THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY

34
THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND
demonstrated that there was no going back again. Here is detailed
information given about the views of the then political circumstances
of Kazakh intellectuals in Kazakhstan:
A couple of people, such as Russian historian Yakunin and H.F. Aydarova
who did not consider the rebellion of Kenesari Kasımov in the
right manner, kept asking to publish their article from Pravda’s journalist
Çerniçenko. Yakunin and Aydarova met three times with Şoyınbayev
so as to publish the article. The issue of Kenasari rebellion was discussed
by P. Kuznesov (Pravda), Morozov and Liholat (KP propaganda
department). They eventually decided to publish the article. Thereafter,
a telegram arrived from E. Bekmakhanov and additional investigative
work was carried out according to the instructions. “Pravda” newspaper
Deputy Director of Criticism and Bibliography Department V.
Ozerov privately went in Almaty. It was determined that the majority
of Kazakh historian were against E. Bekmakhanov’s attitude and they
reported that they see him as a bourgeois nationalist. The Administrator
of the Kazakh SSR Academy and the Central Committee of the
KP officer reported that they were opposed to describing Kenasari
Kasımov’s rebellion as retrogressive.
Şayahmetov read the article as well and reported to make some
changes in order to publish in the newspaper “Pravda”. Changes were
made and a meeting was carried out in “Pravda” newspaper of Criticism
and Bibliography Department. This article was discussed at the meeting.
Bekmakhanov and Vyatkin (editor of the book) matched wits against comrades
as it was written in Bekmakhanov’s weakly written previous letter.
Yakunin, H.F. Aydarov and specifically from Kazakhstan B. Suleymenov
did not accept the statements from Bekmakhanov. After this
article was discussed in the editorial meeting for the fourth time and
sent to Mozorov and Liholat, they ordered it to be published.
E. Bekmakhanov’s last letter, with its old attitude of laundering
the operation, as well as the menacing speech style, is noted by a
number of perjury charges.
E. Bekmakhanov, has described article writers (their name was
secret) as supporters of the enemy. According to him the article was
about: “ bourgeois nationalists the enemies of the people of the
Kazakh and lies supported by cosmopolitans.” Thus he tried to prove
some thought not mentioned in the article.
For example, E. Bekmakhanov and writers compared Kenesari and
Shamil, just to get Shamil’s name on record despite not being mentioned
in the article.
Bekmakhanov, said to the author of the article: “... (the 19th century)
in the 1830s-1840s, Kazakh workers should remain under colonialism.”