Occult Massacres…..

Truly Egregious Massacre Propels Impostor

By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis


Occult massacres have a target.

Massacres are not against someone.

Occult massacres do favor someone.

Mainly, the beneficiary rises afterwards.

Occultism occurs in many locations.

Mysteriously, the massacre is unseen.

On onerous acts massacres rely.

Macabre monitions masterfully muster many.

On preparatory deeds nobody dies.

Massacres absorb oblong obsolete obstacles.


An occult massacre takes place between the two pillars.

They are the counterfeit version of Boaz and Jachin.

Occult massacres, as multilayered sacrileges, occur in many places.

Neither indoor nor outdoor location is deprived of pillars.

Emphatically viewed, the two mountains represent Boaz and Jachin.

Members of lodges are indoor sacrifices simultaneously slayed elsewhere.

Entering the Queen of the Night, it all starts.

Nefarious masters, acting as Papageno, bring about their end.

Tamino, Pamina are sacrificed in many copies indoors, outdoors.


At the end of the month, on Tuesday evening;

To slay volunteering apprentices and burn unwilling synchronized victims;

On seven reflecting mirrors and on seven inflecting incantations;

Nun, Naunet, Amaun, Amaunet, Hauh, Hauhet, Kauk, Kauket absent;

Endeavors incurring, recurring insolences, profanities occurring and decurring lines;

Many accomplices morbidly accursed and many felons faintly endorsed;

Ebullient despondency; geometrically selected places, and diagrams of stars;

None wed the second, but who killed the first;

The iniquitous assassins expect the day of their extermination.


Atonement triggers incineration of land and obliteration of people.

The worthless shepherds deserted the flock, being now blinded.

On their apostasy is appended the Grim Reaper’s scythe.

Numbing their victims, the fools believe they will survive.

Endlessly fearing for their lives, they vanish in eternity.

Mimicking the fake, they turned faith to cruel faithlessness.

Ecstatic lies help only extract the layman’s vital force.

Nobody fathomed how politics eliminate spirituality, religion becomes disbelief.

The wicked will however be given for his burial.


Occult massacres transfer the Nether World’s paysage on the surface of the Earth.

Massacres imply enduring contamination for the Earth, the Soft Waters, and the Air.

Of the sacrilegious act hundreds of people were sly accomplices in counterfeit rituals.

Misperception of the act as state corruption further helps the filthy impostor’s rise.

Overwhelmingly, lodge whores believe Egypt is the ‘temple’ and Greece is the ‘altar’.

Malignant belief, viewed eschatologically, is will to die like Koresh group in 1993.

Originating from abroad and with foreign surname, the impostor is now a minister.

Mournful sacrifices hinge on initiation; their father was a murderer from the start.

Of all evil people all the concepts are counterfeit; their ‘god’ is Satan.

Molestation as rite is abolition of identity for orders claiming nobility and antiquity.



Marring the Earth, when slaying between the two pillars, is tantamount to anathema.

Only the Antichrist claims to be Greek, because assassins created Greece on purpose.



On an ideal intention alms overpay.



Nobody is kept on several dreams, endlessly neglecting desires in aimless situations.

Sylphs alternate in diverse nets, eagerly driving students on kernel induced notions.

My God, listen to the true believers’ negative wishes!

Oh my God, empower the opponents of the impostor!



May he see his insidious dreams fail, plans wreck!

On stormy clouds, his wilderness of vision is revealed!



May the spiritual potency of innocent people prevail forever!

On watery whirls, his wickedness of purpose is sunken!



May the ethereal joy of blessed people dispel seas!

On earthly struggles, his wretchedness of soul is perpetuated!



May his plans scatter like death’s scent opposite Life!

Oh Lord, disperse his state in the dark Nothingness!


!אלוהים, רחם

Κύριε ελέησον!

Miserere Nobis, Domine!

Господи, помилуй!

!اللهم ارحمنا










Dieter Rueggeberg, Geheimpolitik Der Fahrplan Zur Weltherrschaft


Dieter Rueggeberg is our world’s foremost mystic and spiritual master.

Franz Bardon, Frabato the Magician

Franz Bardon, Questions & Answers

Franz Bardon, Initiation Into Hermetics

Franz Bardon, The Practice of Magical Evocation

Franz Bardon, The Key to the True Quabbalah

Franz Bardon (1909-1958) was a magisterial intelligence.

Dieter Rüggeberg and his Work for the benefit of Franz Bardon’s books




Николай Александрович Тархов, Смерть с косой /  Мрачный жнец





Kazakhstan from the Göktürks (Celestial Turks) and Genghis Khan to the Jadid Intellectuals to Nursultan Nazarbayev

The Intertwined Destiny of the Russians, the Kazakhs, and the Other Turkic (Turanian) Nations   

Казахстан от Гёктюрков (Небесных тюрков) и Чингисхана до джадидской интеллигенции и Нурсултана Назарбаева

Переплетающиеся судьбы русских, казахов и других тюркских (туранских) народов



I. Казахская нация: крупная историческая туранская нация

II. Казахи, иранские Сефевиды и Могольские Тимуриды против узбеков и османов

III. Казахи-мусульмане, русские христиане и китайцы-конфуцианцы в войнах против экстремистских буддийских джунгар

IV. Казахские племена и их диахроническое значение

V. Казахи и русские: параллельная жизнь двух туранских народов

VI. Русско-казахские отношения (16-19 вв.) и завоевание Казахского ханства русскими

VII. В Казахстане, Сибири и Средней Азии никогда не было русской колонизации

VIII. Казахи при царизме

а- Царские поселения по всей Средней Азии

б- Деномадизация (или оседлость) казахов и других туранских народов

в- Отмена рабства и крепостного права

г- Административная организация

д- Внедрение современных технологий и, в частности, строительство железных дорог

е- Русский язык в образовании

IX. Джадидское движение как основание всех современных туранских мусульманских народов в Восточной Европе, Центральной Азии и Сибири: исторические корни

а- Габдрахим Утыз-Имяни аль Булгари

б- Таджетдин Ялчыгул

в- Нигматулла Тукаев

г- Габденнасыр Курсави

д- Шигабутдин Марджани

е- Абай (Ибрагим) Кунанбаев

ё- Кадимизм

X. 25 самых выдающихся интеллектуалов, ученых, активистов и политиков движения джадидов.

аИсмаил Гаспринский

б- Абдурауф Фитрат

вФайзулла Ходжаев

гМирсаид Султан-Галиев

д- Муса Бигеев

е- Мухаммед-Габдулхай Курбангалиев

ё- Алимардан-бек Топчибашев

ж- Гасан-бек Зардаби

з Мирза Фатали Ахундов

и Махмуд Ходжа Бехбуди

й- Сайфулла-кади Халид Башларов 

кСалимгирей Сеидханович Джантюрин

л- Садриддин Айни

м- Хайрулла Усманов

нФатали Хан Искендер оглы Хойский

оХалил-бек Хасмамедов

п- Мулланур Муллазянович Вахитов

р- Ахмет-Заки  Валидов

сРизаитдин Фахретдинович Фахретдинов

тБахытжан Бисалиевич Каратаев

уХалел Досмухамедов

ф- Жаханша Досмухамедов

хСакен Сейфуллин

цМукыш Боштаев

ч- Алихан Букейханов

XI. Джадидское движение между имперской Россией и СССР: светский характер казахов и других мусульман Средней Азии

XII. Так называемое Андижанское восстание

XIII. Неправильное толкование истории Центральной Азии местными учеными-жертвами западных посольств и американо-британских институтов

XIV. Среднеазиатское «восстание» 1916 года  

XV. Так называемое восстание басмачей (1917-1923 гг.)

а- Восстание басмачей в Ферганской долине (первая фаза)

б- Восстание басмачей в Хорезмии

в- Восстание басмачей в Бухаре

г- Восстание басмачей в Ферганской долине (вторая фаза)

д- Восстание басмачей в Самарканде

е- Восстание басмачей в Закаспийской области

XVI. Годы становления советской власти в Средней Азии

а- Туркестанская Советская Федеративная Республика

б- Хорезмская Народная Советская Республика

в- Киргизская Автономная Социалистическая Советская Республика

г- Бухарская Народная Советская Республика

д- Противоположные теоретические подходы к образованию советских республик в Средней Азии

е- Национальная территориальная делимитация (Национально-территориальное размежевание)

XVII. Казахстан и Средняя Азия при коммунистах

а- Голод в Казахстане (1919-1922 гг.)

б- Пагубная роль Филиппа Голощекина в Казахстане

в- Голод, исход, депортации, демографические изменения в Казахстане 1930-х гг.

г- Корейцы Казахстана

д- Туркменская Советская Социалистическая Республика (1924-1991)

е- Узбекская Советская Социалистическая Республика (1925-1991 гг.)

ё- Таджикская Советская Социалистическая Республика (1924-1991, в т.ч. АССР)

ж- Киргизская Советская Социалистическая Республика (1925-1991 гг., в т.ч. Автономную область и АССР)

з Основание Казахской Советской Социалистической Республики и рождение современной казахской нации

и- От Мирзояна до Жумабая Шаяхметова (1933-1954)

XVIII. Казахстан от Брежнева до Назарбаева

а- Космодром Байконур, Освоение целины и Массовые угрозы в Темиртау

б- Патриотическая позиция Динмухамеда Кунаева и шымкентский мятеж  (1967 г.)

в- Исмаил Юсупов, уйгурский лидер Казахстана, и Безудержное пренебрежение границами Никиты Хрущева

г- Декабрьские события в Алма-Ате (Желтоксан; 1986): теории заговора и исторические искажения, распространяемые западными учеными и средствами массовой информации

XIX. Казахстан в переходный период

а- Возвышение Нурсултана Назарбаева, величайшего тюркского государственного деятеля после Кемаля Ататюрка

б- Нурсултан Назарбаев: основные достижения и упущения



Table of Contents


I. Kazakh Nation: a Major Historical Turanian Nation

II. Kazakhs, Iranian Safavids & Mughal Timurids against Uzbeks and Ottomans

III. Muslim Kazakhs, Christian Russians & Confucian Chinese in Wars against the Extremist Buddhist Dzungars

IV. The Kazakh Tribes and their Diachronic Importance

V. Kazakhs & Russians: Parallel Lives of two Turanian Nations

VI. Russian-Kazakh Relations (16th-19th c.), and the Russian Conquest of the Kazakh Khanate

VII. In Kazakhstan, Siberia, and Central Asia, there was never Russian Colonization

VIII. The Kazakhs under the Czarists

a- Czarist settlements throughout Central Asia

b- Denomadization (or sedentarization) of the Kazakhs and other Turanian nations

c- Abolition of slavery and serfdom

d- Administrative organization

e- Introduction of modern technology and, more particularly, construction of railways

f- Russian language in the education

IX. The Jadid Movement as the Foundation of all Modern Turanian Muslim Nations in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Siberia: the Historical Roots

a- Gadbrahim Utiz-Imiani al-Bulgari

b- Taj al-Din Yalchygul

c- Nigmatullah Toukaev

d- Ghabdennasir Qursawi

e- Shigabutdin Marjani

f- Ibrahim (Abai) Qunanbaiuly

g- Kadimism

X. The 25 most Illustrious Intellectuals, Scholars, Activists and Politicians of the Jadid Movement

a- Ismail Gaspirali (Gasprinsky)

b- Abdurauf Fitrat

c- Fayzullah Khodzhayev

d- Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev

e- Musa Yarulovich Bigiev

f- Muhammed-Gabdulkhay Kurbangaliev

g- Alimardan bey Topchubashov

h- Hasan bey Zardabi

i- Mirza Fatali Akhundov

j- Mahmud khodja Behbudiy

k- Saifullah qadi Khalid Bashlarov

l- Salimgirey Seidkhanovich Dzhantyurin

m- Sadriddin Ayni

n- Hairullah Usmanov

o- Fatali Khan Isgender Oğlu

p- Khalil bey Khasmammadov

q- Mullanur Mullazianovich Vakhitov

r- Ahmed Zaki Validov

s- Rizaeddin bin Fakhreddin

t- Bakhytzhan Bisalievich Karataev

u- Khalil Dosmukhamedov

v- Zhahansha Dosmukhamedov

w- Saken Seifullin 

x- Mukysh Boshtayev

y- Alikhan Bukeikhanov

XI. The Jadid Movement between Imperial Russia and the USSR: the Secular Nature of the Kazakhs and the Other Muslims of Central Asia

XII. The So-called Andijan Rebellion

XIII. Misinterpretation of the History of Central Asia by Local Academics-Victims of Western Embassies & US-UK Institutions

XIV. The Central Asiatic ‘Rebellion’ of 1916

XV. The So-called Basmachi Revolt (1917-1923)

a- Basmachi Revolt in Fergana Valley (first phase)

b- Basmachi Revolt in Chorasmia

c- Basmachi Revolt in Bukhara

d- Basmachi Revolt in Fergana Valley (second phase)

e- Basmachi Revolt in Samarqand

f- Basmachi Revolt in the Trans-Caspian region

XVI. The Formative Years of Soviet Rule in Central Asia

a- Turkestan Soviet Federative Republic

b- Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic

c- Kirghiz Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic

d- Bukharan People’s Soviet Republic

e- Opposite theoretical approaches to the formation of soviet republics in Central Asia

f- National Territorial Delimitation (Национально-территориальное размежевание)

XVII. Kazakhstan and Central Asia under the Communists

a- Famine 1919-1922 in Kazakhstan

b- The Malefic Role of Filipp Goloshchyokin in Kazakhstan

c- Famine, Exodus, Deportations, Demographic Change in 1930s Kazakhstan

d- The Koreans of Kazakhstan

e- Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic (1924-1991)

f- Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic (1925-1991)

g- Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic (1924-1991, incl. ASSR)

h- Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic (1925-1991, incl. Autonomous Oblast & ASSR)

i- The Foundation of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and the Birth of the Modern Kazakh Nation

j- From Mirzoyan to Dzhumabay Shayahmetov (1933-1954)

XVIII. Kazakhstan from Brezhnev to Nazarbayev

a- The Baikonur Cosmodrome, the Virgin Lands Campaign, and the Temirtau Riots

b- The Patriotic Stance of Dinmukhamed Kunaev and the Shymkent Riots (1967)

c- Ismail Yusupov, the Uighur leader of Kazakhstan, and Nikita Khrushchev’s Unrestrainable Disregard of Borders

d- The Jeltoqsan riots (1986): conspiracy theories and historical distortions diffused by Western academics and mass media

XIX. Kazakhstan in Transition

a- The rise of Nursultan Nazarbayev, the greatest Turkic Statesman after Kemal Ataturk

b- Nursultan Nazarbayev: major achievements and oversights



There is no geopolitics and there is no global energy politics. There are no states and there are no international organizations. There are nations (not in the villainous and distortive manner they have been portrayed by malevolent ‘philosophers’ of the so-called Enlightenment era) and there are humans. The existence, i.e. the Creation, of Man is the primordial fact, when it comes to human societies; and because this is so, nothing matters more than Faith and Moral. Any study and analysis of a historical fact is by definition a moral endeavor, a moral evaluation, and a moral conclusion. Without Moral, there is no Man, there are no human societies, and there must not be states at all. That is why there are no ‘interests’ of persons or of states, and every act of every human is a moral examination, before we all return to the Spiritual Universe from where came here.

My current presentation serves as a background and as a point of reference for a forthcoming article in which I will present the reasons for which the UK-US-NATO-EU villainous evildoing and shameless attempt to overthrow the current, widely popular and fully legitimate administration of Kazakhstan was doomed to fail as it finally did in the early days of January 2022. Certainly, in the administration of any society anytime anywhere human mistakes are perpetrated and misconceptions lead to impasses. However, there are always formidable, ethnic, social and cultural factors, formed and consolidated during the history of a nation, that play a determinant role in the time of upheaval and in a moment of challenge; in the present, lengthy article, my intention is to plainly reveal these factors.

History is primordially History of Nations, i.e. of peoples – not states. Peoples matter; states do not. States matter only when they reflect the culture and the traditions, the spirituality and the character, the identity and the integrity of a nation. This reality was plainly reconfirmed in Kazakhstan in January 2022.

As the Kazakh nation has always been intertwined with other Asiatic and Eastern European nations, I intend to highlight the interaction, the interdependence and the interconnectedness of the Kazakhs, the Russians, the Kirghiz, the Tatars, the Uzbeks, the Cossacks, the Mongols, the Turkmen, the Uighurs and –also- the Iranian nations.

Kazakhstan is the leading nation of the Turkic/Turanian world, but it remains deliberately unknown to most of the world. There are other, more densely populated Turanian nations, notably the Uighurs or the Uzbeks. But it is the degree of national consciousness and the authenticity of national integrity that determine the identity of any nation at any moment. For this reason, at the critical moment, the Kazakhs were not fooled, but wholeheartedly sided with their government, supporting President Tokayev’s decision to defend the state against the puppets of the evil forces of UK-US-NATO-EU. To demonstrate the causes of the Kazakh national unity around President Tokayev, I herewith expanded extensively.

All links to entries of the Wikipedia have been included for those among the readers, who would like to undertake their own research and find bibliography and further documentation there. In many cases of the English version of Wikipedia particularly, I fully disagree with either specific points or the overall structure of the entry.

I. Kazakh Nation: a Major Historical Turanian Nation

The Kazakhs (or rather the Qazaqs / Qazaqtar – قازاقتار) constituted a major component of the Turanian Cuman-Kipchak (Kıpçaklar/ Кыпшак) Confederation that dwelled in and controlled most of Eastern Europe, Western and Central Siberia, as well as the northern confines of Central Asia from the beginning of the 10th c. until the middle of the 13th c. Known as 钦察 (Qincha) to the Chinese, Половцы (Polovtsy) and Куны (Cuni) to Slavic sources, and Cumani to Eastern Roman and Latin sources, the Cuman-Kipchak emanated from the Second Turkic Khaganate (7th-8th c.), which consisted in a revival of the Eastern Turkic Khaganate (6th-7th c.), i.e. one of the two halves of the divided Göktürk (Celestial Turanian) or ‘First’ Turkic Khaganate (6th-7th c.). The Göktürks had put an end to the Rouran Khaganate (柔然, Juan-Juan for the Chinese) that lasted from the 4th to the 6th c.

Жужаньский каганат – Rouran Khaganate (: early khanate)
Göktürk (Celestial Turanian) or ‘First’ Turkic Khaganate
Тюркский каганат – ‘First’ Turkic Khaganate

The Kipchak are first mentioned as part of the Second Turkic Khaganate whereas their Confederation was well known to Iranian historians as دشت_قبچاق (Dasht-e Kipchak/Steppe of the Kipchak). The end of the Cuman-Kipchak Confederation is entirely due to the phenomenal development that is current described as ‘Mongol Invasions’. The collapse of the Confederation was the reason that Kipchak spread everywhere in Asia, Africa and Europe. With their renowned military experience, they metamorphosed into Mamluks whereas others served the armies of the vast Mongol Turanian Empire (Golden Horde). About:




















Кыпчаки / половцы / куманы – Cuman-Kipchak Confederation
Genghis Khan Empire – Монгольская империя
Чагатайский улус – Chagatai Empire
察合台帝國 – Chagatai Empire

Whereas the formation of a Kazakh nomad state dates back to 1465, the name itself is mentioned quite earlier, but not as an ethnonym. The meaning of the word hinges on different possible etymologies as per which it can mean the ‘free man’ (in the sense of gaining one’s freedom / qazğaq or qazğan or qaz). As an alliance Uzbek-Kazak, they were first noticed by the famous general and historian Mirza Muhammad Haidar Dughlat (ميرزا محمد حيدر دوغلات /1499-1551; ruler of Kashmir) in his تاریخ رشیدی (Tarikh-e Rashidi) and described as pastoral nomads wandering around the northern and the western borders of Moghulistan (14th-17th c.), which was a derivative khanate of the Chagatai Empire (one of the vast empires founded by the sons of Genghis Khan). About:








The Kazakh Khanate covers almost 400 years of Central and North Asiatic History (1465-1847), and at the time, it was involved in all major historical developments of the Eurasiatic landmass. Its inception has been rather called the ‘Kazakh War of Independence’ (1468-1500); this war took in fact the form of a civil war within the White Horde, i.e. the eastern wing (also known as the left wing) of the Golden Horde (also known as ‘Ulug Ulus’, the ‘Great State’), i.e. the northwestern part of Genghis Khan’s Mongol Turanian Empire.

More specifically, Abu’l-Khayr Khan (born 1412; 1428-1468), also known as Abu’l-Khayr Shaybani, one of the scions of Genghis Khan, Jochi and Shiban, Khan (king) of the Uzbek Khanate, was considered as illegitimate ruler of the Golden Horde by Kerey (Kerei) and Janibek (Zhanibek), the sons of Barak Khan, ruler of the Golden Horde (1423-1428). Fearing persecution, Kerey Khan (born 1425; Керей-хан) and Janibek Khan (born 1428; Жанибек хан) left and, being accompanied by 200000 nomads, reached the western confines of Moghulistan. It was then that they called themselves Kazakhs (Qazaqs) for the first time. This is how Kerey (1465-1474) and Janibek (1474-1480) became the first two khans of the Kazakh Khanate.

Алтын урда/Altyn Orda – Golden Horde
Золотая Орда (Golden Horde) или/or Великое Государство (the Great State)
Казахское ханство – Kazakh Khanate
The flag of the Kazakh Khanate
The three hordes of the Kazakhs – Три жуза казахов
Kazakh Khanate, The Golden Throne series 2019

II. Kazakhs, Iranian Safavids & Mughal Timurids against Uzbeks and Ottomans

At this point, I must highlight some very critical points; for the aforementioned events and for several ensuing developments, there have been conflicting historical narratives that present enormous variations in favor of one or the other side. They represent the Kazakh and the Uzbek versions of historiography and oral tradition; to offer an example, for the former, Abu’l-Khayr Shaybani was a traitor, whereas for the latter, he was a brave ruler. For two tribal nations that relied extensively on oral traditions due to their cultural identity and moral-spiritual integrity, the heroization of one another’s historical enemy underscores a quasi-permanent rivalry.

From the above, it becomes clear that, at the very moment of the formation of the Uzbek and Kazakh nations, the two tribal structures appeared to form the two main poles of rivalry in the vast area between the Tian Shan Mountains and the Caspian Sea. Despite several long decades of common struggle and fight against the czarist invasion and, notwithstanding that Kazakhs and Uzbeks were viewed by others -and came indeed to live and cohabitate- as fraternal nations during the decades of the Soviet rule, the burden of the past has always been omnipresent down to our days. If the common future of the two major Central Asiatic nations and states remains always a worthwhile perspective, the shadows of the past constitute a worthless nightmare that the two governments must work hard to irrevocably invalidate and obliterate. Even more so, since evil diplomats, working for criminal governments, are persistent in always doing exactly this: exacerbating the impact that old nightmares may have today.

To the original moment of conflict and to several subsequent events are also linked historical alliances that lasted for centuries. Example: Abu’l-Khayr Khan’s grandson Muhammad Shaybani (born 1451; 1488-1510), before he established the Khanate of Bukhara, was defeated by the Kazakhs in Iasy (today’s Turkistan, in the southern confines of Kazakhstan). During his rise to power, Muhammad Shaybani betrayed the Timurid ruler of Samarqand Sultan Ahmed Mirza, making an alliance with Moghulistan. In the battle of Chirciq (Чирчик) River in 1488, the joined armies of Moghulistan and the Uzbeks, the latter under Muhammad Shaybani, won a decisive battle, and Iasy was given back to the Uzbeks.

On this background, it is only normal that the Kazakhs had friendly feelings for the founder of the Safavid Iranian dynasty Shah Ismail I (a Turkmen born in 1487; 1501-1524); the great victory of the Qizilbash Safavid army in the Battle of Merv (1510) and the subsequent death of Muhammad Shaybani were surely auspicious news for the Kazakhs. It is not therefore strange that, under Kasym Khan (born 1445; 1511-1521; قاسم بن جانيبك خان / Қасым бин Жәнібек хан), the Kazakh Khanate reached its greatest expansion. However, Qizilbash involvement against the Ottomans in Anatolia and the excesses of Ismail Safavi’s victory (Shaybani was beheaded and his skull was turned to a drinking vessel) turned the Ottomans against Iran and in favor of the Uzbeks; in any case, Shaybani had already established an Uzbek-Ottoman alliance.

Qasim bin Janibek Khan in the contemporary popular imagination
Ottomans, Safavids, Uzbeks, Kazakhs and the Mughal Empire

While discussing all these topics, one must not however forget that these were -one way or another- merely family affairs; not only Kasym Khan and Muhammad Shaybani had common origin from Genghis Khan, common Turanian language and culture, as well as common religion, but they were -literally speaking- cousins. All the same, the disastrous relations that Shaybani and his Uzbek successors had with the Timurids and the support extended at a critical moment by Kasym Khan to Babur (born 1483; 1526-1530;ظهير الدين محمد بابر / Zahir ud-Din Muhammad), founder of the immense Mughal Empire of South Asia (Moghul Empire of India), brought the Mughal emperors and the Kazakh khans close to the Iranian shahs and against the Ottomans and the Uzbeks. If we add the irrevocable Turkmen antipathy for the Ottomans, who constantly and absurdly persecuted Turkmen populations in Anatolia and elsewhere, we get the entire picture. About:

























The Kazakh Khanate – The Diamond Sword

III. Muslim Kazakhs, Christian Russians & Confucian Chinese in Wars against the Extremist Buddhist Dzungars

The clashes and wars between the Uzbeks and the Kazakhs remained for centuries an invariable trait of the History of Eurasia. All the same, in rough terms, the Kazakh Khanate occupied approximately the same area as today’s Republic of Kazakhstan (Qazaqstan Respublikasy), being surrounded by the Nogai Horde (in the west), the Uzbek Khanate of Bukhara (in the south), Moghulistan (in the east), and the Khanate of Siberia (in the north).

As the History of the Kazakh nation is not part of the scope of the present article, I would like to herewith highlight the historically important role that the Kazakh Khanate played while combatting -along with several allies- the infamous, extremist Buddhist Dzungar Khanate. The Dzungar (準噶爾 / Жоңғар / Джунгары; the name means ‘left hand’) were one Oirat Mongol Turanian tribe that established a Buddhist Khanate (1634-1755), which -converted to Mahayana (Great Vehicle) Buddhism- became the major factor of destabilization across Eastern and Central Asia. The Dzungar fanatics invaded and occupied the area of today’s Eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang), undertook attacks on China, Tibet, Siberia and Kazakhstan, and finally proved to be an existential threat for China, the Kazakh Khanate, and Russia. The Confucian – Islamic – Christian alliance of the three realms had to oppose ferocious armies, engage in successive wars, and undertake many attacks before defeating and decimating the Dzungars. The Kazakh-Dzungar wars (1643-1756) helped Qing China pacify Eastern Turkestan and eliminate Dzungars from that region; however, this was possible only after three Dzungar-Qing wars took place.

Central Asia & Siberia 1636
Kazakhs and Dzungars
Dzungar Khanate 1760
Dzungar Khanate















IV. The Kazakh Tribes and their Diachronic Importance 

Every historian, political scientist, commentator or analyst, who happens to speak today about Kazakhstan, without referring to the Kazakh tribes {or, to be more accurate, the Kazakh hordes (ٴجۇز / жүз; Zhuz)}, is by definition an ignorant and farcical idiot. In fact, the Kazakh tribal particularity always played an important role in Kazakh History, and so it does indeed nowadays. And as it will be demonstrated below, this is not only a societal issue, but also a topographical / geographical factor; in other words, it concerns the different parts of the country’s territory, de facto classifying them as per the traditional tribal criteria. This implies that, under such circumstances, the transfer of capital (from Almaty/Alma Ata to Astana-Nursultan) is not an easy, one-dimensional affair. 

The Kazakh word for horde is identical with the number one hundred (100): жүз (zhuz); this relates to a typical trait of Turkic linguistics as per which -y turns to -zh in some languages (equivalents: жүз in Kighiz; yuz in Uzbek; ýüz in Turkmen; yüz in Turkish). In this case, the Kazakh number has the connotation of ‘horde’. There are three Kazakh hordes and their names are quite indicative:

– the Great Horde, lit. the Great Hundred (ۇلى ٴجۇز / Ұлы жүз; Uly Zhuz),

– the Middle Horde (ورتا ٴجۇز; Орта Жүз; Orta Zhuz),


– the Minor Horde (كىشى ٴجۇز; Кіші Жүз; Kishi Zhuz).

Considerations about the territories of the three zhuzes (hordes) may differ.

The Uly Zhuz encompasses illustrious tribes, notably the Dulat (or Dughlat), who supported Genghis Khan and rose later to prominence among all Mongol Turanians, the Jalayir, who got permission from Genghis Khan’s sons to settle in Central Asia, and the Kangly, whose name is mentioned in the Kul Tigin Inscription (end of 7th-beginning of 8th c.). Parts of the Great Horde are also the following tribes: Ysty (Ысты), Oshakty (Ошакты), Suwan (Суаны), Alban (Албаны), Sary-Uysin (Уйсун), Shapyrashty (Шапрашты), Sirgeli (Сиргели) and Shanyshqyly (Шанышкылы). In total, the Great Horde is composed of 11 tribes; each tribe is made of several clans and sub-clans. Indicatively, I mention herewith that the Dughlat are divided into Botpai (Ботпай), Janys (Жаныс), Sikym (Сикым) and Shymyr (Шымыр), whereas the Jalairs consist of the Syrmanak (Сырманак/with 5 clans), the Shumanak (Шуманак/with 7 clans), and the Birmanak (Бирманак/with one clan). One must point out that these names are not just academic terms with which only historians, ethnographers, linguists and other scholars keep themselves busy, but the real quintessence of a Kazakh’s identity description and ancestral pride. And for a nation with vast oral tradition like the Kazakhs, my previous sentence is merely an understatement.

From: https://zhanaozen1216.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/13-05-2015-казахские-роды-the-kazakh-tribes/

Great Horde Kazakhs dwell today in a rather small part of Kazakhstan’s territory, notably the southern confines and the Semirechye (Seven Rivers’) region, and also in an adjacent province of Uzbekistan (forming the local Kazakh minority). For all intentions and purposes, it is quite significant to take into consideration the fact that, from 1718 until 1798, the most noble and most prominent Kazakh horde had its capital in Tashkent, today’s capital of Uzbekistan. And despite the reasonable choice for the post-Soviet independent Kazakhstan to make a new start with a totally brand new capital, a large part of Uly Zhuz (Great Horde) Kazakhs did not accept the transfer of the capital from Almaty to Astana (now Nur-sultan), which is located in the northern confines of the territory of the Middle Horde; that region is viewed as a less important ancestral land. Almaty (آلماتی; Алматы; i.e. ‘the city which is full of apples’) is actually the continuation of an earlier settlement named Almatau (i.e. ‘the mountain of the apples’); it was renamed in Russian as Алма-Ата / Alma-Ata (with the accents on the ultimate syllables), i.e. ‘the father of the apples’. This name reflects the traditional belief that this region was the land of origin for all apple trees. Almaty is located with the territory of the Dulat, one of the most illustrious tribes of the Great Zhuz/Horde.

Comprising six main tribes {Argyny (Аргыны), Naimany (Найманы), Kipchaki (Кипчаки), Konyraty (Коныраты), Kerei (Кереи) and Waki (Уаки)}, and numerous clans and sub-clans, the Middle Horde occupies almost half the territory of present day Kazakhstan (the central, northern and eastern regions of the vast country). When it comes to epics, oral traditions, tribal virtues, Kazakh fables, and heroic narratives, the Orta Zhuz appears to be less brave, less intrepid, and less renowned than the Great Horde.  

