This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Tatar ASSR. In this regard, Kazan has hosted the international forum dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the formation of the soviet republics in Khiva and Bukhara and to the 100th anniversary of the Tatar ASSR. During two days within the walls of Kazan Federal University, leading specialists in the field of history, oriental studies, Islamic studies and ethnography from Central Asia and Russia were sharing their experience of national-state building during the time of the Soviet Union.
The organizers of the event were the ANO “Institute for Central Asian Studies” and the Centre of Geopolitical Studies “Berlek-Unity”. According to them, the main purpose of the event is to expand constructive scientific dialogue on important issues of common history of the peoples of Russia and the CIS, as well as to strengthen cooperation between research and expert communities of Russia and Central Asia.
A new look at the same history
“This year is special. It is characterized by a number of different significant dates”, Director of scientific programs of the ANO “Institute for Central Asian Studies” Andrey Bolshakov noted. “The 100th anniversary of the TASSR is the priority for us. Besides, we can say that the process of national-state education had been also taking place in the region of Central Asia as well. We are celebrating the centenary of all those events that were happening throughout 1920. Today, one hundred years later, one can consider a lot of events, the methodology is becoming clear and not only historical but also political aspects are appearing. I would like also to mention the fact that on the one hand, the clash of different points of view in the framework of historiography is possible. However, it is also necessary to comprehend brand new approaches, according to which Soviet historiography will be as one of the sources of information”.
In his turn, as Head of the Contemporary History Department at the Donish Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tajikistan Abdullo Gafurov noted, the history of Central Asia is closely connected with the neighboring republics, including Tatarstan. Therefore, it is very symbolic that the forum was held in Kazan.
“From the perspective of this day, the analysis of past events, as well as those lessons that can be learned from them, will be useful to all the peoples living in this territory”.
Within the framework of the forum, the participants managed to discuss the main stages of national-state building in the Volga-Ural Region and Central Asia in the first third of the XX century and during the Civil War; legal enforcement of national interests of Soviet Russia and the USSR in the Central Asian and Volga-Ural regions in 1917-1929; the evolution of the political and legal status of national territorial entities of Central Asia and the Volga Region; the influence of social and economic modernization of the 1920-1930s on the development of statehood of the Central Asian countries.
“It is great that we have an opportunity to study Central Asia regionally, including the Volga-Ural Region”, Head of the Sector for the History of Central Asia of the XIX-XX centuries at the Institute of the World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences Tatyana Kotyukova highlighted. “The next stage of development of such events will be inclusion of the European part of the country and the Caucasian republics in the conversation. I would like also to note that states of Central Asia and Kazakhstan have also pursuing a multi-vector policy, which implies building bilateral relations with all the large geopolitical players in the region, including the USA and EU countries. In this sense, Russia is in a rather strong competitive struggle. It is of great importance in this direction that the interests of all the players are taken into account”.
As Director of the Institute of International Relations of Kazan Federal University Ramil Khairutdinov noted, at the current stage of the development of society, fundamental assessments that determine the main content of publications on the history of national-state building in the Central Asian Region, need to be radically rethought.
“Revision of outdated concepts, which affirmed the priority of the class approach to the coverage of the history of national-state building in the post-October period, requires a new look at the ratio of the class and the national in social development, the combination of elements of national-liberation and social revolutions, as well as at the nature of the power established in the region and historical consequences of its inclusion in a single for the whole country orbit of forced socio-economic transformations”.
The words of his colleague were also supported by a full member of the Academy of Sciences of Tatarstan Indus Tagirov, who urged the audience to pay attention to the fact that many people may not like history, but it is the whole one, and that not a single page can be pulled out of it.
“Today we need to look closely at the reasons and factors, which caused the formation of the USSR, and its subsequent collapse. And this is, primarily, the national factor. The Bolsheviks, as we know, came to power under the slogan of internationalism and world revolution. But at the same time, they were against the federation – the transition to it was forced, which, in its turn, meant that over time, that type of state structure would be abandoned. Lenin looked far into the future, saying that it was necessary to build the state on the principle of confederation. After Lenin’s death, Stalin followed the path of further building a federation, when even the national republics over time turned into ordinary administrative districts without taking into account any specific features of the peoples, which, of course, was impossible to do. It was crucial in such difficult conditions to create all the necessary conditions for the peoples of the republic to be convinced of the inviolable foundations of their independence and sovereignty”.
On the way to bringing researchers together about shared past
Head of the Contemporary History Department at the Donish Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tajikistan Abdullo Gafurov highlighted that the main purpose of such forums is to bring together the views of scientists from different countries in the post-Soviet space on the events that took place in the general past. For the past 30 years from the collapse of the USSR it has not been possible to do it yet.
“These events cannot be considered unilaterally. It is high time to create the unified picture in order to reach more objective conclusions and to bring together the available views on the various issues. Since independence by the countries of the former Soviet Union, the relations of Central Asian states with Russia have been interpreted differently. If there comes rapprochement among scientists, it will be easier for modern politicians to find a common language”.
National personnel need to be nurtured locally
“The creation of the Soviet type of statehood meant not only a fundamental change of its social base, but also in relation to the former national suburbs, the creation of an entirely new for them inclusive system of political and civic institutions, as well as cultural priorities”, Amanzholova assured her colleagues. “For this purpose, it is enough to remember that until 1917 in most national regions of Russia, indigenous peoples had been represented only on the lower floors of the system of government. Politicization and ethnicity became a part of socialistic ideology, that as a result of total shortage of trained personnel from the peoples, this task was actually solved with enormous difficulties. The policy of korenizatsiya made it possible to gradually get rid of the nationalists that had been attracted by necessity, tainted by the so-called counter-revolutionary past, and to strengthen local power. At the same time, it was limited by the creation of elites of all floors of power in the republics, but not in the central administration. The experience of administrative-territorial transformation and national-state demarcation contains important examples not only in the confrontation between the center and ethnic elites, but also in the flexible setting, mutual adaptation to ensure the stability of the entire state”.
Separately, the speaker drew attention to the unviability of the version about the permanent external nature of the system of national republics.
“It was consciously created for their direct integration into all political and other institutions, as well as the nomenclature, which not only comprised the necessary part of the bureaucracy, but also specifically controlled the presence of nationalists in all links and spheres of power, governance and all kinds of civil networks”.
Republics of the Volga Region
Special attention during the two-day forum was paid to the process of national-state building in the republics of the Volga Region. Associate Professor of the Department of History and Political Science of the Russian Chemical and Technological University named after D.I. Mendeleev Elena Prokofyeva mentioned it in her speech. She based her speech on the practical features of federalization process and reactions of different peoples of the Volga Region to the ongoing events.
“The process of federalization began at the end of the Civil War, when the territory of the country was a conglomerate of various state and national-state entities. As the Red Army moved forward, there emerged a need to consolidate state building in national regions, which were undoubtedly the multinational and multireligious Volga Region. They were peoples of the Volga Region that were among the first to be included into the process of federalization. In the course of that process, the political map of the region was repeatedly changed, counties and volosts were transferred from one republic to another and then returned back, and representatives of the authorities generously cut the territories of certain entities, even if representatives of the title nations did not make up the majority of their population. Territories were easily transferred from one republic to another one; the opinion of the population was not particularly listened to, thus creating a potentially dangerous source of tension”.
Ilmira Gafiyatullina