THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY

THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY 43
matchless treasure for a historian. 51
Among scholars who commented, the philologist S. Amanzholov
explained a historian’s usage of folklore materials: “Our historians and
literati have to clarify their interest in folklore materials and poets of the
court. Every Sultan and Khan used court poets who glorified their work,
so that their Khanate would be remembered in the future. Such poets
are mostly ideologues of a certain class. For example, Buxar in Abylai
Khan’s era, or Nysanbai in Kenesary’s era.” 52 He stated that Bekmakhanov
used the poet Nysanbai in his work about Kenesary. B. Suleimanov also
commented about this topic. In response, Bekmakhanov said that “Not
only Kazakhstan’s, also other peoples’ past was written in historical
travel-books and officers’ memoirs, tradesmen, and other ruling class
representatives too. We can have information about the past events,
through those sources. Why we should throw them into a dustbin? Your
words make no sense because, if you cannot interpret what a source is.
you cannot approach to those sources in a scientific way.” 53
The third major accusation against Bekmakhanov was how he
portrayed Kenesary’s personality. Among the topics discussed was
that Kenesary descended from Genghis Khan, his fought against the
Great Russian nation, he was a reactionary, and the aim of his uprising
was examined too. On this topic, many famous historians spoke and
expressed their opinions. Despite these well-known Russian historians
who supported Bekmakhanov, in that era of Bolshevik domination, it
was impossible for Bekmakhanov to exculpate Kenesary.
Finally, they allowed the accused Bekmakhanov the chance to speak.
The historian claimed that his critics and others with opposing arguments
relied on the tactic of “Giving irrelevant footnotes from Marxism-Leninism
classics and failing to associate them with historical events”. The
historian expressed his opinions clearly by saying: “I pointed out that
Kazakhs had their own state and also the fact that my nation exists.”
Despite all of this, the discussions were inconclusive, although
the consequences became clearer shortly thereafter. In fact, during
this meeting, an underlining sentiment formed to fault Bekmakhanov.
It was already clear that he was going to be politically prosecuted.
In 1950, prosecution of E. Bekmakhanov gained a new role. On 26
December, “Pravda” publish an article, which was written by Shoynbaev,
Aidarova, Yakunin, et.al, and titled “Examining issues of the History
51 Bekmakhanov, E. Qazaqstan XIX gasırdın 20-40 jıldarında (Oku quralı), Almatı: “Sanat”,
1994, pp. 42-43.
52 Bekmakhanov, Jeti tomdık şıgarmalar jinagı, p. 217.
53 Bekmakhanov, Jeti tomdık şıgarmalar jinagı, p. 316.