Last, the Minor Horde consists of remnants of the Nogai Horde, one of the less brave and less famous realms among the Turanian nations. Divided into three tribes, namely Alimuly (Алимулы), Zhetyru (Жетыру) and Bayuly (Байулы) and many clans, the Kishi Zhuz occupies around one third of Kazakhstan’s territory, i.e. the entire western part of the country. About:



















(English translation:) http://atalarmirasi.org/en/21-the-kul-tigin-inscription











About clans:



















V. Kazakhs & Russians: Parallel Lives of two Turanian Nations

The encounter between the Kazakhs and the Russians did not start under auspicious circumstances. The Russians were viewed as a newer, constructed, nation by the Kazakhs (and by many other historical nations of Central and North Asia), and this consideration was very correct and accurate indeed. Although we attest a Kazakh nation in the 2nd half of the 15th c., we have to admit that there were no ‘Russians’ at the time. What is now called ‘Ukraine’ and what makes the quasi-totality of Russia’s European territory still belonged to several Turanian Islamic realms at the time. In fact, if the Golden Horde did not split to several pieces, there would not be any Russian today.

I cannot herewith expand on issues pertaining to the History of Eastern Europe and Northwestern Asia and to what is nowadays presented as ‘History of Russia’, which are entirely fabricated fallacies and historical untruths propagated by Western colonial universities and academies as part of their malignant bogus-historical dogma, but I have to make a series of brief points related to these topics in order to elucidate the confusing situation that average people have in their minds, being the victims of the Western colonial falsehood.

1- Eastern Europe was been the regular habitat of various nomadic Turanian nations, starting with the Huns, who spread in these territories around the middle of the 4th c. CE, coming from Central and Northeastern Asia.

2- The Slavic migrations have been a minor episode of the History of Turanian Migrations to the West; indeed Slavs settled mainly in the Balkans and Central Europe. The fact that Slavs settled in great numbers throughout Macedonia, Thrace and particularly Greece in the late 6th c. (i.e. within the territory of the Eastern Roman Empire) is due to the arrival of the Turkic nation of Bulgars, who settled mainly in the lands of today’s Ukraine, the central and southern parts of Russia’s European territory, and also throughout many adjacent lands. The original language of Slavs is not known and therefore cannot be linguistically identified / categorized.

3- As a continuation of the ‘Old Great Bulgaria’ that controlled Crimea and all lands around the Azov Sea from ca. 630 until ca. 690, Volga Bulgaria was a {first Tengrist (the traditional Turanian religion) and later Muslim} kingdom that lasted from 660 until the arrival of the armies of Genghis Khan at ca. 1240.

4- Islam arrived long before Christianity in Eastern Europe. The kingdom of Volga Bulgaria accepted Islam at the times of Almış (Almish Elteber; Алмуш; ألمش بن يلطوار), who lived at the end of the 9th and the beginning of the 10th c.; more specifically, in 921, the Elteber (title of king) of Bolghar (Volga Bulgaria’s capital) sent an embassy to the Abbasid caliph at Baghdad, asking the dispatch of an embassy and religious authorities officially designated to preach and teach Islam throughout his state. Ahmad ibn Fadlan was then dispatched and, in his Resalah (Report of Journal), he detailed in scrupulous detail the historical developments that took place in 922, i.e. ca. 70 years before Kievan Rus’ accepted Christianity at ca. 990.

Volga Bulgaria in the popular imagination
1100 years of Islam in Volga Bulgaria
Rus Khaganate – Русский каганат

5- There is not a shred continuity from the Rus’ Khaganate (ca. 800-900; a Turanian, Scandinavian and Slavic nomadic confederation under a purely Turanian ruler, i.e. ‘Khaqan’, whose whereabouts are entirely unknown due to the lack of clarity of the various historical sources – eventually somewhere in the Krasnodar region) to the Novgorod-based, Varangian–Scandinavian, Rurik dynasty that was founded by Rurik in 862, and to the Kievan Rus’, an extraordinarily multi-ethnic principality founded in 882, which disintegrated in the 1240s due to the Mongol invasions.  

Volga Bulgaria, Rus and Mongols

6- The Turanian Mongolian Invasions of the 13th c. only reconfirmed the fact that what is now falsely called ‘Eastern Europe’ has always been an ethnically, culturally and spiritually integral part of (Central, Northeastern, Northern and Northwestern) Asia. With the settlement of Turanian Mongolian populations throughout the lands of the Mongol Empire (and later of the Golden Horde) in Eastern Europe, the ethnic-cultural-religious identity of the local populace was homogenized. The marginal town of Moscow/Muscovy was an entirely Islamic city, and there was a mosque in the castle of Kremlin.

7- The entire reconstruction of Alexander Nevsky’s biography is based on posterior propaganda and untrustworthy sources that make of this insignificant vassal of the Turanian Mongolian Empire a fabulous hero. His genealogy is fabricated, and this proves that there is absolutely no connection between Kievan Rus’ and the so-called ‘principality of Muscovy’, which was turned to ashes in 1389 by the Great Emperor Tokhtamysh (Тухтамыш /Tuqtamış / توقتمش), great grandson of Genghis Khan. The so much praised victory of Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoi (prince of Moscow 1359-1399) over the Khaqan of the Blue Horde, Mamai, at Kulikovo (1380) was not properly speaking a victory, but a machination of Tokhtamysh (1376-1397; Khaqan of the White Horde and later of the Golden Horde), who deliberately did not help Mamai in order to later merge his territory and that of his defeated counterpart, thus re-establishing the Golden Horde.

The Golden Horde before its division into Blue and White Hordes

8- The internecine conflicts among different Turanian tribal rulers, notably Timur’s (Tamerlane’s) invasion of Tokhtamysh’s lands and the subsequent war in 1395 and the Battle of the Vordskla River (in 1399; between the victorious Tatars, supported by Timur, and Tokhtamysh, supported by the Poles and the Lithuanians), allowed the principality of Moscow to be re-established again. But it was not an independent state even at the times of Vasily I (1389-1425). Even more significantly, he may have been a Christian, but the majority of his fiefdom’s population was Muslim. That is why any annexation of territories (as in the case of Nizhny and Suzdal) was always made in the name of the Turanian Muslim lord of the Muscovite vassal princes.

9- Under the princes Vasily I, Vasily II (1425-1462), Ivan III (1462-1505), Vasily III (1505-1533), and Ivan IV the Terrible (1530-1584), Muscovy experienced first a long period of stability (for more than a century) and then an expansion. It was at that time, when the theory of the Slavic Orthodox ancestry of Muscovy was invented and the entire antiquization propaganda started being developed in order to deliberately and distortedly position ‘Russia’ (Россия / Rassiya; an absolutely new and forged name that meant nothing to 15th–16th c. Muscovites) as spiritual-religious-imperial successor to Kievan Rus’ (Ки́евская Русь), which had already been -as we already presented- an imaginatively nebulous substance with undocumented history and unsubstantiated claims. To the old stuff, the subsequent Romanov and Communist layers of propaganda added many false maps whereby the inimical past appears as ‘small’ and the various fabricated realms (which supposedly demonstrate a historical continuity) look ‘big’.

10- In the state of Ivan IV the Terrible, the outright majority of the local population was Turanian of origin; and the peerage, i.e. the famous Boyars (Бояре; in Singular Boyarin/Боярин; of entirely Turanian, not Slavic, etymology), was ostensibly composite, namely of Genghisid and Rurikid ancestry. That’s why Ivan IV the Terrible imposed a real tyranny on them, involving also numerous massacres, in order to subdue them and to deprive them of their immense power (Опричнина / Oprochnina). Old Slavonic, which was already used for religious purposes, became a linguistic goldmine for local vindictive grammarians, who wanted to eliminate (‘purify’) every Turkic linguistic trace. All the same, the expanding state of Ivan IV the Terrible was so weak that, even after the conquest of the Khanate of Kazan (1552) and the Khanate of Astrakhan (1556), the Khanate of Tatar Crimea was still able in 1571 to lay siege of Moscow and burn the entire city within few hours.

11- The so-called Tsardom of Russia (1547-1721; Русское царство/Russkoye tsarstvo) expanded tremendously beyond the Urals throughout North and Northeast Asia, starting with the conquest of the Tatar Islamic Khanate of Siberia (1574-1601) the territory of which corresponded to today’s province of Western Siberia). The entire process involved extensive genocides of the indigenous Turanian and other nations. Meanwhile, the central part of the tsardom (the European territory of today’s Russia, Belarus and Ukraine) was inhabited by Turanian Muslims, who had to accept forced Christianization and linguistic Russification in order to survive. This situation led to extreme turmoil, which is presently known as the ‘Time of Troubles’ (Смутное время /Smutnoe vremya); the years of upheaval lasted from 1598 until 1613, when the Romanovy (Романовы /House of Romanov) rose to power. After the death of the last Khan of the Khanate of Siberia, the Russians advanced to the East, reaching Yenisei River (1605) and the coast of the Pacific Ocean (1639).

This map is very false, because it presents the domain of Muscovy as ‘Russia’; it was not named like that at the time. In fact, there was no Russia, whereas the Kievan Rus was over. Even worse, the dark-colored territory was not under control of Ivan the Terrible before the Novgorod massacre (1570) and before the annexation of all the associated territories to Muscovy. This means that only the southern fifth (20%) of the territory marked as ‘Russia’ belonged truly to the vassal chieftain, who -after his invasions and cruelty- became known as Ivan the Terrible. The expansion of the small state of Ivan IV the Terrible (the massacre of Novgorod and the successive invasions of the Khanates of Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberia) simply turned Muscovy into a Turanian state in which Slavs and Scandinavians were a tiny minority. Due to terror, the Muslim majority had to accept Christianity in order to survive; but this was only a very superficial and therefore meaningless conversion.

12- Furthermore, the centuries of Romanov proved to be not only the time of an intensified linguistic Russification (or de-Turanization) and Christianization (or de-Islamization) but also the period of an imposed educational Occidentalization (or Europeanization) from top to bottom. These monstrous and tyrannical practices and dictates absolutely disfigured the real face of the inhabitants of the vast realm. So, it is not enough to just state today that the Romanovs ruled over a multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural and multi-religious realm; one has to also point out that the so-called ethnic ‘Russians’ are the Turanian descendants of Tengrist and Muslim ancestors and that they undeniably belong culturally to the world of the historical Oriental nations.

13- Now, we can understand what happened, when these ‘Russians’ attempted to move southwards and advance in Central Asia; they actually first expanded to the east and then to the south. And when these ‘Russians’ attacked the Kazakhs, the Uzbeks, the Turkmens and the other Muslim Turanian nations throughout Central Asia, they had apparently forgotten that their remote ancestors may well have been the cousins and the brothers of the Kazakhs’, the Uzbeks’ and the Turkmens’ forefathers.

14- In fact, there has never been Russian colonization in the sense we use the word for the abominable deeds and the execrable crimes of the villainous, vicious and inhuman English, French, Dutch and Americans. But the early Muscovite and the Imperial Russian expansion against Turanian Muslim nations in Eastern Europe, Siberia, and Northern, Northeastern and Central Asia played into the Anglo-French colonial game, offering the Western powers greater benefits than those it granted to the Crown of the Russian Empire itself. Indeed, the Muscovite-Russian expansion helped consolidate the Western colonial powers and it brought the Romanovs to their knees. Today’s Russians must take note of this fact, and act accordingly in order not to play anymore into the same game that 16th c. English ambassadors were able to induce Ivan IV the Terrible to indulge himself in. About:

Россия – наследница Чингисхана?





























VI. Russian-Kazakh Relations (16th-19th c.), and the Russian Conquest of the Kazakh Khanate

The Russian conquest of the Kazakh Khanate -viewed in the correct historical context- was due to the disintegration of the Golden Horde and the expansion of the Muscovite lordship (later tsardom and empire). Furthermore, this development is also due to the internal divisions and the historical warrior nature of the Kazakhs. The Kazakh Khanate carried out wars against the Dzungars, the Oirat, the Bashkirs, the Kalmyks, the Cossacks, the Russians, the Germans settlers in Russia, and also the Fergana Valley-based Khanate of Kokand, which was ruled by the Shaybanid-Genghisid Turanians, who seceded from the Khanate of Bukhara in the early 18th c. and exercised authority over Iranian and Turanian populations (whose descendants today are divided in three countries: Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan).

In this regard, it is noteworthy that, at the time of the early Russian expansion (16th c.) under Ivan IV the Terrible (1530-1584; reigned after 1547) and during the Time of Troubles (Smutnoe vremya / Смутное время; 1598-1613), the Kazakhs were mostly occupied in wars against the Khanate of Bukhara.

The Kazakh Khanate and Russia established official contacts already at the end of the 17th c., when Tauke Muhammad Khan (طاوك محمد خان – Тәуке Мұхаммед хан; 1625-1718; ruled after 1680 as Shah-i Turan, ‘Emperor of Turan’) met Peter I (the Great) of Russia in 1698. The religious difference between the Kazakhs and the Russians was initially an insignificant matter – in total contrast to numerous modern scholars’ forgeries and falsifications that serve only the purpose of the colonial powers of the West, their fake historical dogma, and their disreputable products, i.e. the political Islam and Islamic extremism.

Tauke Muhammad Khan in the popular imagination From: https://vk.com/club97012121
Fragment from a letter of Tauke Muhammad Khan From: https://rus.azattyq.org/a/istoricheskiye-dokumenty-tauke-khan/25120968.html

This is so because of the cultural propinquity and the ethnic affinity of the 16th–17th c. Russians and Kazakhs, who were Turanian of origin and Asiatic-Oriental of culture. In addition, one must bear in mind that, among Turanians, the diffusion of Islam never erased the original Turanian Tengrist faith, worldview and traditions; this factor made them view Islam and Christianity as two similar religions with many affinities. That’s why Kazakhs repeatedly allied with the Christian Cossacks, when the latter rebelled against the Russian nobility and bureaucracy during the 17th (Khmelnytsky Uprising 1648-1657; Stepan Razin’s Rebellion 1670-1671) and 18th (Pugachev’s Rebellion, 1773-1775) centuries.

The existence of common enemies brought indeed the Russians and the Kazakhs together for some time, mainly in the 18th c.; on several occasions, the Kazakhs asked the help of the Russians against the Dzungars and the Chinese, particularly when the Qing emperors were markedly strengthened after the extermination of the extremist Buddhist Dzungar khanate. At the same time, the Kazakh slave trade on German and Russian settlements in the Volga region created its own dynamics, notably during the 18th c., increasing the number of raids undertaken against one another.

The divisions among the Turanians appeared quite early and more particularly in the failed attack that Peter I launched against the Khanate of Khiva (1717), which was led by a Muslim convert into Christianity, Alexander Bekovich-Cherkassky. It is indeed noteworthy that, although the attack should have been perceived negatively by the Kazakh Khanate, only one year later Mirza Abu’l-Khair Muhammed Khan (1693-1748; ruled from 1718; Мырза Әбілқайыр Мұхаммед хан/ ميرزا أبو الخير محمد خان), the leader of the Minor Horde, asked Russian help against the Dzungars, who are also Turanians.

As the same Khan of the Minor Zhuz (Horde) asked Russian help again in 1730, he made it easier for the czarists to control the western part of today’s Kazakhstan.

Alexander Bekovich-Cherkassky / Александр Бекович-Черкасский (born Muslim as Devlet-Girei-mırza / Девлет-Гирей-мурза)
Nader Shah Afshar’s invasions of India and Central Asia

When his eldest son, Zairullah Nur Ali Khan (1704-1790; ruled from 1748 until 1786; Зайруллаh Нұр-Әли хан/ زير الله نور علي خان) decided to break the alliance with Russians, the Minor Horde was too weak to possibly face the imperial army; after several heroic battles and decisive defeats, the Minor Horde was annexed to Russia. At that time, the victorious Qing armies annexed the Uighurs of Eastern Turkestan, and in 1759 Russia and China started having common borders. Multi-fragmented Turan (Central Asia) ) stood no chance to survive due to the numerous irreconcilable khanates, which could neither make peace among themselves nor ally with the illustrious Turkmen Afshar Nader Shah (نادر شاه افشار) of Iran (1688-1747; ruled from 1736). In 1740, the conqueror of Delhi (1739) invaded Khiva and Bukhara, thus further exposing the Kazakhs of the Middle Horde.   

As it is already stated, the Russian expansion to the east was the consequence of the 16th c. conquest of the Khanate of Sibir (Siberia); the Russian advance to the South (: Central Asia) took place much later. The permanent and omnipresent Turanian divisions facilitated this development, and it is quite indicative that the only who tried to unite the Turanians of Central Asia against the Russians were the English colonials, who dispatched several diplomatic missions from India to Central Asia in the middle 19th c. but failed to convince the Turanian warring factions to stick together against the Russians, paying for the daring attempt with their lives.

At this point, it is essential to add that the Russian conquest of the Kazakh and the other Central Asiatic khanates was not a war between Christianity and Islam; the Russian Empire had Orthodox Christianity as official religion, but it was neither an exclusively Christian empire nor an anti-Islamic monarchy. A sizeable part of the population was Muslim and there were also Buddhists, Tengrists and Shamanists among the subjects of the czar. When it comes to the Muslims of the Russian Empire, it is essential to point out that as early as 1788 the Central Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Russia (Центральное духовное управление мусульман России) was established (by decree of Catherine II) with headquarters at Ufa. The original name was Оренбургское магометанское духовное собрание (Orenburg Mohammedan Spiritual Assembly).

The first Central Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Russia: Ufa (1788)

To consolidate their newly invaded lands across Siberia and the rest of Northern-Northeastern Asia, the Romanovs started setting up, during the 17th and the first half of the 18th c., several formidable fortresses that constituted the nuclei of the homonymous modern cities. Indicatively (from west to east): Uralsk (1613), Guryev (1645), Orenburg (1743), Orsk (1735), Omsk (1716) on today’s Russian soil, and Petropavlovsk (1752), Pavlodar (1720), Semipalatinsk (1718; today’s Semey) and Kamenogorsk (1720; today’s Oskemen) in today’s N-NE Kazakhstan. Due to the advanced disintegration of the Kazakh Khanate, the different Zhuz (hordes) fought separate wars with the Russians, at times also allying themselves with them in order to fight various and occasional Turanian enemies.

The first Kazakh to lead an uprising against the czarist armies was Syrym Datov (Сырым Датов/Сырым Дат-улы) from the Minor Horde, who started a rebellion (1783-1797) because of socio-economic discrimination, infringement on the rights of tribal elders, robbery and violence against the people of his tribe.

The Nogais of the Minor Zhuz (Horde) used to attack repeatedly Russian cities in the province of Astrakhan (by that time a border region) and the Russians had to ally with the Buddhist Kalmyks (in the NW coastland of the Caspian Sea) to face them. The Khiva Khanate combatted the Nogais too, also invading the Mangyshlak Peninsula (NE Caspian Sea shore), which constitutes nowadays Kazakhstan’s westernmost confines. The Bukey Horde was then incepted in 1801, and it formed an independent tribal confederation of the Nogai (Minor Horde), before being invaded by the Russian armies (1845). Kazakh resistance started almost immediately and the most famous among the earlier rebels were Isatay Taymanuly (Исатай Тайманов), Kenesary Kasymov (Кенесары Касымов), and Makhambet Otemisuly (Махамбет Утемисов), who led various uprisings against the Russians between 1837-1838, 1837-1847, and 1838-1846 respectively (the first and the third were supported by the Minor horde, whereas the second gathered commitment from all three hordes).

The Buddhist state of Kalmykia, at the NW shores of the Caspian Sea
Monument to Isatai Taimanov and Makhambet Utemisov in Atyrau
The rebellion of Kenesary Kasymov
Letter from Kenesary Kasymov to the Orenburg military governor; 22 February 1841
Cossacks attack Kazakhs; painting by N. N. Karazin (Н. Н. Каразин)
Cossacks fight with Kazakhs; painting by N. N. Karazin (Н. Н. Каразин), 1837
From: https://islam.kz/ru/articles/istoriya-i-biografiya/film-hrabroe-serdtse-i-gibel-kenesary-hana-1425/#gsc.tab=0
The Mausoleum Eset Kotibaruli / Есет Котибаров (Мавзолей Есет-Дарибая), near Aktobe / From: https://ruh.kz/ru/2022/01/11/mavzolei-eset-daribai/ and https://visitaktobe.kz/ru/guide/page/mavzolej-eset-daribaya

Due to his involvement in the Dzungar-Chinese wars and because of his continuous tergiversations in this rivalry (at times allying with China, at times supporting the Dzungars), Abu’l-Mansur Khan of the Middle Horde (1711-1781; ruled the Middle Zhuz after 1733 and all the hordes, i.e. the entire Kazakh Khanate, after 1771; Әбілмансұр хан / أبو المنصور خان) was exposed to the then powerful Chinese. That’s why he asked the help of the Russians; for some time, he was able to keep a certain balance in his relations with the two empires, but he gradually reduced the Kazakh Khanate to a buffer state between Russia and China. Known also as Abylai Khan (Абылай / (أبيلي, Abu’l-Mansur Khan was inconsequential, acknowledging Chinese suzerainty in 1757 but not Russian authority in 1779. To add insult to injury, he campaigned against the Kirghiz {the national name means “we are forty” (tribes)} and attacked the Khanate of Kokand, also invading Tashkent. His three sons took the Turanian divisions to the basics, i.e. the family level, only offering Russians the best excuse to increase their presence in the region and to justify the czarist expansion as an effort to bring ‘order’ to the chaotic periphery.  

The Middle and the Great Hordes engaged in many wars with the Russians in the first half of the 19th c. Unfortunately, Abu’l-Mansur Khan’s grandsons imitated their fathers and started warring one upon the other; at the same time, they engaged in skirmishes against the Russians and attacked the Kokand Khanate, which invaded most of the territory of the Great Horde. When it became clear that the Kazakhs had to unite against the Russians, they did so, but it was too late. After many battles and retreats, the Kazakhs were betrayed by the Kirghiz, and in 1847, the Russian armies invaded finally the Kazakh capitals Hazrat-e-Turkistan (presently Turkistan) and Syghanaq (currently Sighnaq), thus officially abolishing the Kazakh Khanate. It was at that time that Eset Kotibaruli (1803–1889) started his rebellion (1847–1858).

Alexander Orłowski (Александр Орловский)- Cossacks in battle against the Kazakhs; 1826 From: https://macdougallauction.com/en/catalogue/view?id=6783

The Russian Conquest of Kazakhstan was not an easy affair and it was carried out gradually, because the czars were deeply involved in European affairs, there warring against all major nations of Central and Eastern Europe; even more so because Russia was threatened by France at the times of Napoleon. The failed Russian attack against the Khanate of Khiva (1839) proved that the czarist army necessitated enormous resources to entirely invade Central Asia. Whereas the Kazakh Khanate was invaded from north to south, the rest of Central Asia was conquered from east to west. During these invasions, the Russians had to also to squelch the rebellion launched in 1870 by the Adai (Russian: Адай, Адайцы; Kazakh: Адайлар) clan of the Minor Horde in the Mangyshlak (Мангышлак) Peninsula by the Caspian Seaside.

Adai fighters; from: https://assembly.kz/ru/media-centr/intervyu/chto-obshchego-mezhdu-kazakhami-i-turkmenami/
From: https://yvision.kz/post/537897

The czarist armies advanced to Semirechye (‘Seven Rivers’ Land’ in Eastern Kazakhstan) in 1847-1850, Almaty (1854), Hazrat-e-Turkistan (1864; re-captured from the Kokand Khanate), Tashkent (1865), Khojand and Bukhara (1866), Samarqand (1868), Khiva (1873), Kokand (1876) and, last of all, Turkmenistan (1879-1885, involving Geok Tepe, Merv, and Panjdeh). Only the Pamirs, in the area of today’s borders between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan from one side and China from the other side, were conquered last, due to the extremely harsh mountainous terrain (1872-1895). In fact, the current borderline between Kazakhstan and China was demarcated in 1851 (Treaty of Kulja) and 1864 (Treaty of Tarbagatai) between Romanov Russia and Qing China. About:






Der Beitrag der deutschen Minderheit zur Entwicklung der Wissenschaft und der Kultur Turkestans


Turkestan im Leben und in wissenschaftlichen Werken des deutschen Astronomen Franz von Schwarz































Nikolay Karazin, Russian troops in Tashkent 1865
Nikolay Karazin, Russian troops in Samarkand 1868
Nikolay Karazin, Russian troops in Khiva 1873
Central Asia, Semirechye, and Eastern Turkestan
Semirechye (Семиречье) – Zhetisu (Жетісу) – Land of Seven Rivers
Imperial Russian map of the Seven Rivers’ Region, 1913
N. N. Karazin. Explanation of the Middle horde – 1891 From: https://rus-turk.livejournal.com/249552.html

VII. In Kazakhstan, Siberia, and Central Asia, there was never Russian Colonization

A lot of ink has been spilled on the topic of the czarist ‘colonial’ empire, but in vain; this fabricated accusation consists merely in Anglo-French colonial propaganda, as per which their enemy (i.e. Russia) ‘had’ to be as criminal and as pestiferous as they were. The racist, absurd and paranoid anti-Russian propaganda of the colonial powers England and France (and later America) was continued with the formation of an entire anti-Soviet ‘block’. It ends up with the current anti-Russian paroxysm, but this phenomenon is partly due to the czarist, soviet and republican Russian elites who made the colossal mistake to consider the English and the French (and more recently the Americans, the Canadians, the Australians and the Israelis) as ‘normal’, ‘regular’ and ‘real’ states or nations whereas they are not; however, this is a totally different issue.

There is nothing properly ‘colonial’ in the Russian expansion in Siberia and Central Asia; in fact, it consists in land occupation and annexation of several, ethnically and culturally similar, Asiatic nations. Irrespective of the expansion phase, namely the conquest of the Khanate of Sibir (Siberia) or the seizure of the Kazakh Khanate, the Russian advance does not have anything in common with the Anglo-French overseas adventures and the criminal financial exploitation of the colonized nations by Paris and London. The Russian military differed greatly from the racist Western European colonial invaders, who denigrated, belittled and vilified their victims. The Russian expansion in Siberia, North Asia, and Central Asia did not come with political subjugation, cultural disfigurement, educational distortion, intellectual alteration, socio-behavioral subjection and spiritual falsification.

Russian fortresses to defend the Kazakhs against the Dzungars From: https://en.topwar.ru/82480-russkie-kreposti-na-zaschite-kazahov.html

One may contend that spectacular changes took indeed place in the occupied territories of Siberia, Northeastern Asia, Kazakhstan, and the rest of Central Asia; that is true, but the real nature of these changes was technological modernization. In other words, there was not a real Russification (or Russianization / Русификация) as it had happened earlier and more specifically during the formative years of the Moscow principality (vassal state of the Golden Horde) and the so-called Tsardom of Russia, i.e. during the reigns of Ivan III (1462-1505), Vasili III (1505-1533), and Ivan IV (1533-1584). It was then that the populations living in the territories under control by the three aforementioned vassal rulers were exposed to intense Russianization and Christianization, because they were Turanian in their outright majority. This fact makes of today’s Russians a preponderantly Turkic (or Turanian) nation.   

In reality, modernization would come to Central Asia and more specifically to Kazakhstan one way or another; it does not make any difference if it was launched by Alexander II or initiated by a Kazakh military officer acting in total similarity with Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in Turkey few decades later. Indeed, modernization is modernization; and both Russians and Kazakhs are fraternal nations of the same, Asiatic origin, Turanian ancestry, and Oriental culture. There are many, who would disagree with this down-to-earth approach, but this would only be their own mistake. Those who hold a different view on the topic present contrasting pictures of Russia and Central Asia in the 19th c.; but if we don’t take into account the modernization dimension, there was no difference at all between the Russian-speaking and the non-Russian speaking subjects of the czars.

The false, contrasting pictures of Russia and Central Asia in the 19th c. and in the early 20th c., which are presented as ‘proofs’ by Western European and North American historians and colonial forgers, are uneven indeed; the false contrast involves the comparison of the Westernized Russian elite, i.e. a minimal fraction of the entire population, and the then recently annexed nations of Central Asia, namely the Kazakhs, the Uzbeks, etc. But this is a vicious distortion. History is not and cannot be the ‘history’ of the elites and their ideas, erroneous delusions and pathetic obsessions; History is the History of Nations, i.e. the description of the spirituality, the faith, the culture, the achievements, the exploits, and the behaviors of the peoples.

When, at a certain moment and in a specific country, the king and the people are one, there is absolute cultural unity and homogeneity between the ruling elite and the average people; this occurred at the times of Ramses III, Tiglath-pileser III, Darius I, Harun al Rashid, Timur (Tamerlane) and many others. But when the elite are totally detached from the average people and the locally prevailing culture, it is absolutely impermissible for historians to portray a people and a nation after the image of their local elite. This erroneous historiography is misleading and unrepresentative. In other words, if we speak about the Russian Empire in 1900, we cannot afford to take Anton Chekhov as a ‘representative’ specimen of the Russian culture and civilization; quite contrarily, the average people in Moscow, Ryazan, Saratov. Astrakhan, Kazan, Baku, Tashkent, Bukhara, Khiva, Almaty and elsewhere were the correct, genuine representatives of the authentic local culture: they were ‘Russia’.

In fact, the misperception of the cultural difference between Russians, Kazakhs and other non-Russian natives across the czarist empire is due to the Westernization of part of the imperial elite; but this development constituted in reality the Western European colonization of Russia. It did not have a military dimension, but it took all the other dimensions of the obnoxious and calamitous practice, namely financial (foreign investment), intellectual (diffusion of Western European ideas, theories and ideologies), artistic (concerted effort of the Russian elite to demonstrate their fake ‘European’ identity), cultural, educational (blind imitation of the Western European systems), academic (dependence of Russian scholars on their Western European counterparts’ methods and approaches), socio-behavioral and political (Western ambassadors’ pressure for parliamentary reforms).

Russia’s colonization had started under Peter I, but it never penetrated the local masses. Even as late as the time of Nikolai (Nicholas) II, it affected much less than 10% of the total population. But the Westernization of part of Russia’s imperial elite was, in true terms, sheer De-Russianization; meanwhile Russian Orientalism was totally different from the vicious Anglo-French doctrine and fallacy. Even when it comes to Russian Classical Music and Opera, the Queen of Spades (Пиковая дама) finds its Oriental counterpart in the Tale of Tsar Saltan (Сказка о царе Салтане), the Enchantress (Чародейка) has as counterweight the Invisible City of Kitezh and the Maiden Fevroniya (Сказание о невидимом граде Китеже и деве Февронии), and Eugene Onegin (Евгений Онегин) finds its opposite in the Golden Cockerel (Золотой петушок).

