The international scientific-practical conference 'Civilizational and cultural aspects of relations between Russia and the nations of Central Asia at the beginning of the 20th century (the 100th anniversary of the uprising in Turkestan in 1916) has been completed at the History Department of Moscow State University. Scientists from Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan came to the conclusion that the Central Asian uprising in 1916 should be considered as a common tragedy and mutual memory for all affected people: Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, Turkmen, Russians, Ukrainians, Tatars and others. Historical justice requires an objective evaluation of reliable scientific sources and taking into account all the factors that affected the events in 1916. And a consistent approach is possible only within the framework of professional historians, as opposed to speculative politicized arguments.
According to the assessment of the majority of participants, the entry of Central Asia into the Russian Empire had a stabilizing effect on the development of the local society. Tribal and clan wars were stopped, slavery was abolished, the tax system was streamlined, conditions for widespread education and advanced production techniques were created. At the same time, an active immigration policy and a number of faults in the construction of the control system created conditions for the dissatisfaction of the local population under the influence of factors that caused a bloody rebellion.
Evaluating and analyzing the events in 1916, the participants of the conference urged to take into account the specificity and fragmentation of the source base. This is a serious problem, not only from a scientific point of view, but also in terms of correct and objective discussion of such a complex issue in the field of public media.
Thus, in his opening remarks, the rector of the Russian State Humanitarian University, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yefim Pivovar, noted: "Many of the documents haven’t been presented to scientific circles yet. On the other hand, there are substantial doubts about the reliability of the materials included in the report of the commission of A.F. Kerensky. It is obvious that it is necessary to proceed from an objective assessment of the realities of the political situation inside Russia at the time of preparation of this document. I mean the use of materials of the Commission to discredit political opponents, the imperial administration, both in the capital and in Turkestan. Therefore, the key examples as losses among the Kyrgyz population are a result of the uprising and the outcome of the population to China, but it hasn’t been confirmed by reliable sources.’’
This assessment was supported by the head of the department of sources, historiography and historical information of the Zhusup Balasagyn Shayyrkul Batyrbaeva Kyrgyz National University. For a long period of time it worked with a large complex mass of sources of demographic processes on the territory of Kyrgyzstan at the beginning of the 20th century. According to researchers, all the currently available information about the number of losses among the population has no real reliable foundation.
The Deputy Dean of the History Faculty, Professor Ivan Tuchkov underlined the importance of an objective assessment of such complex historical events as the uprising in 1916. According to him, "the main condition for the objective scientific assessment of any historical event is a reliance on historical sources, adjusted methodological approaches and a willingness to consider your colleagues’ views." "The conference at the Department of History is a living testimony of the practical benefits that provide a strong and reliable communication among the scientific schools of the post-Soviet countries. In a quiet and respectful atmosphere of scientific dialogue we discuss the most complicated and acute facts of our common history, which include Turkestan and the rebellion in 1916," Ivan Tuchkov said.
However, according to a note of the Chief Editor of the Kazakhstan Biographical Encyclopedia, Daniyar Ashimbaev, "an objective approach to the general history of Russia and Central Asia, which had a relatively strong position in historical science, is on the periphery of the basic processes in the information and political space."
In the conditions of a modern information society, politicization and distortion of historical events are dangerous tools to separate peoples.
The main victims of the tragic events of the uprising became the indigenous population of Turkestan and peasant settlers. Both parties had many victims.
According to the director of the Center for Advanced Research (Kyrgyz Republic), Sergey Masaulov, ‘‘Evidence of sympathy and expressions of good-neighborliness of ordinary people fixed in the documents and memories of witnesses of the uprising in 1916 along with the grave consequences of the bloody events in 1916 in many parts of Turkestan. Some Kyrgyz often secretly warned their neighbors, friends and acquaintances among the settlers about the troubles and saved Russian women and children from violence. Russian peasants saved the lives of Kyrgyz families, risking their lives.’’
The conference's participants didn't leave without paying attention to the impact of external factors on the occurrence and development of the uprising. First of all, the efforts of the intelligence officers of the General Staff of Turkey influenced developments in the direction of large-scale disobedience of the total population of the Turkestan authorities. It was assumed that a ‘holy war’ would be waged against the infidels under the banner of Islam. Turkish officers and Turkestan merchants, the conductors of the policy, attempted to strengthen the opposition on the grounds of religious hatred, aiming at opening a Turkestan front against Russia. The uprising diverted the necessary military units from the front, slowed down the process of mobilization, sending the local population to work in the rear, and exacerbated ethnic and inter-confessional relations in Russia.
According to the participants, the main cause of the uprising in 1916 wasn’t only the ‘land issue’, but also the imperfect control over the Turkestan region, the unprecedented cronyism and corruption of the local administration, frequent cases of distorted reports of orders to the people became a significant factor in the escalation of the uprising. According to the Russian State Humanitarian University Professor Alexander Bakhturina, ‘’the creation of a list of persons for calling to the colours was given to kadiyams and biys, who started to interpret their own imperial edict." In addition, the buy-manapsky circles often took an active part in the uprising, involving ordinary Kyrgyz and Kazakhs in the confrontation with the imperial administration in their own selfish interests.
Special attention in the framework of the conference was paid to the outcome of the Kyrgyz participants in the uprising in China. They had losses during their way, as well in China in order to settle in a new place. Families and sometimes girls had to be sold into slavery. However, the interim government, and later the Soviet authorities took the necessary measures to return the Kyrgyz people from China according to their social structure on their native lands.
In general, the participants of the conference agreed that the consequences of the uprising were disastrous for the local communities. The loss of a significant part of the population of all the peoples of Turkestan, including people of different ethnicities, affected the economic order, as well as the climate of trust that had been in the country before the tragic events. So today it is very important to learn a lesson from the events that took place a century ago in order to avoid the politicization of historical events that can provoke new conflicts on ethnic grounds.
The organizers of the event were the Department of History of the CIS countries of the History Faculty of Lomonosov Moscow State University, the Information and Analytical Center for the Study of the former Soviet Union with the participation of the Institute of the World History, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian State Humanitarian University, and the Marjani Fund. The conference was held within the framework of the research project ‘The historical context of cooperation between Russia and Central Asia.’ Funds of the state support were used to implement this project. They were allocated as a grant under the order of the President of Russia on the basis of the competition held by the Knowledge of Russia organization.
