Kyrgyz Bride Kidnapping:  Third Edition

By
Russ L, Kleinbach, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Philadelphia University
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Fulbright Lecturer, Osh State University
Osh, Kyrgyzstan  1998-1999

And

Sarah Amsler, MA
Instructor of Sociology
American University in Kyrgyzstan
Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan 1998 - 2000 

Third Edition September 10, 2000   The first edition of this research is published in
International Journal of Central Asian Studies, Vol. 4, 1999
The first edition is also available from the authors in a Russian translation

____________________________

©  No part of this report may be used without permission of the authors.

Kyrgyz Bride Kidnapping Continued

By  Russ L. Kleinbach, Ph.D.  Philadelphia University

And Sarah Amsler, MA  American University in Kyrgyzstan

 Abstract:  Bride kidnapping (ala kachuu) in Kyrgyzstan is the act of abducting a woman to marry her and includes a variety of actions, ranging from consensual marriage to kidnapping and rape.  Bride kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan is neither well-researched nor well understood as a social phenomenon. This paper based on a survey of now 300 kidnapping cases, (1) explains the opportunistic methodology of this research, (2) explores the who, what and why of the range of experiences of bride kidnapping, (3) offers insight into what proportion of these cases may be consensual, (4) attempts to determine differing characteristics of consensual and non-consensual "kidnappings," and (5) raises questions about the different perceptions of kidnapping by males and females.

This research grew from informal observations in university settings.   During the 1998-1999 academic year, Kleinbach was a Fulbright Lecturer teaching Professional Ethics at Osh State University in Osh, Kyrgyzstan, and Amsler was a Civic Education Project Lecturer  (1998-2000) teaching Sociology at the American University in Kyrgyzstan in Bishkek, the capital city. Through class discussions, they discovered that bride kidnapping was not only practiced but also common, and that many of their students had first or second-hand knowledge of a kidnapping case.  Classroom debates also suggested that there was no consensus among students as to who did it, how it was done, why it was done, how frequently it happened, and whether it should be classified as a national tradition or as a criminal act and violation of human rights.  They developed a pilot questionnaire, which was then evaluated by three focus groups of university students at Osh State University.  After revising the format and questions, it was distributed it in Russian and Kyrgyz to respondents.

      This preliminary study is based on a sample of convenience designed to obtain a wide variety of general information that can be used in designing future research. We surveyed anyone who had first-hand knowledge of a case of bride kidnapping and was willing to complete the four-page form.  The respondents were primarily students and academic colleagues, but the sample includes parents of students, friends, and acquaintances of colleagues as well.

Introduction: Bride kidnapping in a “country full of surprises”

Bride kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan[i][i] (ala kachuu in Kyrgyz) is the act of abducting a woman to marry her and includes a variety of actions, ranging from consensual marriage to kidnapping and rape.  While widespread, the practice is neither well-researched nor well understood as a social phenomenon.  Bride kidnapping was made unlawful during the Soviet period in Central Asia and is officially illegal in independent Kyrgyzstan (Halle 1938, 129; Criminal Code 1994). However, the consensus of many university students, teachers, and professionals with whom we had contact is that it still happens frequently and is seldom if ever punished or recognized as problematic.  While illegal, bride kidnapping is often popularly defined as a national tradition as opposed to a crime.  In an English language textbook published by the Bishkek International School of Management and Business and the United Nations Development Programme, for example, a passage describing an incident of bride kidnapping entitled “Being Stolen” ends with the words:

After some time, she fell in love with him too.  Now they have four children.  They never fight, and they live in peace.  They have now been living happily together for twenty years.  They respect each other, which is very important.  This is the most popular way of stealing future wives.  There are about four ways of stealing.  The practice of the older generation has shown that such marriages are stable.  Our Government does not allow stealing.  But in spite of that, stealing is still common here.  Kyrgyzstan is a country of surprises! (1995, 49)

Such matter-of-fact treatment of the issue is commonplace.  One foreign news correspondent covering a story about bride kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan even commented that she “had been told that the practice of bride stealing was so common that [she] had persuaded [herself] that it must be some kind of courting ritual” (Lloyd-Roberts 1999a).