Nikolai Rimsky Korsakov (Николай Андреевич Римский-Корсаков), The Tale of Tsar Saltan (Сказка о царе Салтане) From: https://orfey.club/opyeri/skazka-o-tcarye-saltanye-rimskiy-korsakov/
From: https://vladivostok.icity.life/afisha/teatr/14570-skazka-o-care-saltane-mariinskiy-teatr-primorskaya-scena
Сказание о невидимом граде Китеже – the Invisible City of Kitezh and the Maiden Fevroniya
Н.К. Рерих, сеча при керженце 1911 / Nicholas Roerich, Battle of Kerzhenets, 1911;  Эскиз к опере Н.А. Римского-Корсакова «Сказание о невидимом граде Китеже и деве Февронии» (Sketch for the opera by N.A. Rimsky-Korsakov “The Legend of the Invisible City of Kitezh and the Maiden Fevronia”)
From: https://sibro.ru/photo/roerich-theatre/n-k-rerikh-secha-pri-kerzhentse-1911/
Сказка о золотом петушке – Golden Cockerel
From: https://soundtimes.ru/detskie-spektakli/opera-zolotoj-petushok
From: https://teatr-sats.ru/zolotoj-petushok-6














VIII. The Kazakhs under the Czarists

The Russian academic and military elites did not have an accurate and pertinent scientific knowledge about Central Asiatic nations, literatures, faiths, religions, spirituality, folklore and traditions. The Westernization of the czarist elites was the main reason for this lack of correct perception, extensive study, and thorough research; this phenomenon constituted in fact a great success for the colonial powers, France and England, which formed in this regard a catastrophic wedge between the Russians and the nations invaded by the czarist armies. It is true that Russian Turanology (or Turkology), Iranology, Sinology, Ethnography, History of Religions, Art History, History, Linguistics started late (around the end of the 18th c.); even worse and with respect to methodology, the Russian academics followed the false colonial model of Western Orientalism. This was an academic, military and national disaster for Imperial Russia.

Czarist Russia promoted an incorporation strategy, which hinged on the following six axes:

a- Czarist settlements throughout Central Asia

b- Denomadization (or sedentarization) of the Kazakhs and other Turanian nations

c- Abolition of slavery and serfdom

d- Administrative organization

e- Introduction of modern technology and, more particularly, construction of railways

f- Russian language in the education

a- Czarist settlements

Some of these axes are apparently interconnected; more czarist settlers decided to move from regions west of the Ural Mountains and relocate to parts of Central Asia after the construction of the railways. It is therefore normal that the settlements were near the main lines or close to earlier built fortresses. In fact, this practice was not new, as Muscovites and others had already started settling in parts of Northern Asia, after the conquest of the Khanate of Sibir (Siberia), at the end of the 16th c.

An independent organization, the Migration Department (Переселенческое Управление), was set up in St. Petersburg to duly supervise and streamline the trend. As the territory of the Kazakh Khanate was far larger than that of all the other Turanian Central Asiatic khanates, it is quite normal that more czarist subjects relocated there than to the area of the other four Central Asiatic countries. In current terms, the area of Kazakhstan (2725000 km2) is more than double the territory of Turkmenistan (491000 km2), Uzbekistan (449000 km2), Kyrgyzstan (200000 km2) and Tajikistan (143000 km2). Although many nations or ethnic-religious groups were forced to relocate under the Soviet rule, the aforementioned reality lasted down to our days.

However, to be accurate, one must admit that the czarist settlers were of quite diverse ethnic background; they were not only ‘Russians’, but also Germans, Tatars, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Jews, Armenians, and others. Today, Russian natives in Kazakhstan outnumber by far the Russian ethnic minorities in the other four Central Asiatic states; their percentage is 18.9% in Kazakhstan, 5.6% in Kyrgyzstan, 2.2% in Turkmenistan, 2.1% in Uzbekistan, and 0.4% in Tajikistan. In total, ca. 400000 czarist subjects relocated to Kazakhstan in the 2nd half of the 19th c. and about 1000000 people moved there in the 1st half of the 20th c.

Thanks to the Russian, German, Cossack and other settlers, Christianity was diffused again in the wider region of Central Asia during the 19th century, after having been eradicated for about 500 years; of course, the earlier phase of Christianity in Central Asia, which antedates the arrival of Islam in the region, concerns Nestorianism and the presence of the Eastern Christian Church of the East Syriac Rite (which was based in Ctesiphon/Mahoze). However, Nestorian Christianity had disappeared around 1400. With the Russian settlers already established in the region, a Christian Orthodox bishopric was established there in 1871, based first in Almaty (former Verniy) and after 1916 in Tashkent.

The ruins of the old, stone cathedral of Verniy are due to earthquake; 1887.

b- Denomadization (or sedentarization)

The Kazakh resistance against the czarist rule was neither a Muslim–Christian divide nor a Slavic-Turanian (or Turkic) rivalry; it did not have either ethnic or religious character in the beginning. On the contrary, it concerned mainly the denomadization (or sedentarization) process. The czarist rule brought about a tremendous socio-economic change, making it impossible for the traditional nomadic organization to exist. This caused a terrible destruction, involving economic disaster, dismantlement of the Kazakh tribes, socio-behavioral shock, and even famine. The eradication of the normal Kazakh lifestyle and the creation of structures hitherto unknown made it impossible for many to survive, and the entire Central Asia was plunged into poverty and destitution.

When land and water were given to settlers, the Kazakh formed the first nuclei of resistance against the czarist discrimination. Several other reasons for the Kazakh resistance appeared later, but in fact they were all due to the czarist mismanagement of the conquered lands. The czarist administration had no idea what programs were needed for the straightforward sedentarization of an entire nation. As the Romanovs ruled the newly invaded territories as Western lords, they triggered indignation. The Russian dynasty paid dearly for her naivety to view Central Asia only in terms of the Great Game, and not as a union of Oriental peoples, cultures and traditions. That’s why the Romanovs got the hit from the back, and in 1916 the entire Central Asia was out of the czarist control.  

c- Abolition of slavery

Slavery existed among various Central and Northern Asiatic nations in different forms, starting from the typical case of a war prisoner. Since the middle of the 16th c., there were different types of slavery in Russia, which also involved slave trade. The household slaves and the state slaves constituted only one category, whereas the serfs were unfree peasants who could be sold only with the land that they labored. Peter I ended slavery in 1723, thus turning the slaves into serfs, but the abolition of serfdom took place only in 1861 with the Emancipation reform introduced by the Freemason czar Alexander II (Александр II Николаевич; 1813-1881; ruled from 1881 until the day of his assassination by a group of monstrous Zionist gangsters).

Alexander II frees the serfs. Александр II освобождает крепостных. From: https://lenta.ru/articles/2015/03/07/altwo/
The evil English hysteria unleashed: in a cartoon from the London Punch magazine (1863), the Russian Czar and the American President are depicted as tyrants, under the paranoid label “Extremes meet”; Abraham Lincoln addresses Alexander II with the words: “I see that we are both in the same situation: you are with your Poles, I am with the southern rebels”.
From: https://историк.рф/journal/15/aleksandr-avraam-i-drugie-ofitsialnyie-litsa-6f.html

In Central Asia, the slave trade had flourished for several hundreds of years; Iran, the Central Asiatic khanates, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire were involved in the process. The major markets for slave trade were Kara-Köl (Каракуль) in Kyrgyzstan, Karshi (Карши), Samarkand and Bukhara in Uzbekistan, and Chardzhou (چهارجوی – Чарджоу; present day Türkmenabat) in Turkmenistan.

Slaves were liberated throughout the annexed parts of Kazakhstan in 1859. The advancing Russian armies terminated slavery in Bukhara, Samarqand and Khiva in the 1870s; the last to be liberated were the slaves of the area of Turkmenistan. Several thousands of Iranians and Russians were then allowed to go free back to their countries.

d- Administrative organization

The territory of the Kazakh Khanate underwent a true trichotomy; this was due to the formation of the Governor-Generalship of (Russian) Turkestan (Туркестанское генерал-губернаторство) and the Governor-Generalship of the Steppe (Степное); the former was established in 1867 and it included the regions of Trans-Caspian (Закаспийская), Samarkand, Semirechensk (Seven Rivers’ Land/ Семиреченская), Syr-Darya, and Fergana regions, i.e. the southern parts of today’s Kazakhstan, parts of Uzbekistan, and also most of Turkmenistan’s territory. Its capital was located in Tashkent.

The Governor-Generalship of the Steppe (Степное генерал-губернаторство) was established in 1882 with capital at Omsk, in today’s Russia; it comprised parts of Siberia, the Kazakh steppe (i.e. today’s northern and eastern regions of Kazakhstan), and parts of Kyrgyzstan. Its main subdivisions were Semipalatinsk (today’s Semey; Семипалатинская) and Akmola (Акмолинская; the region around today’s Nur-sultan, which was founded in 1830 as Akmoly only to be renamed as Akmolinsk two years later, Tselinograd in 1961, Astana in 1998, and Nursultan in 2019). For 17 years, the Seven Rivers’ Land (Semirechensk) was transferred to the authority of the Governor-Generalship of the Steppe, but in 1899, it was returned to the Turkestan Governor-Generalship.

Last, the northwestern part of Kazakhstan had already been part of the Orenburg Governorate (Оренбургская губерния), which was established in 1744. 

The administrative organization of the newly conquered lands was connected with considerable military deployment and construction of defensive lines; many Russian fortresses were built on Kazakh territory during the 2nd half of the 19th c., notably at 1) Novo-Aleksandrovsky (1846; Ново-Александровский; known as Fort-Aleksandrovskii / Форт-Александровский between 1857 and 1939; currently known as Fort-Shevchenko / Форт-Шевченко) on the Mengystau Peninsula by the Caspian Sea side,

2) Fort-Perovsky (1853; Форт-Перовский; today’s Kyzylorda/ Кызылорда) east of Aral Lake,

3) Syr-Darya fort No. 1 (1853; Сыр-Дарьинский форт № 1; today’s Kazaly / Казалинск / Қазалы) east of Aral Lake, and

4) Almaty (1854; Верный – Укрепление Верное / Fort Verny), Kazakhstan’s former capital.

The interconnection between imperial administration and the army is also attested in the cumulation of two roles, namely that of the governor-general and military officer.

e- Introduction of modern technology and, more particularly, construction of railways

As Russia was systematically dragged by the colonial Western powers into the racist delusion of European superiority, it was only normal that the Westernized elite of Russia deployed an enormous effort to imitate the practices and the novelties, the techniques and the applications, the changes and the trends launched by England and France, imitated by Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Japan, the US, Mexico, Brazil and Spain, followed by diverse smaller states, and imposed on the Anglo-French colonies. The implementation and expansion of railway networks became a matter of ferocious competition among kingdoms, republics, colonial empires, and even decadent and obsolete states like Qing China, Qajar Iran, and the Ottoman Empire during the 19th and the early 20th c.

It is undeniable that the railways played a critical role in the colonial balance of power worldwide for many reasons. For Imperial Russia, the world’s largest contiguous empire in the beginning of the 20t h c., the expansion of railway networks would play and did indeed play a vital role in the consolidation of the territorial enlargement that the czarist armies had made possible. The Russian defeat in the Russian-Japanese War (8 February 1904 – 5 September 1905) fully proved that the construction of the Trans-Siberian railway (21 June 1904) was completed insufficient (initially, it consisted of one track) and quite tardy (if completed 5 years earlier, it would definitely change the war outcome). It was apparently a mistake of the czarist administration to start such a critically important project with a so considerable delay.

Russian army out of the palace of the Khan of Kokand From: https://www.bfro.be/ru/k-145-letiju-obrazovanija-turkestanskogo-general-gubernatorstva.html?cmp_id=86&news_id=2696
“After failure” («После неудачи») painted by V. Vereshchagin (В. Верещагин), in 1868, after the Russian conquest of Samarkand in which the artist participated as an officer and for this reason he was later awarded the Order of St. George (Орден Святого Георгия). 

In Kazakhstan and the wider region of Central Asia, the first railway infrastructure undertaking was the construction of the Trans-Caspian railway (Закаспийская железная дорога); it started only in 1879 and first, it connected Uzun Ada (Узун-Ада), a harbor on the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea, with Ashgabat, Merv, Turkmenabat (in today’s Turkmenistan), Bukhara and Samarqand (in today’s Uzbekistan). It was completed in 1888 (ca. 1500 km). In 1895, the Caspian Sea terminal was transferred to Krasnovodsk (Красноводск; today’s Turkmenbashi/ Түркменбашы/ توركمنباشی). In 1898-1901, the railway was extended to Tashkent and Andijan, and in 1905 a train ferry started linking Krasnovodsk with Baku in Russian Azerbaijan. The English colonial gangster and statesman George Curzon (1859-1925), who visited Central Asia and Russia in 1888-1889, described the construction of the Trans-Caspian railway as a threat for the English colonial plans in the Great Game – a statement that highlights the importance of the project and the size of the criminal English intensions and targets.  

Trans-Caspian railway
Trans-Caspian railway station at Uzun Ada (‘Big Island’) port From: https://www.infoabad.com/34-zakaspiiskaja-zheleznaja-doroga.html
Trans-Caspian railway station at Krasnovodsk (currently Turkmenbashi)

For the period 1891-1904, Russia undertook the epic effort to construct the Trans-Siberian railway (Транссибирская магистрал), which is =still today- the world’s longest railway line with over 9200 km. Presently, the Trans-Siberian does not cross any part of Kazakhstan, but when it was constructed it crossed Siberian cities, which served as the headquarters of administrative divisions that comprised vast parts of today’s Kazakhstan, notably Omsk.  

Trans-Siberian railway as presented on Imperial Russian maps
Байкальская паромная переправа-Baikal ferry crossing (part of the Trans-Siberian) From: http://www.nemiga.info/rossiya/transsibirskaya_magistral-2.htm

The Tashkent railway (Ташкентская железная дорога), which is also known as Trans-Aral railway, was constructed in several stages between 1887 and 1906 to finally connect St. Petersburg and Moscow with Central Asia, and thus consolidate the czarist rule in the newly conquered lands. The most critical stage (1905-1906) was the construction of the part of the railway, which linked Orenburg (Оренбург) with Kandagach (currently Kandyagash / Кандагач – Қандыағаш), Kazalinsk (currently Kazaly / Казалинск – Қазалы), Dzhusaly (presently Zhosaly / Джусалы – Жосалы), Arys (Арысь – Арыс), and Tashkent (Ташкент). Last, with the construction of the Kinel-Orenburg section (1905), the Trans-Aral railway was attached to the Samara-Zlato-ust (Златоуст: lit. ‘St John Chrysostom city’) railway. This has been mainly known as Kuybyshev railway (куйбышевская железная дорога), because Samara was renamed as Kuybyshev from 1935 until 1991. In 1913, the Trans-Aral railway had a length of ca. 2200 km, 552 steam locomotives, 7853 freight carriages and 655 passenger coaches.

Trans-Aral (from Tashkent to Orenburg) From: https://orenlib.ru/kray/calendar/a-1212.html

However, for the proper railway connection of Central Asia with Siberia, one had to wait until the 1920s and 1930s. It was only then that the Turkestan–Siberia railway (known as Турксиб: туркестано сибирская магистраль) was constructed (ca. 2400 km; 1926-1931). This railway connected Tashkent (Uzbekistan), Shymkent, Taraz, (Kazakhstan), Bishkek, Balykshy (Kyrgyzstan), Shu (Kazakhstan), and Almaty, with Semipalatinsk (Semey), Pavlodar (in Kazakhstan) and with Barnaul (Барнаул кала) and Novosibirsk (which had been built in 1893 as Novonikolaevsk) in Russia (then USSR).

Imperial Russia had 23000 km of track in 1880; the network increased to 31000 km in 1890, 51000 km in 1905 and 81000 in 1917. However, during WWI and the Russian Civil War ca. 60% of the railway network and no less than 80% of the locomotives and coaches were destroyed. The Soviet governments had to start almost from scratch. About:






















Turkestan–Siberia (Turk-Sib) railway
From: http://lemur59.ru/node/11086

f- Russian language in the education

After the Russian military officers, settlers, administrators, engineers and priests appeared progressively in the lands of the invaded and abolished Kazakh Khanates and other Central Asiatic states, it was the turn of the teachers and the schools to emerge. All the same, across all these newly conquered and annexed lands, no universities were built before the two revolutions of 1917, the Russian Civil War, the chaotic situations that prevailed in Central Asia in the late 1910s and the early 1920s, and the consolidation of the Soviet rule. According to what I already have repeatedly stated, the destructive Westernization of Imperial Russia was such that, out of twelve (12) universities functioning at the time of Nikolai II, only one was located in Asia, and more specifically in Siberia, namely the Imperial Tomsk University (established in 1878).

All those, who -based on idiotic Islamist doctrines or Pan-Turanianist (Pan-Turkist) dogmas- accuse Russia of implementing imperialist agendas and carrying out vast Russification campaigns, are talking nonsense. These false accusations consist merely in ludicrous English, French and American propaganda and in anti-Russian racist paroxysm. Even before the conquest and unification of Central Asia, the imperial administration did indeed set up (as early as 1828) schools with instruction in Azeri, Georgian and Armenian in the Caucasus region. In 1850, the state educational network comprised already of Christian, Muslim (Tatar), Jewish and Caucasian schools.

However, a major landmark took place in 1864 with the far-reaching novelties and the educational transformation introduced with the Statute on Elementary Public Schools (Положение о начальных народных училищах), which reflected the modernization efforts and ideas of Alexander II. As per the Statute, elementary education was open for the first time to all social strata. Education in Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian and other languages became the norm, whereas particular programs were launched in Finland and Poland.

Around 1870, the educational system expanded to other nations of the empire, involving the introduction of new, Cyrillic alphabets created for the languages of the Muslims and the Buddhists. Further legislation detailed the modalities and specified the curricula, whereas civil society organizations emerged due to the commitment of teachers and instructors. One must bear in mind that illiteracy was very high, and as per the 1897 census, there were only three (3) literate people out of ten (10) subjects of Imperial Russia (29.6%; 44.4% and 15.4% respectively among men and women); in rural areas, less than one out of four persons (24.6%) was literate.

However, in Central Asia, the situation was calamitously worse, and analphabetism was the overwhelming norm; this undeniable fact strikes a blow on all arguments recently made by Islamist and Pan-Turanianist (Pan-Turkist) propagandists, who speak against the Imperial Russian invasion and annexation of Kazakhstan and the rest of Central Asia. Only 8% of Kazakhs, 8% of Turkmens, 4% of Uzbeks, 3% of Kirghiz, and 2% of Tajiks were literate in 1897. That is why it is absolutely absurd and totally misleading to describe the implementation of the imperial language policy as a “tool of russification”; such an approach does not originate from academic research but consists in political propaganda. Example: Ayaz Ahmad, Sana Hussan, Syed Ali Shah; Russification of Muslim Central Asia: An Overview of Language, Culture and Society, in: Global Regional Review (GRR), vol. 2 no 1 (2017), p. 75 (https://www.grrjournal.com/jadmin/Auther/31rvIolA2LALJouq9hkR/IdfqKhkYv5.pdf)

These blind propagandists are unable to realize that, if the Imperial Russian conquest of Central Asia did not take place, the tenebrous warring factions of the Kazakhs, the Uzbeks, the Turkmens, the Tajiks and the Kirghiz would continue fighting against one another, while remaining illiterate and uneducated, and living in abject poverty and abysmal ignorance, because their civilized past had long gone. Even worse, all these Muslim nations would become the prey of the criminal English colonials, who would diffuse among them the Satanic doctrines of Political Islam and Wahhabism, therefore plunging these nations to extreme evilness, total inhumanity, and unprecedented self-destruction.

In reality, the introduction of Russian in the primary and secondary education as the main means of communication throughout the empire was normal, because it was the official language of the empire; the incorporation of all the schools into the state educational network helped the educationally, pedagogically, and academically underdeveloped regions catch up with the advanced ones. Due to the new, Cyrillic alphabets created for several Central Asiatic languages, millions of young Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Tajiks and Kirghiz were able to flock to universities and form internationally acknowledged scholars; Kazakhstan, more in particular, became an academically leading state (SSR) within the USSR.   

Central Asia retained several distinctive features within Imperial Russia, notably the traditional courts with the qadis, and the communal administration by the elders (being generally known as Aqsaqal/ Аксакал, i.e. the white bearded ones, but more specifically divided into four categories shal/ шал,  kariya/ кария, aqsaqal/ аксакал and абыз/abyz).  

Bilingual education was introduced in Russian Turkestan as early as 1884; the new schools were called Русско-туземные школы (Russian-native schools). The first bilingual school opened in Tashkent. The curricula comprised courses similar to those in all the educational establishments in other regions of the empire, and a basic curriculum of traditional Islamic education (as in a typical madrasah or maktab). Native teachers took care of this part. In the beginning, only few schoolchildren attended the courses. In 1901, throughout the Russian Turkestan, there were 45 schools of this type; in 1905, they increased to 82′ and in 1912, they totaled 89. About:









Totally biased presentation: Ulrich Hofmeister, Civilization and Russification in Tsarist Central Asia, 1860–1917; in: Journal of World History, vol. 27, no. 3, 2016, pp. 411–42 (JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44631473)

Russian-native school in Old Bukhara – Русско-туземная школа в Старой Бухареб 1910 / From: https://orchid-eya.livejournal.com/3462135.html

IX. The Jadid Movement as the foundation of all Modern Turanian Muslim Nations in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Siberia: the Historical Roots

The long Russian-Turanian educational consociation and complementarity were mainly due to the leading role played by the Tatars, who had already coexisted with the Russians for more than 300 years. It was therefore only normal that the Central Asiatic nations were influenced by the intellectual, educational, socio-behavioral and theoretical systems devised and the ideas and approaches diffused by the Kazan and Crimea Tatars. This is an important parameter of the Russian-Turanian coexistence during the late 19th and the 20th centuries. The Jadid Movement was set up initially by Tatar intellectuals and modernists, who preached a new approach to education and social organization. The leading figures, the intellectuals, and the followers of this trend organized several groups and launched experimental schools that would and did indeed change dramatically the educational landscape among the Muslims in Central and Northern Asia and in Eastern Europe.  

The term Jadid (جديد) is an Arabic word meaning ‘new’; the educational system, its theoretical background, and the associated ideology were called Jadidiyah (جديدية). In Russian, the terms were retained: Джадид and Джадидизм. The same happened in Turkish: Cedidci and Cedidcilik. As the word denotes, the promoters of these ideas wanted to introduce innovative concepts and astounding reforms to the traditional religious education of all the Muslims irrespective of location or ethnic origin. They denigrated the Islamic religious authorities, namely the qadis, the ulamas and the imams/sheikhs, whom they considered -quite rightfully- illiterate and idiotic.

From the Mollah Nasraddin magazine of the illustrious Azeri Jadidist intellectual Omar Faig Nemanzadeh (Ömər Faiq Nemanzadə/Омар Фаик Неманзаде)
From: https://realnoevremya.ru/articles/33803

There is a tendency among Western colonial historiographers to equate the Jadid Movement with the İttihat ve Terakki (Committee of Union and Progress) Movement (also known as Young Turks/ Genç Türkler) in the last decades of the Ottoman Empire. But this is very wrong indeed; in reality, the Jadid intellectuals in Russia wanted to and did actually introduce groundbreaking reforms and irrevocable changes that found their parallel in the formidable state of Kemal Ataturk.

The notorious 1910 cartoon that was published in Mollah Nasraddin magazine: it illustrated the progress of the Western countries in contrast with the state of sloth and uselessness in which the high lands of historical great civilizations were fallen.
Materials like this poster do indeed highlight the community of ideas and world perceptions between the Jadidist intellectuals and Kemal Ataturk. From:

That is why the Jadid intellectuals also functioned as the formative threshold of all the Muslims of Imperial Russia to the world of Marxism-Leninism and to the state founded by Lenin; actually, the imperial elite disliked the Jadid Movement, as it looked quite secular and republican to them. This was a serious mistake committed by the czarist authorities, and it was due to their traditional, deeply-seated hatred of Islam and mistrust of Muslims. However, this was not the opinion of all the Russians at the time, as biased Western scholars tend to pretend (a very typical example: Jeff Sabadeo, Progress or peril: migrants and locals in Russian Tashkent, 1906-1914; in the collective volume Peopling the Russian Periphery: Borderland Colonization in Eurasian History, London, 2007).

The very beginning of the Jadid Movement cannot be easily discerned; however a certain relationship can be delineated with the few remaining (late 18th and early 19th c.) Muslim mystics, erudite polymaths, and repositories of traditional Islamic scientific knowledge: these were the few authoritative visionaries who systematically and resolutely rejected the cholera of the Constantinopolitan Sunni pseudo-Islamic theology and jurisprudence, which had already -since the end of the 16th century- spread the darkness, the ignorance, the barbarism, the depravity, and the wickedness of the Satanic systems of Ahmed ibn Hanbal and Ahmed ibn Taimiyyah. These few Muslim mystics and scholars knew that Islamic science was very much hated, reviled and therefore prohibited by the Ottoman theological elite, which was the sole reason for the decadence, disintegration and disappearance of the Islamic Civilization; they were therefore quite happy to be far from Ottoman Constantinople, the epicenter of every anti-Islamic and anti-Turkish evildoing.

a- Gadbrahim Utiz-Imiani al-Bulgari

One can find in the works of the Tatar mystic, poet, scholar and educator Gabdrahim ibn Usman ibn Sarmaki ibn Krym (who was rather known as Gadbrahim Utiz-Imiani al-Bulgari /  Габдрахим Утыз-Имяни аль Булгари; 1752-1836) a very strong criticism of the rich, materialistic, parsimonious, individualistic and villainous imams, sheikhs and mullahs. At the same time, the commentary that Gabdrahim composed for the book ‘Resurrection of the sciences of faith’ (Iḥya Ulum al-Din; إحياء علوم الدين) by great Iranian mystic, wise elder, and scholar Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali (1058-1111; أبو حامد الغزالي) lets us discern in Gabdrahim’s intentions an effort to revive the Islamic sciences of the Golden Era of Islamic Civilization.  

Габдрахим утыз-имяни аль булгари мечеть в Казани – Gadbrahim Utiz-Imiani al-Bulgari Mosque in Kazan

b- Taj al-Din Yalchygul

Similar perceptions of the Islamic past, and parallel approaches to, concepts of, and intentions for the revival of the Muslim World can be found in the works of the Bashkir mystic, therapist, historian, poet, pilgrim and renowned traveler Taj al-Din Yalchygul (1768-1838; Таджетдин Ялчыгул), who is known for his Таварих-и Булгария (History of Bulgaria), which is a typical Asiatic Shajara (usually oral, genealogical historical legend of a tribe or group of tribes); in this case, the name ‘Bulgaria’ is a mere reminder of Volga Bulgaria and of the earlier Turanian nomad nations, whereas the main narrative establishes a sketch of Bashkir History.

c- Nigmatullah Toukaev

The same concerns the Tatar Nigmatullah Toukaev (1772-1844; Тукаев Нигматулла ибн Биктимер ибн Тукай аль-Стерли), a major mystic, tarkhan (Turkic nobleman), imam of mosque and madrasa, multilingual author, manuscript copyist, and erudite polymath, who spent all his money to collect historical manuscripts. He placed at the epicenter of a Muslim’s life three fundamental elements, namely ethics, knowledge and hard work. He thus categorically denounced the incredible sloth in which the Ottoman Constantinopolitan theologians plunged their Muslim subjects in order to control them and eliminate opposition to their idiotic plans, which finally destroyed the Ottoman Empire.

Other mystics, poets, wise polymaths, and enlightened intellectuals, who realized the extent of the spiritual, cultural, intellectual, scientific, and educational collapse of the Islamic World, and tried to change and improve this situation, are:

d- Ghabdennasir Qursawi

The Tatar theologian, intellectual, imam of mosque and madrasa, reformer and educator Ghabdennasir Qursawi (1776-1812; Габденнасыр Курсави), opposed the Maturidi theological school, and decried the conservative theologians, repeatedly debating with them in public and proving them erroneous and obnoxious for the Muslims. Qursawi was persecuted by the immoral, materialist, utilitarianist and reprobate sheikhs and imams whose decisions were exclusively based on their own dirty interests (for the defense of which they used to shamelessly mobilize their theological skills). Although incessantly persecuted during his life, Qursawi won a staggering posthumous victory by attracting the outright majority of Tatars, as well as of other Muslims of the Russian Empire to his ideas, concepts and approaches. After performing Hajj, he contracted cholera and died in Istanbul.

New edition of Ghabdennasir Qursawi’s Kitab al-Rikaq (كتاب الرقاق/Китаб ар-Рикак/’The softener of hearts’) / From: https://dumrt.ru/ru/news/news_1731.html?curPos=4

e- Shigabutdin Marjani

The Tatar Shigabutdin Marjani (1818-1889; Шигабутдин Марджани) was a historian, ethnographer, Orientalist, theologian and educator, who after studying in Bukhara and Samarqand, returned to Russia, lived and preached in Kazan and Orenburg, and proved to be the first to diffuse secular principles and approaches to education and social life among Russia’s Muslims. He was one of the most conscious Muslims of the 19th c., as he well understood that due to the wrong theological schools, education and teachings, and owed to the ensued darkness, Muslims worldwide had entered the status of hibernation. He promoted a balanced education that would encompass their cultural heritage (Turanian past, Islamic sciences, and Iranian culture) and the Russian and European new ideas and technologies. Marjani’s extensive criticism of the Islamic theology, which had decayed and become a liability already in the 19th c., is quite appropriate and beneficial to study for 21st-century sheikhs, muftis and qadis from Turkey to Egypt to Saudi Arabia. The reforms of the madrasas that he evoked constitute an urgent need for the wrong and obsolete religious educational systems of today’s Muslims.

f- Ibrahim (Abai) Qunanbaiuly

The Kazakh Ibrahim (Abai) Qunanbaiuly {1845-1904; Абай (Ибрагим) Кунанбаев} was a poet, writer, composer, intellectual, cultural reformer, and the founder of Modern Kazakh Literature. He was the first promoter of the concept of a Muslim-Turanian rapprochement with the Russian-Western culture, which would take place on the basis of the historical tradition preserved by the enlightened Muslims (i.e. the repository of the heritage of the Golden Era of Islamic Civilization), therefore totally excluding and rejecting the contemporary, uneducated, ignorant and conservative, Muslim theologians. That’s why all the leaders of the Alash Movement (see below: part X units f, u, v, x and y; part XI and part XIV) constantly referred to his works, texts and ideas.

This is how a Jadidist medresa would look about in Imperial Russia; from: https://islamnews.ru/nesostoyavsheesya-obnovlenie-pochemu-zabyli-dzhadidizm

g- Kadimism

One of the leading Jadidists (джадидисты), Ismail Gaspirali (İsmail Gaspıralı /Исмаил Гаспринский; 1851-1914) launched in 1884 in Crimea an experimental school, which had a tremendous success and became the reference model for many other similar educational institutions. Several Tatar intellectuals contributed to the establishment of a new pedagogical approach and innovative curricula involving World History, Geography, Mathematics, and Science. They met opposition from the outdated religious authorities for which they coined the term Кадимизм (Kadimism) from the Arabic word قديم (kadim), which means ‘ancient’; of course, the use was derogatory, but actually true and correct. The Jadidists rejected the traditional Islamic system of education, demonstrating that it was absolutely unable to equip students with skills and knowledge needed in the modern world and to form adequately prepared elites well versed in modern technologies.  

However, the Jadidists were intellectuals, activists and militants, who did not have time to extensively explore, evaluate and analyze the issue through a historical viewpoint; they therefore generated a misplaced divide (the ‘new’ vs. the ‘old’ or ‘modern science’ vs. ‘Islamic theology’), whereas in reality, 19th and 20th c. Islamic theology is a distorted, meaningless and useless leftover of the historical Islamic sciences, which had long decayed and were abandoned, because of the gradual diffusion of the catastrophic indoctrination of the Muslim populations with the obscurantist pseudo-Islamic theories of ignorant theologians like Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Ahmed ibn Taimiyyah, and Muhammad ibn Abdelwahhab.

