The Revolt of 1916 in Russian Central Asia • Chapter 1

The Revolt of 1916 in Russian Central Asia is an aspect of the history of the First World War and of the history of Russia which has, unfortunately, been sorely neglected in the English literature on the period. Where dealt with at all it receives but casual mention in a paragraph or two at the most. The great attention has been devoted to the February and October Revolutions and the great events attendant upon these upheavals, so œcumenical in their ramifications and significance. Yet the Revolt of 1916 sounded the first rumble of the oncoming disaster and in it there participated in one form or another the eleven million native peoples of Russian Central Asia. Though brutally suppressed, the discontent did not abate but broke out anew in the summer of 1917; the Revolution of October was anticipated in Turkistan by a local coup in September 1917 of the central executive committee of the Tashkent Soviet which overthrew the authorities of the Provisional Government. The Revolt of 1916 was both the prelude to the Revolution in Russia proper and the catalytic agent which hastened the alignment of forces in Russian Central Asia. The Revolution found the lines more sharply drawn and the people more definitely connected to one camp or another than would have been the case had no revolt occurred.

The Revolt of 1916 had still another significance in that it was the final expression of Tsarist policy towards minorities. The revolt is a (p2) mirror which in its facets shows the success of the contact and symbiosis of different cultures and different peoples. It provided the acid test which showed how firm these contacts were.

The revolt deserves study for still another reason. It provides an elementary expression of that revolt of Asia against the rule of the white man which is occupying so much of our attention presently. A close corollary to this is the age-long p14 struggle of Islam against the infidel; this also finds its expression in the Revolt of 1916.

Finally, the revolt embodies in the same framework the response of two very different peoples, the nomads and the settled folk, to the encroachment on their liberty and very existence. Each responded in a way consistent with its background, tradition, and history.

In view of the general lack of knowledge about the region of Russian Central Asia or Russian Turkistan it seems pertinent to make a few general remarks about the peoples, their religion, and the land they occupy, before proceeding to the subject proper. The region is a land of great contrast, physically interspersed by desert and oasis, the aspect of the latter heightened by the gloom and desolation of the former. The traveller, exhausted by traversing the desert wastes of Kara Kum and Kizil Kum looks upon such oases as Samarkand and Bukhara, prodigal in verdure, as indeed something out of the Arabian Nights. Water in this region is synonymous with life itself and it alone makes possible the great contrasts between the desert and the cultivated portions of the area. The region of Tsarist Russian Turkistan may be divided into three natural areas: (1) to the west, the province of Transcaspia, composed principally of deserts, whose rivers reach no lake but disappear into the sands; (2) in the centre, the three provinces of Syr Darya, Samarkand, and Ferghana and the khanates of Khiva and Bukhara, vassal to the Russian Government. These units within the Russian Empire were situated in the hydrographic basin of the Sea of Aral, into which flowed the two principal rivers of the country, the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya (the Oxus and Jaxartes of the ancients); (3) to the east, the province of Semirechie, situated (p3) in the hydrographic basin of Lakes Balkhash and Issik Kul1 and the river Chu.

Another great contrast is provided by the variations in level. The steppes and desert of the west are succeeded by the mountains of the east and southeast. Here is found Mt. Kaufmann (now Mt. Stalin)a the highest peak in the Soviet Union (23,000 feet) and to the south of it the Pamirs, the p15 "Roof of the World." A final contrast is provided in the matter of population distribution. Whereas in the great cities the population was as dense as in the cities of Europe, in the desert areas it was very sparse.

The name "Turkistan" signifies in Iranian "land of the Turks" yet the name is inaccurate. Inhabited by an Iranian people since time immemorial this population was subjected to a series of conquests, displacements, and interpenetrations by Persians, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Chinese, Mongols, and others. Though each of these people left its mark, the basic strain of the population remained as before Iranian. The most serious changes in the country were effected by the Arabs and the Turks, the one imposing Mohammedanism on the country and the other the Turkish language.

