The Rise of Bekmahanov

«…The uprising of Khan Kenes recently became the subject of a significant study ‘Kazakhstan in the period from 1820 to 1840’ (Alma-Ata, 1947, author E. Bekmahanov, Kazakh). Bekmahanov portrayed Kenes as a fighter for national liberation and unity and an outstanding statesman. For this study, Bekmahanov received a doctorate in historical sciences from the USSR Academy of Sciences. At a separate meeting at the Historical Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Bekmahanov’s report and conclusions were supported by wide circles of science, including the school of orientalists. He was enthusiastically welcomed by party leaders and scholarly minds of his native Kazakhstan. At a plenary session of the Institute of History, Anthropology, and Ethnography of the Kazakh Academy of Sciences in 1948, Bekmahanov received a standing ovation. The president of the Kazakh Academy of Sciences, Professor S. Yushkov, compared Kenesary and Shamil, who then, in 1948, was an undisputed authority and hero of the era. In 1949, in the pages of ‘Questions of History,’ the historian and writer A. Yakunin slightly criticized Yushkov for comparing Kenes and Shamil, as unlike Shamil, Kenes allegedly had no social motives to oppose Russian Tsarism. But even Yakunin notes that ‘there is no doubt that Kenes’ war was against Tsarist expansionism and for the liberation of the people from oppression.'»

«…More detailed support for Bekmahanov’s ideas was expressed by the author K. Sharipov in the second edition of the university textbook ‘History of the USSR’ and ‘History of the KazSSR from Antiquity to Our Days’ (Omarov and Pankratov, 1949) – ‘…Kenes’ uprising, which was anti-colonial in nature, played a progressive role in the history of the people… It was progressive due to Kenesary’s political demands to unite all Kazakhs into one state, overcome their intertribal strife and feudal disunity.'»

The Downing of Bekmahanov

With sympathy for the distinguished scholar and patriot of his people, Solomon Schwarz describes the cardinal shift in the interpretation of the past of the Kazakhs – «…But the time came for a complete reversal of the official course in the opposite direction. Khan Kenes’ attempts to overcome ‘feudal disunity’ were soon declared ‘usurpation.’ In ‘Questions of History’ for June 1949, in the section ‘History of the KazSSR,’ it is written: ‘Kenesary’s policy was aimed at creating a centralized state and is an expression of his usurpatory activity in bringing all Kazakh power centers under his sole leadership.’ This was the first step towards the complete debunking of Kenes’ image.»

«On December 6, 1950, the newspaper ‘Pravda’ published a scathing article about the errors and omissions of Soviet historians specializing in Kazakhstan. Not a stone was left unturned from Bekmahanov’s concept. ‘…Instead of revealing the deeply progressive significance of Kazakhstan’s annexation to Russia, Bekmahanov saw in it only national oppression… The appearance of the Kasymovs (Khan Kenes and his brothers), who opposed the annexation, went against the aspirations of the progressive part of the Kazakh people… This was a reactionary movement that dragged the Kazakhs backwards…'»

«Thus, Khan Kenes’ guilt lay in his opposition to annexation. The verdict of the ideological court was unequivocal – ‘Khan Kenes was a typical feudal brigand. Kenes’ uprising, which did not enjoy popular support, was a reactionary and feudal-nationalist movement, aided by external forces hostile to Russia…’ [V]»

«And to conclude this retrospective judicial process, the historian-communist Bekmahanov, yesterday’s darling of fate, suddenly turned into an ‘unabashed bourgeois nationalist.’ [VI]»

The Turn of Imam Shamil and the Murids

«After Kenes, it was Imam Shamil’s turn. This issue became even more complex. Until recently, even educated Russians knew little or nothing about the uprising and the figure of Khan Kenesary. At the same time, every failing schoolchild was well acquainted with Shamil – the leader of the mountaineers’ uprising in the North Caucasus. For instance, the ‘Great Soviet Encyclopedia’ states the following:»

«‘…Shamil was the leader of the national liberation movement of the Caucasian highlanders against the colonial policy of Tsarist Russia… The popular uprising against Russia and the local wealthy classes was fundamentally anti-feudal. The social demands of the insurgents were hidden under a religious frame…'»

«‘…But somewhere within the depths of the USSR Communist Party apparatus, the idea had emerged that the legend of Shamil and the religious-national uprising of the Murids needed to be debunked. For this purpose, a separate conference was convened in 1947 at the Historical Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences to discuss the ‘historical essence of Muridism.’ The speaker K.G. Abdzhemyan started the event by vehemently attacking this phenomenon:»

«‘…Shamil’s movement was not a fight for national freedom, but a fight for the freedom of wolves, for regression into the past, into darkness, oppression, and Asiatic barbarism…’ The speaker accused Shamil of aiding Russia’s enemies, ‘the fall of Sevastopol,’ and ‘extending hospitality to the Polish and Hungarian riffraff, which provided him support and assistance…'»

«…Then many spoke out against Abdzhemyan, accusing him of ‘defending the old colonial thesis’ and ‘reviving the views of the Tsarist generalitat.’ The conference chairman, Professor Druzhinin, reminded Abdzhemyan that ‘after 1848, Polish and Hungarian revolutionaries helped Shamil, whom he, Abdzhemyan, called riffraff…’. Three years passed during which no one dared to openly criticize Shamil… In March 1950, Heydar Huseynov received the Stalin Prize for his work ‘From the History of the Development of Social and Feudal Thought in Azerbaijan of the 19th Century,’ in which Shamil is portrayed with understanding and sympathy. Huseynov wrote that ‘Shamil tried in every way to help the struggle of the Azerbaijani peasants against Tsarist colonial oppression and oppression from local Russian vassals…’

In May 1950, something unthinkable happened for the Stalin Prize – it was revoked from Huseynov. The award committee accused itself of oversight, giving the official explanation that ‘…the positive assessment of Shamil and Muridism in Huseynov’s works distorts the very essence of the movement, which was reactionary, nationalistic, and served the interests of British capitalism and the Turkish Sultan.’ [VII]»

«After this, no one else dared to express a different attitude towards Shamil. Without fearing resistance, the Secretary of the Communist Party of the AzSSR, M.D. Bagirov, wrote in the ‘Bolshevik’ journal (1950): ‘…the aspiration of the progressive part of the peoples of the Caucasus to unite in alliance with Russia reflected the feelings of the majority…’. Following Bagirov, author A. Daniyalov wrote in ‘Questions of History’ for September 1950 that ‘according to objective indications, Russia played the role of liberator of the peoples of the Caucasus from the cruel and arbitrary oppression of the Iranian and Turkish brigands’ and that ‘Shamil was forced to overcome the stubborn resistance of the peoples who expressed sympathies for Russia, which saved Dagestan from Eastern cruelty.’ [VIII]»

Conclusion

Solomon Schwarz concludes his study thus: «The circle has closed. The old colonial theses with a flair of ‘liberating’ peoples are today firmly and indisputably recognized in the USSR.»

Sources

[I] Questions of History, December 1950.

[II] Questions of History, April 1951.

[III] On the Study of History – Collection (CPSU Central Committee, Moscow, 1937).

[IV] Questions of History, April 1949.

[V] Some Questions of the History of Central Asia – Questions of History, April 1951.

[VI] Pravda, October 1951. [VII] Pravda, May 1950. [VIII] A. Daniyalov, «Distortions in the Study of Muridism and the Movement of Shamil,» Questions of History, September 1950.