Thinking that they were properly educating the pupils and accurately teaching the Islamic sciences, the ignorant sheikhs and the idiotic imams of the 17th-19th c. were indeed renegades, who totally abandoned and absolutely forgot the true, historical Islamic sciences. That’s why they reduced their curricula to few topics and to wrong interpretations of the Quran and the Hadith. About:
























X. The 25 most Illustrious Intellectuals, Scholars, Activists and Politicians of the Jadid Movement 

Among the leading intellectuals of the Jadid Movement, the following 25 thinkers, scholars, journalists and politicians were the most illustrious and the most influential:

a- Ismail Gaspirali (Gasprinsky)

The Crimean Tatar Ismail Gaspirali (Gasprinsky/see also above: part IX no g) was a remarkable intellectual and politician, and stood critically against the decay of the traditional Muslim social life and education, denouncing the idiotic imams who had failed to understand the changes that were taking place at those days. He launched newspapers and journals to fight against the obscurantism of the traditional theologians; he organized several congresses, and traveled extensively. He spearheaded publications for women and children, and mobilized his family for this purpose. More specifically, he was one of the most committed activists in the Ittifaq al-Muslimin (اتفاق المسلمين‎ / Иттифак аль-Муслимин / Union of Muslims), i.e. the main organization and party of Muslims in the Russian Empire (which cooperated with the Kadet/Cadet Party, i.e. the Constitutional Democratic Party).

Ismail Gaspirali and his newspaper Tercuman (Тарджуман/ ترجمان‎/Translator) From: https://islam-today.ru/islam_v_mire/proizvedenie-blagodara-kotoromu-poavilsa-dzadidizm/

b- Abdurauf Fitrat

The Uzbek Abdurauf Fitrat (Абдурауф Фитрат; 1886-1938) is the intellectual whom my former professor Hélène Carrère d’Encausse considers as the real ideological leader of the Jadid Movement; he rejected the Bukharan emir, he sided with the Communists, and he held several positions in the soviet administration of Bukhara. Although he opposed several Jadid concepts in his early years, he soon became one of the most prominent proponents of the movement. Author, poet, journalist, theoretician, activist and politician, Fitrat wrote in many languages and traveled extensively. Acclaimed by the Bukharan Diaspora, he spent several years in the Ottoman Empire (Mecca and Istanbul) where he encountered -amongst others- the great mystic Şehbenderzâde (lit. ‘son of consul’) Filibeli (from Philippopolis) Ahmed Hilmi (1865-1914), a Bulgarian Turk born in Plovdiv, who combatted materialism and initiated Fitrat into the spirituality of Wahdat al Ujud (‘Unity of Being’). Fitrat’s books became very popular there, but the outbreak of WWI forced him to return to Bukhara where he became immediately an active member of the Young Bukharans (جوان‌بخارائیان; Yosh buxoroliklar; Genç Buharalılar; Младобухарцы), a typically Jadid organization.

Abdurauf Fitrat – From: https://www.lolakarimova.com/ru/history-and-culture-of-uzbekistan/abdulrauf-fitrat/ and https://kh-davron.uz/kutubxona/multimedia/abdurauf-fitrat-hujjatli-film.html

He was able to combine many aspects of the Jadid Movement, feeling comfortable with Russian nationalism, Pan-Turanianism, Pan-Islamism (not to be confused with either Pan-Ottomanism or Political Islam), and Communism. More importantly, Abdurauf Fitrat was the first Muslim, Turanian and Soviet intellectual, who identified England, France and the US as the main enemies of the Muslim World and of the Mankind. He therefore called for a strategic alliance between Russia and the Muslim World in order to destroy the colonial empires of the West, a call that remains appropriate and timely even today. Fitrat held several ministerial positions, and carried out critically important work for the preservation of Uzbekistan’s cultural heritage, but after a certain period of time, his pan-Turanianist approaches and his contacts with Turkey and Afghanistan were viewed as dangerous for Soviet Union. Along with others, he was considered as ‘anti-revolutionary’ by Stalin and therefore executed in 1938.

c- Fayzullah Khodzhayev

The Uzbek Fayzullah Khodzhayev (Файзулла Убайдуллаевич Ходжаев; 1896-1938) originated from Bukhara. He was among the founders of the Young Bukharans, and in 1918, he tried to form a pro-Soviet government in Bukhara, reducing the power of the local emir, but in the process, he failed and had to escape to Taskkent, after losing several hundreds of partisans. He strongly combatted the Basmachi Revolt (see below) and the Young Turks’ leader Enver Pasha. This critical development serves as effective proof of the fact that the Jadid Movement had nothing in common with the ideas of the ill-fated Committee of Union and Progress (İttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti/ إتحاد و ترقى جمعيتی), which exercised political power in the Ottoman Empire for several decades. Khodzhayev was the true leader (Chairman of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee) of the short-lived Bukharan People’s Soviet Republic (a quasi-independent state recognized by Moscow; 1920-1924) and, after the redrawing of the borders in Soviet Central Asia, Chair of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic. However, after 1929, he disagreed with Stalin’s policies for Uzbekistan, and he was subsequently executed in 1938.  

Файзулла Убайдуллаевич Ходжаев – Fayzullah Khodzhayev
From: https://ok.ru/group/53063127924827/topic/64933131438939

d- Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev

The Tatar Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev (Мирсаид Хайдаргалиевич Султан-Галиев; 1892-1940) was a fervent communist who became known as one of the main proponents of the Muslim National Communism. Sultan-Galiev has been a worldwide leading critic of the Western European genocide of the indigenous nations of the Americas, and an early and remarkable champion of the dependency theory, as per which an eventual communist revolution in England would not change the imperialist-colonial nature of that state. Sultan-Galiev defended Bolshevism as the natural choice for all Tatars, Turanians and Muslims, offering as example the calamitous colonization process of entire continents by the Western powers and the ensuing destructions caused to great historical nations in Asia, Africa and America. Well-versed in World History, he published devastating criticisms of the uneducated and obsolete sheikhs and imams whose ignorance did indeed function in favor of the colonial powers. He actively participated in the Civil War and he had a strong relationship with Lenin, but unfortunately, after 1924, his pan-Islamist and pan-Turanian views (which however were all intertwined with Communism) were misinterpreted and after several years of exile and forced labor, he was executed in 1940. He was one of the best interconnected pioneers of the Jadid Movement, who progressively accepted Marxism-Leninism.

Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev (first from right); from: https://newskif.su/2013/человек-легенда-мирсаид-султан-галие/

e- Musa Yarulovich Bigiev

The Tatar Musa Yarulovich Bigiev (Муса Яруллович Бигеев; 1873-1949) was one of the most outstanding Turanian Muslim intellectuals and most committed activists in the Ittifaq al-Muslimin. He traveled extensively in young age, notably in Russia, in the Ottoman Empire (Mecca, Damascus, Istanbul, etc.), and in the English colonies of Egypt and India. With time, his trips increased, and in middle age, he moved even more considerably: in Turkey (where he attended several parliamentary sessions and met with leading statesmen, like Ismet Inonu), in Egypt and Saudi Arabia (as Soviet Muslim delegate in the Pan-Islamic Congresses), in China and Afghanistan (where he ran into exile in 1930), in the English colonies of Palestine and India, in Indonesia and Japan (invited by the famous 19th-20th c. Pan-Turanianist Abdurreshid Ibrahim / Абдурашид Гумерович Ибрагимов), and also in Germany. He too encountered many ups and downs in his relations with the Soviet government, although he was a passionate supporter of the Bolsheviks and he considered them as the best ally against the English and the French colonials.

Musa Bigiev – Муса Бигеев / From: https://islamology.ru/content/бигиев-муса/

f- Muhammed-Gabdulkhay Kurbangaliev

In striking contrast with many other Jadid intellectuals, the Bashkir Muhammed-Gabdulkhay Kurbangaliev (Мухаммед-Габдулхай Курбангалиев; 1889-1972) entered into alliance with the White Movement and the leading Turkophile, Austrian-German-Russian nobleman, general, mystic, and potentate Roman von Ungern-Sternberg, before living successively in Manchuria, China and Japan, and spending 10 years in jail (1945-1955) in the USSR.

Muhammed Gabdulkhay Kurbangaliev – https://islam-today.ru/istoria/muhammed-gabdulhaj-hazrat-kurbangaliev-ot-predstavitela-baskir-do-lidera-turko-tatarskoj-obsiny/ (in the lower picture with Bigiev)

g- Alimardan bey Topchubashov

The Azeri Alimardan bey Topchubashov (Алимардан-бек Топчибашев; 1863-1934) was a prominent leader of the Ittifaq, and later Minister of Foreign Affairs, speaker of the Parliament of the short-lived (1918-1920) Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (the first secular republican state in the Turanian and the Muslim worlds), and head of the Azerbaijani Delegation at Versailles Conference,

h- Hasan bey Zardabi

The Azeri Hasan bey Zardabi (Гасан-бек Зардаби; 1842-1907) was a leading secular Muslim intellectual and activist very close to the ideas of the Russian Narodniki (народничество), and founder of Akinci (Экинчи/Əkinçi/اکينچی), the first newspaper in Azeri.

i- Mirza Fatali Akhundov

The Azeri Mirza Fatali Akhundov (Мирза Фатали Ахундов; 1812-1878), a leading Azeri nationalist, materialist and atheist, epitomized the Turanian-Iranian-Russian unity, as he identified Russia as his empire, Turkic Azeri as his ancestry, and Iran as his nation. Written in Farsi, his ‘Eastern poem on the death of Pushkin’ (1837) proved to be a real symbol of unity for the Russian, Turanian and Iranian worlds.

j- Mahmud khodja Behbudiy

The Tajik and Uzbek Mahmud khodja Behbudiy (Махмуд Ходжа Бехбуди; 1875-1919) was a distant descendant of the illustrious 12th c. Turkic mystic, philosopher and poet Khoja Ahmed Yasawi (whose tomb is a magnificent edifice located in Turkistan, South Kazakhstan). He traveled and lived in Mecca, Cairo and Istanbul, returned to Samarqand, launched the famous weekly Ayina (Oino), participated actively in the Ittifaq, wrote numerous textbooks, theatrical plays, and articles, took part in the first executive committee in Samarkand after the February 1917 revolution, and was in good terms with the Soviet government, only to be arrested by the counterrevolutionaries and executed in 1919 by the rebel Sayyid Mir Muhammad Alim Khan (the last Emir of Bukhara, who was finally deposed in 1920 and died in exile in Afghanistan in 1944).

k- Saifullah qadi Khalid Bashlarov

The Dagestani Saifullah qadi Khalid Bashlarov (Сайфулла-кади Башларов; 1853-1919) was early expelled to Saratov in 1878 (for having participated in the 1877 rebellion), joined the Ittifaq, returned to Dagestan in 1909, supported the anti-clerk rebellion in 1913 (which forced the czarist administration to partly abandon the local plan for introduction of the Russian alphabet), was exiled to Kazan, and finally killed in the White Movement (in 1919).  

l- Salimgirey Seidkhanovich Dzhantyurin

The Kazakh Salimgirey Seidkhanovich Dzhantyurin (or Jantyurin / Салимгирей Сеидханович Джантюрин; 1864-1926) was a nobleman from Ufa and a descendent of the Kazakh khans of the Bukey Horde; he was one of the principal leaders of the Kazakh national movement. He graduated from the Faculty of Mathematics of Moscow University, worked for the czarist administration in the Ufa province, and became a remarkable landowner, a pioneering politician, a philanthropist, member of the Ittifaq Central Committee and member of the Kadet Party. Despite his outstanding career and benefactions, after the rise of the Bolsheviks to power, he lived a modest life and died in an accident.  

From: https://rus.azattyq.org/a/salimgerei_zhanturin_gosduma_alash_orda_medrese_galia/24107587.html

Studying Dzhantyurin’s biography, achievements and contributions, one discovers and has therefore to underscore the extraordinary contrast between the Russian-Muslim osmosis and the Anglo-French colonial disparity with the Muslim World. Because of their antithesis with the Muslims, the Western colonial powers carried out a pernicious infiltration into the colonized Muslim societies and they systematically distorted the local version of decayed Islam. Quite contrarily to what happened in Muslim lands colonized by the English and the French, as early as 1906, Dzhantyurin was intellectually advanced enough to advocate the abolition of death penalty.

In striking contradiction to Dzhantyurin’s Islamic humanism, throughout the territories colonized by the evil colonials of England and France, uneducated and paranoid sheikhs and imams, duly utilized by their criminal colonial masters (without even understanding it), started advocating extremist ideas, criminal acts, and increased ignorance.  The detrimental comparison is quite enough to prove to all Muslims that, as per the principles of Islam, it is absolutely impermissible for any Muslim to live in the colonial countries of the West, to accept their embassies in Muslim countries, and to study in these countries’ disreputable universities which propagate a historical forgery to indoctrinate and thus enslave the idiotic Muslims who find it normal to study in Australia, Canada, US, UK and France.  

Джантюрин также присутствовал в Выборгском воззвании (11 декабря 1907). Dzhantyurin was also present in the Vyborg Appeal (11 December 1907).

m- Sadriddin Ayni

The Tajik Sadriddin Ayni (Садриддин Айни; صدرالدين عينى; 1878-1954) was a widely acclaimed author, poet, theoretician, historian and philologist, who propagated Communist ideas in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. He became member of the Supreme Soviet of Tajikistan, and more importantly, he extensively elaborated and cultivated the Tajik cultural identity, so that nowadays in Tajikistan he is widely viewed as their national poet.

Sadriddin Ayni was one of the few Jadidists who survived all troubles and purges in the USSR. From: https://ok.ru/tajikistanmoyarodina/topic/62708887118025
Statues of Sadriddin Ayni & Maxim Gorky in Dushanbe, Tajikistan’s capital

n- Hairullah Usmanov

The Tatar Hairullah Usmanov (Хайрулла Абдрахманович Усманов; 1866-1915) was a leading educator and pedagogue, who introduced Jadid methods and approaches in many schools and madrasahs. Mobilizing Tatar businessmen, like A. G. Husainov (А. Г. Хусаинов), and average people for the cause of the Jadid Movement, Usmanov directed several cultural centers and took active part in the Ittifaq. He was elected as deputy in the Second State Duma (1906) and there he drafted a Bill, demanding the abolition of restrictions on political and civil rights related to religion and ethnicity.

o- Fatali Khan Isgender Oğlu

The Azeri Fatali Khan Isgender Oğlu (‘son of Alexander’) Khoyski (i.e. from Khoy in today’s NW Iran) was the first Prime Minister of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (1918-1920). Khoyski (1875-1920; Фатали Хан Искендер оглы Хойский; فتحعلی ‌خان خویسکی) was a court lawyer and he was elected in the Second State Duma, before becoming a minister in the short-lived Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (April-May 1918). As he did not want to engage Azerbaijan against the Russian counterrevolutionary Denikin and his army, the Red Army invaded and annexed Azerbaijan. Khoyski escaped only to be later assassinated in Tbilisi by an Armenian terrorist.

p- Khalil bey Khasmammadov

The Azeri Khalil bey Khasmammadov (Халил-бек Хасмамедов; 1873-1947) was a lawyer and an enthusiastic supporter of Ismail Gaspirali’s ideas and thoughts. He was elected in the First and Second State Dumas, appointed in several ministerial positions in the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, and then dispatched as ADR ambassador to Turkey, where he stayed for the rest of his life, because he decried the Soviet occupation of Azerbaijan and he disagreed with the Soviets. 

q- Mullanur Mullazianovich Vakhitov

The Tatar Mullanur Mullazianovich Vakhitov (Мулланур Муллазянович Вахитов; 1885-1918) was a leading figure of the Muslim Socialist Committee (MSK), editor of a Communist journal in Kazan, and commissar of Central Muslim Commissariat of Narkomnats (Народный комиссариат по делам национальностей; People’s Commissariat on Nationalities); he was killed defending Kazan against the armies of the counterrevolutionaries.

Statue of Mullanur Mullazianovich Vakhitov (also spelled as Waxitov) in Kazan (work of the sculptor of Yuri Orekhov) erected in 1985; From: https://www.tattravel.ru/pamyatniki-kazani/pamyatnik-mullanur-vachitov.html

r- Ahmed Zaki Validov

The Bashkir Ahmed Zaki Validov (or Zeki Velidi Togan / Ахмет-Заки Валидов; 1890-1970) was an outstanding member of the Jadid Movement, activist, fighter for the liberation of Bashkortostan, theoretician, explorer, scholar, author and professor, who -like so many other Jadid intellectuals- tergiversated in favor and against the Bolsheviks. Ahmed Zaki Validov was also one of the leaders of the Basmachi Movement (against the Soviets), chairman of the National Union of Turkistan, refugee in Iran, head of a secret organization that collaborated with Nazi Germany, and a multilingual academic with working experience in many countries (Turkey, Austria, Germany, US, Pakistan, India, Iran, etc.).

Ahmed Zaki Validov (or Zeki Velidi Togan)
Ahmed Zaki Validov (or Zeki Velidi Togan)
Ahmed Zaki Validov (or Zeki Velidi Togan)
From: https://realnoevremya.ru/articles/85219-politik-s-planetarnym-myshleniem-m-sultan-galiev-ch2  –  http://libmap.bashnl.ru/node/494  –  http://www.hrono.ru/biograf/bio_we/validov_az.php  –  https://milliard.tatar/news/zaki-validi-takaya-ze-simvoliceskaya-i-romanticeskaya-figura-kak-ce-gevara-ili-enver-pasa-1126
The borders of Independent Bashkortostan (or Bashkiria) according to Zaki Validov

s- Rizaeddin bin Fakhreddin

The Bashkir and Tatar Rizaeddin bin Fakhreddin (1858-1936; Ризаитдин Фахретдинович Фахретдинов) was a leading author, educator, and director of madrasah; he proved to be a very active member of the Central Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Russia (Центральное духовное управление мусульман России, which was then named Оренбургское магометанское духовное собрание/Assembly) at Ufa. As a systematic reformer, he came up (1905) with a comprehensive project, which he submitted to the aforementioned institution, also asking the imperial permission to allow them to extend their authority among the Kazakhs. This was rejected, because the imperial authorities believed that it would lead to a very centralized Muslim authority throughout their vast country. Fluent in many languages, he published extensively on topics of Islamic History, Philosophy, Spirituality and Jurisprudence.

From: https://www.dunyabizim.com/portre/bir-buyuk-mucadele-adami-rizaeddin-bin-fahreddin-h22996.html

t- Bakhytzhan Bisalievich Karataev

The Kazakh Bakhytzhan Bisalievich Karataev (or Karatayev; 1863-1934; Бахытжан Бисалиевич Каратаев / Бақытжан Бейсәліұлы Қаратаев) graduated from the Orenburg gymnasium and the Faculty of Law in St. Petersburg, and then worked as bailiff and later as attorney. He participated (1905-1914) in the Cadets (кадет партия; the Constitutional Democratic Party), becoming the leader of the Ural-Kyrgyz group (which represented several nations). Elected in the Second State Duma, he was part of the Muslim group and the Siberian group. He confronted the czarist premier Stolypin’s policy of resettlement (переселенческая политика), because he viewed it as a threat for the interests of the indigenous nations. He was a prolific writer and contributor to many newspapers, and he assisted the Muslim faction of the Third State Duma, being dispatched (1907-1908) on behalf of the Kazakhs of the Steppe Governorate. He actively participated in the works of the 4th Muslim Congress (1914; St. Petersburg) that came up with great proposals of major reforms in the religious administration.

Opposing Russia’s participation in WWI, Karataev demonstrated remarkable foresight and real love for all the nations of the empire; he participated (December 1914) in the All-Russian Congress of Representatives of Muslim Public Organizations (Всероссийский съезд представителей мусульманских общественных организаций); after that point, he distanced himself from the Cadets and gradually became member of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Bolsheviks) {Российская социал-демократическая рабочая партия (большевиков)}. He was arrested (early 1918) and imprisoned for 9 months by the White Cossacks (a counterrevolutionary group in the South Urals), before assuming many positions during the early years of the Soviet administration (member of the Kirghiz Revolutionary Committee; delegate of the 1st and 2nd Congresses of Soviets of the Kirghiz ASSR; chairman of the Aktobe Provincial Collegium; employee in the State Archives of the KASSR in Aktobe). Following several disagreements with other local authorities, he withdrew and later was expelled from the Communist Party.

State Duma (2nd convocation) Muslim deputies; Bakhytzhan Karataev, first from left

u- Khalil Dosmukhamedov

The Kazakh Khalil Dosmukhamedov (Халел Досмухамедович Досмухамедов; 1883-1939) was the first Kazakh to feel the need for a political organization or party to defend the national interests of the Kazakhs, along with those of the other Turanian and Muslim nations of the empire. He graduated from the Ural Military Real School (Уральское военно-реальное училище) in 1902; he then entered the St. Petersburg Imperial Military Medical Academy (Санкт-Петербургская императорская военно-медицинская академия), which is now named Военно-медицинская академия имени С. М. Кирова (S. M. Kirov Military Medical Academy). He served as medical doctor in the Perm province, in the 1st Turkistan, 2nd Ural Kazakh-Russian rifle battalion, and then in the Urals. In his book “How to deal with the Plague among the Kirghiz People”, he described in details the methods he used to combat the plague that broke in 1916.

His political career started with articles and strongly Jadidist proposals published as early as 1905 (in newspapers like Uralskiy Listok/уральский листок and Fiker/Фикер). He was member of the All-Russian Congress of Muslims in Moscow (May 1917), member of the 1st All-Kazakh Congress, member of the All-Russian Constituent Assembly (November 1917), and member of the Kazakh party Alash (Алаш), which was allied with the Constitutional Democratic Party (rather known as the Cadets / from the first syllable of the first two words: Конституционно-демократическая партия).

Khalil Dosmukhamedov / From: https://asu.edu.kz/en/university/khalel-dosmukhamedov/dosmukhamedov-biographi/

He was member of the Alash Orda government, in March 1918, and along with others, he entered into negotiations with Lenin and Stalin with respect to Kazakhstan’s autonomy; after the dissolution of the Alash government (following the defeat of the White Army in 1920), he took part actively in the People’s Commissariat for Education of the Republic of Turkestan and later held several other positions in the USSR. Dosmukhamedov is today considered as the father of modern scientific research in Kazakhstan, because he contributed greatly to the establishment of regular academic education and scholarly exploration, also publishing many books. However, he was rather viewed suspiciously, arrested and exiled in the 1930s; before being executed, he died when hospitalized in 1938, but he was rehabilitated thanks to Nikita Khrushchev.

v- Zhahansha Dosmukhamedov

The Kazakh Zhahansha Dosmukhamedov {Жанша (Жаханша) Досмухамедов; 1887- 1938} was a leading Kazakh lawyer, scientist, author, translator, political activist, cultural reformer, and national statesman. He originated from a family of steppe shepherds, and after studying in a Russian-Kazakh moving school (Булдуртинская аульная передвижная русско-казахская школа) and in the one-year Russian-Kazakh secondary school (одноклассное русско-казахское училище) in Dzhambeity (Джамбейты; today Zhymbiti/Жымпиты), he enrolled in the Ural Military Real School in Uralsk {Уральское войсковое реальное училище; which is currently named after him (Высший педагогический колледж имени Жаханши Досмухамедова)} and then in the Faculty of Law (Moscow University). His studies, like those of almost all the Kazakh students, were financed by Kazakh foremen of the administrative districts from which the students originated. As student, he treated Russians with sympathy and respected Russian culture. He always supported a position of convergence between Russians and Kazakhs, which predetermined the Kazakh national stance toward Kazakh-Russian relationship.

Zhahansha Dosmukhamedov (first from right) with his family in vacations in Crimea / From: https://rus.azattyq.org/a/zhakhansha-dosmukhamedov-dom-v-moskve/28908910.html

As chairman of the Ural Regional Kazakh Committee, Zhahansha Dosmukhamedov participated in the All-Russian Congress of Muslims where he was elected deputy chairman. He formed the Uilsky Olyat government (the Western branch of Alash Orda) and therefore participated in the Alash government (proclaimed at the 2nd All-Kazakh Congress, in 1917). He was the jurist, who shaped the legal concept of Alash. In 1918-1919, along with his old schoolmate Khalil Dosmukhamedov, he negotiated with Lenin and Stalin. As a lawyer, he translated the Soviet civil and criminal codes to Kazakh, and he greatly contributed to the consolidation of the national culture. He was arrested and persecuted several times in the 1930s, and despite his sickness, he was executed in 1938, only to be rewarded with rehabilitation and recognition due to Nikita Khrushchev. 

w- Saken Seifullin  

The Kazakh Saken Seifullin (1894-1938; Сәкен Сейфуллин; Сәдуақас Сейфоллаұлы Сейфуллин) was a great poet and writer; he has been acknowledged as the father of Modern Kazakh Literature. In addition, he was the founder of the Union of Writers of Kazakhstan, and he proved also to be a remarkable statesman and a prominent member of the Bolshevik Communist Party. Member of the Argyn (Аргын/аргун) tribe (from the Middle Horde), he studied first in the Russian-Kazakh school of the Copper Smelter Plant at Spask (спасский медеплавильный завод; Karaganda region, i.e. NE Kazakhstan), which was built in the 1850s. He continued in the Akmola Primary School and in the 3-year Secondary School at Akmola (Акмолинское трёхклассное городское училище), and then he started teaching Russian language to Kazakh and other Muslim schoolchildren in a madrasa.

In 1913-1914, Seifullin entered the Omsk Vocational School for Teachers (Омская учительская семинария) and started publishing articles and writing poems in Kazakh, before becoming one of the pioneers of the Kazakh youth organization Birlik (‘Unity’). During that period, he befriended and collaborated with other young Kazakh activists, who took part in the Jadid Movement before becoming the leading intellectuals, academics, and statesmen of the Kazakh nation in the early 20th c., namely Magzhan Zhumabaev (Магжан Жумабаев), Zhanaydar Saduakasov (Жанайдар Садуакасов; Джанайдар Садвокасович Садвокасов), Nygymet Nurmakov (Ныгымет Нурмаков), Abylkhayyr Dosov (Абылхайыр Досов), Shaimerden Alzhanov (Шаймерден Алжанов).

Saken Seifullin
Saken Seifullin: after he escaped from prison, he was hiding in Omsk, in the house of M. Aitpenov. From: https://stanradar.com/news/full/13225-vydajuschijsja-kazahskij-pisatel-saken-sejfullin-ternistyj-put.html

In April 1917, Seifullin founded a society named Жас қазақ (Zhas Kazak/Young Kazakhs), the name of which alludes to the organization Genç Türkler (Young Turks) in the ailing Ottoman Empire; all the same, the cultural, ideological and socio-political identity of the Young Kazakhs was totally different from that of their Ottoman coreligionists. In the same year, Seifullin composed a pro-Soviet poem, which has been considered as the first piece of Kazakh Soviet literature. He was elected member of the presidium of the Akmola Soviet of deputies, and then appointed as People’s Commissar of Education. During the Civil War, Seifullin was arrested by the counterrevolutionaries, imprisoned and condemned to death, but managed to escape and survive. After the end of the hostilities, he assumed several positions in the early soviet administrations and later, in November 1922, the 3rd Congress of the Kirghiz (: Kazakh) ASSR elected him as head of the government (‘Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of the Republic’). One month later, he was elected member of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR (Центральный исполнительный комитет СССР).  

Seifullin deployed a great effort in order to change the wrong appellation and to impose the correct national name (‘Kazakh’ instead of ‘Kirghiz’) as that of the SSR, thus rightfully granting to his native tongue the status of state language. At this point, one must clarify that the confusion of names was due to the traditional Russian appellation of the Kazakhs and the Kirghiz: the former were known to Russians as Kirghiz-Kazaks (киргизы-казахи or also Киргиз-кайсаки) and the latter were called Kara-Kirghiz (кара-киргизы/Black Kirghiz). Seifullin is credited with the historic sentence “Let’s call the Kazakhs Kazakhs! Correct the mistakes! Until today, Russians called Kazakhs Kirghiz.” (Давайте называть казахов казахами, исправим ошибки. До сегодняшнего дня русские называли казахов киргизами.)

3rd Congress of the Kirghiz (: Kazakh) ASSR: Saken Seifullin is in the second row, 2nd from left.
Saken Seifullin as rector of the Kazakh Institute of Public Education, among students

Although he was well-known for his staunch pro-Soviet stance, for his impressive award (Order of the Red Banner of Labor), and for his outstanding contribution to the consolidation of the Soviet rule in Kazakhstan, despite his enormous engagement in the establishment of the Soviet academic life, and in spite of his commitment to the diffusion of Marxism-Leninism among the Muslims of Central Asia, Seifullin was arrested, sentenced and executed (1938), only to be rehabilitated under Khrushchev.

x- Mukysh Boshtayev

The Kazakh Mukysh Boshtayev (1897-1921; Мукыш Боштаев) was jurist, journalist, and political activist; he also became a leading member of the Alash Movement. This group proved to be one of the many efforts undertaken by Turanians and Muslims to implement the concepts and the ideals promoted by the Jadid Movement across a far wider area, not only Kazakhstan. In fact, the Alash Movement was the first Kazakh political party, and it formed a provisory government until the end of the Civil War (August 1920). This movement sought to consolidate the Kazakh identity, but it was divided around several issues, such as secular society, modern education, state run economy, free market, etc. Boshtayev published groundbreaking articles about Kazakh education, culture, autonomy, social organization and modernization. In 1917, he was elected as candidate for the All-Russian Constituent Assembly from the Semipalatinsk region, and at the 1st All-Kazakh Congress, he was nominated as a deputy from the Alash party. At the 2nd All-Kazakh Congress, he was elected in the Alash government (Orda). He died during the hostilities in an unknown location.

Alikhan Bukeikhanov / From: https://e-history.kz/ru/news/show/6320/

y- Alikhan Bukeikhanov

The Kazakh Alikhan Bukeikhanov (1866-1937; Алихан Нурмухамедович Букейханов) was one of the most determinant figures of Modern Kazakh History, first Kazakh Prime Minister (in the Alash Orda state), and one of the founders of the Alash Movement; he was a leading statesman, scientist, writer, secular intellectual, and member of the Communist Party. More importantly, he was a far descendent of Genghis Khan and the great-grandson of Barak Sultan, the khan of the Bukey Horde (see above: part VI 12th paragraph). This fact is also denoted in his family name: Bukeikhanov. From his mother’s side, he was a far descendent of the famous Mamai, the Khaqan of the Blue Horde (see above: part V no 7). Not only did his origin play an important role in his rise among the Kazakh Jadidists, but also his wholehearted commitment to the cause of Modern Kazakhstan reserved for him a truly distinct position. Making of his secular ideas a way of life, he was one of the very first Muslims in Imperial Russia to get married with a Russian Christian lady: Elena Yakovlevna Sevostianova (Елена Яковлевна Севостьянова). Even his son bore two personal names, one Christian and one Muslim (Sergei Oktay / Сергей Октай).  

After studying in the Russian-Kazakh school, the Omsk Technical School, and the St. Petersburg Forestry Institute (Dept. of Economics), he worked on statistics also publishing articles in the newspaper Семипалатинские областные ведомости (Semipalatinsk Regional Statements); in young age (24), he changed his name from Nurmukhamedov (surname after his father’s name) to Bukeikhanov (after his tribe’s name), which is clear indication of Kazakh national identity. Quite interestingly, in 1904, he willingly participated in the expedition of the Russian Cossack scholar and leading statistician (also known as the ‘Father’ of Russian Zemstvo Statistics), and Narodnik politician Fyodor Andreyevich Sherbina to prepare for a mass resettlement of peasants from Central Russia to the Steppe region of Kazakhstan. His commitment is of critical importance for us today, because it clearly demonstrates that, as early as the first years of the 20th c., the Kazakhs -quite contrarily to the then criminal Anglo-French colonial attempts and in full rejection of the current, nonsensical and utterly fallacious Western bibliography and diplomatic pretentions- did not view the Russian conquest as an inimical invasion by an alien force, but as a re-congregation of all the Turanian, Slavic and Northern Asiatic nations under a fraternal, progressive and reinvigorating plan.

