This text is a response to Isabelle Ohayon, Julien Thorez, and Tomohiko Uyama, who commented on our essay that was published two years ago in this journal. We argue that “tactical essentialism,” embraced by Central Asian scholarly communities to circumvent external academic and political pressure, is not equivalent to biological primordialism. We also discuss the commemoration of the 1916 uprising in Kyrgyzstan to demonstrate how the production of history in Central Asia involves the participation of local communities. The socio-historical agenda in the region is fluid and is not dictated solely by the state, as our interlocutors suggest.