Of the peoples occupying the area some are of quite pure Iranian provenience, such as the Tajiks, a sedentary people who are especially adept at agriculture. Others are Turko-Mongols, inhabiting their conical kibitkas or felt tents and carrying on a nomadic existence. These include the Kirghiz and Kazakhs. In Tsarist times both were called Kirghiz to distinguish them from the Cossacks, the same word being used in Russian to signify Cossack and Kazakh. Where need arose the Kirghiz and Kazakhs were differentiated between by calling the Kazakhs, Kirghiz-Kazakhs and the Kirghiz, Black or Kara Kirghiz.2 The Kazakhs (p4) occupied the area of the Kirghiz steppe (now Kazakhstan). The Kirghiz roamed over the region on the T'ien Shan and Pamirs. Both peoples are related in origin, culture, and economy and both pay a nominal allegiance to the Mohammedan religion.

The Turkomans are also Turko-Mongol in race, inhabiting the southwest of Turkistan. They are a hardy nomad people who put up a magnificent resistance to the Russian conquest. Formerly they were much addicted to plundering and made forays to the south as far as Farah, 150 miles south of Herat, bringing back Persian girls for the slave markets of Khiva and p16 Bukhara. These slave girls were married off to the local population further strengthening the Iranian strain of the population. The Turkomans, together with the other nomads, Kirghiz and Kazakhs, made up 30% of the total population of Tsarist Russian Central Asia.

In addition to the pure Iranian strain the sedentary population includes mixtures of the Turko-Mongol and the Iranian. These people inhabit the oases of the east. They include the Sarts3 and the Uzbeks; the latter are thought to be related to the Seljuk Turks4 though now containing a heavy admixture of Iranian blood. Both the Sarts and the Uzbeks are industrious and active people.

(p5) Mention should also be made of the 228,000 native Jews. Though oppressed by the native governments they prospered much, especially in the cotton trade. They were located notably in Samarkand and Bukhara. With the conquest of Central Asia by the Russians there began an influx of Russian Jews into the country. Other alien elements to come included the Persians, who came as traders, artisans, and workers in great numbers (Ashkhabad was a Persian city), Armenians, and others from the Caucasus who introduced a strong trading element. The problems created by the influx of Russian colonists into the country will be dealt with in a later chapter.

p17 Russian Turkistan does not present a formidable problem in the matter of language, being unlike the Babel of the Caucasus. With the exception of the district of Samarkand and the mountainous parts of the former khanate of Bukhara (present-day Tajikistan) all speak one of several mutually intelligible dialects of the Turkic language. It is in the matter of religion that the differences are most significant. Though the country was predominantly Moslem in faith, the degree of religious fervor varied considerably among the different peoples. Among the sedentary peoples there was no place in the Mohammedan world which was more known for its rigid acceptance of the Koran and of the Sunna dogma, for its many saints and religious orders. Bukhara was regarded by many of the faithful as second only to Mecca in sanctity while its many medressehs or religious colleges graduated large numbers of students each year5 and sent them over Central Asia to carry on the Moslem faith. First introduced in the 10th and 11th centuries to compete with Buddhism, Nestorian Christianity, and animism already long established there, Mohammedanism was closely identified with Iranian culture; Mohammedanism meant the progress of the arts, sciences, literature, and agriculture. This favorable situation changed with the political and economic decline of Turkistan; the country declined considerably after the passing of the Timurides. Wars between (p6) the different parts of the region were endemic while the discovery of the Cape of Good Hope route by the Portuguese caused a diversion of the trade routes which affected Turkistan especially. The Russian conquest found a situation that little favored the advancement of civilization and culture. Moslem theologians waged a furious and successful battle against any innovation or alteration in the status quo, against anything at variance with the strict tenets of the Koran and the Shariat, the Moslem written law. All instruction was in the hands of the clergy and its jejune and impractical content was directed at the training of clerics true to the most conservative traditions. Law, theology, and a smattering of general knowledge based on traditional lore were the main subjects taught. The world was considered flat, surrounded p18 on all sides by mountains. The pupils repeated in parrot fashion texts from the Arab and Persian classics without ever really learning these languages.6