Preliminary research suggests that this assumption can be partially explained by the fact that the term “bride kidnapping” is colloquially used to describe a wide variety of qualitatively different actions, ranging from consensual marriage (women who help arrange their own “kidnappings”) to abduction and rape.  Although even scholars often conflate these different actions when discussing bride kidnapping (cf. Werner 1997), it is important to distinguish between consensual and non-consensual processes when attempting to understand the social significance of kidnapping and its impact on women’s rights.  A non-consensual abduction by force or deception is a violent act.  On the other hand, when women and men mutually agree to use this process for establishing a marriage, they assume control of whom and when they marry; in effect, they use one "tradition" to liberate themselves from another tradition that grants power over men's and women's marital status to their parents. They can assume power privately by relinquishing it publicly.  To define this as kidnapping, however, is misleading, and not only makes for confusing discourse, but also challenges the legitimacy of claims of non-consensual abduction.  It is therefore important for researchers to distinguish between the qualitatively different acts referred to by this name.

This research explores this range of experiences and offers insight into what proportion of bride kidnappings in Kyrgyzstan may in fact be consensual.  It also exposes discrepancies in male and female understandings of “consent,” challenges whether “stable” marriages are necessarily marriages which honor and promote the rights of each of the marriage partners, and reveals the impact of bride kidnapping on the rights of women in Kyrgyzstan.

We wish to acknowledge and express our appreciation to the many students and colleagues in Kyrgyzstan who assisted us, to Martha Merrill, Jyldyz Eshimkanova, Deborah Abowitz and Susan Budnick for their assistance as readers, and Burul Usmanalieva and Victoria Shegai for their translating.

Learning to ask the right questions: background and methodology of the study

The impetus for this exploratory research project grew from informal observations in university settings and was developed with the participation and cooperation of a number of university students, academics, and members of non-governmental organizations throughout the Kyrgyz Republic.  During the 1998-1999 academic year, Kleinbach was a Fulbright Lecturer teaching Professional Ethics to business students at Osh State University in Osh, Kyrgyzstan (southern Kyrgyzstan), and Amsler was a Civic Education Project Lecturer[ii][ii] (1999-2000) teaching Sociology at the American University in Kyrgyzstan in Bishkek, the capital city in northern Kyrgyzstan. Through class discussions, they discovered that bride kidnapping was not only practiced, but also common, and that many of their students had first or second-hand knowledge of a kidnapping case. When, for example, Kleinbach asked his ethics class how many of them personally knew of at least one case of bride kidnapping, approximately two-thirds of the students raised their hands.  This question was followed by an interesting discussion about the ethical nature of bride kidnapping - whether it is good or bad, and what ethical principles may be violated by the practice.  At this point, the female students were very vocal, and only a few male students defended it as “a tradition that we cannot criticize.”  The most controversial part of the discussion was whether or not the students and the society had a responsibility to discourage or stop the practice in order to protect freedom of choice, equal opportunity, and a democratic voice for women.

In Bishkek, Amsler learned that many of her students not only were willing to discuss the issue, but also were well acquainted with the practice.  On 22 March 1999, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) published an article on its World News web page entitled “Kyrgyz bride theft goes awry” (Lloyd-Roberts 1999a).  Because the article detailed the experience of a journalist who observed and intervened in a bride kidnapping, it seemed appropriate to use the piece to discuss the ambiguous ethics of participant and non-participant observation. Instead of focusing on this question, however, students in the research class spent much of their time debating the accuracy of the account, discussing the frequency of the practice in urban and rural areas, and sharing their own personal experiences of bride kidnapping.  The same article evoked similar discussions at Osh State in Kleinbach's classes.

Although these classroom debates revealed that bride kidnapping was widespread and commonly practiced in Kyrgyzstan, they also suggested that there was no consensus among students as to who did it, how it was done, why it was done, how frequently it happened, and whether it should be classified as a national tradition or as a criminal act and violation of human rights.  Based on these questions, we decided to conduct an exploratory study of the who, what, and why of this practice.  We developed a pilot questionnaire, which we then distributed in Russian to small groups of university students in a series of three focus groups at Osh State University. One focus group was all female students led by Amsler, one group was all male students led by Kleinbach and a third group was male and female students led by Kleinbach and Amsler.  After revising the format and questions based on the groups' collective suggestions and responses, we translated a final English version of the questionnaire into both Russian and Kyrgyz and began distributing it to respondents who were given a choice of questionnaires.

