For the upcoming 90th anniversary of Heydar Aliyev

(or contemporary life of the saints)

Almost four months before the 90th anniversary of Heydar Aliyev the government media started doxology. As usual, the peak will be in the first ten days of May when, on television and radio broadcast and in the pages of official newspapers, there will be a lot of people wishing to express happiness because they lived in Heydar Aliyev’s epoch.

Adalat Gasimov’s  name means nothing to the world's history and historiography, but local experts call the PhD, a native of Nakhchivan "Director of the Institute of Heydarism" (according to the worst example of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism), and forecast him rapid development in case of Ilham Aliyev third presidency – local level DPhil, the title of professor and even the member-correspondent.

While he has a modest position, the head of the department to study Heydarism in the  Azerbaijan National Academy of  Science (ANAS)  (established by decree of the Presidium of ANAS on April 2, 2008) of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan.

According to a special section of the site (http://www.istoriya.az/about/shobeler_eliyev.php), he was specialized on the wealth and raising the cultural level of the working people of Nakhchivan autonomy, and then senior fellow countrymen noticed in him a special flame of love to Heydar Aliyev, and designated him "responsible for the legacy."

According to scientific experts, after launching (presumably by May 10, 2013) a five-storey Research Center "Azerbaijan National Encyclopedia" in the NANA, a study of creative, organizational, and other heritage of the Aliyevs clan will be concentrated in this building. So far, Gasimov works together with six permanent and six combining employees. By the way, major monographs of the leading personnel (expert on the history of Baksovet, Sona Gurbanova, expert on the political situation in Nakhchivan in 1985-95 Ali Balayev, an expert on scientific and public libraries Aypara Rustamova, Ilham Hasanov and Talat Nadjafaliev) wrote about Heydar Aliyev in 2008-11, respectively.

Reading their "works", you remember the work by Lucian of Samosata, "How to write a history," which was released 2,000 years ago, and is a reference book of all self-respecting chroniclers.

According to the world-recognized classic, the authors of history should be in moderation. History must not be copied by changing a social system, and even more, by the change of the family clan. History is not a wedding or an anniversary toast, therefore, speaking the language of musicians, information about the merits of the local rulers and shortcomings of enemies should not have a difference of two octaves.

Therefore, when poets and ashugs  compare the epic hero Koroglu, for example, with Gilgamesh and Hercules, and Shah Ismail Khatai Safavi with Zeus the Thunderer, the lovers of strong expressions receive additional honorarium, but historians can be forgotten for liberties.

As an example of the courage of the ruler, Lucian described the act of Alexander the Great, when the court chronicler Aristobulus described his fight with Por (an Indian king), and invented new feats for him.

Alexander took the book and threw it into the water (at the time they were sailing on the flow of Chenab in the Indus basin) with the words: "I should do the same to you, Aristobulus, for your fight for me and killing elephants with one blow." 

It's no good to describe in history the local flora and fauna, the details of romantic love and suffering, to call the people thankless, and call temporary minions - the founder and creator of modern state.  It is not right to do it while numerous alive witness methods which he used for interception and the rein of government. I can assure the authors of scientific fiction and that plausible massive kitchen stories are always more viable than those which are taken from the ceiling of the local Academy of Sciences.

Naturally, Lucian was against a dry list of events, but was also against the fact that even the Asian rulers were exaggerating the importance of their "national leader", which were changing like in a kaleidoscope. He recommended to write history in the name of national strategic goals and not for the pleasure of the ruling contemporaries.