Dilemmas of shared spaces among the Kazakhs and the Buryats

Suchandana Chatterjee

Among expectations about connectivity across shared spaces in

post-Soviet Eurasia, pertinent questions have been raised about

the complexity of relationships within the spatial units that the

Eurasian nations collectively or individually represent. In the

immediate aftermath since Soviet disintegration, ethnicity within

a Turkic, Mongol or Baikal space was given maximum attention and

the friction between ethnic groups in Central Asia was

highlighted. Only in recent years the emphasis seems to have

shifted from ethnic polarization in Central Asia to fluid

contours of space, place and identity. Talking about varying

degrees of attachment to different places of origin and places of

living, scholars have identified interactive behaviour in various

landscapes and the ways in which the people relate to that

particular landscape.1 Others have argued that in post-Soviet

Eurasia, social tension brews at the ground level, arising out of

intra-ethnic differentiation and contested identities.2 The

debate therefore swings between two poles—from areas of

interaction to areas of confrontation and competition, indicating

1That landscape is mostly associated with tribalism and descent. But this association has also been recreated over time by the people who have carried out ‘acts of remembrance’ and have perpetually engaged with that particular environment. Judith Beyer, ‘Settling descent: place making and genealogy in Talas, Kyrgyzstan’, Central Asian Survey, Nos 3-4, September-December 2011. 2 Meltem Sancak, ‘Contested identity: Encounters with Kazak diaspora returningto Kazakstan’, Anthropology of East Europe Review, Vol 25, No 1, 2007.

1

contrasting claims about place and identity, questioning

assumptions about reciprocity, community interaction etc. In this

paper, I would like to take into account both positions to show

how the Buryats and the Kazakhs nurture different perceptions of

home which is reflected in uneasy relationships with their co-

ethnics in a shared Mongolian, Turkic or Baikal space. In

Buryatia, the territorial mergers of 2002 have revived bitter

memories of territorial restructuring of the Soviet period. Also,

new concerns and tensions have emerged in kinship relations and

familial ties (called ‘avuncular relations’) not only in Buryatia

but also in Mongolia where the Buryats have settled or resettled

over time. The flexibility of those relationships has generated

complications in the post-Soviet context.

Home, belonging and identity

There has been a growing awareness about the role of home and

sense of belonging which are pivoted around a place (perceived by

some experts as the ‘power of place’ in relation to its

environment)3 or sometimes local contexts and minority-majority

settings that reflect a grounded feeling among the minority

groups or the non-titular nationalities. 4 Sociologists have

interpreted the term ‘home’ differently, sometimes focusing on3 Harm De Blij, The power of Place: Geography, Destiny and Globalization’s Rough Landscape, Oxford University Press, 2009. Alexander Diener approaches the question from the Kazakh perspective of ‘territorial belonging’. Alexander C. Diener, One Homeland or Two? The Nationalization and Transnationalization of Mongolia’s Kazakhs, Stanford: Woodrow Wilson Center, 2009, Introduction, p. 2.

2

individual experiences and sometimes on social structures and the

gamut of relationships within that social structure. There are

opinions that home and homelessness are polar opposites and that

homelessness represents the absence of home. A homeless person

can also ‘feel out of place’. Since the aspect of human

attachment is directly related to the live-in space, hence it

would be logical to argue that there is a dynamic relationship

between a person and his environment—therefore, home can be

judged to be an experienced space—which is dynamic and not fixed.

The ways in which people negotiate and adjust themselves within

that space is part of their homely existence and therefore,

indicates a dynamic process. Adaptation to the endlessly changing

conditions makes a diasporas condition dynamic.

Theorists have also linked these arguments to the larger debate

about migration. Among nationalizing states of Eurasia, concepts

of the homeland and return migration are invariably linked with

the integration of titular nationalities. Within such a

framework, it is assumed that non-titular nationalities are

marginalized. Now, one would expect that dispersed ethnic groups

would consider themselves automatically bonded with the new

nation states or their ancestral homelands. But it so happens

that there is a dual response among migrants within the same

community and this is what makes the Mongolian Kazakhs so unique.4 Leo B. Hendry, Peter Mayer, Marion Kloep, ‘Belonging of Opposing? A GroundedTheory approach to a Young People’s Cultural Identity in a Majority/Minority Societal Context’, Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 7 (3), 2007.