This preliminary study is not based on a random probability sample, but rather on a sample of convenience designed to obtain a wide variety of general information that can be used in designing future research. We surveyed anyone who had first-hand knowledge of a case of bride kidnapping and was willing to complete the four-page form.  The respondents were primarily students and academic colleagues, but the sample includes parents of students, friends, and acquaintances of colleagues as well.  In order to avoid multiple reports of the same incident, we controlled for dates of the kidnappings and the ages, educational levels and home regions of the men and women involved.

The difficulties of even this “convenient” sampling technique both reveal the sensitive nature of the issue and suggest that bride kidnapping is something that people are interested in discussing critically if given the opportunity to do so.  At first, many people were hesitant to discuss the topic and often seemed uninterested in filling out a questionnaire when approached directly.  Often they would say or imply that they did not know of any cases of bride kidnapping.  We therefore began to explain in more detail what we were doing, why we were interested in knowing about the issue, how the survey would be interpreted and published, and that they would answer anonymously and have the opportunity to write narratives of their experience in Kyrgyz, Russian, or English.  Within minutes of such explanations, we found that almost everyone we approached was willing to complete a questionnaire.

During the months of May and June 1999, we collected questionnaires from the cities of Osh (southern Kyrgyzstan), Bishkek (northern Kyrgyzstan), and Jalal-Abad (south-central Kyrgyzstan). In the fall of 1999 and spring of 2000 additional questionnaires were collected in Ak Bulak, a village in the south and other villages in the north.  While most of the respondents were living in a major city when given a questionnaire, many of the kidnapping cases reported took place in villages.  The general results from this preliminary study – results which strongly suggest that the issue demands further research - are outlined below.  Research on frequency is especially needed.

Kyrgyz bride kidnapping in historical context

Although there are few English-language books or articles written specifically about bride kidnapping in Central Asia, the issue has received some attention in anthropological research about family, marriage, and the economy of the region (Werner 1997) as well as in works on the status and roles of women in traditional, Soviet, and post-Soviet societies (Massell 1974; Halle 1938).  During the early twentieth century, a number of Soviet reformers and researchers gained interest in the status of women in Central Asia, particularly in the influence of Islamic law and tradition on women's education, working conditions, and social opportunities.  While there is no evidence that any reformers or researchers focused exclusively on bride kidnapping, a few made note of the practice as one of many “residual” patriarchal and feudal practices which limited the political, economic, and human rights of women in modern society. These texts provide unique insight into the ways bride kidnapping was perceived and understood by foreign observers during the early part of this century.  More recently, a number of individuals and women’s organizations in Kyrgyzstan have commented on the nature and prevalence of bride kidnapping, and have begun defining it as a violation of women’s and human rights (Eshimkanova 1998; Lloyd-Roberts 1999a; Abramzon 1990; Diamond Association 1995, 1997).[iii][iii]

Because abducting a woman for the purposes of marrying her is not a uniquely Kyrgyz tradition, modern bride kidnapping cannot be sufficiently understood simply as an element of nomadic culture that evolved in isolation on the Central Asian steppe or as a resurgence of a practice that was eliminated by Soviet authorities in Central Asia during the twentieth century, as is commonly asserted (“Extra Wife;” Halle 1938). This Kyrgyz “national tradition” in fact has a long history in other parts of Central Asia including Kazakhstan[iv][iv] (Werner 1997) and Turkmenistan (Eshimkanova 1998; Halle 1938), as well as in the Caucusus (Halle 1938).  Historically, bride kidnapping is closely tied to economics, social structure, family organization, and gender stratification and has assumed many different forms and functions in other parts of the world such as Japan (Shida 1999), Turkey, and China, as well as among the Asian Hmong (Moua 1995).  The issue has most recently gained attention in Ethiopia, where a woman who had been kidnapped was legally acquitted for shooting and killing the man who had abducted and raped her (Metcalfe 1999).

