstan’s independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Getting to the bottom of the facts and figures behind bride kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan is difficult as the majority of kidnappings go unreported and local authorities are often hesitant in prosecuting those complicit. However, rough estimates obtained through studies and surveys by Human Rights Watch, the American University of Central Asia, and the Central Asian Survey from 2004-2020, put the number of ethnic Kyrgyz women married through a form of bride kidnapping at 30-50%, with some rural areas reporting numbers as high as 80%. It is important to note that many Kyrgyz respondents consider non-consensual kidnappings a practice of the past and that modern kidnappings are staged to uphold tradition. Prosecuting bride kidnapping perpetrators and their accomplices is extremely rare in Kyrgyzstan. Many local law enforcement officials do not have negative perspectives on the practice due to a lacking social stigma of bride kidnapping and its recognition as an established tradition.

Ending bride kidnapping

Kyrgyzstan is a participatory state of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and is therefore subject to several agreements on gender equality. The OSCE Programme Office in Bishkek prioritizes providing support to the Kyrgyz government by raising awareness on gender specific aspects of security, supporting women’s initiative groups, and promoting further inclusion of women in law enforcement through the creation of the Kyrgyz Association of Women in the Security Sector (KAWSS). Kyrgyzstan has the highest rate of female labor emigration in Central Asia, which many researchers attribute in part to less restrictive gender norms. This could already indicate a strong societal foundation facilitating a systemic push for more representation of women in law enforcement, which ultimately may lead to bride kidnappings gaining more priority on the law enforcement agenda. Other than the OSCE, several international NGOs are providing support networks for kidnapped women out of Bishkek through hotlines and support groups.

The recent drive to end bride kidnapping is not solely encouraged and enforced by the international community, but also extensively from within Kyrgyzstan. The Kyrgyz government increased the prison sentence for bride kidnapping from 3 to 7 years, and introduced a new law in 2016 against forced marriages and those implicated in aiding perpetrators. It is also important to note that much of the younger Kyrgyz population is increasingly socially mobilized against bride kidnappings, with public protests on the rise since the 1990s. Since 2018, several deaths of women as a result of bride kidnappings has ignited widespread public outrage and sparked local as well as further national protests.

Kyz Ala Kachuu is an obvious and unapologetic form of protest by Mirlan Abdykaylkov against the archaic and violating nature of the bride kidnapping traditions. Its success at the Busan International Film Festival not only brings the international spotlight on the controversial practice, but reignites the contested debate on bride kidnapping that has polarized the Kyrgyz public for decades.

source: This commentary was prepared for commonspace.eu by Silvan Lochteken, Junior Research Associate at LINKS Europe
photo: screenshot from the award winning film Kyz Ala Kachuu
The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)