3

Their case reflects what is more important in the homeland issue—

i.e. not who we are but where we feel we belong to or also where

do not belong to. These feelings are not primordial dictates but

are related to certain historical contexts and settings. These

settings impact on the psyche of the return migrants to such an

extent that may continue to have enduring ties with their host

societies and fail to identify themselves with their co-ethnics

in their ancestral land—a feature among the Mongolian Kazakhs.5

Historical ties, however attractive, fail to bond different

generations within the same ethnic group, as has happened in the

case of the Buryats living abroad. Territorial restructuring also

tends to disrupt the inner fabric of an ethnic space as the

ethnic core shrinks in size-a feature that is seen among the

Buryats of the Baikal region. In short, this paper seeks to

question the hypothesis of ethnicity as a binder of social

relationships across Eurasia’s shared spaces. Transnational

identities seem to have a greater influence in forging regional

ties.6

5 This ambiguity is explained in the following literature: Alexander C. Diener, One Homeland or Two? The nationalization and Transnationalization of Mongolia’s Kazakhs, Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2009, Diener, ‘Kazakhstan’s Kin state Diaspora: Settlement Planning and the Oralman Dilemma’, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol 57, No 2, March 2005; Diener, ‘Problematic Integration of Mongolian-Kazakh Return Migrants in Kazakhstan’, Eurasian Geography and Economics, Vol 46, No 6, 2005. Sharad Soni is the only Indian scholar who deals with the Mongol-Kazakh relations from an international relations perspective. See Sharad Soni, ‘Moving beyond nomadism: emerging equations in Kazakh-Mongol relations’, in Anita Sengupta and Suchandana Chatterjee eds The state in Eurasia: performance in local and global arenas, Delhi: KnowledgeWorld, (Forthcoming in end 2012).6 Scholars have dealt with the forging of contact among dispersed groups. Alexander C. Diener, ‘Transnationalism and minority territorialization in

4

CASE STUDY ONE: THE BURYATS

Historical ties

The Buryats settled as compact Mongol communities around Lake

Baikal, were subjected to repeated Russian incursions in the

Angara region and were displaced due to forced Russian

settlements. There is also a parallel discourse about internal

displacement that examines how the Buryats were also the

competitors of the Tungus whom they had displaced earlier in the

course of their settlements. The Baikal fabric was reconstituted

as the Russians entrenched themselves firmly in the Yenisei-

Angara basins and forced the Evenkis and the Tofalars to migrate

from their homeland. The original Buryat ethos, comprising of 16

tribal groups on both sides of Lake Baikal was reconstituted

further with territorial adjustments that brought it closer to

the Mongol territory. 7 The mainstream Buryats of the Baikal

region, depicted as an ethno-linguistic group of a Mongol stock

were framed as a territorial unit (called the Buryat-Mongol

Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic) with well-defined

Kazakhstan’, in Choi Han Woo ed International Journal of Central Asian Studies, Vol 11, 2006. 7 The Historical Museum of Ulan Ude refers to 16 ‘ethno-territorial groups of Buryats’-Nizhneudinskie Buryats, Balaganskie Buryats, Alarskie Buryats, Idinskie Buryats, Kudisnkie Buryats, Verkhoudinskie Buryats, Olonskie Buryats,Kudarinskie Buryats, Barguzinskie Buryats, Okinskie Buryats, Tunkinskie Buryats, Zakamenskie Buryats, Selenginskie Buryats, Khorinskie Buryats, Aginskie Buryats, Ononskie Khamnigany.

5

territorial identity markers like Aga autonomous okrug (district),

Ust-Ordinskii okrug [that had high density of Buryat population]

within the Irkutskaya and Chita oblasts. In the 1950’s, the Mongol

component was removed from the ethnonym “Buryat-Mongol” and the

republic was renamed as Buryat Autonomous Soviet Socialist

Republic. In the 1990’s, the Buryat-Mongol ethnonym was readopted

and became a feature of the post-Soviet nationalist rhetoric in

the Buryat republic which was heavily criticized by a section of

scholars as a deliberate attempt of politicizing historical

memory.8

Merger dilemmas

Social polarization increased after 2005 when President Putin

issued decrees about ukrupnenie (merging) on grounds of regional

consolidation. Merging of the two Buryat districts of Ust Orda

and Aginsky with Irkutsk’s Olkhon district has created

discomfiture about the logistics of the arrangement and its

direct impact on Buryatia’s ethnic culture.9 There is a strong

feeling that the mergers have limited powers of autonomy in these

oblasts due to their incorporation into the wealthy Russianized

8 Tatiana Skrynnikova and Darima Amogolonova, ‘Discourse on ethnicity in post-Soviet Buryatia’, Central Eurasian Studies Review, Vol 5, No 2, Summer 2006. 9 A series of writings indicate the tone of dissent. Andrey Makarychev, ‘New challenges to Russian Federalism’. [http://ceres.geogetown.edu/esp/ponarsmemos/page/78412.html]; Gary N. Wilson, ‘Abandoning the Nest: Regional mergers and their impact on the Russian North’,Polar Geography, Volume 27, Issue 3, 2003.

