Нонканформнасць у Мінску часоў адлігі : справа Кіма Хадзеева і Эдуарда Гарачага (1962)

Abstract

On the example of the criminal case of Kim Chadziejeŭ and Eduard Haračy, the authors of the article discuss how limits to nonconformity were delineated by authorities in the BSSR during the Thaw. On the one hand, central and local party organisations and state security apparatus conducted punitive and ‘prophylactic’ activities against individuals and groups who behaved politically ‘wrong’. On the other hand, nonconforming citizens constantly tried out the limits of possible – until they faced obstacles placed by the party or the law enforcement. Authorities of the BSSR/USSR had at their disposal a wide selection of taming instruments. On extreme, rare occasions imprisonment or punitive psychiatry were used. Much more often authorities resorted to the so-called “prophylactic measures.” Such measures were both public (meetings with condemnation of ‘wrongdoers’, Komsomol and party censure, dismissal from a job or expulsion from studies, newspaper articles) and non-public (talks with KGB operatives). The efficacy of the measures taken was dubious. Exterior obedience was achieved, but the declared limits of permissible were unclear and unstable (they changed often). The main message aired during ‘prophylactic’ Komsomol and party meetings and in the press was that whatever local or central authorities declare banned is banned, but no clear distinction between things banned and things permitted was laid on the table. In majority of cases, there were no sanctions for transgression of these bans or sanctions were insignificant. This situation brought about further spread of unwanted practices (e.g. writing, reading and copying of samizdat). Sometimes, like in the case of Chadziejeŭ and Haračy, authorities chose as an object for attack manifestations of nonconformity perceived as politically harmless by non-conformists themselves. This also did not help to set the clear distinction between the permitted and the banned.