The first time Gulnisa noticed something had changed, it wasn’t in her son’s face or his body. It was in a pause, small enough to miss if you weren’t looking for it.
She asked him a simple question in Uyghur, the kind of question you ask a child without thinking: Did you eat? Are you tired? He looked at her, then glanced down, as if searching for something on the floor. When he answered, the words came out in Chinese. The sentence was correct. The tone was polite. But the language wasn’t his, not the language that had carried lullabies and scolding and family jokes since he was born.
Gulnisa tried again in Uyghur, slower this time, repeating the same question. Her son’s expression tightened: confusion, then embarrassment, then a quick recovery. He answered again in Chinese, a little louder, as if volume could solve the problem.
Later, when she described that moment to a friend, she didn’t use political language. She didn’t say assimilation or coercion. She said something more intimate, and more devastating: “It felt like he had moved away. He became a foreigner, even though he was sitting right in front of me.”
Some Uyghurs have described similar moments. Those who have visited the Uyghur region in recent months told me they encountered children who spoke only Mandarin and struggled to communicate with family members who did not. This pattern echoes a central concern raised by many researchers and human rights groups: that a generation of Uyghur children is growing up in environments where Chinese is the only language they are permitted to speak.
The Chinese authorities banned the Uyghur language in schools in September 2017. Since then, Uyghur, Kazakh, and other Turkic children have lost access to education in their mother tongues. Uyghur-language textbooks and learning materials were destroyed. Many Uyghur teachers were detained in concentration camps, while others were forced to teach Uyghur children exclusively in Chinese.
In East Turkistan (AKA the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region), language has never been merely a tool. It is a doorway into a family’s history, identity, and religion; the rhythm of stories and proverbs; the code through which grandparents pass down a worldview without needing to explain it. Losing it is not simply a matter of forgetting vocabulary. It is the loss of a shared heritage, deep roots, and a sense of belonging that cannot be replaced by translation.
Over the past several years, journalists, scholars, and human rights organizations have reported on the expansion of boarding schools and state-run orphanages. Critics argue that when children grow up separated from family life – often following the detention or forced absence of their parents – and are immersed in Chinese boarding schools, the result can be a profound reshaping of identity. This is not simply a cultural shift. It is a change in ethnicity. It is the intentional destruction of Uyghur identity.
The dispute, then, is not about whether children should learn Chinese. It is about whether children are being separated from their families, and whether the systems surrounding their education operate freely, or under pressure that makes genuine consent hard to imagine. What does it mean for a child to grow up in a place where their mother language is banned and becomes foreign?
Boarding schools exist everywhere. In many countries, they are an expensive privilege, chosen by families for prestige. In others, they are a practical solution in remote areas. What makes boarding schools in the Uyghur region so controversial is the context: repeated reports of pervasive surveillance, restrictions on religious and cultural expressions, and a political campaign aimed at reshaping social life and transforming one nation to other.
Some families describe decisions that were not really decisions at all. But the situation becomes complicated when parents are missing, travel is restricted, and contact is monitored. It becomes even more complicated when a family fears that any hesitation could be interpreted as disloyalty. Today, more than a million Uyghur children have been forced into and held in state-run boarding schools to assimilate them and separate them from their heritage and identity.
In the most alarming reports, children are placed in state-run care or boarding school after one or both parents are detained, imprisoned, or otherwise removed from daily life. Critics argue that the deeper question is what happens to family rights and cultural continuity when the Communist state becomes the primary guardian. Relatives might fear that insisting on stepping in too strongly will bring scrutiny to the entire family. In the absence of parents, even brief separations can expand into years, and the child’s “temporary” placement becomes the shape of their childhood.
Boarding school can become “normal.” Once normalized, the time children spend at home shrinks: weeks become weekends, weekends become holiday visits, and home becomes less a place of daily formation than a place of temporary rest.