6

environment of the Irkutsk and Transbaikal oblasts. The appeal of

pan-Mongolism as an integrationist model did not fade, but there

was serious speculation about territorial delimitation based on

ethnicity. 10

Those who opposed the merger (including sections of the local

elite, local businessmen, local intelligentsia, local activists,

sections of the political opposition at the federal level) have

argued that there was no need to merge poor or poorer regions--

they needed to be given more financial support from the Centre;

governance is bound to be a problem as the enlarged size of the

oblasts (Irkutsk and Chita) under republican administration will

be unmanageable; socially, mergers cannot eliminate the

disproportionate living conditions and that the existent

mechanism of social security will be paralysed; culturally, it

will signify marginalization of the indigenous people. Nikolay

Tsyrempilov, Chairman of a regional union of young scholars and

member of the Buryat human rights group, Erkhe, argued against the

relevance of such a mega project that was destined to make Aga

Buryat district a non-entity after its incorporation into Chita

oblast.11

10 Comment by Matthew Derrick, ‘The merging of Russia’s regions as applied Nationality Policy: A suggested rationale’, Caucasian Review of International Affairs, Vol 3, (3), Summer 2009.11 Nikolay Tsyrempilov, archivist at the Buryat Academy of Sciences, Moscow Times, 13.11.2005.

7

Earlier experiments of cultural autonomy and national unification

were also part of this nation wide debate about mergers.

According to the new age historian Vsevolod Bashkuev, under the

turbulent conditions of the Russian Civil War of 1918-1920 the

concept that built the Buryat lands into a common Mongolian

historical and cultural space and favored creation of an

independent all-Mongolian state seemed universally attractive.

Till 1937, the Buryat Mongols remained under paternalistic

control of Soviet authorities—a scenario that changed completely

due to regional competition triggered by Japan and Tibet.

Stronger administrative control was envisaged for Buryatia’s

bordering regions. Buryat aimaks lying to the north (Alar,

Bokhan, Ekhirit-Bulagat and Olkhon) were detached from the Buryat

republic and attached to the Irkutsk province of the Russian

republic and the cluster was named as Ust Orda Buryat Mongol

National Region, while the two south-eastern aimaks of Ulaan Onon

and Aga were subordinated to the Chita province of the Russian

Republic under the name Aga Buryat Mongol Autonomous Region. Ust

Orda and Aginsky Buryat became autonomous enclaves having no

common border with the Buryat Republic. The Buryats in these

districts continued to live with the memory of being closely

connected to the Buryat Republic, yet were reduced to a numerical

minority.12 Aga Buryat territorial demarcation became the core

issue of the merger debate in the post 2005 period. The repeated

12 Between 1926 and 1939, the Buryat population of the Buryat-Mongol ASSR decreased from 42.8 % to 21.3 %.

8

restructuring of Aga district that was very close to the

Mongolian frontier created a lot of discomfort among Buryats on

both sides of the border.

A serious complaint against mergers was that it would lead to

mass migration from poor and resource-starved Ust Orda region to

resource-rich regions and producing large scale cultural gaps

between the older and the younger generations.13 Also, the

Irkutsk region has its own constraints---from the perspective of

Chinese trade diaspora and the advent of Chinese ‘ethnic markets’

that has created a new economic stratification in Eastern

Siberia. Specialists of migration have argued that the problems

associated with ‘ethnic business’ are the most difficult and

faced by the host societies in the Russian Federation.14 Irkutsk-

based sources reveal the complexity of this mechanism, especially

the problems associated with Chinese migratory movements in the

bordering regions of Siberia. Irkutsk therefore is confronted

with its own problems and the Buryats’ fate will be linked with

all of that.

13 Such an argument is a reflection of the urban-rural competition spoken of by several local authors. 14 Viktor I. Dyatlov, ‘Chinese migrants in Asian Russia: the dynamics ofnumbers, structure and problems of adaptation’, in Globalization in Siberia and theRussian Far East, Kolkata: Towards Freedom [publication of Maulana Abul Kalam AzadInstitute of Asian Studies], 2010; Viktor I. Dyatlov, ‘ “Ethnic markets” ofthe post-Soviet era: the mechanism of supply, institution and socialorganism’, in Suchandana Chatterjee and Anita Sengupta eds Communities, institutionsand transition in post-1991 Eurasia, New Delhi: Shipra Publications, 2011.

9

Stories about a frightening existence are also frequently heard.