Buleikhanov in the Vyborg Appeal / From: https://el.kz/ru/news/obshestvo/alikhana_bukeykhanov-_zhizn_v_borbe_chast_1/
Buleikhanov in Moscow, 1937 / From: https://bolashaq.edu.kz/novosti/alash-orda-alihan-bukejhanov/

Bukeikhanov represented the mainstream of Kazakh intelligentsia that was oriented toward modernization, educational improvement, cultural revival, and national re-awakening. At the time, they named this trend, concept, tendency and approach ‘Westernization’ (Западничество or западническое направление/Western direction), but in reality they meant that the Kazakhs and the other Turanian and Muslim nations of the region needed to follow the example of the Russians and to empower themselves in order to successfully compete with all the leading nations of the world; in fact, their approaches and ideals were finally implemented not in the Soviet Union but in Turkey of Kemal Ataturk. That’s why in the 1900s, most of the Jadidists, irrespective of their later career path and theoretical-ideological choices, felt close to, and were allied with, the Cadets (Constitutional Democratic Party) whose official name was ‘Party of People’s Freedom’. Strong in his anti-colonial determination, Bukeikhanov opposed both, the czarist effort to colonize Kazakhstan and the nonsensical anachronism of the imams, the mullahs and the traditional Tatar merchants.

The political career of Alikhan Bukeikhanov started with his participation in the All-Russian Congress of Local (Agrarian and Municipal) Authorities’ Representatives (общероссийский съезд земских и городских деятелей), which took place in Moscow on 6th-13th November 1905; there he identified himself as the spokesman of “four million Kirghiz (: Kazakh)” and condemned the persecution of the Kirghiz (: Kazakh) medium schools. However, these points need to be carefully examined, because on similar statements are based modern Western misinterpretations and distortions of Asiatic, Turanian and Russian History. The czarist persecution of these schools was not denounced by Bukeikhanov on racist Anti-Russian grounds; more specifically, he decried the czarist censorship, because it did not allow the translation (from Russian to Kazakh) of 46 fables by Ivan Andreyevich Krylov (1769-1844; Иван Андреевич Крылов). In other words, Bukeikhanov wanted to bring the two nations -the Kazakhs and the Russians- educationally, culturally, and intellectually closer.

Member of the Cadet Party after 1905, Bukeikhanov was elected and participated in the Central Committee from 1906 to 1917; known for the numerous newspapers that he edited, for the Vyborg Manifsto (Выборгское воззвание) that he signed, and for his steadfast struggle for autonomy, he was elected in the 1st State Duma from the Semipalatinsk region. He was repeatedly imprisoned, banned from elections, and forced to contractual exile in Samara. In the early 1910s he became member of the pro-French Freemasonic political organization ВВНР (Великий восток народов России/Great Orient of the Peoples of Russia) and of the Lodge Чермак (Chermak) in St. Petersburg. After the February Revolution (1917), he disagreed with the Cadets (notably on the issue of autonomy for Kazakhstan) and left the party. He used his experience to create {with others, notably Akhmet Baitursynov (1872-1937; Ахмет Байтурсынов) and Mirzhakip Dulatov (1885-1935; Миржакип  Дулатов)} the Kazakh political organization Alash in order to participate in the Constituent Assembly of Russia (November 1917-January 1918; Всероссийское учредительное собрание). Bukeikhanov participated in the congress of the Siberian autonomists (Сибирская областная дума) in Tomsk (December 1917) where the Kazakhs were given full autonomy as part of the short-lived Siberian Republic (Сибирская республика; 4th June – 3rd November 1918).

At Bukeikhanov’s initiative, at the 2nd All-Kazakh Kurultai (General Assembly; with more than 200 delegates), the Alash autonomy was discussed; the historic event was held in Orenburg (December 1917-January 1918). The final decision was postponed for a month, but the autonomy was de facto valid and most of today’s Kazakhstan’s territory was ruled autonomously. The Kazakh autonomous government, Alash Orda, participated in the Civil War against the Soviet government, and because of this situation, Bukeikhanov and other members of the government had to hide for a long period. Around the end of 1919, the Bolsheviks prevailed, the Alash Orda had to capitulate, and the first Kazakh Prime Minister, who considered Lenin’s rise to power as an illegal event, had to abandon his ambitions and political career in order to achieve a nominal recognition of the Kazakh autonomy. Among Kazakhs, the pro-Soviet activists of the party Ush Zhuz (Уш жуз) opposed Bukeikhanov’s ideas. He therefore preferred to work in the fields of culture, education, academic research, and publications; in the 1920s, he worked for several years as literary employee in the Central Publishing House of the Peoples of the USSR (in Moscow). In the late 1920s and the 1930s, he was repeatedly arrested and imprisoned; last, in 1937, he was condemned to death and executed. It is only in 1989 that the verdict of the Supreme Commissariat of the USSR Armed Forces was canceled as unfounded, Bukeikhanov was posthumously acquitted, and his reputation restored. About:















«L’Empire russe face à l’Islam», entretien avec Hélène Carrère d’Encausse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StgY7fKCXts (minutes: 16:00-25:00)






















































































XI. The Jadid Movement between Imperial Russia and the USSR: the Secular Nature of the Kazakhs and the other Muslims of Central Asia

The above brief portraits represent only a small number of intellectuals, scholars, activists, journalists and politicians, who formed the Jadid Movement, but they are quite representative. They allow every reader understand that the formidable movement, which shook Northwestern, Northern, Central and Northeastern Asia and Eastern Europe, was actually an enormous intellectual nebula, which comprised people of very different ethnic backgrounds, diverse walks of life, distinct theoretical directions, disparate ideological motivations, divergent philosophical opinions, and varied political intentions.

Under this title, one can find Muslim secularists, Turanian nationalists, anti-czarist progressives, pro-Russian socialists, liberal economy supporters, social reformists, educational pioneers, Islamic modernists, revivalists of the Golden Era of Islam, cultural identity advocates, pan-Turanianists, pan-Islamists, propagandists of a variably and differently conceived Westernization, and even Muslim traditionalists. Men from all the walks of life were actually in tune with some of the concepts advanced and the principles heralded by the Jadid Movement. However, it is noteworthy that none of the Jadidists supported the so-called ‘Turkish History Thesis’; neither can one find liberal Kemalists among them. This is clearly shown in the case of the Azeri scholar, theoretician, author, journalist and politician Ahmet Ağaoğlu (1869-1939; Ахмед бек Агаоглу or Ахмед-бек Агаев), a student of the French Orientalist Ernest Renan and an associate of the French Iranologist James Darmesteter, who finally got naturalized Turk, became a close adviser of Kemal Atatürk, was elected in the Turkish Parliament, and served in several positions.

If there is an ideologically critical common denominator for all the Jadidists, this is certainly the notion of ‘awakening’; this was brilliantly elaborately by many among them, notably the Kazakh Mirzhakip Dulatov, one of the founders of Alash, who published (in Ufa) the historic book ‘Awake, Kazakh!’ (Оян, қазақ!) in 1909. Other outstanding Kazakh Jadidists were the following intellectuals, activists and politicians: Valid Khan Sherafedinovich Tanachev (1882-1968; Валидхан Шерафеддинович Таначев), Bakhtygerei Ahmetovich Kulmanov (1857-1919; Бахтигирей Ахметович Кулманов), Muhammedjan Tynyshpaevich Tynyshpaev (1879-1937; Мухамеджан Тынышпаевич Тынышпаев), Koshmuhambet Duysebaiuly Kemengerov (1896-1937; Кошмухамбет Дуйсебайулы Кеменгеров), Smagul Sadvakasov (1900-1933; Смагул Садвакасов), and Ylyas Omarovich Omarov (1910-1970; Ильяс Омарович Омаров).

Mirzhakip Dulatov (1885-1935; Миржакип Дулатов – Міржақып Дулатұлы) first from right / From: https://novoetv.kz/myrzhakyp-dulatov-fakty-iz-zhizni/
Old customs in Jadid intellectuals’ daily life: Dulatov (middle) smoking narguilé (hookah) – Миржакип Дулатов с кальяном 5 мая 1921 года, Ташкент / Mirzhakip Dulatov on 5th May 1921 in Tashkent / From: https://interesnoe.me/view2/content

If there is a politically critical common denominator for all the Jadidists, this is certainly the fact that most of the Jadidists born in the 2nd half of the 19th c. were either forced to emigrate {like the Tatar Musa Bigiev (see above part X unit e) and the Azeri Adil Khan Ziyadkhanov (Адиль Хан Абульфат Хан оглы Зиятханов; 1870-1957)} or killed in wars that took place after the end of WWI (like Adil Khan Ziyadkhanov’s older brother Ismail Khan Ziyadkhanov; 1867-1920; Исмаил Хан Абульфат Хан оглы Зиятханов) or decimated (like the Uzbek Abdulhamid Sulaymon oʻgʻli Yunusov, who became rather known as Choʻlpon, his penname; 1893-1938; Абдулхамид Сулейман угли Чулпан) in the Yezhovshchina (Ежовщина), i.e. the Great Purge in 1930s’ USSR, during which Stalin sought to eradicate any pro-Trotsky elements or disappeared without leaving any traces (like the Bashkir Sharafutdin Abdulgalimovich Kulbakov; 1849-?; Шарафутдин Абдулгалимович Кульбаков).

As I already said, the Jadid Movement is absolutely irrelevant to the Genç Türkler (Young Turks) Movement; there cannot be comparison even at the practical-factual level. The Committee of Union and Progress (İttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti) ruled the Ottoman Empire from 1908 to 1918, whereas the Alash Autonomy was a short-lived state, which controlled a small part of the territory that it claimed to represent and lasted only for few months, before being dragged into the Civil War and subsequently defeated. In addition, it has to be taken into consideration that the Bolsheviks initially viewed positively the demands of many nations for autonomy, due to then prevailing ideas and Lenin’s fundamental theory about ‘the Right of Nations to Self-Determination’ (which was also the title of a book published in May 1914 by the head of the Bolsheviks: О праве наций на самоопределение).

On the other hand, it has to be underscored that the Jadid Movement was totally different from the so-called Islamic Modernism, which has been a fake, Western colonial fabrication geared by French and English Orientalists in order to deliberately plunge all the Muslims, who have been living in their colonies, into a pathetic anachronism, obsolete concepts, fake dilemmas, and the impossible idea that the measures and the criteria of an outdated period can be matched with modern socio-economic standards, political systems, and technological determinism.

Actually, it would be more accurate to specify that the Jadid Movement was diametrically opposed to the nonsense that French and English Freemasons meticulously projected onto naïve, gullible and unsophisticated people like Jamaluddin al-Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Mahmud Shaltut, Hassan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, and others in order to definitely engulf them in a spiritual, ideological, intellectual, and educational impasse, and to therefore make them genuinely unable to achieve a proper nation building process.

Today, what is called ‘Islamic Modernism’ is -in reality- a religious reductionism, a dogmatic rigidity, a theological heresy, a spiritual sterility, a catastrophic ignorance of the Islamic Civilization, and an unprecedented identitarian crisis inextricably mixed with abject immorality, grave lack of piety, total disregard for the human being, materialistic conceptualization of the world, ridiculous political eschatology, and full compliance with the anti-Islamic interests of the anti-Christian colonial powers. As a matter of fact, all the figureheads of the Jadid Movement were at the very antipodes of the reactionary movement of ‘Islamic Modernism’. About:









Деятельность А.Букейханова в экспедиции Ф.А.Щербины (1896-1903 гг.)




Видеоролик «Алихан Бокейханов – борец за свободу казахского народа». Библиотека №10 села Есенгельды.


ПЕТЕРБУРГ. ЛОЖА “ЧЕРМАКА”/http://www.samisdat.com/5/23/523r-che.htm








And this is the villainous English propaganda of the disreputable and fallacious site of Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Republic



























XII. The so-called Andijan Rebellion (1898)

The czarist control of Central Asia did not happen without several types of problems and inconveniences; but this does not mean that the various revolts were due to a direct rejection of the Russian conquest. It is well-known that the long period of decay prior to the czarist rule was filled with intra-Turanian and intra-Muslim factionalism and endless hostilities. This means that we cannot afford to take let’s say a one-day event, like the so-called Andijan Rebellion (Андижанский мятеж или Киргизско-Андижанское восстание; 17 May 1898; Andijan being a 2500-year old, historical city located in the Fergana Valley, in today’s Uzbekistan, not far from the borders of Kyrgyzstan), as an expression of either national Kirghiz or religious Islamic resistance against the czarist government. First, it was not a mass revolt; second, it had genuinely tribal character; third, it was not timely supported or posteriorly defended by any prominent figure of the Jadid Movement. On the contrary, all people affiliated with this movement reviled the backward leader of the misfortunate event.

Biased historians, academic forgers, vicious political scientists, and ignorant geopolitical analysts of today’s corrupt Western countries promote their fallacious dogmas and approaches, systematically trying to export their false historical model onto all the lands that the colonial countries of the West (England, France, and more recently the US) did not conquer, notably throughout the Caucasus region, Central Asia, Russia and China. To do so, these mendacious and disreputable academics highly politicize, ideologize, and fully distort several events (like the one-day so-called Andijan Rebellion) in order to integrate them (not as true, historical events anymore but as factoids) into their pseudo-historical version as per which Russians would have always been the ‘aggressors’, the ‘enemies’ of the Turks (or all Turkic nations) and the ‘oppressors’ of Muslims. That’s absurd and ludicrous. Any Muslim, who believes and accepts the vicious lies of Western (and Western-educated Muslim) academics, diplomats and politicians, is an infidel and an idiot.  

From: https://multiurok.ru/files/andizhanskoe-vosstanie.html

As a matter of fact, the root causes of the Andijan Incident go back to a period that antedates the Russian conquest by several decades; the leader of the few hundreds of Kirghiz rebels, Muhammad Ali Madali (Мухаммад Али Мадали; 1856-1898), who was also known as Dukchi Ishan (Дукчи-ишан), had already revolted many times against Sayid Muhammad Khudayar Khan III (or just Khudayar Khan; Сайид Мухаммед Худояр-хан III / خدايارخان), the last true ruler of the Kokand Khanate (1829-1886; reign: 1844-1875).

Arrested participants in the uprising
From: https://kghistory.akipress.org/unews/un_post:1706

If we now examine closely what occurred during the three decades of Khudayar Khan’s rule in Kokand, we will soon realize the indescribable extent of lawlessness that prevailed among the decayed, self-destructive, and multi-divided local tribes. In fact, his rule was interrupted four times (1851 by one usurper; 1858-1862 by two other usurpers; 1862 by two other usurpers; 1862-1865 by three other usurpers and by a surviving earlier usurper) and, at the end of his reign, Khudoyar Khan asked the help of the Turkestan Governor-General (a czarist officer) and finally in 1875, he fled to Tashkent under the protection of Russian troops.

Muhammad Ali Madali
the location of Andijan

His son, Nasir al-din Khan (Насриддин-бек или Насриддин-хан; 1850-1877), participated in the revolt against his father, which was undertaken by some tribal leaders and sheikhs, and succeeded his father. Few months later, he signed an agreement with Russia in order to concentrate his efforts on the internal front, only to be soon overthrown by the unruly tribal leaders, i.e. the likes of Pulat khan (1844-1876; Пулат-хан; his true name was Ishaq Hasan uglu / Исхак Хасан-уулу.), Muhammad Ali Madali, and Abdurahman Aftobachi (1844-1884; Абдурахман-автобачи). He made a brief comeback in January 1876 only to escape to Tashkent, as the ill-fated Khanate was duly and ultimately abolished. However, quite indicative of the then prevailing conditions was the fact that, while he was the bek (bey) of the Andijan vilayet (under his father’s authority: 1865-1875), Nasir al-din had to annually spend the whole administrative district’s income available in order to build several -otherwise useless- luxurious madrasahs and the magnificent Jami mosque only to appease and please the fancy of pathetic local sheikhs and tribal leaders, who could not make sense of the misery in which they found themselves.

The final outcome of the Andijan Incident (which was not a rebellion) involved few Russian casualties, namely 22 dead and 16 wounded soldiers. Most of the lawless and unruly elements of the Kokand Khanate were arrested (546 men), condemned to forced labor or exiled in Siberia (356); the leaders were executed (18 men) and the rest were allowed free (163). There were no Kazakhs involved in this incident, but the importance of the fact today lies rather in its misinterpretation, and as such it offers a model of historical falsification that biased Western scholars try to reproduce when writing about topics of ‘National History’ for all the nations of Central Asia. For this reason, I examined it closely. About:
















XIII. Misinterpretation of the History of Central Asia by Local Academics-Victims of Western Embassies & US-UK Institutions

To reveal the entire spectrum of the historical event and to offer a better insight into the historical evolution, I have to herewith denounce the fallacious, ahistorical, and absolutely biased perspectives that several modern scholars try to suggest as regards the History of the Russian Conquest of Central Asia. I must add that, after 1991, the unnecessary presence of Western embassies, consulates, institutes and academics in all the Central Asiatic states is the main reason for the systematic and methodical historical revisionism, which has been undertaken in many countries of the region – not without serious damages caused to all these targeted states.

This forgery has been performed under concealed, malignant and disastrous Western guidance; as a matter of fact, this phenomenon usually takes the form of academic-educational exchanges involving an incredible number of invitations, scholarships, and other types of duplicitous and malicious cooperation by which gullible Central Asiatic scholars are being bought up by the criminal Western elites and their academic gangsters in order to accept the fallacious Western version of History and further reproduce it only for the sake of destruction of their own countries.

The misinterpretation of the History of Russia and Central Asia, undertaken by Western colonial institutions, pseudo-scholars-propagandists, and fake universities attained levels of extreme forgery and paroxysm, notably in the case of Kazakhs and the Cossacks, who are of exactly the same ethnic origin but are fallaciously portrayed as different. / From: https://www.altyn-orda.kz/kazaxi-i-kazaki-poteryannoe-proshloe/ and edq.kz/2020/05/02/казахи-предки-казаков/

The vicious historical revisionism, promoted by the Western diplomatic and academic criminals throughout Central Asia, causes detrimental destruction at the academic, intellectual, educational, and political levels. This is so because, within the context of the Western fallacy, which is projected onto the unsuspicious populations of those states, all wrong political ideas, concepts, thoughts and choices are founded on monstrous historical distortions, gross forgery, and unprecedented anti-Russian racism. Misperceiving their nations’ past (through the deceitful, evil schemes of the Western universities, institutes and publications), many Central Asiatic academics inevitably misinterpret their National History, thus ending up with a fake national identity, calamitously wrong political choices, and self-destructive foreign policy.

This situation leads to a catastrophic political trouble; whereas the establishment of all the Central Asiatic countries fully and clearly realizes the ne cessity for close cooperation and alliance with Russia, China and Iran, several gullible academicians, misguided due to the temptations advanced by Western embassies, universities and other institutions, produce fallacious literature (of divisive, anti-Russian, and anti-secular character) about the local national past. This literature is then duly and timely popularized by other local stooges of the Western embassies (i.e. journalists, NGOs, activists, sheikhs and intellectuals) and subsequently diffused among the uneducated masses that the Western gangsters want to fanaticize in order to manipulate against the local governments. This is the typical action plan of the criminal Western elites.    

I will now offer two typical examples of fallacious and pernicious academic articles, which clearly mislead local Muslim Turanians, giving them the impression that the Czarist armies acted as foreign invaders, harmed the Kazakhs, the Uzbeks, the Turkmen, the Tajiks, the Kirghiz, the Azeris and the other nations of the Caucasus region and Central Asia, and deprived the Muslims and the Turanians of their own homelands and stripped them of their independence. As I already explained in the case of the Andijan Incident, this assertion is entirely false, because during the 19th c. and until the unification with czarist Russia, all the Central Asiatic peoples were divided across tribal and sectarian lines, killing one another in a way that the criminal Western Anglo-Saxon gangsters passionately want to revive.  

Two Tajik scholars, Prof. Nazirjon Ochilovich Tursunov (Назирджон Очилович Турсунов) and Buston Rahmonovich Tursunov (Бустон Рахмонович Турсунов), wrote, in the trilingual (Russian, Uzbek and English) abstract that they added at the beginning of their article Героическая борьба народов Северной Ферганы за свободу и упразднение кокандского ханства {The heroic struggle of the peoples of Northern Fergana for freedom and the abolition of the Kokand Khanate: УДК (Универсальная десятичная классификация) 93 ББК (Библиотечно-библиографическая классификация) 63.5(5Т)-3 (p. 11-14) / https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/geroicheskaya-borba-narodov-severnoy-fergany-za-svobodu-i-uprazdnenie-kokandskogo-hanstva}, that following the agreement signed (22 September 1875) between the Kokand Khanate (Nasir al-din Khan) and Russia, “the peoples of Fergana united and continued the struggle against the occupation of their homeland. From October to the end of December, the population of the entire territory of Namangan division waged a struggle against occupation“.

That’s absurd because the uprising was against the Khan, and not the Russians; even worse, the catastrophic event only precipitated the final annexation of the Kokand Khanate by Russia. In a rather non-academic language, the two scholars expand on the topic, inciting fanaticism and anti-Russian hatred, while totally misinterpreting the situation that led to the decomposition and the final collapse of the ill-fated khanate (“Particularly, strong resistance was the population of Namangan-city. November 23-27, 1875 the majority of the population of Oshoba organizedly defending their village showed unprecedented heroism. Skobelev’s punitive detachments brutally cracked down on civilians destroying the population, robbing and organizing arson of their houses – a sakley, as they themselves called them in the sources“). Quite dishonestly, the two professors offer no historical proof in support of their assertion that ‘the majority of the population’ resisted against the Russian forces; in fact, there is no such proof. The only problem that really existed in the said khanate was the weakening of khan’s authority, which was due to the gradual strengthening of the divisive and corrupt elements, i.e. the tribal leaders and the ignorant sheikhs.

Николай Николаевич Каразин, Тревога в крепостном редуте (Нападение кокандцев на казачий выселок Узун–Агач) / Nikolai Nikolaevich Karazin, Anxiety in the Fortress Redoubt (Attack of the Kokandians on the Cossack settlement of Uzun-Agach) / From: https://humus.livejournal.com/5894897.html

With such unfounded statements, which do not help scholars, students and average readership get an accurate understanding of the historical events but merely promote Western anti-Russian propaganda in Central Asia, one can easily understand why Prof. Nazirjon Ochilovich Tursunov was triumphantly included in the encyclopedic and otherwise propagandistic catalogue that an Iranian-American scholar, Prof. Iraj Bashiri (who is also known to have worked for the Tajik division of Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty !!), elaborated a while back (in 2003) for English-speaking academics: Prominent Tajik Figures of the Twentieth Century (https://www.academia.edu/7858297/Prominent_Tajik_Figures_of_the_Twentieth_Century). About Prof. Nazirjon Ochilovich Tursunov:


The second example of misleading academic publication is offered by Prof. Buston Rahmonovich Tursunov, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Fatherland History and Archeology {under the SEI “KhSU named after Acad. B. Gafurov” (Tajikistan, Khujand)}; in his article Героическая оборона крепости Махрам и ее значение в истории Кокандского ханства {Heroic Defence of Mahram Fortress and its Importance in the History of Kokand Khanate, УДК 930 ББК 63.3(543.0) / http://vestnik.tj/hum_dok/2020/n2/RU/Tursunov_B.R..pdf), he added a trilingual (Russian, Uzbek and English) abstract in which he wrote (about the Battle of the Mahram Fortress) the following: “one of the heroic and tragic pages of the history of the Tajik people which took place on August 22, 1875. It is shown how Tajik together with the representatives of other nations of Kokand khanate organized a heroic defense of the fortress“.   

This is totally misleading; the term ‘Tajik’ was historically used as a designation of ‘settled Iranian villagers’ in contrast to the nomadic populations. There was no Tajik nation at the end of the 19th c.; this is a modern construction. At the time, all Tajiks identified themselves as Iranians. Indeed, either in Afghanistan or in Tajikistan, the Tajiks are Farsi-speaking Iranians, who can also be called ‘Eastern Iranians’, because of the geographic location of their homeland. The fabrication of Afghanistan was an English colonial trick providing for the division of Iran. Even worse, the Battle of the Mahram Fortress was engaged because unruly elements of the Kokand Khanate did not want to accept the peace with the Russians that their rightful leadership had already concluded.

The khanates of Khiva, Bukhara and Kokand before their annexation to Imperial Russia / From: https://en.topwar.ru/191338-razgrom-kokandskogo-hanstva-uzun-agachskoe-i-ikanskoe-srazhenija.html

As a matter of fact, it is extremely wrong to speak of ‘representatives of other nations of Kokand khanate’, because there were not many different nations in this khanate, but one: ‘Muslims’. The multilingual character of the said state was quite natural, and all the Muslims constituted (and believed that they constitute) one nation. At the time, no one identified himself as member of what we now call ‘an ethnic group’ throughout the Fergana Valley. Tribal divisions existed indeed, but not along ‘ethnic’ lines or on the basis of nationalist argumentation. Describing the defense of Mahram Fortress as ‘heroic’ consists in a vicious misinterpretation of this historical fact in which several lawless tribal leaders were proven idiotic enough to bring about the destruction of their khanate, as they had already fomented numerous revolts against their last khans. After all, one has to underscore the fact that hundreds of Kazakh cavalry units were also fighting along with the Russians, against the Kokand lawless rebels. There were no sectarian criteria involved in that event; this is the historical truth. It was neither a Christian-Muslim clash nor a Russian-Tajik/Uzbek war. About:  



Nalivkin, Vladimir Petrovich (1852-1918). A brief history of the Kokand Khanate



XIV. The Central Asiatic ‘Rebellion’ of 1916  

It would surely be mendacious to pretend that, in the late 19th and early 20th c., the situation across the czarist territories of Central Asia was pertinent and impeccable. There were certainly many problems; but they had nothing to do with all the ethnic, national and religious divides that today’s Western colonial academics intend to invent and fabricate (and constantly do so) in their disreputable institutions and publications, before exporting them at the local level.  

The czarist authorities found it preferable to carry out a great deal of Turkification mainly in the territories of the former khanates of Samarqand and Bukhara, which correspond to the largest part of today’s Uzbekistan. Although Tajik (an eastern dialect of Farsi) was the predominant language in those areas, it receded significantly during the 20th c. This resulted in a strange phenomenon of discrepancy between official demographic data and average people claims about their ethnic origin in post-1991 Uzbekistan; as per the State Statistics Committee, Tajiks make 5% of the country’s total population; however, independent researchers persistently report that 20-25% of the population pretend to be ethnically Tajik, although the majority among them do not speak Tajik anymore.

Czarist rule in Central Asia was a matter of monumental failure, administrative incapability, and extensive corruption. The reasons for this situation lie in the very conservative, extremely confused, and utterly self-catastrophic nature of the czarist regime; the imperial administration first, was foolish enough to consider Russia as a ‘Western’ (or ‘European’) Empire; second, the imperial elite used to view all Muslims, Buddhists, Tengrists and Shamanists as barbarians (which was self-disastrous for Russia); and third, they did not want to cooperate with the numerous progressive elements among the Kazakhs and the other Muslim peoples of Central Asia. It appears bizarre, but it is true: the czarists preferred to deal with their worst enemies, i.e. the most reactionary elements of the Muslim societies, the sheikhs and the various tribal leaders, instead of embracing the evidently pro-Russian, progressive intellectuals and the enlightened mystics. This disastrous choice caused an explosion in the middle 1910s. No one can cooperate with untrustworthy elements without facing the consequences.

The briefly described situation became soon widely known among the ailing czarist administration. Konstantin Konstantinovich Pahlen (1861-1923; Константин Констанович Пален; known in German as Konstantin Johann Georg von der Pahlen), a leading Russian statesman and explorer, governor and senator (of German origin), was tasked by the czar (1908-1909) to chair a commission, examine the imperial administration in Central Asia, and report on the prevailing conditions. Pahlen uncovered detrimental abuses carried out by the czarist officials. His monumental and multi-voluminous report is the most important historical document for the History of Central Asia during the reign of Nikolai II. About:

Пален К. К., Всеподданнейшая записка, содержащая, главнейшие выводы отчета о произведенной в 1908–1909 гг. по Высочайшему повелению, Сенатором Гофмейстером графом К. К. Паленом ревизии Туркестанского края. Ч. 1–2. СПб., 1910. С. 3. (Po vysochaishemu poveleniyu Senatorom gofmeisterom gr. K. K.

Palenom, revizii Turkestanskogo kraya / Report to the Tsar, Comprising the Main Conclusions of the Inspection of the Turkestan Region Carried out in 1908-1909 on the Highest Authority by Senator Hofmeister Count K. K. Pahlen; Ch. 1–2. SPb., 1910. S. 3.)





Konstantin Konstantinovich Pahlen

With the hindsight that we now have, we can understand that the Russian conquest of Central Asia was an ill-conceived and erroneously implemented project, which would have been carried out with a remarkable success, had not the Russian monarchical, military, academic, educational and intellectual elite not been so blindly pro-Western and so disastrously unaware of their true ethnic and cultural identity. This was indeed confirmed in multiple cases, notably the (Prime Minister) Stolypin (Столыпин) reforms (Столыпинская аграрная реформа), which were introduced after the Russian peasants’ revolt (1905-1906) during the period 1906-1912, when around half a million households were offered the possibility to be transported to the wider region of Central Asia and possess land lots there. In the beginning, Russians and ‘natives’ were residing in different districts, despite the fact that many Jadid intellectuals were apparently pro-Russian.

Troublesome internal affairs and disastrous foreign policy brought about the end of czarist Russia. The dissatisfaction of Central Asiatic Turanian Muslim populations increased because of another calamitous choice that Nikolai II was gullible enough to make, namely to ally Christian Orthodox Russia with the malignant and duplicitous, colonial states of France and England, thus becoming the enemy of the Kaiser and the Sultan, who were ipso facto the Russian monarch’s natural allies. The early successes of the Russian Caucasus Army against the Ottoman Empire and the occupation of Van (17 May 1915), Erzerum (16 February 1916), Trabzon (15 April 1916), and Erzincan (2 July 1916) caused great resentment among the Turanian populations of Central Asia, even more so because the Constantinople sheikhulislam had declared Holy War (Jihad) in 1914.

The successive disastrous defeats of the Russian armies by the  German army in the eastern front forced finally czar Nicholas II to issue (25 June 1916) a decree for the conscription of Central Asian men from the age of 19 to 43; they were necessary for the Brusilov Offensive (Брусиловский прорыв), i.e. against Austria-Hungary. This decree caused what is now called Central Asiatic rebellion of 1916 (Среднеазиатское восстание 1916 года); naming these events a ‘rebellion’ is certainly an exaggeration, because they consisted merely in a series of uncoordinated unrests and spontaneous protests.

The agitators were mobs controlled by tribal chieftains, small groups of peasants fanaticized by local backward sheikhs, and local young men who did not want to participate in WWI. The rebels carried out many atrocities, before being eliminated by Russian, Kazakh, Tatar and other officers of the czarist army. The incidents took place in July-September 1916 without involving a great number of protesters or casualties. It must be underscored that leading Kazakh political and intellectual figures, notably Alikhan Bukeikhanov and Akhmet Baitursynov (see above, part X, unit y), steadfastly opposed the extremist tactics of the obscurantist sheikhs and the fanaticized terrorists. The Alash Movement rejected all grounds for local opposition to the czarist decree.  

