AZE.US
Azerbaijan’s historical narrative requires a fundamental reassessment, and many interpretations developed during the Soviet era do not reflect the country’s national perspective, Azerbaijani politician Iqbal Aghazade has said.
Speaking on Media Turk TV, Aghazade delivered particularly sharp criticism of the historical works associated with prominent Azerbaijani scholars Ziya Bunyadov and Igrar Aliyev.
“The history written by Ziya Bunyadov and Igrar Aliyev is not the history of Azerbaijan. That history is a betrayal of the history of Azerbaijan,” Aghazade said, stressing that he stood by the statement.
At the same time, he made clear that his criticism was directed at the historical concept and narrative rather than at Bunyadov personally.
Aghazade described Bunyadov as a major historical figure, but argued that the Soviet-era interpretation of Azerbaijani history effectively portrays Azerbaijanis as a people who appeared relatively late on the territory of the modern country.
“It turns out that everyone was here except us, as if we were the only ones who were not here,” he said.
Call for a New Reading of Azerbaijani History
Aghazade said the National Academy of Sciences should undertake a broad reassessment of the country’s historical narrative.
According to him, history should not be treated merely as a collection of facts, but also as a foundation of national identity and statehood.
He referred to recurring disputes surrounding figures such as Babek, Shah Ismail Khatai, Mammad Amin Rasulzade, Abulfaz Elchibey and Heydar Aliyev, arguing that constantly portraying major historical or political figures as “traitors” ultimately weakens a society’s connection to its past.
“Every nation needs a history it can lean on, elements that give people pride and help them stand firmly,” Aghazade said.
He argued that the mistakes of historical leaders should not automatically result in the rejection of their overall role in national history.
From Gulistan to Independence
Aghazade also challenged the idea that Azerbaijani statehood began only with the establishment of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in 1918.
He said the founders of the republic drew on a much older political and historical tradition associated with the Safavid, Afshar, Qajar, Aq Qoyunlu and Qara Qoyunlu states.
He also referred to the Gulistan and Turkmenchay treaties of the 19th century, which reshaped the political geography of the region.
Aghazade argued that the existence of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in 1918–1920, and Azerbaijan’s status as a union republic during the Soviet period, later played an important role in the country’s ability to restore independence in 1991.
Aghazade Criticizes Academy of Sciences
The politician also sharply criticized the current role of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences.
“The Academy of Sciences is not a club for elderly people,” Aghazade said.
He argued that academic institutions should be given concrete tasks, including reexamining specific periods of Azerbaijani history and determining how historical research can contribute to the country’s future development.
At the same time, Aghazade said politicians should spend less time fighting over centuries-old historical disputes and focus more on Azerbaijan’s current and future challenges.
He listed relations with Russia, Iran, Europe, the United States, China, the Middle East, the Islamic world and the Turkic world among issues requiring serious strategic debate.
“We should be talking about how we see Azerbaijan’s future,” he said.
Aghazade also rejected proposals to reorganize Azerbaijan into larger administrative regions or governorate-style units, arguing that such a system could create conditions for regional separatism.
His remarks amount to a call for a major revision of the Soviet-era school of Azerbaijani historiography, with his strongest criticism directed at the historical narrative produced under that system rather than at Ziya Bunyadov personally.
AZE.US