What weighs most heavily for the Buryats is the threat that they

will be forced out of their lands—a similar situation arose

during the land reforms of 1900-01 15 when there was a cut-down

of Buryat pastures according to the norms of the Russian farms 16

and again after the Revolution, during collectivization and the

campaign that resulted in the resettlement of Buryats from

dispersed farmsteads into larger villages followed by large scale

deportation and exile of Buryat kulaks (farmers). Now, this

movement away means movement from a space, meaning leaving one’s

own masters to a new land that could be dangerous to life. So,

15 The law On Assignment of state land in Siberia to private Individuals, enacted on 8th June 1901, introduced a new category of possession of real property in the way state lands east of the Urals could be allotted to immigrants coming from European Russia. It envisaged that part of the territory earmarked for colonization would be set aside as ‘private land property’ (chastnaia pozemel’naia sobstvennost’), in addition to those lands conferred in ‘use’ (zemplepol”zovanie) topeasants coming from European Russia. Alberto Masoero, ‘Layers of property in the tsar’s settlement colony: projects of land privatization in Siberia in thelate nineteenth century’, Central Asian Survey, Vol 29, No 1, March 2010, p. 9. 16 Historians in the west are emphasizing the importance of the 1905 Revolution and the land debates that have affected the non-Russian people of the Russian Empire, especially the Buryats of south-eastern Siberia. Robert Montgomery’s bibliographical guide about social and political activism in Buryatia is a useful tool for understanding the character of socio-political activism in pre-1917 Buryatia. Here, the collection of abstracts and short papers on the Social Democrats and the government’s transfer of land from the local population to the settlers—which became a bone of contention between theTsarist government and the Buryats have been taken into account. The Buryats to this day nurture grievances due to the loss of their farmland. Veniamin Mikhailovich Samosudov ed revoutsiia 1905-1907 gody I borba trudiashikhsia Sibiri protiv Tsarizma: tezisy nauchnoi konferentsii posviashchennoi 80-letiuu Revolutsii 1905-1907gody v Rossii; Omsk: Omskii pedagogicheskii institut, 1985, mentioned in Robert W. Montgomery, The Revolution of 1905, the First two State Dumas, and Nationalities (with special reference to Buryats): a selected Annotated Bibliography,[www. ii.umich.edu/UMICH/crees/Home/Montgomery_2009.pdf].

10

the Olkhon Buryats, whose way of life is based on unbroken ties

with land, find the Tunka valley’s clan sentiments very difficult

to adapt to.

Avuncular relationships

Newer assessments about family ties, i.e. ‘avuncular’

relationships’ in social anthropology terminology, in the Buryat

homeland as well as in the host society Mongolia where the

Buryats settled or resettled over time indicate the changing

dynamics of Eurasia’s shared spaces. The local experiences are so

varied and diverse that relationships based on genealogical

connection tend to have lesser relevance. 17 Responsibilities and

obligations of the nephew (zee) to the maternal uncle (nagasa)

were fixed by Buryat customary law of the 18th and 19th centuries

and there has been no reason to question that. But in the course

of their live-in relationship with the Russians for centuries,

the Buryats have developed a parallel set of avuncular relations

with their Russian kin. But this spectacular relationship was

broken when due to the mass arrival of Russian settlers there was

an extreme loss of prestige on the part of Buryat clan leaders.

Land acquisition by the new Russian settlers became a bone of

contention which completely altered the pattern of goodwill17 Sayana Namsareva, ‘Avuncular terminology in Buriad Diaspora relationships with both homeland and host society’, Working Paper No. 126, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Working Papers, 2010. Revised paper ‘The metaphorical use of avuncular terminology in Buriad diaspora relationships with homeland and host society’, Inner Asia, Vol 12, issue 2, 2011.

11

relations with the Russians. The Khori Buryats used migration as

a survival technique and sought refuge with other Mongol kin

groupings. The alliance with the Russians seems to have broken,

but this did not completely exclude the Russians as relatives,

especially as uncles. Ominous signs of complexities and tensions

in relationships emerged as the Russian nagasa (uncle) ‘became

insulting and dangerous’.18 In popular usage of avuncular terms,

especially in the Mongolian context, the Buryats became

subordinated to the Russians and this somewhat affected the

‘brotherhood’ notion among socialist countries that was

formalized during the Soviet period. Because of their special

treatment, the Russians became the metaphor for the nagasa and

became the object of ridicule and sarcasm among the local Buryats

and Mongols. So, different degrees of strains in inter-ethnic

relations crept in and the common method was the usage of the

avuncular kin terms. These terminologies also reflected the ego

and sentiments among the Buryat diaspora settled in Mongolia that

was considered as the zee (nephew) in terms of their relations to

the dominant ethnic group in Mongolia, i.e. the Khalkh Mongols.

