Cultural  Encounters  and  National  Movements  in  Early  Twentieth-­‐‑Century  Central  Asia:  Kazakh  Intellectuals,  Islam,  and  

Russia UYAMA Tomohiko

Slavic-Eurasian Research Center Hokkaido University�

02.12.2014 Vortrag  im  Rahmen  des  Oberseminars  zur  Geschichte  Russlands  und  Asiens

Fakultät  für  Geschichts-­‐‑  und  Kunstwissenschaften,  Ludwig-­‐‑Maximilians-­‐‑Universität  München �

My  research  interests •  History of Central Asia in the Russian Empire:

political and cultural activities of Kazakh intellectuals; Russian politics of “difference” in Central Asia

•  Comparative imperial history:comparison of peripheral/colonial administration and interactions between imperial power and subjugated society; Orientalism; discourses of national and imperial histories

•  Contemporary politics of Central Asia:authoritarian regimes in comparative perspectives;conflicts, “revolutions,” Islamic movements

•  Application of imperial studies to contemporary international relations (esp. in the post-Soviet space)�

2

Main  sources  for  research  of  the  history  of  Kazakh  intellectuals

•  Newspapers and magazines they published or contributed to.

•  Their books: a significant part is poetry. •  Archival materials from TsGA RK

(Kazakhstan), RGIA (St. Petersburg), GA RF and RGVIA (Moscow).

3

Research  questions  of  this  paper •  What role did Islam play in Kazakhs’ resistance to and

acceptance of Russian rule? •  How did Kazakh intellectuals interact with Russian

imperial power, what were the common interests and conflicts between the two?

•  What roles did nomadic, Islamic, and Russian cultures and values play in the development of the Kazakh national movement?

•  How did Kazakh intellectuals view the contemporary world and how did they situate Kazakh society in it?

•  What contributions can the research of Kazakh history make to comparative imperial studies?

4

Aqïns  as  proto-­‐‑intellectuals  and  their  Islamic  way  against  Russia  

•  Poets (aqïns and jïraus) as knowledgeable people of critical thinking in the Kazakh khanate (e.g., Bŭqar jïrau) and leaders of revolts against Russia (e.g., Makhambet Ötemísov)

•  “Zar Zaman” (Time of Lament) poets: Dulat Babatayŭlï (1802–1874?), Shortanbay Qanayŭlï (1818–1881), and Mŭrat Möngkeŭlï (1843–1906), deplored the Kazakhs’ unhappy and hopeless conditions under Russian (kāfir) rule and lamented over the loss of the Sharia, land, and peaceful nomadic life, without proposing solutions other than quietly “sleeping.”

5

Russian  administrative  reforms  and  the  first  Kazakh  modern  intellectials

•  Reforms in the 1860s in the wake of the conquest of southern Central Asia and in the context of the Great Reforms in Russia. The Provisional Statute for the Administration of Ural’sk, Torghay, Aqmola and Semipalatinsk Oblasts (1868).

•  The Kazakhs were gradually accustomed to Russian rule, and combination of Islam and Russophobia became rare by the end of the nineteenth century.

•  Russian-educated first Kazakh intellectuals:Shoqan Wälikhanov (1835–1865), an officer of the Russian army, ethnographer, historian. Russian administrators often referred to his criticism of Islam.Ibrahim Altïnsarin (1841–1889), an inspector of Russian school for Kazakhs, published the first Kazakh-language book on Islamic dogma: Sharāyiṭ al-Islām (Norms of Islam).

6

Dala  Walayatïnïng  Gazetí  as  an  interactive  forum

[See my article, “A Strategic Alliance between Kazakh Intellectuals and Russian Administrators: Imagined Communities in Dala Walayatïnïng Gazetí (1888–1902),” in Hayashi Tadayuki, ed., The Construction and Deconstruction of National Histories in Slavic Eurasia (Sapporo: SRC, 2003). •  Dala Walayatïnïng Gazetí (literally, “Newspaper of the

Steppe Region”), a bilingual Russian and Kazakh weekly published under the direction of the Governor-General of the Steppe.

