Famous history expert, Mr. Radik Temirgaliyev investigated a collection of documents and made conclusions regarding the Famine of the 30-s of the 20^th century. Some of those conclusions may disappoint some ideologically motivated patriots.

In his telegram-channel, the expert published extracts from historic documents and commented them, as follows:

I am very grateful to Zhuldyzai Iskakova for Volumes 6 and 7 of the “Asharshylyk. Famine. 1928-1934” Collections of Documents. 

I only had time to briefly study the contents of the Volume 6, in which we may find documents regarding the confiscation of property of Bais (Bai – rich man) in 1928. That particular page of the indigenous history remained in the shadow of collectivization and Famine itself. It could seem, that the sufferings of several hundred families were worth a zilch, compared to the disaster experienced by the whole nation. But that small episode allows to build up a more full understanding of the essence of the Bolshevik policy and processes that were taking place in the Kazakh society in the second half of the 20-s of the 20^th century.

Small Revolution in Kazakhstan

In the course of repressions in almost all regions of Kazakhstan, more than 700 semi-feudal Bais were apprehended and exiled with significant parts of their property confiscated in favor of poor people. It was a populist measure taken by Bolsheviks to strengthen their reputation in the eyes of the common masses. But the main purpose was not at all to show much favor to the jejune.

Chingisids (Kazakh aristocracy, Ghenghis-Khan’s descendants), district administrators and persons awarded by the Tzar regime, including those, who, per criteria, were middlemen, found themselves under repressions.  The same year, Bolsheviks commenced repressions of the Alash-Orda intellectuals, earlier amnestied by the Soviet regime. 

In other words, Bolsheviks strived to exterminate the former elites of the Kazakh society and substitute them with the new national assets, hastily bred by Bolsheviks under the aegis of the policy of promotion of indigenous loyalists.

Bolsheviks did not bother to hide that. In his public statements, Bolshevik Commissar Goloschekin communicated that no changes had happened in the Kazakh society and that the prerevolution intellectuals and Bais were still running the society, projecting their influence on the “National Communists”.  He intended to break that order by means of the “Small October” or a special Kazakh localistic revolution. 

Who Substituted Bais?

Onslaught on Bais became a test for Soviet forces and positions in Kazakhstan, and that test was a success. The test revealed that throughout the 20-s of the 20^th century, Bolsheviks had succeeded in forming a solid mass of loyal and energetic native Kazakh activists, the so-called Belsendy. The ranks of the Belsendy were replenished with rear-front work veterans of the First World War, industry workers and students of the Soviet academic institutions. In other words, those were indigenous Kazakhs, that had lost the connection to their traditional culture and fell under the ideological influence of Bolsheviks. And there were many such recruits. 

The Belsendy served up a Small Kazakh Revolution in full compliance with Vladimir Lenin’s covenant “to not wear white gloves, when on revolt”.

Documents from the Collection demonstrate well, how local petty commanders eagerly availed themselves of their powers and savored their authority. Robbery was not enough for them – they would publicly humiliate their “class enemies”, beat them, torture them, rape their spouses and daughters. The leadership of the Republic condemned some individual cases of flagrant power abuse, but in general, was very satisfied with the end-result. Common masses were supposed to vividly see, who came to power, and the common masses saw it.

Renegade Bolsheviks

However, it is worth noticing that not all Kazakh Bolsheviks were ready to trespass against indigenous traditions and customs. For example, one of the reports dated October 1928 describes the confiscation of property from a famous feudal from Pavlodar Region, Sharip Toktagulov.  In the report it was written that a certain Communist Duysenbay Beysekov succumbed to sympathetic emotions, he experienced in the course of the confiscation process and, no longer capable to withstand the crying and the screams of the Beysekov Family, he started crying himself. Communist Militia gunman, Zhiyenbek Baysalov scolded Communist Beysekov and said to him – “You are a Communist and you cry?  How can you be pitiful to these feudal exploiters?”

Significant part of the Kazakh population openly expressed negative attitude to repressions.  Some poor people interceded for Bais before the bodies of administration.  Very often, confiscated livestock were voluntarily returned to the families of exiled Bais. 

Sabit Mukanov’s Memoirs

In his memoirs, Sabit Mukanov (famous Kazakh author in the times of USSR) discussed one situation and made the following conclusion:

“…Bai Kazken, for example…He was a kind and a humanistic person.  He treated his people well and never hurt them.  But how dark and unenlightened should be the consciousness of a person, who does not even acknowledge equality and thinks, that it is an ancient, pre-historic tradition, when some people possess riches, while others only have their hands and backs, and they are supposed to work hard in someone’s favor for their whole life.  The order of things was such, that all livestock belonged to Kazken, and a common Kazakh had nothing.  But even when the Soviet power came to Kazakh prairies, Kazken did not want changes in life…”

“Those thoughts may be depressed…How dark and humiliated by fellow-countrymen are…” – I thought – “…How much effort do we need to contribute to encourage commoners and awake their class consciousness”

I do not know, whether Sabit Mukanov paltered with truth, so to conform to the Soviet ideology, but his final phrase was definitely erroneous.