Семён Афанасьевич Чуйков, Бегство киргизов в Китай / Symeon Chuykov, The flight of the Kirghizians to China
Казачий отряд в Туркестане – Cossack detachment in Turkestan
Telegram about the beginning of the unrest: 8 August 1916
Чон Уркун (“Большой Исход”). Исход киргизов в Китай в 1916 году; Киргизский государственный исторический музей / Chong Urkun (“Great Exodus”). Exodus of the Kirghiz to China in 1916; Kyrgyz State Historical Museum
Вооруженные повстанцы Туркестана / Armed rebels of Turkestan

However, these events triggered an enormous, astounding ‘exodus’ of mainly Kirghiz (but also Kazakh and Uzbek) populations from Central Asia to China (Eastern Turkestan, today’s Xinjiang). It is true that this fact attributed a certain epic character to those events, as thousands of people moved through the cliffs, the narrow valleys, and the passes of the Tian Shan Mountains, walking at high elevation and in adverse weather conditions. The descendants of those populations still live in Eastern Turkestan today, being Chinese citizens. About:







h ttps://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Среднеазиатское_восстание_1916_года




Исход киргизов в Китай / Exodus of the Kyrgyz to China
From: https://sobiainnen.livejournal.com/177673.htmlhttps://regnum.ru/news/polit/2342219.html https://demset.livejournal.com/175634.html
This is how the 1916 ‘rebellion’ and the tragic exodus of the Kyrgyz to China were later (in the early 1930s) interpreted by the Kyrgyz Soviet statesman Bayaly Isakeev.
(https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Исакеев,_Баялы_Дикамбаевич) / По мнению советского киргизского политического деятеля Б. Д. Исакеева, киргизское восстание шло под лозунгом “Власть Советам!”: Исакеев, Баялы Диканбаевич. Киргизское восстание 1916 года. Доклад на собрании рабочих “Интергельпо” и “Железнодорожников”, в связи с 15-ти летием восстания 1916 года // Фрунзе, Киргосиздат, 1932 г. (http://1916.kg/ru/articles/kirgizskoe-vosstanie-1916-goda-b-isakeev-doklad-1932-g) / According to the Soviet Kirghiz politician B. D. Isakeev, the Kirghiz uprising went under the slogan “Power to the Soviets!”: Isakeev, Bayaly Dikanbaevich. Kyrgyz uprising of 1916; Report at the meeting of the workers of “Intergelpo” and “Railway”, in connection with the 15th anniversary of the uprising of 1916 // Frunze, Kirgosizdat, 1932 (http://1916.kg/ru/articles/kirgizskoe-vosstanie-1916- goda-b-isakeev-doklad-1932-g) / From: https://komi-permyak.livejournal.com/109395.html

XV. The so-called Basmachi Revolt (1917-1923)

The so-called Central Asiatic rebellion of 1916 became a most controversial issue in the modern historiography. The number of casualties has been systematically exaggerated by English and American propagandists and disreputable academics whose priorities are set by the mendacious and duplicitous diplomats, military, and intelligence of those criminal states. In fact, the event was only the prelude of the Basmachi Revolt.

What is called ‘Basmachi Revolt’ is rather the Central Asiatic version of the event, which is generally known as counter-revolution or White Army. The term is derived from a word common in many Turkic languages: basma (raid). The word basmacı is formed with the ending – cı (-ji or –chi); it means the ‘raider’, the ‘robber’ or the ‘bandit’. Another term was also used by local Turanian authorities: baskıncı; this word denotes the ‘raider’ or the ‘attacker’, and it also has a very pejorative meaning. The Russian-Soviet authorities used the term Басмачи and formed the term Басмачество (or басмаческое движение/Basmachi Movement) for the civil unrest that took place in the late 1910s and the early 1920s in parts of the Russian-Soviet Central Asia.

The Central Asiatic territories annexed by Imperial Russia and inherited by the Soviets, which are today divided among Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, can be geographically categorized as a) deserts (mainly in Turkmenistan), b) steppes (mainly in Kazakhstan), c) fertile plains (mainly in Uzbekistan) and d) mountains (the southern parts of all five states). Within this vast area that totals more than 4 million km2 (Kazakhstan 2725000 km2; Turkmenistan 488000 km2; Uzbekistan 447000 km2; Kyrgyzstan 200000 km2; Tajikistan 141000 km2), the mountains are located in the southern extremities.

Russian Officials with Pamirski Post in the background (in today’s Tajikistan/China border point) in 1916 / About: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Памирский_отряд

This means that the easiest regions for people to wage a rebellion in were the frontier lands close to the borders of Iran, Afghanistan and China (in Eastern Turkestan / Xinjiang). Particularly Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are extremely mountainous territories, since Tian Shan Mountains cover ca. 80% of the former and Pamir Mountains cover almost the totality of the latter countries. The largest part of Tajikistan’s territory is higher than 3000 m above sea level. It is worthy saying that the Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region (bordering with Kyrgyzstan in the north, China in the east, and Afghanistan in the south), which makes almost half the land area of Tajikistan, is inhabited by only 3% of the country’s population because of difficulty of the precipitous terrain.  

The Basmachi Revolt, as historical term, covers incidents that took place in Fergana (first and second phases), Chorasmia (Хорезм /خوارزم; Khwarazm or Khawarizm or Khorezm; the Western part of today’s Uzbekistan), Bukhara, and Samarqand. A fully particular aspect of the counter-revolution phenomenon concerns the so-called Trans-Caspian Government (in the area of today’s Turkmenistan) and the English colonial Malleson mission. In the central and northern parts of today’s Kazakhstan the Basmachi Revolt took the form of Alash Autonomy (see above, part X, unit y).

a- Basmachi Revolt in Fergana Valley (first phase)     

The most striking geomorphological particularity across the entire region is the Fergana Valley (Ферганская долина или Фергана; Фарғона водийси; Фергана өрөөнү; водии Фарғона; وادی فرغانه; 費爾幹納盆地), which is today divided among Kyrgyzstan (the valley’s eastern part), Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan (the western confines). Protected by high mountains all around and crossed by two rivers that come together to form the famous Syr Darya River (known as Iaxartes to Ancient Greeks and Romans), Fergana Valley has an area of about 25000 km2 and was for more than two millennia a high point of culture, wisdom, spirituality, arts, sciences and trade.

Being a mythical land of many Iranian and Turanian legends, literatures, and folklore traditions, an outstanding spot in the Silk Road, and a melting pot of numerous Iranian, Turanian and other nations and civilizations, Fergana was also the land of great fighters, formidable heroes, luminous mystics, and erudite scholars. With all this in mind and knowing that, in the beginning of the 20th c., the remotest places were left to the hands of backward tribal leaders, we can easily understand why all those mountainous areas, which had scarce communication with Russia’s major urban centers, became the center of the opposition to the successive czarist, republican and soviet governments. The major centers of unrest were the cities of Kokand, Andijan and Namangan, i.e. Fergana Valley’s part that belongs today to Uzbekistan.

In early 1917, the Jadid Movement and the Bolsheviks had several points of common understanding, and more importantly, they agreed on the need for autonomous rule to be granted to every nation or ethnic-religious group. For the Bolsheviks, the strict adherence of the Jadidists to the Bolshevik socioeconomic program would function as a ‘guarantee’ for their autonomous government; but this reality was not accurately perceived by the majority of the Jadidists. Even worse, as I have already described, the divergence of opinions among them was vast.

For reasons particular to the conditions of social life among the Muslim societies of Central Asia, most of the Jadidists, who were members of the All-Russian Muslim Council, found it opportune to set up an Islamic Council (Shura-i Islam) and share power with other Muslims. The main target was to proclaim an autonomous state and to isolate tribal leaders, conservative and backward elements and sheikhs. These reactionary elements wanted to secede from Russia/Soviet Union and establish a religious state based on what they called ‘religious law’ (Sharia), which in fact was their own, erroneous and mean, interpretation of the Islamic Fiqh. These elements opposed the Jadid intellectuals and activists, but they represented only a marginal minority among the Muslims of Central Asia; they founded the Ulema Jamiyeti. However, the two organizations had to soon merge, because of the formation of the Tashkent Soviet on the 2th March 1917. The fact that only two Muslims participated in this organization was viewed negatively; it was considered as an intention to cause confrontation with, and isolation of, the Muslim societies of Central Asia.

The decision of the Tashkent Soviet (Ташкентский городской совет) to allow only a minimal representation of the Muslim population turned it, practically speaking, to an organization of Russian settlers in Central Asia, notably railway workers, and other labor unions. As reaction to what appeared to be a colonial approach against them, the Kokand Autonomy (also known as Turkestan Autonomy/ Кокандская автономия или Туркестанская автономия) was proclaimed on 27th November 1917. It was a secular state with five official languages, namely Uzbek, Kazakh, Russian, Kirghiz and Tajik. It was located south of the Kazakh Alash Autonomy, which was proclaimed in December 1917 with capital at Semey and with authority over central and northern parts of today’s Kazakhstan. The first president the Kokand Autonomy was the Kazakh historian, ethnographer, journalist and political activist Mukhamedzhan Tynyshpaev and the second (and last) president was Mustafa Shokay (Мустафа Шокай; Мұстафа Шоқайұлы; مصطفى شقاي), an extraordinary theoretician, intellectual, author, polyglot, political activist, and unprecedented international adventurer (he was probably the only person to have been in touch with Kerensky, leading French statesmen, and the circles of people around Lenin, Kemal Ataturk, and Hitler.  

Mukhamedzhan Tynyshpaev – Мухамеджан Тынышпаевич Тынышпаев (1879-1937) From: https://www.inform.kz/ru/segodnya-ispolnyaetsya-142-goda-so-dnya-rozhdeniya-politicheskogo-deyatelya-muhamedzhana-tynyshpaeva_a3786469 and https://www.ozon.ru/product/istoriya-kazahskogo-naroda-30313572/?sh=UiCTxmXjJQ

Initially, the Tashkent Soviet recognized the Kokand Autonomy, limiting however its authority to Muslim villages, towns, cities and sectors of cities (for instance, Tashkent comprised of two different districts at the time). In addition, all the decisions of the Kokand Autonomy would be subject to final approval by the local soviet. Quite unfortunately, the divisions among the Muslims were disastrous and, despite the presence of many Jadidists, the Kokand authorities, who were viewing their rule as the comeback of the Kokand Khanate (1709-1886), decided to align themselves with the White Army. This proved to be a self-destructive decision. After Shokaev rejected the ultimatum issued by the Soviets (January 1918), started the hostilities; the soviet government dispatched an army and Armenian Dashnak terrorists to put everything under control, and in about three months the Kokand Autonomy was entirely dismantled. Following this noxious development, started the Basmachi Revolt.

Second and last president of the Kokand Autonomy: Mustafa Shokay
From: https://novoetv.kz/mustafa-shokaj-zhizn-politicheskogo-deyatelya/

The precarious, sectarian and reactionary character of the events that we call Basmachi Revolt is highlighted by the fact that all types of incidents, riots and raids were totally uncoordinated and relevant to diverse tribal localisms. First to revolt against the Soviet army were two Fergana sheikhs known as Irgash (Эргаш). The first of them was also known as ‘Little Irgash’ (Кичик Эргаш/ Küçük Ergaş; 1885-1918); he was killed in the Battle of Bachkir in February 1918.

The second Irgash, Mullah Irgash or Irgash Bey (Эргаш бек / Ergaş Bey), was also known as ‘Great Irgash’ (Катта Эргаш – Большой Эргаш; 1882-1921); he was a sheikh from Kokand, known for having many followers. Standing against the Soviet rule, he gathered several criminals into a group that he called an ‘Islamic army’ and he was acclaimed as the ‘supreme military leader’ (amir ul musalmin) by many other backward sheikhs of the remotest locations. It was certainly easy to gain supporters at a time the nationalization projects, which were implemented by the soviets, had caused economic disaster.

Around 20000 bandits took then control of the very fertile Fergana Valley. Irgash Bey managed to defeat the Red Army in the Kokand and Namangan regions. Initially, the Tashkent Soviet was unable to maintain the order, because they did not have many soldiers available; that is why their control was limited mainly to plains and big cities. All the same, divisions among the Muslims were so deep and occurred so often that quite soon the Great Irgash was constrained to fight with Madamin Bey (see below) for the rebel leadership; around the end of 1918, Irgash was defeated and wounded. Few years later, the Red Army spotted him and killed him.

The Tashkent Soviet was thus forced to mobilize as many Russian settlers as possible in order to form an impromptu army of volunteers. This military body was named “the Peasant Army of Fergana” (Крестьянская армия Ферганы); it was commanded by the settler, contractor and landowner Constantine Ivanovich Monstrov (1874-1920; Константин Иванович Монстров), who was famous for his enormous moustache. As one can understand, in similar cases, the brutality is excessive from both sides. Due to the disparate forces involved in the insurrection, multiple divisions took place and, after several months, other tribal leaders and fighters challenged and killed Little Iragsh.

Constantine Ivanovich Monstrov / https://infopedia.su/25x3f1a.html
Basmachi rebels

For many long months during 1918 and early 1919, the Uzbek kurbashi (leader of raiders and bandits; Курбаши / قورباشی) Madamin Bey (مدمنبيک / Мадамин-бек; his real name was Muhammad Amin Ahmad Bek / Мухаммад Амин Ахмадбек; 1893-1920) tried to impose among the Fergana Muslims the choices of less intransigent people. In May 1919, he allied with the Russian settlers and decided to work with them in order to establish a common state. However, their joined forces were repeatedly defeated by the Muslim Volga Tatar Red Brigade and, in March 1920, Madamin Bey concluded a peace treaty with the Soviet government; his fighters became part of the Soviet Army, but one of the defectors assassinated him. On 20th March 1920, a celebration and a parade took place in Fergana in presence of Michael Frunze, the commander of the Red Army in the Eastern Front. Only small nuclei of rebels were able to survive hiding for some years in quasi-inaccessible mountains.

Madamin Bey and Mikhail Frunze / Мадамин-бек и Михаил Фрунзе
From: https://stanradar.com/news/full/28914-v-kirgizii-snova-vspomnili-o-mestnyh-gerojah-grazhdanskoj-vojny.html

b- Basmachi Revolt in Chorasmia

In Chorasmia, a wealthy Turkmen tribal chieftain known as Junaid Khan (Джунаид-хан; his real name was Muhammad Kurban Serdar / Мухаммед-Курбан Сердар; 1857-1938) gathered ca. 1600 armed horsemen and managed easily to prevail in large swaths of land in January 1918. The decay and the advanced decomposition of the traditional Muslim Turkmen society in that region are underscored by the fact that he, although illiterate, had great authority, being the qadi (Islamic court judge) and the water manager of an entire region; this situation was solely due to the fact that he belonged to the dominant Turkmen tribe of Yomutlar (Yomut; Йомуды). And as in his otherwise meaningless life he did nothing virtuous, he was honorably called ‘serdar’ (which is a Persian military term meaning ‘commander’), only because after 1912 (at the age of 55), he customarily robbed caravans in the Karakum desert.

In early 1918, Junaid Khan captured first Khiva, a major historical city and capital of an important khanate. As he had an enduring duel with the khan of Khiva (who was under czarist authority) Asfandiyar Khan (Асфандияр хан), an Uzbek, he took revenge by killing him, because back in 1912, Asfandiyar Khan had undertaken a punitive campaign against the Turkmens of the Takhta region, with whom the lifelong bandit Junaid Khan had sided at the time. This event occurred despite the fact that Asfandiyar Khan had changed his attitude toward Junaid Khan in January 1918 and appointed him as ‘commander’ of the Khiva Khanate’s armed forces.

Junaid Khan
Asfandiyar Khan
From: https://vk.com/wall-21242429_58446
Basmachi rebels in Khwarazm (Chorasmia)
Asfandiyar Khan on official Imperial Russian documents / About: https://www.fergananews.com/articles/6554

I expand on a few details of the historical background just to show that any post-Soviet effort of glorification or ‘rehabilitation’ of the Basmachi Revolt only distorts the historical facts, tarnishes the true identity of Islam, promotes Islamic extremism, and plays into the UK-US colonial game. Junaid Khan was certainly not a freedom fighter; even worse, he was a fake Muslim, who -with his miserable life- helped write a shameful page of History, namely that of the Islamic decadence. Furthermore, at the time, the Turkmen were tribally divided across sectarian lines to an extent that fully justifies the Russian annexation of the territories that formed later the SSR of Turkmenistan and in 1991 the Republic of Turkmenistan. 

In fact, the undeserved rise of Junaid Khan was due to his opportunistic mentality, his canny attitude and the deal he closed with one of the most extraordinary figures of Modern Russian Military History, the Cossack Ivan Matveyevich Zaitsev (Иван Матвеевич Зайцев; 1879-1934), colonel of the Russian Imperial Army, commander of the Orenburg Cossack Army, major-general of the Orenburg Independent Army (Оренбургская отдельная армия; an anti-Bolshevik force in the eastern front), bold maverick, border crossing adventurer, and infiltrator of the Soviet Army (with the intention to overthrow the regime), who at the end committed suicide. In September 1917, Zaitsev was returning from Iran where he had participated in Russian military operations against the English infiltration; he needed to put some sort of public order across Russian Turkestan and use local forces and resources against the Bolsheviks whose seizure of power he overwhelmingly rejected. Along with many other czarist loyalists, he set up the Turkestan Military Organization (Туркестанская военная организация). He then met Junaid Khan and managed to align his modest forces with his troops.

In reality, the upsurge in Khiva and the entire Chorasmia was a tribal affair linked with aspects of the White Army program and military activities; Junaid Khan’s prevalence in Khiva was mainly due to his alliance with Zaitsev’s forces, as the anti-Communist major-general needed the Turkmen bandit there, because he intended to foment insurgence against the Soviet rule throughout Central Asia. Zaitsev contacted the second president of the Kokand Autonomy, Mustafa Shokay, in order to agree on the terms of the common anti-Bolshevik fight. From Khiva, he proceeded straight to Chardzhou (Чарджоу; چهارجوی; today’s Türkmenabat-Түркменабат), then further to Samarqand, and finally to Tashkent, while also mobilizing for his campaign the Ural Cossacks, the Siberian Cossacks, and the Aral Cossacks (аральские уральцы; these Cossacks were Christian Orthodox Old Believers/ старообрядцы казаки).

Ivan Zaitsev / From: https://ok.ru/chigomany/topic/66132397405544

Zaitsev’s heteroclite forces managed to occupy Samarqand, but failed to conquer Tashkent; however, after several battles, they were forced out of Samarqand. Zaitsev had to flee, and later he was arrested and condemned, but managed to escape (July 1918). Junaid Khan’s control of Khiva was unstable, but it lasted for most of 1918 and 1919. In early 1920, the Red Army prevailed, Junaid Khan’s forces were dispersed and Sayid Abdullah (Саид Абдулла хан; سعید عبدالله خان; 1871-1933; Asfandiyar Khan’s brother who had only nominal authority, after being appointed by the usurper Junaid Khan) was compelled to abdicate.

the flag of the Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic

Then, the short-lived Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic (Xorazm Xalq Sovet Jumhuriyati; Хорезмская Народная Советская Республика) was proclaimed (26 April 1920) on parts of the territories of today’s Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; this Soviet Republic was renamed in 1923 as Khorezm Socialist Soviet Republic (Хорезмская ССР) and finally abolished in 1924, after being divided among the Soviet Socialist Republics of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and the Karakalpak Autonomous Oblast, which is nowadays named Republic of Karakalpakstan (in Russian: Каракалпакия / in Karakalpak: Қарақалпақстан Республикасы) and constitutes the northwestern part of Uzbekistan. Junaid Khan continued his raids, attacks and burglaries for some years, until he finally escaped in Iran and then Afghanistan where he died. Only in 1928, the Soviet state got rid of his nuisance, after a special military operation was undertaken in the Karakum desert.

c- Basmachi Revolt in Bukhara

In Bukhara, the Basmachi Revolt took the form of a swansong, namely that of the Manghud dynasty (Мангыты; 1756-1920). In fact, after 1868, the Khanate of Bukhara was merely a vassal state to Russia and therefore the venue of several Russian Imperial ambassadors. The emirs of Bukhara were predominantly pro-Russian, open to new technologies, modern sciences and academic knowledge, also having a friendly attitude toward the Jadid Movement. Following the death of his father, Sayyid Abd al-Ahad Khan (Сеид Абдулахад-хан; 1859-1910; ruling after 1885), Sayyid Mir Muhammad Alim Khan (Сеид Мир Мухаммед Алим-хан; سعید عالم‌خان; 1880-1944) ruled over the khanate. Like his father, he had been sent to Russian educational and academic institutions where he became acquainted with techniques of modern war and administration.

Sayyid Mir Muhammad Alim Khan with Imperial Russian officers and in travel
From: https://mytashkent.uz/2016/06/27/istoriya-v-litsah-poslednij-mangyt/
https://ik-ptz.ru/history/poslednii-emir-buhary-biografiya-grustnaya-istoriya-poslednego.html and https://kerchtt.ru/seiid-alim-han-biografiya-general-maior-shahmurad-olimov-syn-i/ and https://antennadaily.ru/2021/02/23/klad-emira/

His rule was basically a matter of disappointment, disillusion and deception for him. Being initially close to concepts and principles of the Jadid Movement, he tried to eliminate the corruption brought about due to the collapse of the Islamic civilization and the prevalence of ignorant sheikhs and tribal mentality; however, after some early successes, he failed in his effort. To pull him to their reactionary and pseudo-religious ideas, the obscurantist sheikhs of Bukhara utilized the very old method of flattery. By inflating his ambitions and by convincing him to bear the then already meaningless title of caliph, they managed to drag the otherwise progressive emir of Bukhara to positions that could not match with those of the Bukharan Jadid activists, who progressively leaned toward the rising Bolsheviks. When the imperial authority was overthrown in Petrograd, Bukhara became a de facto self-ruled state. All the same, Sayyid Mir Muhammad Alim Khan had already been pulled to anti-Bolshevik positions, and because of this development, the Bukharan Jadidist organization of the Young Bukharans (Младобухарцы; Uzb. بوحارا یاشاری; Uzb. Yosh buxoroliklar; Farsi جوان‌بخارائیان; Genç Buharalılar / founded in 1909, it was totally unrelated to the Genç Türkler / Neo-Turks) contacted the Bolsheviks in March 1918 to announce that the city and the khanate were ready to accept the Red Army.

Нагим-бек Нурмухамедов, Выступление М.В. Фрунзе перед ополченцами в Самарканде / Nagim-bek Nurmukhamedov, Speech by M.V. Frunze in front of the militias in Samarkand
From: https://otkritka-reprodukzija.blogspot.com/2008/11/blog-post_4339.html

When the Red Army reached Bukhara, asking the emir to abdicate, the ill-tempered Sayyid Mir Muhammad Alim Khan killed the delegation and several hundreds of pro-Communist Bukharans and Russians. The ominous overlord was able to continue ruling during 1919, but Bukhara was twice attacked in 1920 (March and September) and in the second siege, Mikhail Frunze managed to destroy the formidable walls of the legendary Ark (: fortress) of Bukhara and squelch the rebellion. Innocuous but indescribable, the ill-starred emir escaped to Dushanbe (Tajikistan) and thence to Kabul (Afghanistan). From there and until he died (5/5/1944), he tried in vain to get back his lost treasures (27 million rubles in gold, 7 million rubles in private banks, 150 million rubles in French and English banks & 32 million rubles deposited in foreign banks). During his exile, he survived as karakul / astrakhan (fleece) trader, and even managed to finance the Basmachi bandits for some time.

From: https://www.caa-network.org/archives/9502
















 (the previous three articles are ideologically motivated and partially written)
































d- Basmachi Revolt in Fergana Valley (second phase)

The second phase of the Basmachi Revolt in Fergana started in Bukhara in November 1921. It was then that Enver Pasha arrived there, after he failed to be accepted back in Kemal Ataturk’s Turkey. When the Young Turks’ most inconsistent and most ominous chief reached Bukhara, he had just crossed his life’s most tumultuous period. After being dismissed from the position of War Minister (4 October 1918), he had to flee, because the Sultan had been ordered by the English to declare defeat (Enver Pasha wanted to continue the fight against England and France); he therefore moved to Germany where he stayed for some months, contacting military officers and political activists, before traveling to Bolshevik Russia (April 1919).

Kaiser Wilhelm II and Enver Pasha in 1917
About: http://turkeyswar.com/whoswho/enver/

In Moscow, Enver Pasha contacted all communist leaders (Lenin included) and tried to establish a German-Russian-Turanian-Oriental alliance against English-French colonialism and imperialism. From there, he also tried to help Mustafa Kemal Pasha Ataturk (in spite of his earlier contempt for the Father of Modern Turkey); as he appeared quite useful to the new elite in Moscow, they welcomed him, and he participated in the famous Congress of the Peoples of the East (Съезд народов Востока), which was held in Baku in September 1920. There he delivered a fervent speech, proving that he could be beneficial at both, military and socio-political, levels. In July 1921, Enver Pasha reached Batumi, capital of Adjaria (Georgia), and attempted to enter Turkey (having the intention to contribute to the Turkish War of Independence, which was undertaken under the leadership of Kemal Ataturk), but was blocked at the border.

The endless topic of personal relations between Kemal Ataturk and Enver Pasha can be discussed in dozens of PhD dissertations, but in reality Ataturk’s overall negative assessment and ultimate rejection of Enver Pasha was due to the latter’s apparently unstable mood, temporary chimeras, erroneous perception of balance of power, and unrealistic evaluation of the consequences of his actions and of his opponents’ reactions to them. Enver Pasha returned to Moscow and soon afterwards (autumn 1921), he was sent by Lenin to Bukhara, then capital of the short-lived (1920-1924) Bukharan People’s Soviet Republic (Бухарская Народная Советская Республика / Buxoro Xalq Shoʻro Jumhuriyati / جمهوری خلقی شوروی بخارا / Ҷумҳурии Халқии Шӯравии Бухоро) with the task to extinguish the Basmachi banditry. This proved to be one of Lenin’s worst mistakes.  

Untrustworthy, chimeric and self-destructive as never before, Enver Pasha in fact defected to the rebel side and, instead of putting down the uprising, he attempted to regenerate it, organize the bandits into a military corps, and use them for the sole personal benefit of becoming the ruler of a delusional Central Asiatic Turanian state at the very antipodes of Kemal Ataturk’s Turkey. Contacting and cooperating with Junaid Khan and Shir Muhammad Bek ‘Gazi’ {basically known as Kurshirmat / Korşirmat / Курширмат and at times named Mahmud Bek (Mahmood-bek / Махмуд-бек); 1895-1970; Шир Мухаммед-бек ‘Гази’ (grandson of Khudoyar-Khan, who was one of the last rulers of Kokand – see above part XV unit a)}, Enver Pasha managed to establish a significant and sufficiently trained force (of ca. 20000 bandits turned soldiers) and appear as a serious challenge to the Soviet rule in Central Asia. In the early months of 1922, Soviet authority in the region was dwindling. Sizeable parts of the territories of today’s Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan went out of control. At the same time, the Soviet regime gained an unexpected and valuable supporter: the Dungan Muslims (of Chinese Hui origin) and their commander Magaza Masanchi (1886-1937; Магазы Лебузович Масанчи).

Шир Мухаммед-бек Гази (отмечен цифрой 1) с ближайшими сподвижниками: 2. Лашкарбаши Нурмуххамедбек (его брат) 3. Лашкарбаши мулла Хатам; 4. главный секретарь Назир Кабави. / Shir Muhammad-bek Gazi (marked with the number 1) with the closest associates: 2. Lashkarbashi Nurmukhamedbek (his brother); 3. Lashkarbashi mullah Khatam; 4. Chief Secretary Nazir Kabawi.  
From: https://topwar.ru/149794-kak-jenver-pasha-pytalsja-sozdat-vsemirnuju-tjurkskuju-imperiju.html

An eventual secession of Turkestan from Soviet Union in 1922 would certainly be an absurd and paradoxical phenomenon; this is so because the Soviet administration consciously implemented an overwhelming Korenizatsiya (Коренизация) policy in striking contrast with the imperial practices of the previous decades. The Soviet term originates from the Russian words ‘коренное население’ (korenoe naselenie), which mean ‘native population’; it encapsulates the Soviet concept of nation and the Soviet theory on the right of peoples to self-determination (as illustrated in Lenin’s The Right of Nations to Self-Determination and in Stalin’s Marxism and the National Question). This approach systematically promoted the use of the native mother tongue in the education and the administration of the various soviet republics, guaranteed the involvement of natives in the local government at all levels, and straightforwardly opposed the imperial policies of Russification. In addition, the Soviet authorities had made significant concessions as regards the validity of the Islamic Law, the existence of the medresas (Quranic schools), and the reinstatement of the Waqf (Vakıf) lands. For all these reasons, Enver Pasha’s unplanned and unprepared proposal of an otherwise ill-defined Turkestan did not offer much instead.

When Enver Pasha turned from asset to liability for the Soviet authorities, the Dungan Muslim regiment proved to be highly important; the Dungans (Дунгане; 东干族) were Chinese Hui (回族 – Hui-zu; Хуэй) Muslims, who migrated from China on different occasions during the 19th c. and settled in various territories of Central Asia, notably parts of today’s Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Today, there are ca. 15 million Hui in China (where they are recognized as an independent ethnic-religious group), but only ca. 200000 in Central Asia; totally unrelated (and rather rival) to Uighurs, the Hui are of Chinese Han ancestry.

Дунганская мечеть, Пржевальск 1896 – Dungan Mosque in Przhewalsk (presently Karakol in Eastern Kyrgyzstan)
Китайский стрелок-мусульманин на тренировке – Chinese Muslim shooter in training
Дунгане и киргизы Верный 1897 – Dungan and Kyrgyz in Verniy (Almaty)
Dungan family at the end of the 19th c. From: https://life.ru/p/1351155

Gradually, the Soviet authorities mobilized forces able to put down the upsurge, also utilizing military aircraft; they motivated most of the people in Central Asia, and particularly all those who supported Jadid intellectuals and Communist activists. Many volunteered to join the Red Army, and after a series of battles in April and May 1922, Enver Pasha’s forces were first defeated – to some extent due to airstrikes, which were undertaken by the Soviet air forces {the Soviet Air Forces (военно-воздушные силы) were the re-organized form of the Imperial Russian Air Service (Императорскій военно-воздушный флотъ) that was the world’s largest air fleet in 1914}. Enver Pasha was offered a peace proposal that he declined (May 1922) only to face further defeats in June and July. The capture of Dushanbe by the Red Army (14 July 1922) marked an irreversible step in the Soviet effort to put down the Basmachi banditry.

Despite his defeats in many battles and although the enemy was very close, Enver Pasha was still foolish enough to allow his remaining troops to enjoy the celebration of Kurban Bayramı (Eid al-Adha)! As his whereabouts were reported, the Bashkir cavalry brigade (so, an entirely Muslim force) under the Armenian commander Yakov Melkumov (Яков Аркадьевич Мелькумов; 1885-1962) attacked them, thus spreading chaos in the already disorganized force. Enver Pasha managed to escape with his guard; the pursuit lasted several days, but finally he was killed on 4th August 1922.

Enver Pasha’s subordinate, Selim Pasha, continued the struggle for some time until he finally escaped to Afghanistan in 1923. Several battles took place then in the upper flow of Zeravshan River, in Hissar Valley, in Darvaz region and other mountainous lands close to the borders of Afghanistan. Sporadic clashes used to occur throughout Soviet Central Asia in 1923-1925, because Ibrahim Bek (Ибрагим-бек; Иброҳимбек Чакабаев – Ibrohimbek Chaqaboev; 1889-1931) re-organized banditry and undertook several raids, until he too was forced to find shelter in Afghanistan. Subsequently, numerous, rather minor incursions were incessantly launched from the territory of Afghanistan against the Soviet rule in Central Asia; for this purpose, arms were regularly smuggled into the Soviet Union and bandits hidden there from village to village.  