•  Active discussions between the editors (Russian administrators and Kazakh translators) and Kazakh readers who contributed to the newspaper.

7

Dala  Walayatïnïng  Gazetí

8

Kazakh  intellectuals  and  Russian  administrators  allied:  against  Kazakh  

administrators •  New electoral system of volost and village chiefs and bis did not

function well: factional strife, vote-buying, bribes, and unlawful taxes afterwards.

•  The malfunctions were also signs of weakness of the Russian administrative system in Central Asia: the Russians’ lack of knowledge of the Kazakh language, mobility of Kazakh nomads, and mutual mistrust.

•  Criticizing Kazakh administrators, Russians wanted to evade the responsibility, while Kazakh intellectuals wanted to prove their progressiveness.

•  Kazakh administrators and intellectuals were different kinds of collaborators (in the terminology of Ronald Robinson) in administrative and discursive domains.

9

Kazakh  intellectuals  and  Russian  administrators  allied:  against  Tatars

•  Many authors asserted that the Kazakhs had the ability to progress but were so lazy and careless that they were often cheated by shrewd neighbors, especially Tatars, who contaminated the pure Kazakh culture and language.

•  On the Russian side, the antipathy against Tatars reflected the abandonment of the Catherinian method of using them as mediators, the emerging fear of Muslim solidarity, and the particularistic character of the Russian policy toward non-Russians. [See my article, “A Particularist Empire: The Russian Policies of Christianization and Military Conscription in Central Asia,” in Uyama, ed., Empire, Islam, and Politics in Central Eurasia (SRC, 2007).]

•  For Kazakh intellectuals, Tatars were not enemies but Others whom they needed to make the countours of Kazakh identity clear.

10

Development  of  the  national  movement:  a  paradox  of  oppression

[See my forthcoming article in Cahiers du Monde russe, “Repression of Kazakh Intellectuals as a Sign of Weakness of Russian Imperial Rule: The Paradoxical Impact of Governor A. N. Troinitskii on the Kazakh National Movement”] •  After DWG ceased to be published in 1902, the common

forum for Russian administrators and Kazakh intellectuals was lost.

•  The Revolution of 1905 gave birth to the Kazakh national movement; the subsequent reactionary period developed it further: arrests and banishment of Kazakh intellectuals strengthened their will and gave them more opportunities to work together outside the Steppe oblasts, in contact with Russians and Tatars.

11

The  world  of  Mir-­‐‑Ya‘qub  Dulatov’s  Oyan,  Qazaq!  [Awake,  Kazakh!]  (1910) [See my article, “The Kazak Intelligentsia at the Crossroads of Three Civilizations,” in Timur Kocaoglu, ed., Reform Movements and Revolutions in Turkistan (Haarlem: SOTA, 2001).] •  Dulatov lamented the loss of ancestral laws, the Sharia

and fair khans, but rejected to “sleep” quietly. Like contributors to DWG, he criticized laziness and lack of initiative of the Kazakhs.

•  He proposed to restrict harmful customs by introducing the Sharia, to establish a hierarchy of clergy, and to use the funds of zemstvos to construct madrasas, being inspired by Jadidism, religious institutions and local self-government in the Volga-Urals.

12

Dulatov’s  aTitude  to  Russia  and  his  idea  of  the  equality  of  nations  

•  He compared the Tsar to a brutal lion who torments smaller animals, and wrote about grief of the Kazakhs over the lands lost to Russian and Ukrainian peasants, but praised the peasants for their industriousness. He also urged the Kazakhs to learn the Russian language and sciences, praising Russian technology and intellectuals (Pushkin, Lermontov, Krylov and Tolstoi).

•  Under the conviction that all ethnic groups have equal ability, Dulatov believed that the devotion of the intelligentsia and the people's unity would facilitate the Kazakhs to gain a position equal to big nations (not saying that they were already equal).

