Бидний тухай
Багш ажилтан
the Russian war in Ukraine and its mobilisation have affected Mongolian politics and brought fear to the public if Mongolia would be the next victim of Russian aggression in economic and political terms. How Mongolia would deal if Russia and China agreed to block Mongolia was also questioned. As Mongolia is sandwiched between these two countries, would there be any assistance from distant "third neighbours" of Mongolia in the event of any conflicts? Such questions left the Mongolian government to be neutral on the Russian war in Ukraine. However, for humanitarian purposes, the Mongolian government lent its hands to the Ukrainian people and sent symbolic assistance to the Ukrainian government to welcome the Russian people, who fled from mobilization, in Mongolia. Many Russians chose Mongolia to transfer to other countries. To help the Russian people, the government of Mongolia loosened its visa procedures at the administrative level without amending any laws and regulations that might be visible to the world. This war and mobilisation revealed differences in Mongolian identity among those Mongolian ethnic groups living in Russia and Mongolia. Cultural assimilation and political ideologies in Russia made many Buryats think of themselves as ethnic Russians. However, this war opened the question of why Russia conscripted its ethnic minorities more than Slavic Russians and why Russia left the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM) in 2023. In the past centuries, Mongolia lost its significant territory along with Mongolian ethnic people to its neighbours. People in Mongolia still remember this and welcome those ethnic Mongolians by overcoming their differences and political pressures. This closeness of Mongolian and Russian people benefits each other and might be the turning point for many people for their political choices in the future.
Rural livelihoods worldwide are being transformed by the increasing financialization of agricultural production. Microlending and the deeper integration of production cycles in commodity markets are clearly at the vanguard of these transformations, but insurance and similar financial products have become a new frontier. Here, we explore index-based livestock insurance in Mongolia, where even in the face of disaster and worsening climatic conditions, herders have expressed limited interest in, and some outright rejection of, index insurance. Using a decade of ethnographic research, we explore herder perceptions of index insurance, its effects, and the contrast with local moral economies of mutual aid.
In this paper we trace the origin and use of the Mongolian term khyamral which is crisis in English. Although in a common-sense translation the Mongolian word khyamral is crisis in English, in the consideration of historical and cultural differences, they cannot mean same the thing. According to our research the term khyamral only appears in Mongolian language in the 18th century. Up until the second half of the 20th century the term indicated physical (health), psychological and social disorders that occur due to conflict of things or processes that do not match. Then only in the 20th century, probably in the second half of the 20th century, the term started adopting indications of the term crisis. A Mongolian dictionary first published in 1966, first explains the term khyamral that it also indicates “a crisis (крисис) that occasionally occurs in economic and political matters of a capitalist society” (Tsevel, 1966:771). In other words, the contemporary meaning of the term ‘crisis’ in the Mongolian term khyamral was regarded as something that is foreign that only occurs in the capitalist society. Then from 1990, when Mongolia started adopting more and more capitalistic features, the use of the term khyamral increased, mainly because, khyamral is a capitalist social phenomenon. Apparently, the term 'crisis' has become popular since the 1990s when economic reform took place following shock therapy in Mongolia. The khyamral, direct translation of crisis, has a different meaning at different times as it were everywhere, argued by many researchers (Lundström, 2022; Roitman, Angeli Aguiton, Cornilleau, & Cabane, 2020). In modern times, meaning of khyamral was reconstructed. The pre-socialist times of Mongolia was described as a period of khyamral or disharmony and crisis, especially in historical and political documents like following Georg Lukacs and Reinhart Koselleck's argument about the crisis as the precondition for the revolution or the world in constant crisis (Gilbert, 2019). Even though pastoralists often faced with climatic uncertainties and various risks everyday, they did not use the crisis or khyamral in calling such difficulties. Other scholars (Batsuuri, 2015; Campi, 2005; Marshall & Walters, 2010; Spoor, 1996; Wade, 2010; Wingard & Zahler, 2006) including ecomonic and bioligical researchers often see Mongolia's economy and ecoligical condition in deep crisis in the 1990s. This way, the word khyamral has been enriched in political and economic changes in socialist and post-socialist Mongolia. The use of the word khyamral also signifies the person's social status these days. Officials often use khyamral in a public speech to justify their wrongdoings and defend their mistakes or failures. According to the pastoralists, the khyamral represents competition and conflicts, leading to the breakup or improper functioning of state machines and the economy. Based on our literature review and fieldwork data, we argue that the concept of khyamral has been modified significantly. Khyamral has become a tool for decision-makers to avoid blame of their misconduct and increase their power by diverting public attention. Furthermore, this concept conveys that Mongolia needs solidarity, strong leadership, financial discipline imposed by the IMF, command and comply system, and political unification.
Монгол улсад угсаатан судлал, нийгэм, соёлын антропологийн салбар үүсч хөгжсөн түүхийг онол аргазүйн чиглэл, өөрчлөлт шинэчлэлийг өгүүлнэ. Ингэхдээ МУИС-ийн оруулсан хувь нэмрийг тодорхой судлаачий бүтээл, судалгааны чиглэл, асуудлаар бататган хэлэлцэнэ.
