Bulgakov Museum. The expert commission of the Ukrainian National People’s Republic of Ukraine should review the decision

Monument to Bulgakov at Andriyivskyi Uzvoz before the start of the full-scale invasion

Skyscraper

The Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance appealed to the expert commission to investigate and clarify conclusion about the ownership of toponymsdedicated to Mykhailo Bulgakovto the symbols of Russian politics.

About this it is said on the institution’s website.

“Recognition or non-recognition of objects (geographical objects, names of legal entities, monuments and memorial signs) dedicated to Mikhail Bulgakov as symbols of Russian imperial policy is not a “Bulgakov ban”, as some media have already managed to interpret the conclusion of the commission. as well as Russian propaganda. Ukrainian legislation does not prohibit the author’s books, plays, museum exhibits, or research“, – they wrote in the appeal of the Ukrainian National Bureau of Labor Statistics.

If, after the review, it turns out that Bulgakov had a contemptuous attitude towards the ideas of Ukrainian state-building, supported Russian imperialism and chauvinism towards non-Russian peoples, then the question of the inappropriateness of normalizing the figure of the writer in the public space will be raised.

The UINP emphasized that it ensures the activity of the expert commission, which is an independent body and independently adopts professional conclusions. It acts in accordance with the law “On Prohibition of Propaganda of Russian Imperial Policy in Ukraine and Decolonization of Toponymy”, but is not authorized to determine alternative names of objects or the process of their relocation. Authorities at different levels are dealing with this issue.

About the Bulgakov Literary Museum

The institute called on experts to consider the comments from the Bulgakov Literary Memorial Museum, because the expert opinion is only a recommendation, not an instruction for closure. Earlier, after the start of the public discussion, representatives of the museum expressed their position.

Bulgakov’s museum stated that the experts of the National Institute of Internal Affairs and Communications used phrases that, in their opinion, are “excessively categorical judgments that, as a result, rather figuratively impose than reasonedly substantiate the recommendation part of the document.” The arguments about the figure of the writer were exaggerated and superficial, and some fragments of the conclusion are manipulative.

Instead, the representatives of the museum added that for a large part of the population of Ukraine, Bulgakov “can be a convenient entry point to understanding the true Ukrainian history, precisely because of the debunking of Russian imperial narratives,” and the writer’s museum in the capital is “a guide to other museum sites in Kyiv.”

Anton Drobovych, the head of the UINP, as well expressed himself that the literary museum should not be closed, because its existence gives Ukraine the opportunity to express its view on Bulgakov’s legacy and personality.

“By law, they will be forced to change the name, but no one forbids them to continue talking about Bulgakov’s work. But tell the whole truth, because the museum has a unique collection. And there is a lot to tell. So that all these delegations know that the only place where the whole truth about Bulgakov will be told is Kyiv. Come, see“, he explained.