The national liberation movement in the Kazakh Steppe

The national liberation movement in the Kazakh Steppe (first half of XIX c. ) 1. Revolt under the leadership of K. Ishimov and J. Tlenshi 2. Movement under leadership of Isatai Taimanov and Makhambet Otemisov (1836 -1838) 3. Historiography of Kenesary Kasymov's revolt 4. Kazak movement under leadership of Kenesary Kasymov 1837– 1847

Literature • Bekmakhanov Ye. B. Kazakhstan v 20 -40 gody XIX v. Almaty, 1947, 1992 • Shakhmatov V. F. Vnutrennyaya orda i vosstaniye Isataya Taymanova. Alma-Ata, 1947.

Revolt under the leadership of K. Ishimov • In 1826 in the Kazakh steppe revolt began under the leadership of sultan Kaiyp-Gali Ishimov (1789 -1856), the elder son of khan Eshim (1795 -27. 03. 1797) • Sultan Kaipgali agitated Kazakhs of the Bukei Horde migrate to the Ural. He had been twice imprisoned. In the first time he had stayed 8 months in prison. On March, 10 th 1830, Kaipgali Ishimov and Rysgali Dzhangirov have escaped from prison and have disappeared in Zauralsk steppe.

• In 1837, when national liberation movement of Kazakhs under the leadership of I. Tajmanov and M. Utemisov started in the Internal horde. Sultan Kaipgali Ishimov with his auls united with them.

Revolt under the leadership of J. Tlenshi • The period of 1811 to 1822 the Novoilekskii frontier line was founded on the territory between the Ural, Ilek, Kuraily, and Berdianka rivers. As a result, the Kazakh Tabyn and Zhagalbaily tribes were deprived of their winter pastures (more than 600, 000 desyatins). This gave rise to protest movements under the leadership of the elder of the Tabyn tribe, Zholaman Tlenshi, whose primary request was the return of the land between the Ilek and Ural rivers.

• Khan Shergazy (1812 -1824) was not only unable to defend the claims of the Kazakhs, he also could not stand against the advancement of Russian troops in the Steppe. Zholaman Tlenshi deliberately wrote that approving Shergazy as khan did not grant Kazakhs «any benefits or advantages, » and they saw «nothing but injuries and disorders. » • from 1821 to 1824 the invasions of Kazakhs on the fortresses and outposts on the Novoilekskii lines increased. These invasions involved not only theft of horses, but also the abduction of Russian settlers and workers at the Ilek salt trade • In 1837 this protest movement entered in movement under the leadership of Kenesary Kasymov.

Movement under leadership of Isatai Taimanov and Makhambet Otemisov (1836 -1838) The reason’s of revolt were: • the question of pasture. In Bukei Horde had been handed out 2/3 of lands in private possession of the Kazakh nobility. • were broken migrations routes. Fertile land along the Ural River owned Ural Cossacks. • The first wave of discontent in the Internal Horde began in 1827 -1829 years. • Agrarian crisis, a tax burden, conflicts for pasture between tribes were impacts for revolt

• Batyrs Isataj Tajmanov and Mahambet Utemisov headed this movement. Both were from a tribe bersh branches jaik. Isataj was born in 1791. In 1812 he had been appointed as the foreman of jaik branches and got skills of administrative service. • Poet Mahambet Utemisov (1803 -1846) knew Tatar and Russian languages. He lived in Khiva, and Orenburg was communicated with the russian writer and ethnographer Vaslii Dal’ and scientist-traveler G. S. Karelin

• In February, 1836 started struggle of the Kazakh people against khan Dzhangir. As the impact was a challenge of Isatai Taimanov to Khan Jangir. He has refused to removed his auls from winterings and collected the camp of insurgents.