In 1938, Fannina Halle claimed that instances of bride kidnapping in Central Asia were simply “symbolic relics” of a more prevalent and violent practice (93).  More recently, however, Cynthia Werner asserted that 80% of all marriages in a particular region of southern Kazakhstan in the late 1990s were by kidnapping (1997, 6).  While some forms of marriage-by-abduction may be consensual “invented traditions,” such as the “kidnapping” role-plays of the Shintoist wedding ceremony in Japan (Shida 1999), our research about contemporary kidnappings in Kyrgyzstan reveals that many women are actually abducted and forced to marry against their will.

Because much of the scholarship about bride kidnapping has been ethnographical, we have a number of detailed descriptive accounts that reveal that the abduction act and subsequent wedding ceremony are remarkably consistent across time and space.  From folk songs to legends to modern-day accounts, the song remains the same: women, without their consent, are seized by men (often accompanied by male friends) who have decided to marry them, thrown across a horse (or in modern accounts, into a car), taken to an undisclosed location, sometimes raped or otherwise violated, and held until families of both the “bride” and “groom” negotiate an agreement (often financial) for the marriage to become official (Halle 1938, 92; Metcalfe 1999).  A comparison of Halle’s description of a Cherkess kidnapping in the early twentieth century and one woman’s account of a kidnapping in contemporary rural Kyrgyzstan reveals striking similarities and consistencies in the kidnapping procedure.  According to Halle,

If, for instance, a Kabard…resolved to marry a girl whom he had already chosen, the typical plan of campaign for the capture was devised.  He assembled his friends, armed and mounted like himself, and went with them to a place where the girl was bound to pass on the way to the well, or elsewhere.  There he remained in hiding until the girl of his choice came in sight.  The man then swung her on to his saddle with a firm grip and the booty was carried to his relatives or friends in a wild gallop.  If the bitterly offended parents of the bride did not immediately give chase – and that was seldom of much use – the bride’s whereabouts were kept secret until mutual negotiations led to an agreement. (1938, 92)

The passage above bears striking resemblance to the following account of a kidnapping in southern Kyrgyzstan in 1997:

One day an interesting thing happened. I was leading the cows home and was stopped by about 10 men on horses. One of them approached me and said,  “We need to talk to a girl named Chinara.[v][v] She lives in this house. Can you call her for us?” I said, “Why should I call her?” The man explained that he was Chinara's uncle. I wondered to myself why he couldn't call her himself if he was her uncle. With my question in mind, I shouted Chinara's name. Her mother came out of the house. She then called her daughter. She finally came out too and asked what the problem was. I told her that her uncle was waiting for her.  She said she had no uncle, but she decided to see who it was. I went back to my cows. But after some time I heard a loud voice calling for help. When I looked at her side, I saw the men were throwing her from one horse to another and every man caught her. Very shortly after they speedily left the place. I later learned Chinara was twenty. Her mother told me that she was stolen. My gramma then told me that it was a tradition there to steal by horse. I returned home to Uzgen. Some years after I asked my grandmother what happened to that girl.  “She has one child and is happy,” she said. When I recall that event my heart is tortured. I never visited that village again.

There are, of course, many variations within this general framework; however, descriptions of the process remain fairly consistent over space and time.

Theorizing bride kidnapping as a social institution

What is less clear, however, are answers to the “who” and “why” questions.  Does a particular sort of man kidnap a particular sort of woman?  Why did this practice begin, and if it is indeed a “nomadic” tradition, how and why is it maintained in a largely sedentary society?  Most importantly, how can bride kidnapping be understood as a complex social institution as opposed to as a “national tradition”?  Halle, for example, specifically classifies “marriage by capture” as only one of many forms of “patriarchal marriage” that were practiced in societies of the eastern Soviet republics during the early twentieth century, including polygyny, bigamy, divorce, levirate, and marriage by purchase (1938). This contextualization highlights the economic roots and functions of the practice that are often neglected in descriptions of it as a national tradition.  Anthropological analyses of both arranged marriages and bride kidnapping also emphasize the importance of marriage rituals and rights in confirming marriage as a social and financial relationship between families as opposed to a sacred union of individuals (Halle 1938; Werner 1997).  In addition to positing hypotheses about the relationship between property, class, tribal and clan identity, and marriage practices, Halle also posits that the general social acceptance of kidnapping in the nineteenth and early twentieth century Soviet East was only one symptom of a more generally patriarchal and masculinist society that valued “manly qualities, such as courage, daring, strength, and bravery” (1938, 91) and that regarded women largely as labor and property.  This assertion that kidnapping is a product, producer, and reproducer of gender stratification and inequality is also echoed in much more recent comments about the status of women in post-Soviet Central Asia (Diamond Association 1997; Eshimkanova 1998).

