THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY

THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY 31
rately allowed the bourgeois-nationalist views to prevail and tried to
seduce the Russian opposition movement. However, many researchers
continue to repeat these mistakes. There is no accurate assessment
by the Communist Central Committee of Kazakhstan in this regard. For
example, “Kazakhstan in the 20s-40s of the XIX Century” author of the
book, E. Bekmakhanov ‘still maintains stubbornly its false opinion on
the nature and importance of the rebellion of Kenesari Kasimov.’ This
author in his work is doing propaganda for the work of the leader of the
Alaş party, Alikhan Bökeyhanov, about reliable documentation about
the history of the Kazakh people and reserving “special attention” to
Varşavski in the preface of the book “Trotsky in exile”. It was not for
the first time that Bekmakhanov got in touch with the Trotskyites.
Fatal errors are repeated in literature and the arts as well. Prepared
for 8th grade junior high school textbooks of the Kazakh literature,
Jumaliyev (1948) glorifies the khans and sultans by saying ‘I have the
mind of forty people’. Murat and Şortanbay views were described
positively in the textbook about the XIX century. Their propaganda of
Eastern Muslim culture and the past khanate state were positively
maintained. In the course book prepared by Mukanov and Jumaliyev
for the 9th grade high school, the names of reactionary writer and one
of the leaders of Tatar Pan-Turkism, Gaspıralı and Sandıbayev, were
convicted for anti-Soviet movement in 1930 were cast out.
The decision of the Commission (continued): ‘The Kazakh SSR Academy
of Sciences in 1950 published the work of Akışeva named ‘Seizure
the possessions of Rich of Kazakhstan’. The anger of the rich against
Soviet rule has been brought together in the book. The also placed
some thought of poor people who participated in rich people’s revolt.
It was just because this book is politically harmful that the Kazakhstan
Communist Party Central Committee removed this publication. The
book called ‘The settling of nomads and livestock development in
Kazakhstan’ by Pogorelskiy in 1950 was also removed from publication,
pointing out that the “Long-term nomadic tribal system is not the same
as Marx and Engels showed us, on the contrary as Radloff wrote it’.
The book morever ignored the passing from nomadic to sedentary by
not taking the importance of Soviet government into account, instead
it asserted public enemy Baytursunov’s thoughts about famine. The
exhibits at the local museum were designed to build anti-Russian but
friendly organization (boy) system. It was shown as if Russians were
colonists of Kazakh people rather that Tsarist Russian government.
Nationalist opinion was described as harmful in Jubanov’s book, a
member of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR. In this book,
(“Today’s Nightingale”- T. J.) the history of the Kazakhs against the