Монгол улс ямар соёл иргэншилтэй тухай тэр нь хэрхэн бүрэлдэж бий болж байгаа талаар эрдэм шинжилгээний судалгаа хангалтгүй байдаг. Монголын ихэнх судлаачид өөрсдийнхөө соёл иргэншлийн талаар хөндлөнгөөс эрдэм шинжилгээний судалгаа хийдэггүй. Харин өөрсдөө соёл иргэншлийг бүтээх үйлсэд субьектив байдлаар оролцдог. Тиймээс нүүдлийн соёл иргэншлийн тухай ойлголт, концепци хэрхэн бий болж, бүтээж байгааг академик байр сууринаас, хөндлөнгөөс судлах шаардлага гарч байна. Тус судалгааг өөрийн хээрийн судалгааны баримт мэдээлэл, амьдралд ажигласан туршлага, аман түүх болон хоёр дахь эх сурвалжийн материалд тулгуурлан бичив. Монголд үүсэн бий болж буй нүүдлийн соёл иргэншил гэх ойлголт концепци нь гадаад улсын соёлын колоничлолыг сөрж буй нийгмийн үзэгдэл бөгөөд өнгөрсөн түүхийг засварлаж, цаашдын түүхийг шинээр бүтээн бий болгоход гол үүрэг гүйцэтгэж байна гэсэн санааг (аргумент) тус өгүүлэлд дэвшүүлж байгаа юм. Уг санааг батлахдаа 1986 оноос хойш өрнөсөн нүүдлийн соёл иргэншилтэй холбоотой үйл явцыг 3 үед хувааж нарийвчлан мөшгөж судлав
The definition of corruption depends largely on the cultural contexts, personal perspectives, political regimes and academic disciplines that study. When countries adopt new systems such as democracy, capitalist market economy and totalitarian socialism, their traditional way of life changes significantly and chaos emerges by affecting their morality and ethics. Cultural relationships such as collective works, reciprocal aid, power relations, social networks and gift-giving are the basis of social cohesion and moral economy in these countries. Our findings suggest that the way of living of urban and rural people are different by representing the new and existing ones. Moreover, written regulations are not strictly followed in real life in which people follow “customary” laws. We argue that the mixing of these two norms and moral systems leads to social divisions and leads to an ethical dilemma about whether to give a nonreciprocal gift to a respected one or not and help friends without reason or not. If new rules, customs, and values are brought into the culture from outside and are not completely replaced by the new ones, conflicts emerge between the existing ones and the new ones. When people stop trusting and helping each other, this leads to community disintegration and social decay. As a result, a majority of people become victims of these changes but a few elites win. This informs that there should be a clear boundary between cultural activities and newly defined corrupt activities.
Mongolian people have been identified as nomads moving freely across seasonal pastures, depending from weather conditions, environmental hazards and conflicts. Development planners and agencies imply that when hit by hazards and lost livestock, these people fled to urban places to survive and prosper based on the private property. Such perceptions and understandings led to the dualistic categories of nomadic and sedentary in which the latter represents private property and the former represents the common property. This misrepresentation brought the agricutlural collectives by Soviet Marxists and resource-use groups by Neoliberals. This paper argues that the common and private properties are entangled and dispersed bacause the Mongolian concepts of properties are situational. In both places, the private use of common properties is restricted by the other private users. If no one claims, the common became private for users. Private became public when others challenge and compete for it.
This paper reviewed how the concept of nomadic civilization in Mongolia has been re-constructed by the government officials, academic researchers, civil society organizations and people in the past 38 years. During this period, Mongolia's political, economic and social life have transformed irreversably and these impacted on the way of living of Mongolians. Socialism became capitalist or neo-liberal, and the economy shifted from a centrally planned to Mongolized market oriented. Individualism replaced reciprocal and moral way of living. Despite these changes, Mongolia continued to develop the concept of nomadic civilizations and Mongolian cultures.
The conflicts between local people and mining companies are increasing over the years. Recently, two biggest events happened in the Mining sector in Mongolia. Oyu Tolgoi (OT) mining company announced the successful completion of herders’ complaints to the Ombudsman which affected $1 billion loan conditionality. Tripartite Council was used as a mechanism to negotiate with herders. This forced collaboration resulted in more compensation and local investment through a tender. But herders complain that they needed collaboration at the household level as they did in the past. The second event was that the Government of Mongolia stopped the operation of Trans Coal mining company due to complaints from local people and civil society movements. This company is one of the few companies that export coking coal and provided the biggest amount of compensation to local people. Despite these, the company is strongly criticized and resisted by the public, politicians, and local people. Based on the fieldwork studying these cases in Umnugovi aimag in 2018-2019, I argue that conflicts in these areas are derived from a lack of communication over cultural differences and a mismatch between expectations and realities on distribution and collaboration. Herders often act as welcoming hosts whereas the companies work as temporary exploiters. Herders prefer sustainable collaboration with mining companies for multiple years as companies follow short-term periodic collaboration. This difference makes space for other contentious participants. As their cultural values and legitimacies confront, gradual diffusion or conflicts emerge over the years resulting in mistrust or domination.
In this article, we draw upon ethnographic fieldwork conducted in Mongolia and China to develop understandings of herd–herder (mal–malchin) relations further. We focus primarily on horse-herding practices and related divisions of labour, and the three concepts of herd intuition (zön), serenity (taa) and fortune (buyan, khishig, zaya), to present additional interpretations of human–animal relations in Mongolia. Through this exploration, we develop the concept of herd agency and examine how it relates to specific horse-herding knowledge and techniques, as well as the cosmological significance of human–animal relations. All three concepts reveal the importance of cosmological agents with herd–herder relations. We conclude by emphasising the changing nature and politics of human–animal relations in these regions.