The territorial demarcation of the 1930’s and the 1950’s that

reduced the territories of Aga Buryat district made the Mongols

strict about their Buryat ‘guests’—their idea was that these

Buryats should give up their ger (felt yurt) and return home,

i.e. to Buryatia. For these Buryats, it was extremely18 Ibid.

12

embarrassing to ‘return’ to their ancestral home. So, Buryats at

that time became marginalized in Mongolia—a fact that is narrated

and retold by older generation of Buryats. The image of the

Buryats in Mongolia fluctuated at that time—they were perceived

both as guest and as enemy—which was very insulting for them.

What is evident here is not only the adaptability of the Buryats

but also the complexities they encounter in the course of their

adjustments in the host society. Sayana Namsaraeva points out

that despite the cultural ties of the Buryats with their kin

groups in Mongolia or Inner Mongolia, the relationship between

the mother’s brother and the sister’s son tends to get affected

over time. During the configuration of state boundaries between

Tsarist Russia and Qing China, the Aga steppe was recognized as

the actual homeland for the Buryats of the Khori clan. They used

to move, settle and resettle in the Aga region that was close to

the Mongolian border. In course of time, the next generation of

Buryats migrated to Mongolia and settled there, occasionally

claiming to be reunited their brethren in Buryatia. So, what we

see here is (a) genealogical connections based on Buryat kinship

(mostly Khori) and (b) diasporic connections that are extremely

hybrid and are not often labeled by kinship relations. The latter

quotient is described by Uradyn Bulag who too explains the

irregular traits among the Buryat migrants in Mongolia. 19

19 Uradyn E. Bulag, Nationalism and Hybridity in Mongolia, Clarendon Press, 1998; Bulag,‘Mongolian modernity and hybridity’, Minpaku Anthropology Newsletter, Number 19,December 2004.

13

Generational gaps

Young Buryats who live in western countries face difficulties of

making a choice between (a) Buryatia which is their ancestral

homeland and an independent country and sentimentally close to

Russia and (b) their host-country, say, Australia. Such

ambiguities are reflected in Khachig Tololyan’s thoughtful

writing on the diasporic status of the Armenians in America.

Tololyan, an American-Armenian, has an Armenian identity that has

nothing to do with the actual experience of the Armenian

homeland.20 This is the standard dilemma of all Buryats living

abroad who are completely unaware of the inner strains---the only

thing they are aware of is their long history of association with

the Russians and other nationalities who settled in Buryatia

since the 17th century. A famous Buryat sportsman Vladimir

Esheev, a former champion in archery and now president of the

Russian Archery Federation in Australia finds it difficult to

distinguish between a Buryat and a Russian. Esheev was the son of

Buryat refugees whose nationality was Russian and who had fled

from Soviet Union in the 1920’s. They settled with other Buryat

refugees in a village in Inner Mongolia. Decades later, after

World War II, his father decided to return to Russia but

recommended his son to settle abroad, and Australia became the20 Khachig Tololyan,’Rethinking diasporas: stateless power in the transnational moment’, Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies, Vol 5, No 1, 1996, pp. 6-7.

14

new home for Esheev. So, here is a testimony of a Russian who

grew up together with Buryats in Inner Mongolia and who later

migrated to Australia. But until disintegration, there was hardly

any discussion about making a choice between a Buryat and a

Russian and the significance of a Buryat who brought pride to his

Buryat nation in a foreign land was hardly understood.21

So, the Buryats have an ambiguous status—as federal members of

the Russian Federation, they are tied to the Russian fabric; as a

transnational Mongol-speaking community they share familial ties

and historical links with Mongolia.

CASE STUDY TWO: THE MONGOLIAN KAZAKHS

The kin state-host state relationship is also a problematic in

the case of the Kazakh diaspora in Mongolia. The Kazakhs perceive

Kazakhstan as their kin state and live as a diaspora community in

host states like Mongolia, Turkey, Russia, China and Germany.

Within Kazakhstan, they coexist with several non-titular

nationalities like the Russians, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, Koreans,

Germans and Poles. The Kazakh homeland issue is a critical

component of the nation wide debate about integrating co-ethnics

living as diaspora outside Kazakhstan. This has led to a good

deal of international debate about the status of the oralmany21 Stefan Krist, ‘From nomads to migrants: reassessing Buryat history’, Third Congress of Reseau Asia-IMASIE, 26-27-28 September 2007, Paris, Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique, www.reseau-asie.com.