13

Baytŭrsïnov,  Bökeykhanov,  Dulatov

14

Newspaper  Qazaq

15

Kazakh  intellectuals’  view  of  the  Balkan  Wars

[See my article presented at the SRC Summer Symposium in 2014, “Kazakh Intellectuals’ Views on Wars and Civilizations in the 1910s: A Comparative Perspective.”] •  “Four tiny Balkan countries are at war with Turkey on the

advice of one of the great powers. European powers ... do not fight themselves but instigate others to fight, sharing with them the prey.” (Qazaq, February 1913) ---- Critical of religious intolerance of European powers and Russia’s pan-Slavic policy toward the Balkans.

•  During the Second Balkan War, Bökeykhanov called the split of the Balkan countries “dogs’ friendship,” and criticized the “cultural Europe” for turning a blind eye to the action of Romania.

16

View  of  WWI  and  coopretion  with  the  war  regime

•  Just before WWI, Bökeykhanov was indignant over the behaviors of European countries, but realized that the war was inevitable.

•  The magazine Ay-qap was one of the first in the world to use the word “world war.”

•  Kazakh intellectuals actively assisted the Russian government in the war. Qazaq wrote that while Jews, Tatars, Armenians and others were supporting the war effort despite their own distress, Kazakhs did not make endeavor sufficient for the sixth-largest ethnic group of Russia.

•  Like Indians under British rule, Kazakhs hoped to achieve more political and social rights after the war. Their concerns were especially acute, as they were placed in the lower status of inorodtsy, and aspired to achieve the introduction of local self-government bodies, acquire land ownership, and regain representation to the State Duma.

17

The  Revolt  of  1916:  gap  between  intellectuals  and  the  masses

•  In June 1916, the tsar ordered a draft of inorodtsy as military laborers. Qazaq: “When our compatriots — the Russian people, our co-believers and relatives — the Tatar people and others are burning in fire, it seems difficult for us not to be touched by the flame. If we say that we will remain safe, won’t others say, ‘... Isn’t everything good and bad that falls on the country common to all of us?’?”

•  Despite intellectuals’ call not to rise in revolt, large-scale rebellions occurred all over Central Asia.

•  Kazakh intellectuals tried to persuade the government to improve the methods of labor conscription and went to Minsk, Kiev and other places to help laborers. [See my article, “Two Attempts at Building a Qazaq State: The Revolt of 1916 and the Alash Movement,” in S. A. Dudoignon and Komatsu H., eds., Islam in Politics in Russia and Central Asia (Kegan Paul, 2001).]

18

Perception  of  the  hierarchical  international  order  in  Europe

•  Kazakh intellectuals knew that Russia lagged behind other European countries, while calling Britain, France, Germany, and Austria advanced countries.

•  They ignored small and uninfluential countries such as Serbia, Montenegro, and Belgium.

•  Bökeykhanov maintained his interest in Germany even after it became Russia’s enemy in the war, noting that there was no country in history that had been so rapidly developing.

•  When a German submarine shot the liner Lusitania, he called this an unprecedented brutality, and praised the bravery of Vanderbilt as a pride of the Anglo-Saxons. ---- Kazakh intellectuals criticized European countries because they knew the spiritual value of European culture and were concerned over the discrepancy between it and inhumane power politics.

19

Perception  of  Asian  countries •  Kazakh intellectuals called Japan the most powerful

country in Asia that had become one of the leading countries of the world through successful Europeanization in the last 20-30 years.

•  Japan as a model of rapid development of small Asian countries was so attractive to Kazakh intellectuals that they did not pay attention to negative aspects of its modernization, especially its rise as an imperialist country and its difficult relations with East Asian neighbors.

•  They were not very much interested in China, despised Mongolia, and considered the Kazakhs in China lagging behind the Kazakhs in Russia.

20

Declining  role  of  Islam  in  the  Kazakh  national  movement

[See my article, “The Changing Religious Orientation of Qazaq Intellectuals in the Tsarist Period: Sharī‘a, Secularism, and Ethics,” in N. Pianciola and P. Sartori, eds., Islam, Society and States across the Qazaq Steppe (Wien, 2013)] •  At the early stages religion was one of the most important

concerns. E.g., the petition signed by 12,767 people in Qarqaralï in June 1905.