Historiography of Kenesary Kasymov's revolt • In works of pre-revolutionary historians Kenesary Kasymov's revolt was considered only as an unexpected obstacle for intensification of the Russian militarypolitical influence in Kazakhstan. • During the 19 th century there were two works that have particular importance for historians trying to uncover the nature of the revolt. The first, N. Sereda’s Bunt Kirgizskogo sultana Kenesary Kasymova (1838– 1847), was published in 1870 in several numbers of the journal Vestnik Evropy. The second was published in 1889 in Tashkent by Kenesary’s son, Akhmet Kenesarin, titled Sultany Kenesary i Syzdyk, and is a valuable source, but does not attribute to Kenesary national-liberation aspirations.

Soviet historical science in 20 - 50 -th of XX century • In 1920 -1930 th almost all revolts were considered as emancipating and anticolonial, and the colonial policy of imperial Russia was estimated exclusively critically. And Russian colonialism was considered even as more cruel, than British and French. The reasons of defeat of revolts, besides the spontaneity peculiar to all country revolts, saw in close connections of a nobility with imperial administration

• Up to 1940 th these revolts were considered "antifeudal" though in them the most active participation accepted also them sultans, бии and батыры which the Soviet historians carried to a feudal class headed. • Among the first Soviet works devoted to revolt of K. Kasymov, it is necessary to name A. F. Rjazanov's works. It considered revolt in a context of history of the Orenburg edge and a political history Little zhus. • In 1935, for the first time published «History of Kazakhstan since the most ancient times» , the written S. D. Asfendiarovym, considered K. Kasymov's revolt as the fact of national-liberation struggle against the imperial government.

• In « Ocherki on histories of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic» (1941), written by M. P. Vyatkin, one of heads has been entirely devoted revolt of Kenesary. The main reason of discontent of Kasymovyh saw in the reforms 1822 -1824 limiting their influence on the Middle zhuzs. At the same time he recognized that revolt of Kenesary became the largest in Kazakhstan anticolonial, national-liberation movement.

• In 1943 there was a new edition «Stories of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic» . Kenesary Kasymov's revolt was considered as the culmination of struggle of the Kazakh people. A. M. Pankratov characterized a policy of Russia in Kazakhstan as aggressive, colonial, were «absolute harm» . However «the History of Kazakhstan» and an estimation of national revolts containing there and all policy of Russia in Kazakhstan have caused criticism of Moscow.

• The monography of Ermukhan Bekmahanov «Kazakhstan in 20– 40 of XIX century» 1947 has been published. Bekmahanov has entered new archival materials into a scientific turn, has tracked all course of revolt, since sources of its revolt in 1820 th, has convincingly proved that revolt of Kenesary had mass character and has played a progressive role in the history of Kazakhstan, having delayed its colonization. E. B. Bekmahanov considered revolt of Kenesary as the largest anticolonial performance in the history of Kazakhstan

• Monography E. B. Bekmahanova discussed in February, 1948 in Moscow, at Institute of history АН the USSR, academicians B. D. Grekova, N. M. Druzhinin, S. V. Bahrushin participated, professor M. P. Vyatkin, etc. the Basic disputes have inflamed round interpretation of history of revolt of K. Kasymov. In particular, H. G. Ajdarova, T. Shoinbaev and other Kazakh historians openly abused E. B. Bekmahanova's work, first of all, for idealization of Kenesary and treated revolt as monarchic and as struggle for preservation ханской the authorities.

• S. V. Bahrushin, Н. M. Druzhinin and other Russian historians as a whole have estimated E. B. Bekmahanova's work positively, have agreed with the author in a revolt estimation as progressive and national-liberation. • In June and July, 1948 discussion of the monography of E. B. Bekmahanov had proceeded, this time in Presidium AN Kaz. Ss. R and at Institute of history, archeology and ethnography of AN Kaz. SSR. Here again the majority of historians named its politically harmful.