15

(returnees) from Mongolia which is a multi-generational Kazakh

community who feel marginalized in their ancestral homeland,

Kazakhstan and has not benefited in any way from return

migration. The sense of belonging to the historical homeland was

completely lacking for this generation of return migrants who

were more at ease with their country of living, i.e. Mongolia.

Much of the debate has revolved around the fact that for many

Kazakhs who have tried to return from their diasporic venues in

the early 1990’s, the experience of repatriation has not been

satisfactory. Their odd experiences of repatriation point a

finger to the policy deficiencies of the independent Kazakh

state. While some non-titular groups of Kazakhs (Koreans and

Germans) are of the opinion that “a homeland is forever” and are

optimistic about the land of the Kazakhs as the future for their

children and grandchildren, younger generations of Kazakhs have

preferences for transnational spaces like Mongolia or western

countries like Turkey, Germany and Australia. Responses of the

oralmandar (returnees to Kazakhstan) reveal that Kazakh community

in Mongolia (called Mongolian-Kazakhs) feel more alienated,

placeless and foreign in Kazakhstan than living abroad. Over

time, other images about Mongolian Kazakhs have emerged—not

merely as a dispersed ethnic community but as a transnational

community situated within a dynamic process called ‘diaspora

migration’ and ‘transnational migration’—i.e. subjects which have

16

been explored at length by sociologists like Pal Koltso,22 Judith

Shuval23 and Sarah Mahler. 24 Such reappraisals indicate that a

diaspora’s territorial dimensions are much wider---the term

denotes a people who are not de-territorialized but

transnational25--spread out in host states like Mongolia, Turkey,

Russia, China and Germany.

As per the Migration Law that became effective in Kazakhstan in

1993 after it was sanctioned by the First Qazak Qurultay in

Almaty in 1992, the families of oralmandar—immigrants of Kazakh

descent living in neighbouring countries and abroad were invited

by the Kazakh President for building a new Kazakh nation. The

hypothesis of ‘primordial ownership’ signified grant of special

status, i.e. state benefits, access to labour market and

acquiring Kazakhstani citizenship. The event (the convening of

22 Pal Koltso, ‘Territorialising Diasporas-The Case of the Russians in the former Soviet Republics’, Millennium-Journal of International Studies, Vol 28, No 3, 1999.23 Judith T. Shuval, ‘Diaspora Migration: Definitional ambiguities and a theoretical paradigm’, International Migration, Vol 38, No 5, 2000.24 Sarah J. Mahler. ‘Transnation almigration comes of Age’, in Ajaya Kumar Sahoo and Brij maharj eds Sociology of Diaspora: A Reader, Vol I, Jaipur: Rawat Publications, 2007. 25 This conceptual overlap between diaspora and transnationalism has been projected in recent studies about cross-border processes. The synthesis is used to describe an entire gamut of relationships across social spaces and theeveryday engagement of migrants in various activities ranging from kinship networks to small scale entrepreneurship of migrants across borders and cultural exchanges. Thomas Faist, ‘Diaspora and transnationalism: what kind ofdance partners?’, in Rainer Baubock and Thomas Faist eds Diaspora and Transnationalism: concepts, theories and methods, MISCOE Research:Amsterdam University Press, 2010,p. 11-12. Some authors have also argued against the fixed notion of territoriality. For instance, Arjun Appadorai emphasise lateral ties and uses the generic term ‘trans-nation’ as a diasporic experience of all mobile persons. Arjun Appadorai, Modernity at large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996, cited in Faist op.cit..

17

the Qurultay) was portrayed in Kazakh language newspapers as a

celebration of the independence of the homeland and was greeted

with a lot of enthusiasm. 26 The diaspora Kazakhs and the Kazakhs

of the homeland were defined as ‘blood brothers’ in these

newspapers. In his address to the Qurultay, President Nazarbayev

underlined the importance of Kazakhstan’s independence as an

opportunity to extend the country’s ability to serve as a

homeland not only for those living with its territorial limits,

but also for its diaspora living outside its borders. The spirit

of Nazarbayev’s speech, a speech which presented the Qurultay as

the first step towards constructing Kazakhstan as an extended

homeland, was embodied in these words: ‘We have only one homeland

in this world and that is independent Kazakhstan.’ (‘Qushaghymyz

Buayrlagha Aiqara Ashyq’, 1992). The ‘we’ in the president’s speech

clearly referred to all Kazakhs, regardless of place of

residence. In accordance with the resolutions of the First

Qurultay, it was decided to establish a permanent institution for

dealing with the affairs related to the Kazakh diaspora. This is

how the World Association of the Kazakhs came into being in 1992.