Bride kidnapping in international popular culture

Central Asia has no monopoly on patriarchy.  The issue of bride kidnapping rears its head in international popular culture as well as in academic work.  Pseudo-kidnappings are now sometimes proffered as quaint ceremonial diversions to “spice up” ordinary wedding ceremonies in the “enlightened” west.  Brides and grooms in the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States can visit any number of helpful Internet pages that offer information about where wedding traditions originated and how they might be playfully revived.  One American regional guide listed a number of wedding traditions “that date back to ancient times,” including the belief that

marriages were originally made by the Groom kidnapping his potential Bride. He would take her away from her tribe with the help of a warrior friend, his Best Man. He would help him fight off other men who wanted this woman as well as help him prevent her family from finding them. The Groom and his Bride would go into hiding so the Bride's family could not find them...(the Honeymoon).  (Area guide 1999)

A regional guide from the United Kingdom expands on this same theme, remarking that:

The origin of the wedding veil is unclear but it is thought that it predates the wedding dress by centuries. One explanation is that it is a relic of the days when a groom would throw a blanket over the head of the woman of his choice when he captured her and carted her off. (UK Wedding Traditions 1999)

Such descriptions not only suggest that bride kidnapping has a long history and vast geographical influence, but also are somewhat consistent with contemporary accounts of kidnappings.  The role of the best man in the first account, for example, is similar to that of the man’s friends in contemporary kidnappings, many of whom assume a dominant role in arranging and executing the abduction. The assumption that we do not now live in times when women are “captured and carted off” also suggests that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the variety of marital institutions now functioning throughout the world and misinformation circulating about the dominance – or lack thereof – of consensual choice of marriage partners.

Because one of the primary obstacles to addressing the issue of bride kidnapping in public discourse is its ambiguous definition and its simultaneous association with Kyrgyz (or Ethiopian, or Hmong) traditions and identity, the status of women in Central Asia, and universal human rights, it is important that people choose their words carefully when they talk about kidnapping. The following research report is thus presented in the hope that the voices of women and men from Kyrgyzstan speaking about their experiences of bride kidnapping will encourage readers, researchers, and the general public to take the issue of forced marriage and women’s rights more seriously.

Results

The results of this research challenge notions that bride kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan is predominantly a consensual practice, and reveal that, while many Kyrgyz people may refer to it as a “national tradition,” there is very little consensus among the populous as to its causes or legitimacy. This research clearly suggests that in the majority of kidnapping cases, this “national tradition” is non-consensual as it is currently practiced. This of course raises serious questions about the impact of bride kidnapping on the rights of women in Kyrgyzstan, particularly those related to Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which asserts that “marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.”[vi][vi]  In addition, the findings of this study reveal that understandings of bride kidnapping are often gender specific, and that qualitative differences between kidnapping by deception and kidnapping by force contribute to confusion about the nature and degree of “consent.”  These discrepancies also raise concerns about the possibility for unified measures to understand and, if necessary, stop the practice.

Because this questionnaire was not administered to a random sample of a particular population, we cannot generalize the specific quantitative results of the study to any particular group within Kyrgyzstan.  In addition, it is important to recognize that the information was provided primarily by people who have their own memories and interpretations of the details and meanings of the particular cases of bride kidnapping on which they reported.  Nevertheless, the statistics do provide a general picture of the who, what, and how of bride kidnapping, and the qualitative narratives that some respondents wrote about particular cases reveal a great deal about the variety of experiences with and the range of opinions about the issue.

On some of the questions, such as whether the woman consented to the marriage, there is a notable difference between the male and female respondents’ responses as to how and why kidnappings proceed.  We suspect that this is due either to gendered perceptions of bride kidnapping or to a bias in selecting the kinds of cases on which to report in the questionnaire.  Although each questionnaire focused on one individual instance of bride kidnapping, many respondents said they knew of more than one case.