• The exit in 1949 of the second edition «Stories of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic» under I. O. Omarova and A. M. Pankratovoj's edition has again caused a fierce dispute. E. B. Bekmahanov has kept former estimations of revolt of Kenesary. Therefore in article signed by T. Shoinbaev, X. Aidarova , the criticism has fallen upon E. B. Bekmahanov. Revolt of Kenesary was estimated as certainly reactionary, monarchic, having by the purpose restoration khan’s authorities and preservation of medieval feudal orders, on a separation Kazakh zhuzs from progressive influence of Russia. Bekmakhanov it is accused of bourgeois nationalism, a glorification of monarchic movement of Kenesary, and also in a namecalling expressed only of negative consequences of joining of Kazakhstan to Russia.

The fate of Bekmakhanov • the Ministry of Higher Education of the U. S. S. H. requesting it to deprive Bekmakhanov of the title of professor and "the degrees of Kandidat and doctor of historical science, which were incorrectly conferred on him for harmful, bourgeois nationalist works. " • Bekmakhanov's title and degrees were rescinded • In 1951 the Kazakh party carried out a widespread purge of scholars and party officials in its belated campaign against bourgeois nationalism.

Soviet historical science in 60 - 90 -th of XX century • Usually during the Soviet era Kenesary’s revolt regarded as reactionary attack by feudal– patriarchical elements that the masses resisted with force, was national in character. Kenesary is depicted a leader motivated merely by his ‘feudalpatriarchal’ instincts. • Since 1991 Kenesary Kasymov’s revolt has become a symbol of Kazak resistance and national unity.

The first period of the movement 1836 -1837 • Sultan Sarzhan, the son of sultan Kasym had united tribe of Middle zhus and opposed politicians of colonization of the Kazakh Steppe. • In the first third of 19 century Sarzhan with the kazakhs removed to Kokands khanate, hoped to got support of Kokand ruler, but in 1836 Sarzhan was killed on the iniziative kokand’s khan. Kenesary assumed the leadership of the campaign to resist both Russia and Kokand from absorbing the Kazak steppe

Driving forces of movement • During the early stages of the rebellion, Russian officials generally depicted Kenesary’s actions as little more than nomadic raids against settled population. Determining the size of Kenesary’s support remains difficult. Early tsarist estimates judge that the total number of troops under his command was only around 500; although Bekmakhanov and others believe that it was between 6000 and 10 000 troops. At the revolt’s zenith Kenesary could muster more than 20, 000.

• In the revolt peaked by 1844, yet Kenesary continued to struggle and eventually moved further east into Semirechie, along the border with China and into the Tien Shan mountains. There he tried to recruit many Kirghiz to his cause, indeed demanding that they recognize him as khan. • Kenesary’s rebellion, demonstrating the ‘wide territorial expansion of the revolt’. The nature of the revolt became for many Kazaks the first expression of a national struggle against Russia rather than the effort of merely one clan or zhuz.

Project of Kenesary • Kenesary was trying to eliminate tribal disintegration and create a strong unified government (surely a worthy goal according to the party‘s emphasis of the time). • The Kazakhs were wedged between the "double aggression" of the tsars and Central Asian khans, and Kenesary himself preferred "a Russian orientation. " Russia, however, not desiring the development of a strong unified Kazakh state, refused to support him.

• Kenesary was characterized as "a talented reformer" who made progressive land, fiscal, and legal reforms. • He was a popular and physically attractive leader who enjoyed mass support in a movement that was anti-colonial and of a national liberation character • Also in June 1841, a quryltai (gathering of the clans’ leaders) discussed the question of selecting Kenesary khan of all the Kazaks

• in 1839, the Russians undertook an ill-fated campaign against Khiva, losing nearly 1000 men in the process. Indeed, the leader of the expedition, Governor General Perovskii of Orenburg, barely escaped with his own life.

• After Kenesary’s demise, his revolt inspired numerous poems and songs that memorialized the man and his uprising. Often they were written by aqyndar (poets, bards) who themselves had participated. This oral literature supported a strong traditional means of expression became a significant weapon ‘in the awakening of national consciousness’.