From May 31 to June 1, 2019, the international symposium “The 1916 Uprising in Central Asia: academic integration, new approaches and knowledge”  took place in Karakol.

 

Panel 4: Leadership and organization of the uprising.

Asel Daniyarova.  Transforming the interpretations of actions of leaders of Kyrgyz tribes in the light of newly discovered facts.

Abstract: The article discusses interpretations and assessments of the actions of the leaders of the Kyrgyz tribes during the events of 1916 in Semirechye, which dominated during different historical periods in textbooks, monographs and journal articles. It is shown that the opinions presented in publications over the past hundred years, significantly, even dramatically, changed depending on the availability of primary documents, the depth of knowledge of the issue by the authors, but mainly determined by the political situation in the country and accepted ideological attitudes.

The transformation of the views of historians, publicists and politicians on this issue is considered with examples of evaluations of the role of participants in events such as the Shabdanov brothers, Kanaat Abukin, Dyur Sooronbaev, Kydyr ake Baisarin, Cholponkul Tynalin, Turkmen Sarpekov, Biyaly Maksimov, which have undergone significant metamorphosis.

It is shown that the characteristics of the leaders fluctuated between such extreme assessments as “traitor of the interests of the people” and “leader of the national liberation movement”. Meanwhile, a clear answer to the question of who they were, whether the leaders of the Kyrgyz tribes were oppressors of the people, acting together with the imperial authorities, or sober rational leaders who saved the people from inevitable death, or even fearless leaders of the uprising, is important for the overall assessment of events by modern generations, for the restoration of historical justice and, finally, for the establishment of mutual understanding between nations.

The array of documents identified and put into scientific use gives grounds for changing the angle of view on the motives for the actions of Kyrgyz bai-manaps, which were different in different volosts. It was the removal from the risk zone due to the threat of extermination of the tribe (Shabdanovs), armed upholding of justice (Kanaat Abukin) and even evidence of loyalty to the authorities in order to avoid punitive actions towards the tribe (Turkmen Sarpekov, Biyaly Maksymov). There were also cases of unseemly behavior towards his own people, as in the case of Cholponkul Tynalin. At the same time, in most cases, being the main object of extermination, they were aware of the direct threat to their lives, but nevertheless, they sought to save not only themselves, but also their own tribes.

It was concluded that the views on the role of bai-manaps were modified in accordance with the accepted set of analytical tools to study the events, its causes and driving forces. At the same time, it was noted that the assessment of the events of 1916 in the national consciousness did not change as significantly as in textbooks, which was reflected in the well-established term “Urkun” in relation to the events of 1916 in the Semirechye.

fulltext