•  In 1913, conflicts began between the more Islamic-oriented magazine Ay-qap and the less Islamic-oriented newspaper Qazaq (specifically, Bökeykhanov).

•  Ay-qap soon ceased publication, and Islamic-oriented intellectuals became temporarily inactive, although some of them later reemerged as supporters of the Soviets, or as leaders of the ‘ulamā’ movement in Turkestan. In contrast, Bökeykhanov and his comrades became more and more active and influential.

21

Characteristics  of  intellectual’s  aTitude  to  the  ordinary  people

[See my article, “‘Devotion to the People’ and Paternalistic Authoritarianism among Qazaq Intellectuals, from the Mid-Nineteenth Century to 1917,” in S. A. Dudoignon, ed., Devout Societies vs. Impious States? (Berlin, 2004).] •  Intellectuals shared the Narodnik idea of “devotion to the

people,” but rather than striving to learn the national sprit from ordinary people, they intended to serve the people by enlightening and admonishing them to adapt themselves to the modern world. Admonitions bore a didactic and scolding tone, reflecting the Kazakhs’ rich tradition of didactic literature.

•  They regarded the revolt of 1916 as a result of people’s “ignorance and lack of understanding.” After the February Revolution, they warned the population against interpreting freedom as that of doing evil, plundering caravans, etc.

•  A highly ethical and self-sacrificing attitude toward the people, were mixed with paternalism and authoritarianism.

22

Culmination  of  the  Kazakh  national  movement:  Alash  Orda

•  After the February Revolution of 1917, Kazakhs convened congresses on the oblast and all-Kazakh levels to discuss political plans for the future. These included the issue of spiritual administration, but it was later left aside as a less urgent issue than others, although a number of Islamic intellectuals continued to cooperate with secular leaders.

•  The Second All-Kazakh Congress in December declared the establishment of the Alash Orda autonomous government with Bökeykhanov as its head.

•  During the half-year, the Alash Orda existed on paper, as major parts of Kazakhstan were ruled by the Bolsheviks. After the revolt of the Czechoslovak Legion began, the Alash Orda expelled Bolsheviks from Semipalatinsk in June 1918. It declared the organization of a military council, oblast and uezd councils, judicial courts, and a monopoly on tax collection.

23

Relations  between  the  Alash  Orda  and  the  White  governments

[See my article, “The Alash Orda’s Relations with Siberia, the Urals and Turkestan: The Kazakh National Movement and the Russian Imperial Legacy,” in Uyama, ed., Asiatic Russia (Routledge, 2012).] •  Due to the geographic conditions and the shortage of military

forces, the Alash Orda formed a precarious alliance with anti-Bolshevik “governments” in Omsk, Samara, and Uralsk.

•  Many of the Whites, insisting on a “one and indivisible Russia,” opposed national autonomy and despised inorodtsy, although some former Narodniks were sympathetic to minorities.

•  The only major issue of self-government on which the Kolchak government and the Alash Orda found a common language of particularism emphasizing customs and traditions was that of courts: in August 1919, Kolchak signed the Statute on Kazakh Courts.

•  By the spring of 1920, members of the Alash Orda joined the Soviets or abandoned politics.

24

Conclusions •  Multiple functions of Islam: an ideology of resistance; the

Volga-Ural model of interaction with imperial power; reformism compatible with the development of national culture.

•  Russian imperial power in the 19th century was paternalistic and could have dialogues with still few intellectuals. In the early 20th century, it became more coercive, feared and rejected activities of intellectuals.

•  Kazakh intellectuals’ attitude to the people was both devoted (like Narodniks) and paternalistic/authoritarian (like traditional leaders and imperial officials).

•  In their attitudes to imperial power and pursuit of autonomy, there are many similarities between them and Indian intellectuals under British rule, while more differences can be observed between them and Muslim intellectuals under Chinese rule.

25