Who responded to the survey?

Because our target population was primarily university students, the 300 respondents were overwhelmingly young (with an average age of 22.8) and single (71%).  Seventy percent of them were enrolled in a course of study at institutions of higher education or high school at the time that they completed the questionnaire.  The sample was far from homogeneous, however, as 30% of the respondents had varied occupations and professions, and men completed 31% of the questionnaires.  The sample was predominantly Kyrgyz, but included 26 responses from Russians, 14 from Uzbeks, 4 from Tatars, 6 from Kazaks, 1 from a Uigher, 1 from an Azerbaijani, 1 from a German, and 2 from Ukrainians.  The questionnaires were completed in 3 languages: Kyrgyz, Russian and English.

This young, predominantly female Kyrgyz sample provides one window on the practice of bride kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan; however, similar kinds of information must now be collected from both men and women in different age cohorts, professions, and geographical regions.

Who are the men and women involved in bride kidnapping?

Bride kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan seems to be an almost exclusively Kyrgyz phenomenon.  All but 17 of the kidnappings described in our study involved ethnic Kyrgyz (or Kyrgyz mixed) men and women.  Of the others, four are unknown, three are Kazak couples, two Uigar couples, one Tatar couple, two involved Tatar men and Kyrgyz women, one a Kyrgyz man and Russian woman, one an Uzbek man and Kyrgyz woman, one a Kyrgyz man and a Tatar woman, one a Russian couple and the other a Georgian man and a Russian woman.  The last two of these kidnappings did not result in marriages.  We have no evidence of bride kidnapping taking place among the Uzbek population of Kyrgyzstan.  At the time of kidnapping, kidnappers (males) are reported to have ranged in age from 17 to 45, the average being 23.5 years.  Kidnapped women tended to be slightly younger than their kidnappers, ranging in age from 16 to 28, with an average of 19.4 years.  (See table 1)

These young ages raise questions about the impact of bride kidnapping on educational opportunities.  One of the main objections to bride kidnapping is that it prevents young women from completing their university, and sometimes secondary, education.  One young musician interviewed by Sue Lloyd Wright, for example, expressed regret that his kidnapped wife was unable to complete her university training, but claimed that "we're happy now and she and the baby inspire my music” (Lloyd-Roberts 1999b).  We have information on the education level for 281 of the women and 261 of the man of 300 couples involved in the kidnappings.  These findings indicate that people involved in kidnappings are reasonably well educated, and almost half the men and women had completed at least some, if not all, higher education (see Table 1).  Nevertheless, although some women may return to school after getting married, many of those who are kidnapped do not have the opportunity to do so. 

When did the kidnappings take place?

Although we cannot determine the frequency of bride kidnapping in early decades from this data and the responses most likely reflect the young age of our respondents, it is clear that the practice both existed in the Soviet period and is a contemporary issue.  We have dates for 222 of the reported kidnappings. They are as follows: 1960-1969 = 1, 1970-1979 = 17, 1980-89 = 13,  1990-1995 = 49, 1996 = 263,  1997 = 31,   1998 = 60,  January - May 1999 = 25.  Researchers interested in the historical and comparative aspects of bride kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan would be wise to make inquiries of a population that more closely approximates the age distribution of the republic.

Where did the kidnappings take place?

Approximately 67% of these cases took place in the southern provinces, 11% in the northern provinces and 22% unknown (see Table 2).  This reflects where we collected questionnaires and not the prevalence of kidnappings in either area.    At the time of the kidnapping, approximately 36% of men and 41% of women were resident in cities of over 10,000.  This lower percentage of men resident in more populated areas might suggest that some men may go from their less populated home area to a more populated area to find a bride to kidnap.  Although the questionnaires were collected predominantly in the largest cities, half or more of the cases reported involved residents of communities of less than 10,000.  This might suggest that a higher frequency of kidnapping in more rural areas but more research is necessary on this question. 

Table 2:  Place of Residence at Time of Kidnapping

What was the familiarity among men and women involved in kidnappings?