Some accounts emphasize something even harder to document: fear. A parent may send a child away not because they want to, but because they believe compliance is safer than resistance. When a society is structured so that being “cooperative” is rewarded and being “stubborn” is risky, people learn to comply before they are asked. This is one reason the debate is so difficult. Officials can point to procedures and signed forms. Families can point to their lived reality: signatures made with shaking hands, choices made in a fog of fear.
The first visible transformation of children many families describe is linguistic. Children begin answering in Chinese by default. Uyghur becomes something foreign, or something they use imperfectly. Eventually, some children avoid Uyghur altogether, not necessarily because they dislike it, but because it marks them as different in an environment where difference can be punished.
The Chinese authorities have accelerated the elimination of the Uyghur language and replaced it with Chinese through institutional design. Uyghur can begin to feel like a language without a future.
And language is not neutral. The language a child speaks shapes which books they read, which jokes they understand, which histories they inherit, and which religious concepts feel emotionally resonant rather than abstract. A child might still “know” they are Uyghur, but feel Uyghur life as distant, like a museum that belongs to someone else. One parent described it like this: “He didn’t forget who he was. He forgot how to be who he was.”
In a context where Uyghur cultural expression is treated as politically sensitive, survival may require a child to shrink their identity until it fits inside approved boundaries. That shrinking is not always conscious. Over time, it can feel normal. The child may stop thinking of it as hiding and start thinking of it as maturity.
Even outside politics, prolonged separation from parents can have lasting effects. Children need stability: consistent caregivers, predictable emotional support, and a home where they can make mistakes without fear. When parents are absent suddenly or for long periods, children can adapt outwardly while carrying internal stress.
Some become overly compliant. Others become emotionally flat. Others become quick to anger. Many develop a habit of scanning for danger, watching faces, adjusting language, anticipating punishment. These are survival skills. They are not the same as wellbeing.
Now add cultural pressure. When children learn, directly or indirectly, that their mother language or customs are inferior or risky, the loss deepens. They are not only separated from parents. They are separated from the meaning their parents represent. Love becomes complicated by fear. Identity becomes complicated by surveillance.
And when children return home, the gap can be heartbreaking. A parent may want warmth, but the child may bring formality. A parent may want stories, but the child may bring silence. A parent may want to speak Uyghur, but the child may bring Mandarin, Chinese. Reunions can harden: which language, which topics, which memories are safe?
For the Uyghurs, the stakes extend beyond individual pain. Culture is carried through daily life, stories told at dinner, prayers learned by repetition, customs absorbed rather than taught. When children live away from home for long periods, those daily transmissions weaken. Even if children later return, the chain of cultural continuity may be thinner.
This is why many observers describe the issue as more than education policy. If a generation grows up without deep Uyghur language fluency, without cultural confidence, and without unmonitored family intimacy, the community’s future changes. Culture can survive suppression, but it struggles to survive a break in transmission.
And breaks in transmission do not always look violent. They can look like a child answering his Uyghur mother in Chinese Language.
Gulnisa still has the notebook. The label has faded at the corners from her fingers. In her memory, the handwriting is clearer than the ink. It is proof that she once lived in a world where preparing a child for school was a simple act: a bag, a toothbrush, a name on paper.
Now the name remains, but the world around it has changed. Her son’s Chinese is excellent. His Uyghur is lost. He is not unhappy all the time. He laughs with friends. He speaks about the future. He has learned the language of the oppressor and forgotten his mother tongue.
But when she tries to offer comfort in Uyghur, the words land like foreign coins, real, but not useful. When she speaks about family history, he listens politely and doesn’t understand a word of it.
It is possible for a child to learn Chinese, without losing Uyghur. It is possible for education to expand opportunity without erasing heritage. But when education is paired with separation and a political environment that treats cultural difference as a threat, the line between opportunity and erasure becomes clear.
The deepest fear many Uyghur families express is not that their children will stop existing. It is that their children will exist somewhere else, linguistically, culturally, emotionally, without the tools to return. And in that fear is a simple human question, one no slogan can answer: What is an education worth if it costs a child their mother’s language?
Copyright Center for Uyghur Studies - All Rights Reserved