Policies on ethnic return were announced. The legitimizing

discourse on the part of Kazakhstani leadership was juxtaposed to

the victimization discourse about forced exodus of ethnic Kazakhs

during collectivization and forced sedentarizationin the 1930’s.

26 The Kazakh newspapers Khalyq Kenesy and Egemen Qazakstan reported on the event. See Isik Kuscu Bonnenfant, ‘Constructing the homeland: Kazakhstan’s discourse and policies surrounding its ethnic returnmigration policy’, Central Asian Survey, Vol 31, Number 1, March 2012.

18

The repatriation policy was legitimized and there were

expectations about an increase in the number of Kazakhs as the

titular nationality. The policy was also justified from the point

of view of a renewal of national culture and traditions in the

ancestral homeland. There terms that were used to emphasise

return migration reflected the governmental rhetoric. These were

atameken, atazhurt (land of the forefathers), otan (homeland), Tarikhi

otan (ancestral homeland). For diaspora Kazakhs, the following

terms were used: Shetel qazaqtari (Kazakhs abroad), shette zhurgen

qandastar (brothers living abroad). Subsequently, the relationship

between place and identity became the dominant feature of the

renewed vision about a civic nation and this change in stance is

reflected in the recent usage of the word otandash which means the

connection with land and its people rather than blood ties or

genetic ties. 27 Ubiquitous trope of “hospitality” (qonaqzhailylyq),

as a defining characteristic of “Kazakhness” (Qazaqtyq) and an

essential part of Kazakh nomadic ‘heritage” was often used to

explain the reason for harmonious interethnic relations in

Kazakhstan.

The impact of this return migration has been tremendous, not only

resulting in a quantum jump of immigrants from Mongolia (about

860,000 oralmandar) but also escalating social tension especially

in western Kazakhstan where there has been exceeding pressure on

housing which became scarce and expensive because Soviet-era27 Isik Kuscu, op.cit, p.34.

19

buildings deteriorated and the new construction was inadequate to

meet the growing demands. The stresses and strains of post-Soviet

transition emanating from an urban-rural divide are reflected in

the migrants’ discourses about otherness. An Almaty-based analyst

Naubet Bisenov remarked-"The main problem is with the acceptance

of oralmandar as equals to local Kazakhs, because they think

oralmandar are uneducated freeloaders. When they go for a job

interview, people show genuine surprise that oralmandar can have

a higher education and speak languages and be specialists in jobs

that demand quite high qualifications." 28The rural migrants’

relocation to urban centres was considered to be an obstacle to

the urban Kazakhs’ adjustments in a globalized environment.

Apathy was expressed against the rural settlers’ adherence to

genealogical traditions defined by the local term shezhire 29 which

helped them to convey their belonging, rootedness and identity. In

fact, the shezhire emerged as an important marker of group identity

or Kazakhness (Kazakshilik). In their post-Soviet reflections,

Kazakhs have reconsidered new ‘routes’ of migration despite their

28 ‘Kazakhstan: Astana Lures Ethnic Kazakh Migrants with Financial Incentives’, eurasianet.org, Feb 26, 2009.

29 Among the Kazakhs, the shezhire, adopted from the Arabic form of the word“tree”, denoted specifically the oral tradition of genealogical reckoning thathelped to form political alliances, social structuring, and lineagesegmentation, and was ultimately linked to the division of pasturelands andannual migration routes. Saulesh Yessenova, ‘Routes and Roots" of KazakhIdentity: Urban Migration in Post-socialist Kazakhstan’, Russian Review, Vol.64, No. 4, October 2005, pp. 661-679.

20

appeal for the ethnic ‘root’.30 Such a trajectory reflects the

contested notions of Kazakh identity. The Kazakhs from the

villages have tried to move over to the urban centres like

Almaty, identified as ‘recent urbanites’ and have been caught up

with the complexities of adjusting between two worlds and living

at the margins of urban society. This is a case of internal

displacement—featured by unequal relationships based on rural-

urban identities in Kazakhstan. There seems to be competing

loyalties among various actors who express their concerns about

migration, displacement and adjustment to new environments.31

Complexities of return migration

Initially, the Migration Law/Law on Immigration was drafted as a

broad legal document that applied to the ethnic Kazakh diaspora

in general. Subsequently, there were amendments (in 1997, 2002,

2004, 2007, 2010) that delineated the types of migration. At

present, there is a migration quota system to designate Kazakh

returnees as oralmandar--the number of quota immigrants who will be

30 There has been an attempt to revive and showcase the concept of a tribalhome. A series of revisionist writings in the 1990’s touched upon intricatepatterns of tribal confederation that dealt with aspects like (a) Uzbek andUyghur lineages of Kazakhs residing in the south and south eastern borderlands(b) Dasht-i-Kipchak region representing collective memories of the Kazakhs andthe Uzbeks’ Shaibanid legacy. Narratives of migration of the three hordes(zhuzy) in the direction of Dzhungaria tended to rejuvenate genealogicaltraditions among the Kazakhs with multiple tribal affiliations.

