THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY

THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY 35
This opinion was to protect the Tsarist government’s colonial policies”, he
claimed. In the article, it was explained that “Kazakhstan’s incorporation
into Russia” had a progressive character “but Tsarist Russia invaded the
Kazakh steppe and Central Asia and exploited people in 1830s. Colonial
policy of the Russian Tsarist government together with the use of force
and looting revealed the justified resistance of the Kazakh people.”
There were also inconsistencies in E. Bekmakhanov’s letter. For
example, in Central Asia in the years of 1830-40s it did not accept
the tension of the British-Russian relations. However, on the use of
Russian management system: in Kazakhstan Bekmakhanov’s book
claimed that “... Because of this system, the 1830s British-Russian
rivalry became more tense than ever before...the Russian-British rivalry
in Central Asia gradually turned into a reality... “
E. Bekmakhanov’s letter can be understood to maintain his attitude
and the pressure to prevent publication of the article.
Thus we find it right to publish the article.
L. İliyçev. “
This wrong understanding of the Kenesari rebellion to erase completely
the views of the national liberation of the Kazakh people through
the wrong characterization “ideological punishment” of politics, showed
that “The Tsarist colonialism,” was replaced by “Communist colonialism.”
“Black Cardinal” Suslov obviously gladly signed the decision with elongated
fingers. By the way, 35-36 years later, exactly the same person
took a similar decision for the handbook of Oljas Suleimenov called
“Elif ve Şair” with the manner of not accepting Kazakh history. “The
last punishment instructions of the Black Cardinal” was not realized.
Times have changed, “Communist colonialism” power began to decline.
Pravda’s article was as strong as a court decision, maybe more,
and First secretary of the Central Committee of the KP did not even
ignore its power. This decision determined the fate of Kazakhstan.
J. Şayahmetov and I.M. Omarov regard the Kenesari revolt unfairly
attacked based on the context of letters and documents, articles
and defensive letters, letters of complaint that revealed Secretary of
Ideology of the Central Committee of KP M.A. Suslov’s and Pravda’s
organization of “campaign attacks”. They did not allow the party organization
to discuss “Pravda’s” article for three months. But, when
Şayahmetov went out of the country for duty, the article was hastily
discussed by Second Secretary Kruglov’s instructions in History Institute
of the party organization.
J. Şayahmetov who told the soldiers “Abilay’s, Kenasari’s and Navrizbay’s
souls shall protect you during the Second World War”, also
confessed and said: