THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY

62
THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND
revolt. Thereby, his point of view did not change the interpretation
that ‘Kenasari played a progressive role in the independence movement
of the Kazakh people in 1837-1846’. 80
To the critical ideas about the involvement of Kazakhstan with Russia
and the progressive character of the riot in 1837-1846, H. Aydarova, S.
Tolıbekov, T. Şoyunbayev, B. Süleymenov, and some other historians,
he answered: ‘Some historians from the Kazakh SSR Science Academy
(H. Aydarova, S. Tolıbekov, T. Şoyunbayev, B. Süleymenov) did not
accept the progressive character of Kazakh people revolt between
the years 1837-1846. This makes a discharge of colonialism policy of
Tsarist Russia. We need to truely understand the progressive quality of
Kazakhstan’s involvement to Russia. The importance of the progressive
quality is not being allies with Tsarist Russia of the Kazakh khans but
with Kazakhstan benefits’ matching up with the developed economy
of Russia and the progressivism of Russian culture. Its importance is
that Kazakh laborers having the opportunity to fight with the common
enemies against the governing class by taking the leadership as
an example with the oppressed class of Russia. When it is looked
upon this way, nobody ignores the importance of the Kazakh people
independence revolt’s progressive quality that emerged from Tsarist
government and Middle Asia Khan colonial policy.’ 81
In K.Şaripov’s article, ‘Let Kazakhstan History Be Told Through Marxist
Doctrine’ in the periodical ‘Socialist Kazakhistan’, it was also claimed
that ‘Some comrades do not accept the revolts between the years
1837-1846 as a public upheaval and as having progressive sides by also
making true criticisms about the book during the debates at the Kazakh
SSR Science Academy’ and the historians H. Aydarova, S. Tolybekov,
T. Shoyunbayev, and B. Suleymenov’s mistaken views were criticized.
Third Period
T. Shoyunbayev who did not find K.Şaripov’s article adequate, which
was issued at the same time in some of press organs like “Voprosy
İstorii” (no.4), “Bolşevik Kazahstana” (no.9) magazines and “Socialist
Kazakistan” and “Kazakhstanskaya Pravda” in 1949. Even as Şaripov
declared some criticisms about the personality and the behavior of H.
Aydarova and A. Yakunin, and observed that “Kenesari Kasimov took the
leadership of the revolt as he tried to discharge.” Şaripov’s article did
not help to solve the issue that occupied Kazakh historians. Because
of this, E. Bekmakhanov’s mistakes were associated with other studies
as well. An article was issued in the newspaper ‘Pravda’ under the
80 Ibid.
81 Ibid.