Иброҳимбек Чакабаев – Ibrohimbek Chaqaboev

Junaid Khan was able to also launch an attack against Khiva in 1926; it took two years for the Soviet forces to fully dismantle this group. Due to this situation, which could not lead anywhere, the bulk of Central Asiatic population of Soviet Union gradually embraced the Communist regime. Still, the Red Army was forced to carry out several operations inside Afghanistan, notably in 1929 and 1930, in order to make sure that no further attacks would originate from that land.

Korshimat was also defeated and escaped in Afghanistan too (in September 1922); moved by his acrimonious feelings, he set up an intelligence network, which later proved to be quite important for the Japanese, Turkish and German secret services. From Afghanistan, he organized an anti-Soviet guerilla during WWII, while working under the guidance of the German Abwehr (military intelligence). For this reason, Soviet historiographers used to date the end of the Basmachi movement in the early 1940s.

e- Basmachi Revolt in Samarqand

With the collapse of the imperial rule, Muslim rebels seized power in the wider Samarqand region and, in November 1918, they proclaimed the independence of all the lands up to the Matcha (or Mastcha) region (Матча или Мастча́; Мастчоҳ), which corresponds mainly to today’s Gorno-Matchinsky district of the Sughd vilayet of Tajikistan. In the autumn of 1919, Penjikent, Khujand, Ura-Tube, and Samarqand formed a self-ruled territory.

In 1921, the leading Bashkir Jadidist theoretician and explorer Ahmed Zaki Validov (see above: part X, unit r) arrived in Samarqand. He had already started criticizing and opposing the Bolsheviks, and therefore Samarqand was an ideal location for him to expand his multifaceted endeavors and activities. As he was accompanied by significant forces, he merged with the local rebels, who were fascinated with his ideological clarity and his undeniable eloquence. He soon became the undisputed leader of the Basmachi Movement; until 1923, he was the chairman of the ‘National Union of Turkistan’. However, the rebel troops were repeatedly defeated in 1922-1923, and then Validov escaped to Iran, taking with him the original manuscripts of Ahmad ibn Fadlan (see above: part V no 4) that he had found in the meantime. This valuable document consists in a major historical source for the History of Eastern Europe, as it details the diffusion of Islam in Volga Bulgaria – 70 years before Kievan Rus accepted Christianity. Despite their defeats, various dispersed local rebels kept launching attacks across this region until as late as 1935.

Ahmed Zaki Validov (Ахмет-Заки Валиди)
A page of the manuscript of Ahmad ibn Fadlan
A diagram of Ahmad ibn Fadlan’s trip from Baghdad to Volga Bulgaria / From:



































Флаг Национального Союза Туркестана / Flag of National Union of Turkestan
From: http://www.vexillographia.ru/uzbekstn/turkstan.htm

f- Basmachi Revolt in the Trans-Caspian region

The Turkmen Basmachi revolt in the Trans-Caspian region (today’s Turkmenistan) reached significant proportions in 1918 and also (partly and briefly) in 1922, but by 1924, it was almost completely suppressed by the Red Army and various local pro-Soviet formations. It all started with the apparent desire for political autonomy that prevailed among the Turkmen around the end of 1917 and the subsequent formation of the Turkmen National Army in February 1918. The Ashgabat (Bolshevik) Soviet did not have sufficient forces to maintain control and that’s why it demanded help from the Tashkent Soviet. The opponents of the Bolshevik Soviet belonged to either the Menshevik Party (Russian Social Demorcratic Labour Party / Российская социал-демократическая рабочая партия) or the Socialist Revolutionary Party (Партия социалистов-революционеров), and in their majority, they were workers of the Trans-Caspian Railway. The dispatched forces were not sufficient and, after several clashes, the rebels prevailed.

The tumultuous proclamation (11th-12th July 1918) of the Trans-Caspian Provisional Government (Закаспийское временное правительство) was the consequence the fact that the majority of the people did not accept the Ashgabat Soviet’s order for a census of armed men (which was issued in mid-June 1918). Fyodor Adrianovich Funtikov (Фёдор Адрианович Фунтиков; 1876-1926), who was a Russian Socialist Revolutionary railway worker and a significant opponent of the Bolshevik rule, led the uprising. This shows clearly that the incidents had no ethnic or religious but rather political motives. The dispatched forces under Fyodor Ivanovich Kalesov (Фёдор Иванович Колесов; 1891-1940), chairman (November 1917–November 1918) of the (Tashkent-based) Soviet (Совет Народных комиссаров: Council of People’s Commissars) of the Turkestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, acted very violently and unwisely killing indiscriminately and persecuting the local population. The Bolshevik armed forces were therefore obliged to withdraw, after having many dead among them in the clashes.

Fyodor A. Funtikov
Fyodor I. Kalesov
A 500 rubles banknote printed locally in 1919 by the Trans-Caspian Provisional Government
From: https://hisdoc.ru/bones/19296/

The Trans-Caspian Provisional Government included Turkmen khans, Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Dashnak Armenians, and even several individuals of the imperial administration. On 21st July 1918, almost the entire territory of the Trans-Caspian region (today’s Turkmenistan) was controlled by the anti-Bolshevik forces. Furthermore, they intended to soon convene a constituent assembly. General Uraz-Serdar (the son of the last Turkmen Khan Tykma-Serdar) and the officers Hadji Murat, Khan Yomudsky, and Ovozbaev (of the Russian army) were the Turkmen who took part in the government. As the meager armed forces of the government (less than 2000 men) were defeated by Bolshevik army on 28th July 1918 near Chardzhou (see above part VIII unit c), the Trans-Caspian Government turned to the English military detachment in Mashhad (NE Iran) for help.

Imperial Russian territories of the Trans-Caspian region (Территории Закаспийской области)

What follows constitutes an excellent demonstration of the criminal English colonial policies, and of England’s perfidious plans providing for divisions, destructions and bloodshed throughout Central Asia and the Eurasiatic landmass in general. At the same time, the numerous incidents, which occurred due to the ultimately failed English intervention in the Trans-Caspian region in 1918 (nowadays euphemistically baptized ‘Malleson mission’ by the disreputable center of worldwide disinformation named ‘Wikipedia’), constitute today an excellent historical lesson and a perfect reason for all the states of the wider region to resolutely close down forever all English, Australian, Canadian and US embassies, consulates, institutes and NGOs and to ban British Commonwealth and US citizens from entering their territories. As a matter of fact, the only reason for an English to be present in Central Asia is to foment discord and enmity, and to promote anti-Chinese, anti-Russian, and anti-Iranian hatred among all the indigenous Turkic nations in order to further trigger wars, destructions, ruins, and endless killings.

The English colonial plans against all the nations of Central Asia were immediately set in motion as soon as the Russian imperial government collapsed in early 1917. As a matter of fact, London’s colonial interference in Central Asia is the continuation of England’s destructive involvement and unprecedented evildoing first in the Mughal Empire’s territories and later in Iran. Gradual, methodic and sophisticated colonial infiltration is at the origin of the gradual collapse of the Qajar dynasty of Iran (1789-1925). The truly last Qajar Shah, who reigned in Iran, was Mozaffar ad-Din Shah Qajar (مظفرالدین شاه قاجار; 1853-1907; he reigned after 1896).  

Due to English, French, Russian and Ottoman infiltration and owed to incessant propagation of viciously anti-Iranian, lowly, villainous and barbarian concepts, such as democracy, parliament, civil rights, and politics, Mozaffar ad-Din Shah Qajar was forced to open the first Iranian parliament in 1906; after making this disastrous and calamitous concession to the criminal colonial powers, he died due to an unexpected and mysterious heart attack. His son Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar (محمدعلی شاه قاجار; 1872-1925) reigned only for 2.5 years (1907-1909). Perfidious, heinous and criminal English diplomats duplicitously exhorted him to close the parliament down; supporting both sides, the English colonials strongly encouraged and guided the parliamentarians and parts of the Iranian army as to how to depose the shah.

Thus, soon after he bombarded the parliament, he was held captive by his rebellious officers and deputies, who -inflicting a national disaster on their own country- forced the shah to abdicate and to flee to exile. His son, Ahmad Shah Qajar (احمد شاه قاجار; 1898-1930), the boy king, was merely a symbolic figurehead, who could not avoid serving his criminal colonial masters; they used to fool him on daily basis in order to continue England’s incessant evildoing in Iran. Finally, he was marginalized after the 1921 military coup, sent to exile in 1923, deposed in 1925, and finally buried in 1930. The shameful story of the last three decades of Qajar rule was ludicrously named ‘Persian Constitutional Revolution’ (انقلاب مشروطه), and its last phase was called ‘Jungle Movement of Gilan’.

Ahmad Shah Qajar

For the aforementioned reasons, the English colonials were able to dispatch forces from their colonies in India through Iran to Central Asia. Their criminal colonial deeds were euphemistically named ‘Persian Campaign during WWI’, whereas in Farsi they are called ‘ اشغال ایران در جنگ جهانی اول’ (Occupation of Iran during WWI). The mere presence of the heinous colonial gansgters triggered famine, cholera, typhoid and plague in which no less than 7-8 million people perished. However, in today’s rotten world, no one speaks about the Iranian genocide, which was deliberately carried out by the English barbarians.

The so-called ‘British military mission in Turkestan’ was established immediately after the abdication of Czar Nikolai II. It was led by Major General Wilfrid Malleson (1866-1946) and it also included the notorious gangster Reginald Teague-Jones (1889-1988), an intelligence officer, who carried out so heinous, inhuman and beastly deeds that he was forced to change name in 1922 and live afterwards secluded as ‘Ronald Sinclair’ somewhere in England for no less than 66 years! The English military force encamped in the outskirts of Mashhad as early as August 1917. They immediately established contacts with various tribal leaders, ignorant and uneducated sheikhs, and small merchants in several cities across the southern territories of Central Asia whereby confusion and chaos started prevailing after the collapse of the imperial administration.

Wilfrid Malleson
Wilfrid Malleson
The stupid, racist and squalid gangster Wilfrid Malleson; the picture that Malleson took, while visiting (in a reconnaissance trip effectuated in 1906-1907) the Arch of Tesifun (Ctesiphon), the spectacular remain of the great Sassanid capital in Central Mesopotamia (currently known as Al Mada’in). The evil-minded English criminal wrote at the time that “this majestic ruin cannot much longer stand”, but as it is very well known, it still does more than 110 years later! From: https://blogs.bl.uk/asian-and-african/2018/10/a-photographic-tour-of-the-persian-gulf-and-iraq-1906.html
Reginald Teague-Jones
Reginald Teague-Jones’ book published under his pseudonym
Various books about the criminal gangster of England, Reginald Teague-Jones / From: https://nik191-1.ucoz.ru/publ/istorija_sobytija_i_ljudi/istorija_sobytija_i_ljudi/rasstrel_26_bakinskikh_komissarov_ili_kak_redzhi_stal_ronni/7-1-0-2547
Disreputable English falsification: https://www.westernfrontassociation.com/world-war-i-articles/dunsterforce-the-fighting-in-north-west-persia-during-1918/
And this is what the Nazi rascals of Australia write in order to escape punishment for their crimes: https://www.spectator.com.au/2015/02/murder-in-the-dunes-the-26-martyrs-of-baku-and-the-making-of-a-soviet-legend/

In general, the English infiltration in Central Asia can be divided into three periods:

a) January to July 1918: this was the period of early contacts and covert interference in the local affairs; it involved minimal financial assistance and limited technical help (at the military level) offered to the Trans-Caspian Provisional Government.

b) August 1918 to March 1919: during this period the English attempted to invade the territory of Turkmenistan (then rather named ‘Trans-Caspian region’).

c) April 1919 to 2020: during this period, the bulk of the English forces withdrew, because they realized that they did not have sufficient forces to be further involved in the region and that they had failed to turn the local nations against the Soviet rule up to a point that would create serious trouble to the Soviet government. All the same, they maintained their contacts, kept monitoring the developments closely, and offered limited technical help and instructions.

After the Trans-Caspian Government first contacted the English in Mashhad, a small group of officers were dispatched to Ashgabat. As they assessed the local forces’ capacity as nil, they trained them and led them in skirmishes against the equally small forces that the Bolshevik government could avail in that remote region. Soon afterwards, W. Malleson sent another small force of ca. 500 fighters (Indians in their majority), who managed to oppose further Communist attacks. On 12th August 1918, a supplementary force (ca. 500 Indian soldiers of the 19th Punjabi Regiment) crossed the border and merged with the Turkmen Trans-Caspian force.  On 19th August 1918, the Ashgabat authorities under Funtikov signed an agreement with General Malleson. This was how thoughtless and fanatic opposition to the Bolsheviks turned out to be a form of high treason.

Frederick Marshman Bailey
From: https://explorersweb.com/eccentric-explorers-frederick-marshman-bailey/
Sir George Macartney & Chinese Officials, Kashgar

At the same time, the English dispatched another mission directly to Tashkent; few men under Colonel F. Bailey (Frederick Marshman Bailey; 1882-1967) crossed through Kashgar (Eastern Turkestan / Xinjiang, China) and the Fergana Valley (Osh in today’s Kyrgyzstan and Andijan in today’s Uzbekistan) and reached Tashkent on 10th August 1918. The mission included Captain L. V. S. Blacker (who is known for his report ‘From India to Russia in 1914’ that was published by Royal Geographical Society, London, 1917) and four Hindu servants. Only few days later, Sir George Macartney (馬繼業; 1867-1945; he was half-Chinese and also the godchild of the Chinese general Li Hongzhang), the former British consul in Kashgar (at the end of a 28-year tenure there), arrived in Tashkent; he introduced Colonel F. Bailey and Captain L. V. S. Blacker to the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs of the Turkestan Republic (народный комиссариат иностранных дел Туркестанской республики) as English diplomats.  

Andijan and the entire Fergana Valley lived in turmoil for almost 30 years because of the British colonial interference. Above: a rare picture of the Andijan events in 1898.
From: https://kghistory.akipress.org/unews/un_post:7665
What is true for Andijan is also valid for Osh, another distinct center of civilization in the Fergana Valley; the people accepted happily the two successive revolutions in 1917. All the troubles started later, with the English infiltration, which took the same form as today, namely incitation of uneducated, ignorant and silly sheikhs against the central government. From: https://www.open.kg/about-kyrgyzstan/cities/osh-city/32984-osh-sobytiya-na-yuge-kirgizii-v-fevrale-1917-g.html
What occurred in the Fergana Valley was repeated in the Caucasus region with the colonial English infiltration and intervention being the main reason for all the inter-ethnic killings and the religious hatred that cost the life to many. Dunsterforce trains people in the streets of Baku.
English colonial gangsters Major-General Lionel Charles Dunsterville (right) and Commodore David Thomas Norris (left) sailing on the Caspian Sea in 1918 on a confiscated boat and only to further spread chaos and perpetrate atrocious killings. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunsterforce

As it is understood, the arrival of the English diplomats in Tashkent coincided with the first clashes between the Malleson Mission forces and the Red Army around Ashgabat. This complicated the Tashkent mission of the English diplomats whose tasks included every type of evildoing involving bribery, contacts with all sorts of local anti-Bolshevik elements, and instigation of disorder, criminality and rebellion. Even worse for them, a Russian employee of the Russian-Asiatic Bank (Русско-Азиатский банк) Kashgar branch duly informed the members of the Central Executive Committee (центральный исполнительный комитет) of Turkestan as regards the real nature and the hostile targets of the English mission, sharing with them his experience on Colonel F. Bailey’s contacts with anti-Bolshevik Russian employees of the bank branch in Kashgar. The evil English diplomats, who established ties with various elements of the anti-Bolshevik forces in Tashkent, pretended that their criminal deeds were merely German rumors! Of course, the Soviet authorities did not believe a word said by those gangsters. The mission ended when Sir George Macartney and Captain L. V. S. Blacker left back for Kashgar (28th September 1918), after they realized that the English did not have any chance to duly destabilize Soviet Central Asia.

Only Colonel F. Bailey and his Indian servant stayed further in Tashkent only to be soon placed under house arrest and then ordered to leave. However, thanks to the illegal network of informers that he had already established, he was timely informed about the permission that the local Soviet had asked from Moscow in order to arrest them, and then he disappeared being disguised as an Austrian prisoner of war (1st November 1918). After staying out of Tashkent for some weeks, he returned as a pro-Bolshevik Austrian prisoner of war, and with the help of a real Austrian prisoner of war, he got a job position in the 2nd department of the Military Control. From that position, he was sent to conduct counterintelligence operations against the English officers, who were around the Emir of Bukhara; however, he used this opportunity to form a small detachment of White Army officers, escape with them, and finally reach General W. Mallison in Mashhad (NE Iran), at a distance of ca. 570 km. While he was crossing the deserts Kyzylkum (Кызылкум) and Karakum (Каракум), among the people, who joined his small group, was the Russian prince Alexandre Nikolaïevitch Iskander (after 1925 Romanovski-Iskander; Александр Николаевич Искандер; 1887-1957), who later returned to Tashkent and participated in several uprisings there (1919) and in Crimea (1920), before moving to exile first in Greece (following an invitation extended to him by his aunt and godmother, the then Queen Regent Olga of Greece) and then in France. 

Alexander Nikolaïevitch Iskander – Александр Николаевич Искандер
Alexander Nikolaïevitch Iskander – Александр Николаевич Искандер
From: https://www.livelib.ru/book/1001015602-iskander-aleksandr-nikolaevich

The sort of the Malleson Mission was bloodier; the combined Turkmen-Czarist-anti-Bolshevik Communist-Hindu forces under English commandment engaged in many battles, notably on 28th August, 11th and 18th September, 9th–11th October (the battle of Arman Sagad / Арман-Сагад), and 14th October (the battle of Dushak / Душак). They repeatedly prevailed over the Bolshevik forces, but due to the limited number of forces on both sides, no conclusive victory was possible for either side. All the same, the English dispatched further reinforcements, notably the 28th Light Cavalry (after 1935 it was known as 7th Light Cavalry) from India. As a consequence of these victories, the combined forces occupied Tejen (Теджен), more than 200 km SE of Ashagabat, and Mery (or Marv; Мары/ Мерв; مرو‎), ca. 180 km NE of Tejen.

In September 1918, a heinous crime was committed in Krasnovodsk (Красноводск; currently known as Turkmenbashi / Türkmenbaşy / Түркменбашы); the English political and intelligence officer Reginald Teague-Jones bears the entire responsibility for the crime. After the fall of the short-lived Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (22 April – 28 May 1918; led by the ‘Council’ or ‘Sejm’ in which Azeris, Georgians and Armenians co-existed peacefully, but Bolsheviks did not participate), the Azerbaijani National Council founded the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in Tiflis on 28 May 1918. This was the first secular republic throughout the Islamic world in modern times. Ganja was declared provisory capital, because Baku was already occupied by the Bolsheviks. In fact, the Commune of Baku did not include only Bolsheviks, but practically speaking all the anti-Muslim and anti-Azeri forces of the wider region (namely Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and even the anti-Bolshevik Kadets, and Armenian Dashnaks). This was the conseuquence of the earlier clashes between Armenians and Azeris and the deliberate genocide of Azeris perpetrated by the heinous Dashnak party members. On the 5th June, they managed with difficulty to oppose an Azeri-German-Ottoman attack.

Isaak Brodsky, The Execution of the Twenty Six Baku Commissars – 1925
Исаак Израилевич Бродский, Расстрел 26 бакинских комиссаров – 1925
Fyodor Adrianovich Funtikov, Wilfrid Malleson and Reginald Teague-Jones are clearly identified on Isaak Brodsky’s painting, which fully demonstrates the vicious and criminal nature of the Anglo-Saxon colonial rascals.
From: http://www.rodon.org/art-080812100855

The fact that the Baku government consisted of so diverse (ethnically and ideologically) elements did not bode well. When the Bolsheviks rejected the treacherous idea of asking English help against the victorious Azeri-German-Ottoman army, the Armenian Dashnaks conspired with the Social Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks, kicked the Bolsheviks out, imprisoned them, and proclaimed the so-called Centro-Caspian Dictatorship (Sentrokaspi Diktaturası / Диктатура Центрокаспия), an ephemerous tyranny that lasted from the 26th July until the 15th September 1918. The 26 Commissars of the Baku Commune {under the gangster Stepan Shahumyan (or Shaumian / Степан Георгиевич Шаумян; 1878-1918), who was also known as the ‘Caucasian Lenin’} tried to escape to Astrakhan, but were intercepted by the Imperial Russian Caspian fleet, arrested and delivered back to Baku where they were imprisoned for about 45 days and then liberated by few Red Army soldiers under Anastas Mikoyan (Анастас Иванович Микоян; 1895-1978; the renowned Soviet statesman) at the very time of the Ottoman-German-Azeri final attack, invasion and liberation of Baku. The English army {a 1,000-strong elite force under Major General Lionel Dunsterville (which hd arrived after sailing in the Caspian Sea from the Iranian harbor of Bandar-e Anzali/Бендер-Энзели / بندرانزلی)} was then evacuated. The 26 Baku Commissars intended to sail to Astrakhan, the only Caspian harbor under Bolshevik control at the time, but due to the presence of two English officers onboard, the captain was forced to navigate to Krasnovodsk where the commissars were arrested again, this time by the Turkmen-English forces under Reginald Teague-Jones.

As soon as the Ashgabat Committee and Fyodor Funtikov came to know about the identity of the newly arrived statesmen and activists, they decided to execute them; as they evidently depended on the English officers, they had to discuss the topic with Captain Teague-Jones and get his approval for the execution. Without the consent of the top English military, no deliberate massacre of Bolshevik officials would take place. In an article published in Izvestia few months only after the event (no 85, 23rd April 1919), Stalin denounced Captain Teague-Jones for the ‘savage murder’, further accusing him for “intending to circulate false testimony to the effect that the Baku Bolsheviks had died a ‘natural’ death in prison or hospital”. The article titled ‘The Shooting of the Twenty-Six Baku Comrades by Agents of British Imperialism’ makes state of evil English efforts to put the blame on others and to attribute their inhuman deeds to third persons or groups of people. Stalin wrote the following:

The second document recounts a conversation that the author of the first document, Chaikin, had with the British General Thomson towards the close of March 1919. General Thomson demanded that Chaikin should name the eye-witnesses of the savage murder of the 26 Baku Bolsheviks by Captain Teague-Jones. Chaikin was prepared to present the documents and to name the witnesses on condition that a commission of inquiry were set up composed of representatives of the British command, the population of Baku and the Turkestan Bolsheviks. Chaikin furthermore demanded a guarantee that the Turkestan witnesses would not be assassinated by British agents. Since Thomson refused to agree to the appointment of a commission of inquiry and would give no guarantee of the personal safety of the witnesses, the conversation was broken off and Chaikin left. The document is interesting because it indirectly confirms the barbarity of the British imperialists, and not merely testifies but cries out against the impunity and savagery of the British agents who vent their ferocity on Baku and Transcaspian “natives” just as they do on Negroes in Central Africa“.

In fact, the Soviet authorities extensively investigated the terrible massacre that occurred on the 20th September 1918 in Turkmenistan, and for this purpose, a special commission (under Vadim Chaikin / already mentioned in Stalin’s article as per above) was established. The fact was widely discussed, and a renowned Soviet painter Isaak Brodsky (Исаак Израилевич Бродский; 1883-1939) immortalized the ‘Execution of the 26 Baku Commissars’ (‘Расстрел 26 бакинских комиссаров’) in his painting (1925; currently in the Museum Mashkova in Volgograd). Quite contrarily, English authors tried to present diametrically opposite versions and narratives in order to effectively portray the English officers as innocent. All the same, the fact that Captain Teague-Jones had to change his name and live in seclusion and anonymity for no less than 66 years of his life after this heinous crime is quite telling. And until as late as 1956, General Wilfrid Malleson kept boringly denying any English involvement and responsibility.

The executed and dismembered (not just ‘decapitated’) 26 Baku commissioners belonged to many different ethnicities, namely Azeri (notably Meshadi Azizbekov, Deputy People’s Commissar of Internal Affairs and gubernial commissar for Baku), Armenian (more particularly Stepan Shahumian, the Chairman of the Baku Council of the People’s Commissars and Commissar Extraordinary for the Caucasus), Georgian, Russian, Latvian, Jewish and Greek (Heracles Metaxas / Irakly Metaksa; Ираклий Панаитович Метакса; Ηρακλής Μεταξάς του Παναγιώτη; 1889-1918; he was born in Batumi and served as Shahumian’s bodyguard). Several memorials were built in the USSR to honor the memory of the 26 Commissars and to underscore the atrocities committed by the colonial powers. When Azerbaijan decided in 2009 to demolish the Baku Memorial (in an effort to erase the Soviet past from the collective historical memory), the decision caused a certain reaction from Armenia, but it was implemented promptly.

Stepan Shahumian
Anastas Mikoyan / 01.01.1965 Председатель Президиума Верховного Совета СССР Анастас Иванович Микоян. Рыков / РИА Новости

One of the most obscure parts and undecipherable points of this story is how Anastas Mikoyan, then a subordinate of Stepan Shahumyan, managed to survive and then escape from this massacre. Plausible interpretations vary, and the most common explanation is that his name was not found on the list of Commissars’ names that the Ashgabat Committee managed to get; still this is highly hypothetical and ostensibly too convenient for an immovable member of the Soviet nomenklatura, i.e. someone who stayed invariably in power for almost half a century under all (Lenin, Stalin, Khushchev and Brezhnev)!  

The Ashgabat Committee was an unstable and disparate formation and, to the eyes of the English colonial officers, this fact could jeopardize their interests and prevent them from achieving their targets. As there were continually many disputes and conflicting opinions about the continuation of the anti-Bolshevik fight among the very diverse elements of this governmental body, the English intervened brusquely in Ashgabat in December 1918, using the popular protests as an excuse, dissolving the government, and establishing (1st January 1919) an arbitrary “Committee of Public Salvation” entirely manned by Turkmen traitors-puppets of the English officers, who were under the orders of the gangster Teague-Jones. This meant that, in fact, there was an English dictatorship in that part of the Russian territory.

On 16th January 1919, the Indian, English and Turkmen (Trans-Caspian) forces repelled an attack launched by the Red Army at Annenkovo, between Merv and Chardzhou (Türkmenabat); the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy the railway line and thus eliminate their enemies’ escape route, but despite their numerical superiority, they failed to materialize their targets. However, the very limited resources that the English could avail and the number of casualties that they had convinced them that it would be better to allow the White Army military leadership to take control of the situation. The English decided then to merely coordinate the anti-Bolshevik efforts undertaken by local forces in the Terek, Dagestan and Trans-Caspian regions and to offer minimal financial support and adequate training to Anton Denikin’s henchmen.

The developments in Tashkent (the anti-Bolshevik uprising of 19th January 1919 and its subsequent suppression two days later) convinced Lieutenant-General Denikin that he had urgent tasks to complete in Turkmenistan (Trans-Caspian region) as well, and by order of the supreme commandment of the ‘Armed Forces of South Russia’ (Вооружённые силы Юга России; AFSR) on the 22nd January 1919, the Turkestan Army was formed as an integral part of the AFSR forces. While the anti-Bolshevik forces were able to garner support among the Turkmen and within few months they could avail 7000 infantry men and 2000 cavalry men, the successes of the central government were far more determinant. The liberation of Orenburg (22nd January 1919) and the restoration of railway communication with Turkestan constituted the beginning of the end for all types of rebels in Turkestan.  

By April 1919, the English had already evacuated their forces, leaving only a small garrison at Krasnovodosk by the Caspian Sea side; this unit returned to Iran in August 1919. In fact, the plans of the anti-Bolshevik military commandment for an advance of the Turkestan Army to Tashkent and Almaty (Verny) were impossible to materialize, despite the the support extended by Junaid Khan, the dictator of the Khiva Khanate. After many successive battles (in Baýramaly, Merv, Serhetabat, and Tejen) during the period May – July 1919, the Red Army sieged and took Ashgabat (9 July). The Turkestan Army was gradually dispersed and could not further resist the Bolshevik advance. Until December 1919, the Soviet forces prevailed throughout the region and reached the Caspian seashore where the last battles were fought before the reunification of the Russian imperial territory under Soviet rule. The very last remnants of the AFSR were rescued by English ships and evacuated in Iran in early 1920.

After the English colonial intruders moved back to Iran, they continued dispatching military aid and equipment to anti-Bolshevik forces in Turkestan for some time; in 1919, they sent two caravans of 600 and 200 camels with weapons, ammunition and other military equipment to Bukhara. In January 1920, they dispatched 1200 rifles, 12 machine guns, 4 guns and a large number of cartridges and shells. Even after the dismantlement of Denikin’s troops in the Transcaspian region (February 1920) and in the Emirate of Bukhara (September 1920), the English still kept providing assistance (weapons and money) to isolated Basmachi groups. Later on, they continued forming Basmachi armed detachments on the territory of Afghanistan and Iran; they used them in various sabotage activities. The Soviet army intervened twice in Afghanistan (1929 and 1930), during and after the Afghan Civil War (1928-1929) in order to fully destroy the Basmachi forces there. Only then, the Eglish efforts to foment unrest throughout Soviet Turkestan ended. About:
























































XVI. The Formative Years of Soviet Rule in Central Asia

Whereas the imperial administration viewed the different peoples of Central Asia as one unit or entity mainly defined by the locally prevailing religion, i.e. Islam, the Bolshevik government pursued a totally different approach, promoting the gradual but steadfast formation of nations, national identities, and national identification mechanisms. Bolsheviks emphatically discouraged the assimilation of other nations into Russians. This was quit normal for activists and revolutionaries, who viewed their revolution as the first among many forthcoming, which would eventually re-organize the mankind into an international community organized in independent Communist states.

The theoretical foundations of these policies can be retraced in Stalin’s essay ‘Marxism and the National Question’ (1913) and in the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia (Декларация прав народов России), which was one of the earliest documents signed by the revolutionary government only on the 15th November 1917, just 8 days after the October Revolution (7th November or 25th October 1917, according to the Old Calendar). The historical document called for equality among the peoples of Russia and for free development of all national minorities and ethnographical groups; it also recognized the right of every people to free self-determination, national sovereignty, and even secession and formation of a separate state; it also abolished all national and religious privileges and restrictions.

On the basis of this document, numerous lands declared independence in the period November 1917 – November 1918, irrespective of the sovereignty (Russian, German or Austrian-Hungarian) at the time: Ukraine, Finland, Lithuania, Moldova, Belarus, Estonia, Poland and Latvia. Furthermore, several other republics declared their independence in 1918, although most of them did not last for long: Tuvan People’s Republic (Тувинская Народная Республика), Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (закавказская демократическая федеративная республика), Kuban People’s Republic (Кубанская Народная Республика), Idel-Ural State (mainly a Tatar state named Ural-Volga state in Tatar; Урало-Волжский штат), Kaluga Soviet Republic (Калужская советская республика), North Ingria or Republic of Kirjasalo (Республика Северная Ингрия или Кирьясало), etc.