Richness is No Crime

For example, what was difference between Kazakh Bais and Russian Koolaks?  Koolak was an entrepreneurial and hard-working Russian farmer, who had contractual relationships with his workers.  Koolak had money and no social support.  On the contrary, all Russian “progressivists”, government officials, authors, liberals, conservatives, monarchists and Bolsheviks hated Koolaks and called them exploiters.

Probably, public morals contributed into the formulation of such an attitude.  In Christianity and in Russian culture, acquisitiveness is a grave sin.  As Jesus said – “Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to make it to the Paradise”.

But in the Kazakh Islamic tradition, richness is not a sin, whilst poverty is not a virtue. Bai is just your relative, who is rich, he is from your tribe, he is your kinship.  Countless horizontal ties pierced the Kazakh traditional society making it homogeneous.

Of course, riches grant you significant opportunities and give you a higher status, but being a Bai, you always depend on your community.  You cannot preserve and maximize your livestock without loyal people.  The ever-lasting risk to lose support from community, forced Bais to share.

Such relationships between Bais and their communities helped many of them avoid repressions.  Leaks of information about upcoming repressions were massive.  Some Bolsheviks would warn their rich relatives, which relatives would promptly sell their livestock, relocate and buy new documents confirming their “righteous social backgrounds”.

Even in the most blood-thirsty phase of the Kompeske (repressions), those late or those who did not believe information about repressions, would manage to avoid them – through various manipulations, they would delegate their livestock to some from the class of Belsendy.

New Elites

Many offspring of Kazakh Bais and aristocracies infiltrated the ranks of the new, Soviet, elites.  Zhumabay Shayakhmetov (Leader of Kazakhstan) was a descendant of a Kazakh Aga-Sultan, Kanysh Satpayev (Kazakh Academic) was a child of a rich and influential family domiciled in the Bayan-Aul district.  Yermukhan Bekmakhanov (Kazakh Soviet History expert) was a Chingiside.

Vassily Liventsov left the following observation about Uraz Dzhandosov (Kazakh Bolshevik leader) –

“Giving him the due tribute, for his organizational talent, I disagree to the statements made by some authors, that Comrade Dzhandosov was born in a poor family of commoners. That is a questionable statement.  In my Institute we had this Security Guard, Bytov, who, together with his wife, once said – “Those who were in favor in the times of the Tzar, are bosses today”. Bytov reported that before Revolution, he worked under Uraz Dzhandosov’s Father, as a stableman, and that he would take Uraz to his school.  Clear is the fact, that a poor man would not afford to have a stableman, who would take his son to school.  At the same time, all said by me is not biased against and is not supposed to be to the detriment of Comrade Dzhandosov’s Bolshevik merits.  No doubt, he was a talented, a gifted man”.

Interesting is the fact, that many Kazakh Communists married ladies from “hostile classes”.  For example, Zukhra, the wife of Dinmuhammed Kunayev, a prominent leader of the Socialist Kazakhstan, was a daughter of a famous and rich Tatar merchant.  Bakhyt, the wife of Baiken Ashimov, Chair of the Socialist Kazakhstan Government in 1970-1984, was from an upper middle-class family close to Alash-Orda, and her Grandfather was Nurgaly-Khazret, a famous religious activist.

In other words, one should try real hard to seek out real proletarians in the community of proletarians.  And that was a natural phenomenon.  Having lost livestock inherited from ancestors, old elites did not lose their knowledge and skills – their competitive advantage.  The semi-literate Belsendy could not compete with them, in the long run. 

Lessons from History

We need to practice the complex approach to historic research.  We should not fear anybody, in doing so.  Only then, shall our society have opportunity to learn from the past.  That is why, I fully support the publication of such Collections. 

As the rules of courtesy require, I will say, that such publications constitute substantial contributions into the development of the science of History.  To my mind, our statehood must do that, in particular, in the sphere of historic research.  Articles and monographs, of course, are a good thing, but original documents are the most precious sources for History and Historians.  It would be absolutely great, if we published something of the kind, but covering other important periods in our national history. 

Sometimes, they reprimand myself for writing about something that hurts the feelings of Kazakhs.  I will try to substantiate my belief. 

History is not an instrument to appraise your nation.  We have school textbooks, that do that.  Adults must appreciate the complexity of the past.  We should not be hiding the full truth from people, especially those educated.  In our history, all sorts of things happened, likewise it was with other nations. 

Present-day Western Historians have long ago understood, that modern Western liberal intellectuals are fed up with stories about valiant knights and their wonderful dames. Western readers no longer feel discomfort, if they learn something shameful or disreputable about the deeds of their ancestors.  The history with contradiction and full-fledged truth is more interesting to them. 

In the post- Soviet countries, majority of Historians practice approach that was popular in Europe in the 19^th century.  Their perception of life is based on conservatism and patriotism.  In each country, there is a certain demand, satisfied with the help from institutions of statehood.

As for me, I try to write, like they do today in the West, to the best of my professionalism.  I am fortunate to have my audience here in Kazakhstan – people who read my books and articles.  I think, those are very intelligent people with very mature critical thinking.