THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY

More documents

Recommendations

Info

128 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND June 1944 during the SBKP committee meeting. 215 The book also was evaluated as “It was not right to encourage the leader of the national struggle movement” 216 and “some party leaders do not agree on some principals regarding the authors”. 217 This study was blamed for “giving ideological leverage to bourgeois nationalists people who are against Leninist-Stalinist policy”. 218 Thus, it was thought that the book would be re-revised and re-constructed. 219 If we look closely, we can see the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Kazakhstan History, and Director of the Institute of Archeology and Ethnography S. V. Yukasov, as the reason why Bekmakhanov was blamed and called a “Bourgeois nationalists,” and accused of relations with Alash intelligentsia in the 1920s and 1930s. It was just because there was a cadre problem between Bekmakhanov and Yukaşov about the second edition of the book on the “Kazakh SSR”. 220 Another reason was that Yukasov thought that Bekmakhanov as a young scientist could be a rival for himself. S. V. Yukasov did surely not forget what happened in 1937 and thus he was cautious that Bekmakhanov might be comparable to accused nationalists Baytursınov and Dulatov. It also appears that Yuşakov feared questioning by the security organs as to why such a dangerous man became scientist as he was a member of the jury in Bekmakhanov’s PhD defense. For those reasons, S.V.Yuşakov wrote a letter to SBKP Central Committee Propaganda Department chief B. P. Stepanov on 3 November 1947 and to first President of Kazakhstan Communist Party of Bolsheviks J. Şayahmetov on 27 November, that said Bekmakhanov was guilty. 221 T. Şoyınbayev and M. Akınjanov published and essay in “Leninşil Jas” newspaper to criticize Bekmakhanov’s studies, published under the heading as “Political mistake, scientific study is worthless”. 222 Bekmakhanov’s friend, H. Aydarova, also argued that Bekmakhanov’s work was “not a scientific study according to the structure of the idea 215 Ibid, p. 59. 216 Ibid, p. 74. 217 “Novıye Dokumentı o Soveşanii İstorikov v ЦК ВКП(б) 1944” Voprosı İstirii, 1991. No1; p. 189. 218 Ibid, p. 200. 219 Bolşevik Kazakhstana, 1945.No 6. pp. 74-80. 220 Gureviç L. Totalitarizm i İntelegenciya, Almaty, 1992. p. 76. 221 Ibid, p. 77. 222 Leninşil Jas, 31 January 1948.
THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY 129 and was fallen captive to bourgeois nationalism concept”. 223 Under these circumstances, T. Şoyınbayev, H. Aydarova, A. Yakunin’s wrote that the “History of Kazakhstan should be described in terms of the Marxist-Leninist ideological perspective”, which were published in the newspaper “Pravda” on 26 December 1950. 224 These writers critisized Bekmakhanov’s work as Kenesarı movement “strengthened the feudal patriarchal mentality that undermines the Kazakh people, revived the medieval khanate system and was a reactionary movement worked to keep Kazakhstan separate from Russia and the supremacy of Russian people”. 225 Thus, the exile and punishment of the 1930s had a significant impact on young scientists to assign a new step into the world of science. A. Yakunin initially considered the Kenesarı movement as Kazak national independence struggle; however, when he sensed the political winds changing, he blamed the movement and cast a slur on Bekmakhanov as a bourgeois nationalist. Yakunin, moreover, pointed out that Bekmakhanov supported implementing the ideology of the Alash movement against the Soviet reality. 226 This behaviour was an act of a person who blamed and sacrificed others for the sake of his own well-being. Actually, Bekmakhanov’s evaluation of Kenesarı movement was the same as Alash intellectuals and the same opinions were later expressed to be the fundamental basis of the accusations. An accusatory campaign was launched immediately after the article in the newspaper “Pravda.” On 10 April 1951, the Kazakhstan Bolshevik Communist Party Central Committee leveled charges that Bekmakhanov’s views resembled “the accused bourgeois”. On 20 April 1951, the Kazakhstan Writers Union Party members organized a meeting and discussed the decision of KKBP Central Committee. 227 Discussions during this meeting were published in the “Literature and Art” magazine and reported that “Kenasarı was the enemy of people”. 228 Kazakh writers M. Avezov S. Mukanov, Jumaliyev K., K. Amanjolov, and E. Ismailov declared later that they were wrong regarding the Kenesarı movement and its continuity with Alash Orda ideology. Bekmakhanov’s 1947 study expressed that “to create an indepen- 223 Vestnik AN Kaz SSR, 1948. No3. p. 36. 224 Pravda, 26 December 1950. 225 Han Kene (Kazak Halkının Tavelsizdiği Üşin Küresken Han-Batırlar Tuvralı Tarihi Tolgamdar men Pyesa, Dastandar), Almatı, 1993. P. 252. 226 Voprosı İstorii, 1951. No 4, pp. 58-59. 227 Kazak Tarihi, 2006, No 1, p. 51. 228 Adebiyet jane İskusstvo, 1952, No 5, pp. 54-64.
Page 1 and 2:
THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE Q
Page 3 and 4:
Symposium Organization Committee: P
Page 5 and 6:
CONTENTS 11 ERMUKHAN BEKMAKHANOV AN
Page 7 and 8:
THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HIST
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25:
Page 28 and 29:
28 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND of
Page 30 and 31:
30 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND co
Page 32 and 33:
32 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND Ru
Page 34 and 35:
34 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND de
Page 36 and 37:
36 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73:
Page 76 and 77:
76 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND co
Page 78 and 79: 78 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND of
Page 80 and 81: 80 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND se
Page 82 and 83: 82 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND in
Page 84 and 85: 84 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND de
Page 86 and 87: 86 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND pr
Page 88 and 89: 88 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND st
Page 90 and 91: 90 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND BI
Page 92 and 93: 92 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND Ma
Page 95 and 96: THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HIST
Page 101: THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HIST
Page 104 and 105: 104 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND b
Page 106 and 107: 106 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND i
Page 108 and 109: 108 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND B
Page 110 and 111: 110 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND R
Page 114 and 115: 114 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND p
Page 116 and 117: 116 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND l
Page 118 and 119: 118 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND A
Page 120 and 121: 120 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND f
Page 122 and 123: 122 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND B
Page 124 and 125: 124 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND s
Page 126 and 127: 126 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND o
Page 130 and 131: 130 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND d
Page 137: THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HIST
Page 142 and 143: 142 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND
Page 144 and 145: 144 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND I
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189:
Page 192 and 193:
192 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND T
Page 194 and 195:
194 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND b
Page 196 and 197:
196 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND I
Page 198 and 199:
198 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND W
Page 200 and 201:
200 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND o
Page 202 and 203:
202 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND m
Page 204 and 205:
204 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND t
Page 206 and 207:
206 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND B
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231:
show all

THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?