DOI of the Paper

Why Sokh?

The Sokh enclave has long been a cartographic curiosity on the map of Central Asia—a small pocket of Uzbekistan entirely surrounded by Kyrgyz territory and inhabited predominantly by ethnic Tajiks. But what drew our attention to Sokh was not just its geopolitical oddity, but the everyday lived realities shaped by that oddity. What does it mean to be part of a state that you cannot easily access? How do borders not just divide land but shape identity, development, and belonging?

As scholars working on post-socialist space and political geography, we were intrigued by Sokh as a microcosm of larger questions that haunt many post-Soviet societies: what happens when inherited borders no longer align with social realities or administrative capacities? How does statehood materialize in isolated, fragmented spaces? This paper emerged from that set of questions.

What We Did

In our article, Geopolitical Isolation and Development in Uzbekistan’s Sokh Enclave, we approached Sokh not just as a border issue, but as a socio-spatial formation shaped by overlapping sovereignties, historical legacies, and everyday negotiations. Drawing on original fieldwork—including a structured survey of 260 residents and ethnographic observations—we sought to understand how enclave life affects people’s sense of development, citizenship, and future possibility.

Our methodology combined critical geopolitics with grounded empirical research. We collected responses around themes like economic conditions, access to services, perceptions of the state, and aspirations for the future. These were complemented by site visits, interviews with local stakeholders, and an analysis of infrastructural and policy interventions in the region.

What We Found

Sokh is a space shaped by tension—and resilience. Its residents experience real constraints: restricted mobility, disrupted infrastructure, and diplomatic friction between Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan that can make border crossings unpredictable or entirely closed. Many of our respondents expressed feelings of abandonment—both by the Uzbek state and by international development agencies.

Yet Sokh is not merely a story of victimhood. What surprised us was the diversity of local strategies to adapt, resist, and thrive. Agricultural self-sufficiency—especially in fruit and livestock production—has become a key pillar of local sustainability. In recent years, informal tourism and eco-tourism initiatives have emerged, albeit precariously. These are small-scale, often self-organized efforts to craft a more autonomous future under conditions of isolation.

A core insight of our research is that development in Sokh is not only hindered by geography—it is also mediated through geopolitical uncertainty. The enclave sits at the intersection of three identities: it is ethnically Tajik, politically Uzbek, and geographically Kyrgyz. This creates a deep ambiguity in terms of belonging and governance. The result is a space in which sovereignty is practiced, not presumed—where state presence is always partial and negotiated.

Why It Matters

Enclaves like Sokh are often treated as exceptions—remnants of colonial or Soviet-era cartography. But we argue that they should be seen as sites of intense geopolitical learning. Sokh reveals how modern states handle—or fail to handle—territorial fragmentation, ethnic pluralism, and the spatial limits of governance.

At a time when border disputes and territorial anxieties are once again making headlines globally, studying Sokh reminds us that borders are not just lines on a map. They are lived infrastructures, shaping how people access education, healthcare, livelihoods, and citizenship itself. For Central Asia, where multiple enclaves exist and border relations remain volatile, these insights are crucial for peacebuilding, regional cooperation, and inclusive development.

Conceptually, our study contributes to debates on enclave governance, scalar politics, and the geographies of marginality. We propose that enclaves like Sokh be understood not as “failed” or “forgotten” spaces, but as territories-in-flux, where identity, power, and space are constantly renegotiated. This requires both policy sensitivity and theoretical nuance.

Behind the Scenes

The making of this paper was deeply collaborative. It brought together scholars from geography, development studies, and regional area studies—each of whom brought unique linguistic, methodological, and cultural insights to the research. Fieldwork was led by Mr. AbduKodir Toshpulatov and Prof. Dr. Shavkatjon Jumakhanov, whose prior experience in the Fergana Valley and deep understanding of cross-border dynamics were indispensable.

Getting access to Sokh was not easy. Permissions had to be coordinated with both local and national authorities, and our field team had to remain adaptable to sudden changes in border policy or travel restrictions—some of which emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey instrument was translated into both Uzbek and Tajik to ensure inclusivity, and data collection followed strict ethical guidelines, including informed consent and anonymization of responses.

What started as a side interest in geopolitical enclaves soon became a full-fledged project, shaped by conversations with local residents, government officials, and cross-border traders. We are particularly grateful to the people of Sokh, who generously shared their experiences, challenges, and aspirations with us—often under difficult conditions.

Looking Forward

This paper is just the beginning. In future research, we hope to expand our study to other enclaves in the region—such as Barak, Shakhimardan, and Vorukh—to better understand how enclave governance varies across contexts. We are also interested in the long-term impacts of infrastructural investment and whether new forms of digital connectivity (e.g., mobile banking, online education) might mitigate some of the effects of spatial disconnection.

We also call on policymakers in both Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan to prioritize enclave development in bilateral negotiations. Sokh’s challenges are not just local—they reflect broader patterns of marginality that are intensified by national politics and historical inertia. Only through cooperative and inclusive policies can the potential of these territories be fully realized.

Conclusion

The Sokh enclave is not merely a border problem—it is a spatial condition that forces us to think differently about development, governance, and identity. It invites us to reimagine what statehood means when territory is fragmented and borders are unstable. More importantly, it highlights the voices and strategies of people who, despite being pushed to the margins, are actively shaping their own futures.

We hope this study will encourage more critical and grounded scholarship on enclaves, borderlands, and the often-overlooked spaces of the post-socialist world.