Tuvan People’s Republic’s flag
If the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic survived, there would be no killings and no wars between the Azeris and the Armenians.
Kuban People’s Republic’s flag
The precarious existence of the Kuban People’s Republic (Кубанская Народная Республика) in 1918 fully demonstrates that the historical forgery, which is currently promoted as dogma by the pseudo-state of Ukraine and their criminal Western masters, is a series of unspeakable lies. The Kuban People’s Republic was an entirely different state totally unrelated to the Ukrainian People’s Republic and the West Ukrainian People’s Republic. This map, which was published in 1918 by various Zionist press outfits in Imperial Germany, shows that there was already support not only for the secession of the territory of the so-called Ukraine, but also for the progressive inducement of the Kuban Cossacks to unite with ‘Ukraine’. Probably, the crypto-Ashkenazi Khazarian fake Jewish Zionist minority of the Western Russian territories (i.e. ‘Ukraine’) needed to hire a warrior people for their protection and defense.
Kuban Cossacks are highly valued among the anti-Russian crypto-Ashkenazi Khazarian Zionist minority of the so-called ‘Ukraine’ for their unmatched manliness.
The Idel-Ural State of the Tatars
The flag of the Idel-Ural State of the Tatars
Kaluga Soviet Republic; Kaluzhskaya region in Russia 1914 (150 km west of Moscow)
North Ingria or Republic of Kirjasalo
North Ingria or Republic of Kirjasalo, and war activities carried out there in 1919
Kirjasalo flag

a- Turkestan Soviet Federative Republic

In Central Asia, the first autonomous republic to be formed (30th April 1918) was ‘Turkestan’, initially named ‘Turkestan Soviet Federative Republic’ (Туркестанская Советская Федеративная Республика) with Tashkent as capital; in the midst of the Basmachi uprising, the state introduced its Constitution (15th October 1918). Within Turkestan’s territories were included the southern part of today’s Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and parts of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. With a new Constitution promulgated on 24th September 1920, the country was renamed as ‘Turkestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic’ (Туркестанская Автономная Советская Социалистическая Республика). The vast state (its surface covered an area of about 1.5 million km2) was in reality a multi-ethnic structure that could not last long, taken into consideration the aforementioned principles, practices and perspectives of the Bolshevik government. In 1920, the total population amounted to 5.2 million people; the main ethnic groups were Uzbeks (39%), Kazakhs (21%), Kirghiz (10%), Tajik (8%), Turkmen (5%) and others. Turkestan was dissolved on 27th October 1924 and I will soon explain why.

Turkestan ASSR flag

b- Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic

In February 1920, as continuation of the Khiva Khanate, the Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic (Хорезмская Социалистическая Советская Республика / Xorazm Xalq Sovet Respublikasi) was proclaimed in Khiva (today in Uzbekistan), following the abdication of the local khan. The development took place during the First Khorezm Kurultay (General Assembly), a time-honored Turanian (Turkic) tradition. Khorezm (Chorasmia) was a small state with an area of ca. 62000 km2, a population of ca. 1 million people (mainly Uzbeks, but also Kazakhs, Turkmen, Karakalpak, etc), and as currency the Khorezm Ruble (Хорезмский рубль). On the 20th October 1923, the tiny state was renamed ‘Khorezm Socialist Soviet Republic’ (Хорезмская Социалистическая Советская Республика), only to be dissolved on the 27th October 1924 for reasons that I will soon describe. 

A banknote of 750 rubles, printed by the Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic
The flag of the Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic
Khorezm SSR’s flag

c- Kirghiz Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic

After the chaos caused because of the clashes between the Bolsheviks and the Basmachi movement in different locations throughout Central Asia, on the 26th August 1920, the proclamation of the Kirghiz Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic (Киргизская Автономная Социалистическая Советская Республика) took place in Orenburg, which was the initial capital of the new state. As part of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (Российская Советская Федеративная Социалистическая Республика), the new entity controlled the northern half of today’s Kazakhstan. Two official languages were recognized: Russian and Kazakh.

Today’s, most people -even in Russia- are astounded when they come to know that the first modern Kazakh state was named ‘Kirghiz’, but I already expanded on the topic (see above: part X, unit w). Here, I merely repeat that, until the middle 1920s, Russians -for several centuries- used to name the Kazakhs as ‘Kirghiz-Kazaks’ (киргизы-казахи or also Киргиз-кайсаки) and the Kirghiz as ‘Kara-Kirghiz’ (кара-киргизы/Black Kirghiz); it is the great Kazakh Jadidist intellectual Saken Seifullin, who is credited with the clarification of the confusion. It is therefore understood that, at the time the Kirghiz Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic was launched mainly for the Kazakhs, the Kirghiz (then known as ‘Kara-Kirghiz’) did not have any problem with, or objection to, the development, as they were included in the already launched ‘Turkestan Soviet Federative Republic’.

The Kirghiz Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic (in red) in 1922; parts added in 1924 (green) and 1925 (light brown); red line: modern borders of Kazakhstan
Flag of the Kazak ASSR

On 19th April 1925, at the Fifth All-Kyrgyz (: Kazakh) Congress of Soviets (Пятый Всекиргизский съезд Советов), the decision for the change of name and the transfer of capital was taken. The decision was implemented on 15th July 1925. The state was named ‘Kazak Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic’ (Казахская Автономная Социалистическая Советская Республика / Qazaq Aptonom Sotsijalistik Sovettik Respublikasь). Two days later, on 17th July 1925, the capital was transferred from Orenburg to Ak Mechet (Ак-Мечеть: ‘White Mosque’; earlier known as Fort-Perovsky/ Форт-Перовский; currently known as Kyzylorda / Кзыл-Орда / Қызылорда, i.e. ‘Red Horde’ or also ‘Red City’ in modern context). Two years later, in May 1927, the capital was again transferred to Almaty (Алматы), one of the very few cities in the world that had so many different names (in Islamic times: Almatu/ Алмату́; 1854: Zailiyskoye/ Заили́йское and soon afterwards Vernoye / Ве́рное; 1867: Almatinskoe/ Алмати́нское; 1867-1921: Vernyi (Ве́рный: ‘Faithful’); since 1921: Alma-Ata/ Алма́-Ата́ in Russian and Almaty/ Алматы in Kazakh). This state was the largest of all four Central Asiatic soviet republics; its surface covered an area of ca. 3 million km2 and the population amounted to ca. 6.5 million people (1926), after the national delimitation that took place in 1924-1925.

d- Bukharan People’s Soviet Republic

On 8th October 1920, in Bukhara, as continuation of the Bukhara Emirate, the Bukharan People’s Soviet Republic (Бухарская Народная Советская Республика; Бухоро Халқ Совет Республикаси / بخارا خلق شورالر جمھوریتی / Buxoro Xalq Sovet Respublikasi; Ҷумҳурии Халқии Шӯравии Бухоро / جمهوری خلق شوروی بخارا) was proclaimed by Fayzulla Khodzhayev (see above: part X, unit c). With three official languages (Russian, Uzbek and Tajik), with the Soviet Ruble (советский рубль) as currency, with ca. 2.5 million people as population, and with an area of about 182000 km2, this state was a rather small entity among the then four Central Asiatic republics. Only the Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic was smaller. The short-lived Republic came to an end on 17th February 1924, when borders were demarcated in Soviet Central Asia on the basis of ethno-linguistic criteria and national identity.

Bukharan People’s Soviet Republic and its flag

e- Opposite theoretical approaches to the formation of soviet republics in Central Asia

It is clear that the above described border delineation in Soviet Central Asia had nothing to do with the concepts and the principles declared by the Bolshevik government. This is not strange because the modern Western European concept of nation is worthless and absurd for any other part of the world. It was an obscene, barbaric invention that caused terrible oppression first against subjugated and persecuted nations in France, England and the US, and then in the colonies of these countries where this concept was forcefully ‘exported’. The Bolshevik concept of nation reflects a better understanding of History, but it was still meaningless for Asiatic, African and European Muslims. And the new rulers had limited knowledge of the true situation on the ground.

At the same time, different ideas and conflicting approaches were diffused among Turkic speaking Muslims throughout Central Asia; one side of Jadidist intellectuals suggested the establishment of a unified Turkestan within the USSR. People like the Kazakh revolutionary Turar Ryskulov (Турар Рыскулович Рыскулов) viewed all the Turanian nations of Central Asia as one entity, and proposed the establishment of one Communist Party for all of them. Modern Western historians tend to interpret this fact as an indication of Pan-Turkism or Pan-Turanianism, but this is wrong.

This approach reflects a traditional nomadic Turanian understanding of the world, which is entirely due to Tengrism and its fundamental beliefs; Islam does not differ from Tengrism in this regard, and that is why the concept of the Muslim Ummah was easily accepted by Turanians only to be extensively reflected in their lives. Among Turanians, it was the sedentarization processes that brought divisions, rivalries, enmities and hostilities, but this embarrassing truth was never easy for colonial historians to admit. But Ryskulov and many others, who supported this concept, like Tursun Khojaev, Commissar for Health and National Affairs of the Soviet Government of Turkestan, had nothing in common with the ideas and the mindset of Enver Pasha and the other members of the Ottoman Committee of Union and Progress (İttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti), who became known as Genç Türkler (Jeunes Turcs) and truly promoted Pan-Turkic / Pan-Turanian concepts. Ryskulov never met Enver Pasha in Central Asia, but he was sent against him – which makes the case very clear.

Turar Ryskulov (Турар Рыскулович Рыскулов) From: https://mysl.kazgazeta.kz/news/4809

Another side of Jadidist intellectuals supported the concept of independent national life for each nation. This approach had however two serious disadvantages: first, never ever did Turkic / Turanian people live in clearly demarcated territories except for the period each group of them lived as nomads. In the early 1920s, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Turkmens, and Kirghiz lived together (and without discord or problems) in many parts of their present territories, along with newcomers: Russians, Germans, Tatars, Bashkirs, and others. This reality compromised any true effort of border delineation. The recently (2020-2022) aggravated troubles between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan show very well that this disadvantage persists one century after the Soviet authorities thought that they solved the problem; problems start only when otherwise meaningless borders separate people into various nations.  

Second, by accepting the five Central Asiatic nations as such, the soviet government disrespected other nations with smaller populations, like the Karakalpak. In this manner, when the national territorial delimitation took place, the Turkmen had their own state, namely the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic, but the Karakalpaks had to be content with an autonomous area within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, which represented a lower level of federal functionality. The position in favor of the formation of a distinct soviet socialist republic for every major nation in Central Asia was overwhelmingly accepted, because it appeared to be closer to the announcements of the Soviet government, and more specifically the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia. The majority of the Jadid intellectuals and activists supported it, like Sadriddin Ayni, Fayzulla Khodzhayev, and others.

Even worse, this approach was quite unrealistic and ahistorical; the Jadidist intellectuals, who intentionally wanted to view well-defined nations everywhere, failed to duly assess the field situation, which was multi-dimensional indeed. First, the modern Western European concept of nation has no place in History; second, the historical concept of nation is not yet correctly, deeply and conclusively studied; third, the transformational moment in which a group of people ‘becomes’ a nation -as per their own terms- has not yet been properly identified; fourth, there have been groups of people, like the Sarts (Сарты), for whom neither language nor religion was a criterion for the definition of their nationhood, but rather their social status of sedentary people dwelling in towns and cities.

As such, the Sarts were Tajik-speaking Turanians with a strong tendency for bilingualism, and they were viewed as such by many other historical nations. The Soviet policy intended to eliminate or abolish them because their reality contradicted the unbearable Soviet ideological rigidity. The authorities attempted therefore to officially ‘identify’ some of them as Tajiks and the rest as Uzbeks! All the same, this nonsensical attempt failed, and the Sarts survived. Actually, one must admit that because of this policy, many ‘Uzbeks’ today in Uzbekistan identify themselves as Tajiks, although they acknowledge that they forgot their language.

From: https://adyrna.kz/ru/post/108674
Who were the Sarts and how did they disappear?

It is easy to understand who the Sarts were; suffice it that we reject the false and distorting model of History that colonial Western pseudo-academic propagandists imposed worldwide. What was the purpose of this evil model of History? The above five statements fully clarify it. The fallacious and revisionist, bogus-historical model turned the rulers of the world into slaves, by fully utilizing ignorant, idiotic and naïve people, elites and rulers. This is how:

Из богатово кочевого Казаха в бедного жатака

From a rich, nomadic Kazakh to a poor Zhatak (derisive term: ‘immovable settler’)

Из свободного храброго народа в бедные сарты

From free and brave people to poor Sarts

Из независимого Казаха в зависимые Сарты

From an independent Kazakh to dependent Sarts

Из хозяина степи в батраки-жалшы

From a master of the steppe to hired laborers

Из богатого народа в бедную толпу

From a rich nation to a poor crowd


fNational Territorial Delimitation (Национально-территориальное размежевание)

After repeated deliberations, the Soviet authorities took a decision on 25th February 1924 in favor of the Национально-территориальное размежевание (national-territorial demarcation) as they defined it. Immediately afterwards, a special committee and three sub-committees (Kazakh, Uzbek, and Turkmen) were duly established. Finally, in April 1924, despite strong local opposition, the ‘delimitation’ process took place. The Turkestan ASSR was abolished and split mainly into Uzbek SSR and Turkmen SSR, which roughly corresponded to the territories of today’s Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Subsequently, the Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic and the Bukhara People’s Soviet Republic were also abolished and then incorporated in the Uzbek SSR, with minor parts of their territories attributed to the Turkmen SSR. The new soviet socialist republics were proclaimed in October 1924. By special decree of the 3rd Congress of Soviets of the USSR (issued 13th May 1925), the treaty on the formation of the USSR was extended to both new entities.

From: https://histrf.ru/read/articles/vsiem-po-natsionalnoi-kvartirie-kak-sssr-dielil-sriedniuiu-aziiu

The Tajik Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (ASSR) was also created in October 1924 with capital at Dushanbe (which was later named Stalinabad from 1929 until 1961); it was included in the Uzbek SSR. Similarly, in October 1924, out of parts of the Turkestan ASSR where Kirghiz (then known as Kara-Kirghiz) was the main native language, the Kara-Kirghiz Autonomous Oblast was established with capital at Bishkek (then spelled Pishpek/Пишпек), which was renamed as Frunze between 1929 and 1991; it was part of the Russian SFSR.

Following the rectification of the name of the ‘Kirghiz Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic’ into ‘Kazak Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic’, the Kara-Kirghiz Autonomous Oblast was renamed as Kirghiz Autonomous Oblast, on 15th May 1925. Few months later, in February 1926, it was upgraded to Kirghiz ASSR. Due to the initiative of the Tajik activist and Communist statesman Shirinsho Shotemur (Шириншо Шотемор; 1899-1937), the Tajik ASSR was upgraded to Tajik SSR in October 1929.

Shirinsho Shotemur depicted in a statue in Khorog (Tajikistan), on a 3 Somoni banknote (Tajikistan’s currency is named after the Islamic Samanid dynasty), and on the cover of a book dedicated to him.
From: https://rus.ozodi.org/a/30295260.html
Typical Soviet propaganda of the days of the national delimitation in Central Asia; simple people take the initiative and advance forward, whereas formerly powerful landowners are impotent and frightened.

This means that by the end of the 1920s, in Central Asia, there were three soviet socialist republics: Turkmen, Uzbek and Tajik. Whereas the Kazak Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic was enlarged with the addition of territories from the dissolved Turkestan ASSR in 1924, Almaty was the capital of an ASSR until 1936. It is only then (on the occasion of the proclamation of the second constitution of the USSR) that the Kazak ASSR and the Kirghiz ASSR were upgraded to Kazakh SSR and Kirghiz SSR (5th December 1936). About:

























































Proclamation of the Uzbek SSR

Following the aforementioned developments, the Karakalpak Autonomous Oblast (Кара-Калпакская автономная область), which was established in February 1925, at the time of the dissolution of Turkestan ASSR, was integral part of the Kirghiz (later: Kazak) Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic until July 1930. Then, it was transferred to the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. In 1932, it was upgraded to Karakalpak Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (Каракалпакская Автономная Советская Социалистическая Республика), and as such, it was transferred to the Uzbek SSR in December 1936.

After the dissolution of the USSR, in 1992, the Autonomous Republic of Karakalpakstan was proclaimed as integral part of Uzbekistan, and one year later, the local parliament adopted the constitution. With Nukus as capital, Islam as religion, and two official languages (Karakalpak and Uzbek), with a population of about 2 million people, and an area of ca. 165000 km2, Karakalpakstan is inhabited by three ethnic groups, namely Uzbeks, Karakalpaks, and Kazakhs (each of them totaling about one third of the entire population). Speaking a language closer to Kazakh than to Uzbek, the Karakalpaks are today by far the most pro-Russian Muslim nation and, in their majority, they would favor a merge with Russia; if this occurs in the future, Karakalpakstan would be a Russian exclave, like Kaliningrad.












XVII. Kazakhstan and Central Asia under the Communists

Modern national life started in Kazakhstan under totally inauspicious conditions. Along with the Civil War, a terrible famine devastated the country for three years, namely 1919-1922. To some extent, this was the consequence of WW I and all the emsuing developments; the collection of grain for the needs of the army (развёрстка: apportionment) that the Minister of Agriculture Aleksandr Rittikh (Александр Александрович Риттих; 1868-1937) introduced triggered a serious food crisis in parts of Russia. Two years later, when the Bolshevik government -facing the counter-revolution (which involved also extensive sabotage)- was cut off from Russia’s main wheat-producing regions, Lenin found no other solution than the продразвёрстка (prodrazvyorstka: confiscation of agricultural products from the peasants at fixed prices, which did not reflect at all the market value), which was a calamitous measure for the peasants.

Продовольственная разверстка (продразверстка): Food appropriation (prodrazvyorstka), 11 January 1919; from: https://eadaily.com/ru/news/2017/01/11/etot-den-v-istorii-1919-god-v-sovetskoy-rossii-vvedena-prodrazverstka

a- Famine 1919-1922 in Kazakhstan

It must be added that the famine was also due to drought, which has always been a periodical circumstance in Russia and Central Asia; but this time, it was -of course- greatly aggravated due to the aforementioned developments. Kazakhstan was not however the only region to be affected; North Caucasus, South Ural, the Volga basin, South Siberia faced ruination and were plagued with death too. In total, 5 million people lost their lives throughout the country. The situation would be far worse, if the American and Western European relief did not come abundantly and timely. An International Committee for Russian Relief was set up, but also many other funds and organizations participated actively and for several years.

In Kazakhstan, the worst hit areas were the northern half of today’s territory, because the populations of steppes always depend on others. Various contaminations and diseases spread also at the time. On the contrary, the southern regions were spared to some extent, because the population relied on cultivated lands in regions crossed by rivers and on the Fergana Valley. In this regard, it is safe to claim that the various rebellions, which occurred in those lands at the time, helped the populations escape central control and thus survive. The estimates about the casualties vary between 20%and 33% of the total Kazakh population.

b- The Malefic Role of Filipp Goloshchyokin in Kazakhstan

The Soviet administration of Kazakhstan starts with a very bizarre coincidence; due to the relative scarcity or the ideological instability of Kazakh and other Central Asiatic Bolsheviks at the time, Russians were regularly dispatched to securely fill the top positions and to fully implement the centralized government directives. It was the continuation of an imperial practice, but it was viewed by the central government only as temporary, because an overwhelming korenizatsiya (see above: part XV unit e) was already in the plans. The Kazakhs were definitely not lucky in the beginning; the abominable person appointed as First Secretary of the Communist Party in the Kazak Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic was none other than the notorious paranoid gangster Filipp Goloshchyokin (1876-1941; Филипп Голощёкин; born Shaya Itsikovich / Шая Ицикович), the Jewish murderer of the Romanov royal family.

A dental technician, with apparently no other experience in anything else except homosexuality, Goloshchyokin was one of the founding members of the Bolsheviks; he participated in the 1905 Revolution, only to be later exiled, then deported, and finally released after the February 1917 Revolution. After the October Revolution, he was appointed as Military Commissar of the Urals. Using his authority, he tried to have Prince Georgy Lvov (1861-1925 / Георгий Львов; Chairman of the Provisional Government after the February Revolution) executed, but he failed, because of the imminent interference of Isaac Nachman Steinberg (1888-1957; Исаак Нахман Штейнберг), the then People’s Commissar for Justice. However, using as argument the then rapid advance of the White Army toward Ekaterinburg (Yekaterinburg / Екатеринбург), he managed to have the Romanov royal family executed (17th July 1918). This filthy rascal was dispatched to Kazakhstan in 1925 and he ruled the vast ASSR for eight years (until 1933) as a really excruciating tyrant, taken into account the fact that there was no central government interference in his work and that, practically speaking, he was not held accountable to anyone.

Filipp Goloshchyokin carried out extensive infrastructure work in Kazakhstan, notably in the construction of the Turkestan-Siberia railway (туркестано сибирская магистраль; Turksib/ Турксиб), therefore making possible the exploitation of Kazakhstan’s enormous mineral resources by the central soviet government. With a total length of ca. 2375 km, the Turksib rail network links Orenburg and Tashkent with Semey and Novosibirsk. Implementing collectivization and dekulakization (elimination of the social class of kulaks, i. e. the wealthy farmers), the indoctrinated soviet government triggered an enormous socio-economic crisis of disproportionate dimensions; people were not allowed to possess even their gardens. In lands with a strong agricultural tradition, livestock property, and millennia-long heritage in animal husbandry, the resistance to such plans would be thunderous. Finally, the confiscation campaign turned one Kazakh against the other (pitching the poor against the rich), because these were the governmental intentions.

The Imperial Russian Okhrana (Охранное отделение: ‘Guard Department’) paper, pictures and fingerprints of the homosexual, Ashkenazi Khazarian, fake-Jewish, Zionist, Communist, paranoid monster Filipp Goloshchyokin.

The vicious homosexual gangster, who executed the Saint Czar Nicholas II and the Russian Imperial family; lovely verses in Russian decry Goloshchyokin’s anomaly:

Шая ИцикОвич Голощекин,

Расстрелявший царскую семью,

Уморивший Казахстан жестоко,

Соской был по жизни одинокой

У Ежова вы$о$ал все соки…

Был казнён в суровую войну.

From: https://stihi.ru/2019/08/15/2154




c- Famine, Exodus, Deportations, Demographic Change in 1930s Kazakhstan

It all resulted in detrimental reduction of livestock numbers; within 3-5 years (1928-1933), from 22 million sheep less than 2 million were left alive, whereas from 7 million cattle only about 1.5 million remained in life. More than 10000 wealthy Kazakh farmers were deported. To survive, an enormous number of Kazakhs attempted a dramatic exodus to Eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, then known as Xinjiang Province/新疆省, in the Republic of China). Despite the long way to walk (at times more than 500 km) and the evidently difficult crossing of Semirechye (Семиречье/ Жетісу- Zhetysu; ‘Seven Rivers’ Land’), a mountainous region, this was certainly preferable as an effort to survive.

About 1.3 million ethnic Kazakhs died in Kazakhstan during that period in what is now remembered as a horrible period of atrocious hatred and unprecedented persecution. The total number of Kazakhs in Soviet Union fell from ca. 4 million in 1926 to 2.8 million in 1937; the casualties amounted to 38% of all Kazakhs (and this is the higher number among all ethnic groups in the USSR). One has however to admit that Russians and non Russians were persecuted indiscriminately; they all suffered to the same extent during that period and throughout the entire USSR, around 11-12 million people died for the sake of the collectivization. The governmental policy that involved intentional deflation of prices killed them all.

Few pictures from a great tragedy
The parts of the USSR that were exposed to the 1929-1934 famine
The decrease of the Kazakh (in blue) and the increase of the Russian (in red) populations in the area of today’s Kazakhstan from 1897 to 1970; the Ukrainian (in yellow) and the Uzbek (in mauve) minorities are also marked.
From: https://russian7.ru/post/golodomor-chto-na-samom-dele-sluchilos/

One can surely describe the tragic event as an involuntary manslaughter of millions of people and as an unprecedented killing in negligence, but it is not correct, accurate and reasonable to define the brutish, yet nonsensical and vain, collectivization of the USSR as ‘genocide’. There was no specific malice, except for the Communist delusion itself. Contrarily, the Great Purge (Ежовщина/ Yezhovshchina; 1936-1939) was a deliberate genocide envisioned and carried out by Stalin, Yezhov, and many others.  

Filipp Goloshchyokin’s manly husband and famous executioner: Nikolai Ivanovich Yezhov / From: https://ik-ptz.ru/dictations-on-the-russian-language–grade-5/nikolai-ezhov-nkvd-ezhov-nikolai-ivanovich-stalnye-ezhovy.html
Любовники наркома ежова (The lovers of People’s Commissar Yezhov)

In parallel with the aforementioned, an enormous project of population transfer started taking place in the 1930s throughout Soviet Union; these forcible deportations were due to various reasons: ethnic inadaptability to the overwhelming changes, socio-economic disobedience (incorrigible kulaks who did not cope with the soviet norm) or simply anti-Soviet attitude of any sort. It goes without saying that an extra number of casualties was due to these measures. As the land of Kazakhstan was viewed as a sparsely populated territory, many populations were deported and settled there. This triggered a severe demographic change; from 1939 until the middle 1980s, there were more Russians than Kazakhs in Kazakh SSR.   

More specifically, whereas in 1926, there were ca. 4 million Kazakhs and slightly above 1 million Russians in the Kazak ASSR, in 1939, both ethnic groups totaled around 2.5 million people. For the subsequent five decades, the Kazakhs represented 30% to 40% of the total population of the Kazakh SSR, whereas the Russians were steadily above 40%. Only in 1989, the Kazakhs outnumbered again the Russians on the territory of the Kazakh SSR (40.1% to 37.4%); this was due to the then tendency of the Russians to relocate to major Russian cities, and it was accentuated after the events of December 1986 (known as Jeltoqsan), which attempted to trigger enmity between Kazakhs and Russians.

Staying mostly in his office, being guarded by police, dogs and vehicles, dodging the average people, and avoiding movements in provinces and villages, Goloshchyokin ran the state as a scared psychopath and a deranged paranoid. Issuing absurd orders and schizophrenic dictates, he was asking subordinates to enforce them, keeping himself hidden for most of the time. His manners, which seriously damaged the communist cause and endangered the diffusion of soviet ideas, became gradually known to many across the USSR. Kazakhs and Russians alike started realizing in 1932 that something extremely abnormal, miserable and catastrophic was taking place in the Kazakh ASSR.

Panicked like rats, the indigenous populations were fleeing the place with whatever luggage they could manage to take with; this situation was already causing serious problems to various local adminsitrators in Siberia; furthermore, an unprecedented and dramatic exodus of numerous local populations to China’s Xinjiang could irreparably damage Soviet Union’s image as the best possible choice for the world’s proletariat. In January 1933, Goloshchyokin was terminated thanks to the steadfast efforts of Uraz Isayev (1899-1938; Ураз Джанзакович Исаев), a leading Kazakh Communist who served as prime minister of the Kazak ASSR and the Kazakh SSR from 1929 until 1937, and following the complains expressed by several other patriotic Kazakh Communists.

Isayev was executed in the Great Purge, but few months later, when the leading Communist and People’s Commissar for Internal Affairs (lit. Minister of Interior), Nikolai Yezhov (1895-1940; Николай Иванович Ежов), the chief executioner during the Great Purge, was arrested, he confessed that he had a homosexual relationship with the notorious Goloshchyokin; this development led to the arrest, incarceration, and execution of the ‘Butcher of Kazakhstan”. 

d- The Koreans of Kazakhstan

The deportation of 172000 Soviet Koreans from Eastern Siberia (currently Far Eastern Federal District / Дальневосточный федеральный округ) to the Kazakh SSR in 1937 was another issue of embarrassment for the local population. It was actually the first forced relocation to be decided by the Soviet authorities for an entire ethnic group/nationality. According to estimates, ca. 30000 Koreans died in the process, because of various reasons. Their integration in the new, different geomorphological environment proved also to be very difficult; it is only with the rise of Khrushchev, after Stalin’s death in 1953, that the harsh life of Koreans in the steppes of Kazakhstan started improving. The principal reason for their deportation was the fact that the soviet leadership suspected them to be spies for the Japanese, who were USSR’s main rival in East Asia.  

From: https://assembly.kz/ru/analitika/kazakhstan-rodina-koreytsev/

It is only after 1936 and the establishment of the Kazakh SSR that modern national life started being normalized, education widely implemented, industrialization accentuated, and better integration achieved within the USSR. Despite the extreme adversities that the entire country underwent during WW II, there was a remarkable stability in the Kazakh SSR; this can be attested in the leadership of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan; from 1936 until 1989 (53 years), eleven persons only preceded Nursultan Nazarbayev in the position of the First Secretary of the Communist Party.

e- Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic (1924-1991)

Similar stability was experienced in all the other Central Asiatic SSR. Notably, in the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic (Туркменская Советская Социалистическая Республика), just thirteen (13) persons succeeded one another (starting from 1924) before Saparmurat Niyazov (Сапармурат Атаевич Ниязов; 1940-2006) was appointed (21 December 1985) as the First Secretary of the Communist Party (partly due to his strong Soviet credentials and also because of his Jewish wife) by M. Gorbachev (whose mother’s Jewish ancestry is well-known), only to rule the country during the transition period and until his death.

It is interesting that until 1947, only two ethnic Turkmen held the position of the First Secretary of the Communist Party (only for about one year each), namely Shaymardan Ibragimov (Шаймардан Ибрагимов; 1899-1957) and Anna Mukhamedov (Анна Мухамедов; 1900-1938). All the same, after 1947, only ethnic Turkmen held this position, which is quite telling about the time needed for the central Soviet government to form local generations of Soviet leaders, i.e. the nomenklatura.

Shaymardan Ibragimov
Saparmurat Niyazov

f- Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic (1925-1991)

Similarly, between 1925 and 1989, in the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic (Узбекская Советская Социалистическая Республика), only 13 persons preceded Islam Karimov (Ислам Каримов; 1938-2016), who was appointed (23 June 1989) as the First Secretary of the Communist Party to squelch the Islamist revolt, which had already been fomented in the Fergana Valley by Afghani Taliban, who were guided by the UK, US and Saudi Arabian secret services.

His predecessors, Inomjon Usmonxoʻjayev (Инамжон Бузрукович Усманходжаев; 1930-2017) and Rafiq Nishonov (Рафик Нишанович Нишанов; born in 1926, 96 years old today), who ruled for 5 and 2 years respectively (1983-1988/1988-1989) were proven untrustworthy, the former for being involved in the notorious ‘Cotton Scandal’ and the latter for failing to put the clandestine activities of the Islamists under full control. Like Niyazov in Turkmenistan, Islam Karimov was able to effectively rule during the transition period in Uzbeksitan and to eliminate the Wahhabi contamination – to the great chagrin of the perfidious UK, US and other Western diplomats and statesmen who are ceaselessly talking nonsense about ‘human rights’, ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’, etc. only to use this idiotic literature as a smokescreen for their subversive activities against numerous targeted countries.

Quite interestingly, none of the four persons, who held the position of the First Secretary of the Communist Party in Uzbekistan between 1925 and 1929, was ethnic Uzbek: they were (in chronological order) Russian, Belarussian, Ukrainian and Jew. The first ethnic Uzbek to be appointed in this position was Akmal Ikramov (1898-1938; Акмаль Икрамович Икрамов), who was known for his strong anti-religious convictions. He ruled for 8 years (1929-1937), but he was accused of Trotskyism, Pan-Turkism, nationalism and Anglophilia and he was subsequently condemned to death and executed, only to be rehabilitated in 1957 by the Khrushchev administration. After a brief passage of Pavel Nikitovich Yakovlev (Павел Никитович Яковлев) from that position (1937), only ethnic Uzbeks were appointed atop the local Communist Party.

Akmal Ikramov on USSR stamp, 1968
Inomjon Usmonxoʻjayev