Our questionnaire raises interesting questions about definitions of what it means to “know” someone, what it means to “love” someone, and how gender shapes these definitions. According to the respondents, only 5% of the men kidnapped women whom they did not know, whereas 18% claimed that the women were kidnapped by men whom they did not know.  When asked if the man was in love with the woman he kidnapped, 54% of the respondents answered positively.  Within this percentage, however, a greater proportion of men (66%) than women (49%) believed that the man was in love with the woman. A similar question about whether the women were in love with the men yielded a figure of only 29% (37% male & 25% female).  A number of respondents claimed that the woman “learned to love” her kidnapper, while others reported that the couple divorced because “she did not love him” or she “hadn’t loved him when she was stolen.”   (See Table 3)  Even with a range of responses, we see that nearly one in five of the kidnapped women did not know the men they were to marry, and less than one in three claimed to be in love with their future husbands. 

What is the Degree of Mutual Consent by Men and Women Involved in Kidnappings?

One justification for bride kidnapping is that it is a ritualistic tradition of mutual consent, meaning that both the woman and the man agree to the act and to be married.  Based on the results of this survey, however, the actual level of mutual consent in kidnappings in Kyrgyzstan is relatively low.  According to our respondents, only 26% of the kidnappings were mock abductions conducted with the woman’s consent.[vii][vii]  Interestingly, this question yielded a great discrepancy between male and female responses, with 45% of the men claiming that the kidnapping was consensual, as opposed to 17% of the women.  In addition, 42% of the women were kidnapped through deception (36% M & 45% F) and 23% by physical force (20% M & 24% F).[viii][viii]

The distinction between deception and force can perhaps best be illustrated with specific examples from respondents.  One woman, abducted by physical force, was taking her final exams for high school.  After her first exam, she came to her friend's birthday party.  And it was there when my brother and his friends called her out of the house and pushed her into a car, by force.  Now they have one child.

In another case, the woman was deceived into accompanying her kidnappers:

The woman and her ex-boyfriend talked, and he asked if he could catch a taxi and take her to her university. The taxi that drove by was a mousetrap. They got in and on every other street the car picked up men, supposedly his friends, as if he suddenly saw them and decided to give them a ride. She felt that she was going to be kidnapped right after the second man, a friend, got into the car. She didn't know who was going to kidnap her, because suddenly when the car got full, her ex-boyfriend, giving some reason, got out of the car and never returned.

In addition, respondents claimed that the man wanted the kidnapping to occur in 86% (78% M & 89% F) of the cases and was involved in planning the kidnapping in 80% (83% M & 78% F).  In contrast, the figures for the women who wanted the kidnapping to happen and who were involved in the planning were 17% (25% M & 13% F) and 10% (18.5% M & 7% F), respectively.  Friends of the man were highly conspicuous in the kidnappings, being involved in planning 75% of the cases and in the physical act in 86% of the cases.  Again, statistics for friends of the woman are much lower, being 11% and 18%, respectively.  The differences in the desires of the man's and woman's parents are also notable in a culture where arranged marriages are common. Among the mothers of the men, 32% (37% M & 30% F) wanted the kidnapping to happen, but only 6% (113% M & 4% F) of the mothers of the women desired it.  Among fathers of the men, 27% (34% M & 24% F) wanted the kidnapping versus 3% (8% M & 1.5% F) of the fathers of the women.

A number of the qualitative responses illuminate these different family roles.  In one case, for example, the man’s “sister was supposed to see if [the woman] was a good ‘candidate’ for her brother.”  In another, the woman was kidnapped “under the active persuasion of his grandmother,” and another man’s mother “forced him (or at least convinced him) to do so.”  In contrast, details about the role and reaction of the women’s families were more negative.  One respondent claimed that “her mother keeps saying that the daughter is very unhappy, and suffers much from material want.”  Another wrote that “the woman’s parents were absolutely against it.  They still have bad relations with their son-in-law.”  Several people reported that the woman’s brothers negotiated her release from the engagement.  Of those positive responses from the women’s families, many were passive as opposed to active.  One woman who had been kidnapped once “acquiesced” the second time, as did her parents.  One respondent claimed, “my father kidnapped my mother three times!”  Although she returned home twice, the third time she “decided to give up, because she was concerned what people might think.”  Another person asserted that “some parents obey the tradition and leave their daughter in the new place, even if she is against it.”   (See Table 4)