31 Saulesh Yessenova, ‘“Routes and roots” of Kazakh Identity: Urban Migration in Post-Socialist Kazakhstan’, Russian Review, Vol 64, No 4, October 2005.

21

given special status by the Kazakh government will be determined

by the President). The amendments generated confusion (due to

lack of database) and corruption was very common (associated with

forced payment by oralmans for their special status privileges).

Further incentives related to housing and employment of oralmans

was included—but there were more debates about special grants,

pension schemes etc. The integration of the oralmans is an ongoing

process and entails further specifications about citizenship

rights.

In short, the Kazakhs who attempted to return to Kazakhstan in

the wake of Kazakization were identified as a diaspora under the

basic assumption that these groups of return migrants will

effortlessly integrate with their ancestral homeland and co-

ethnics in Kazakhstan. In the post-Soviet period all Kazakhs

living outside the territory of Kazakhstan have been confronted

with the difficult choice of migrating from the lands they have

known for multiple generations or remaining as minorities in

their current places of residence. In most cases, their exile

status has been highlighted. Now, this categorisation is not

applicable to the Mongolian Kazakhs who as per Mongolian laws are

not considered to be descendants of the exiles. The Kazakh

settlement in western Mongolia since the 1880’s was voluntary in

nature—some of them may have been forced to with draw from China

to Mongolia during the revolutionary dispensation in China in

1911. Even at the time of Stalinist repression and forced22

collectivization, the Kazakhs voluntarily migrated to Mongolia.

So the Kazakhs living there do not have a victimized identity per

se. The homeland of Bayan Olgi has enabled the Mongolian Kazakhs

to uphold their ‘Kazakhness’ that was hardly possible in the

Soviet setup of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic. So, Kazakh

identity was articulated in Bayan Olgi province of Mongolia while

it was lacking in the kin state in the Soviet period. Here was

the paradox—the Kazakhs living there did not face the

complexities of estrangement or exile — it is when they arrived

to their ancestral homeland that they were confronted with sharp

responses from their ethnic kin.

The category ‘diaspora’ is often not universally accepted by

Kazakh scholars. Gulnara Mendikulova makes a distinction between

the Kazakh diaspora and the Kazakh irredentists and argues about

the stakes of the government in offering the choice of return to

Kazakhs living abroad. There is weariness about the government’s

decision to offer a common space to all Kazakhs across national

boundaries. The complications in a trans-national space are

varied in nature. There are perceptions about how communities not

only share the fruits of a common space, common experience and

identity, custom and practice, but also maneuver situations by

changing their affiliations (by switching their “belonging”),

crossing international boundaries and adopting new citizenships

(very common among the Kazakh Germans). In fact, the citizenship

formula for all ethnic Kazakhs and the articulation of the rights23

of the co-ethnics who are coming from distant locales have been

heavily criticised. Also special privileges (residence permits

and voting rights) to all returnees on the basis of genealogy and

kinship and announcements of “in-gathering” have created

uneasiness among resident Kazakhs as the migrants from abroad got

a new lease of life. There are critiques about this ‘recruitment

of ethnic diaspora’ as it beings the migrants into collusion with

their kin state representatives.32

Conclusions

The varying responses among diaspora groups suggest that

‘homeland’ is not a homogeneous category. On the surface, the

rhetoric of an ethnic homeland has helped Kazakhstan to reach out

to its co-ethnics abroad. But the logic of integration seems to

be unworkable given the long and interconnected histories of

shared spaces and shifting identities. The interactive behaviour

in host states like Mongolia suggests more attachment to the

birthplace instead of the ancestral land. Studies of the homeland

have moved beyond the theme of dispersal of ethnic communities

and have included newer perspectives like transnational

identities and diaspora engagement which is a way of making the

diaspora feel connected with the homeland. Such options about

linking the diaspora groups with the homeland tend to generate32 Tsypylma Darieva, ‘Recruiting for the Nation: Post Soviet Transnational migrants in Germany and Kazakhstan’, Erich Kasten ed Rebuilding Identities-Pathways toreform in post-Soviet Siberia, Berlin: Dietrich Reimar Verlag, 2005.

24

worldwide optimism. On the other hand, there is the need to

consider contemporary realities about shared spaces as appear in

the case of the Mongol Buryats and Kazakh oralmany.

25