Among the nomads Mohammedanism had but a slight hold on the people in the matter of belief and observance, though the nomad would have resented the imputation that he was not a good Moslem. In the north (Semirechie, Semipalatinsk, Akmolinsk and Uralsk provinces) the acceptance was especially casual, while the Kirghiz and Kazakhs were converted only after the Russian conquest in the 18th and 19th centuries. Oddly enough, the conversion of the Kazakhs from Shamanism to Islam was effected by the Russians themselves. "At first but a few of their sultans and chiefs had any idea of the doctrines of Islam, and there was not a mosque or mullah in the Steppe, but the Russians . . . insisted on treating them as though they were Mohammedans, built mosques and sent mullahs, until the whole people became outwardly Mussulman, although the farther from the Russian lines, and the nearer to the settled population of Central Asia the weaker was the faith."7 Both among the Kirghiz and Kazakhs and among the Turkomans, the mullahs were given less respect than anywhere (p7) else in Mohammedan territory. They rarely prayed and mixed their faith with pagan superstition. The nomad women went about unveiled, unlike the Sart women.

Of all the peoples of Central Asia the Turkomans were the most warlike. They were the last to be conquered and laid down their arms only after the great siege of Geok Tēpē, a huge clay mound built by the Turkomans as their point of final resistance. After breaching the walls by the explosion of land mines the Russians stormed the stronghold. A general massacre took place in which 20,000 men, women, and children are said to have perished.8

p19 The resistance put up by the rest of the inhabitants was much less formidable. The Russians, by virtue of their superior armament and discipline, and by profiting by the inveterate hostility among the khanates of Kokand, Khiva, and Bukhara, were able to effect the conquest with small bodies of troops even when faced by armies of great number. The Sarts did not distinguish themselves by the qualities of bravery and valour and were routed by any display of determination by the Russians.

Approached in its international setting the Russian conquest of Central Asia was but part and parcel of the great expansion of the West at the expense of Islam at this time. Everywhere Moslem states were under attack, and by the beginning of Abdul Hamid's reign (1878) only Turkey remained independent although even here the Western Powers were making serious inroads. The Moghul Empire of India, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the equal of the Ottoman Empire, found its quietus in the Indian Mutiny after a dishonorable period of subjection to the East India Company; the British Queen had but recently assumed the title of Empress of India; the Manchu Government (p8) had recently crushed the Moslems of Yunnan, Kansu, and the Tarim Basin. Everywhere Islam was on the defensive, politically, psychologically, and culturally.

The reaction of the Western World to the Russian conquest was uniformly favorable — "undoubtedly a piece of constructive action."9 The suppression of slavery, incessant wars, and anarchy was regarded as a positive achievement of Western civilization as carried forward by Russia. In 1891 the International Geographic Conference lauded "the Russian people who set up order in Central Asia, who knew how to civilize it, and who developed it."10 A long series of travellers in the period from the conquest to the First World War penned similar sentiments concerning Russian rule in Central Asia. Even the Russophobe Sir Henry Rawlinson spoke the following words at a meeting of the Royal Geographical Society in 1882:

No one will question but that the extension of Russian arms to p20 the east of the Caspian has been of inestimable benefit to the country. The substitution, indeed, of Russian rule for that of the Kirghiz, Uzbegs and Turkomans throughout a large portion of Central Asia has been an unmixed blessing to humanity. The execrable slave trade, with its concomitant horrors, has been abolished, brigandage been suppressed, and Mohametan fanaticism and cruelty have been generally mitigated and controlled. Commerce at the same time has been rendered more secure, local arts and manufactures have been encouraged, and the wants of the inhabitants have been everywhere more seriously regarded than is usual under Asiatic rulers.11

Lord George Curzon expressed similar sentiments about the "White Man's Burden" of Russia in Central Asia. What alarmed people like Rawlinson and Curzon was not the Russian conquest of the khanates per se — which was all to the good — but the fear that Russia would use (p9) her new Asian possessions as a spring-board for further adventures in Afghanistan and India.

Other writers conjured up absurd pictures of future Genghis Khans and Tamerlanes issuing forth with their hordes from Central Asia to engulf Europe in a bath of blood. The German ethnographer, F. Ratzel, stated that "if Nomadism constituted a political danger to Europe the sacred task of keeping it in restraint devolved upon China and Russia." The development of any national feeling or revival among the Moslem peoples was highly suspect and was branded as Pan-Turanianism, Pan-Turkism, or Pan-Islamism to be regarded as more dangerous than any other national movement. Zealots who fought for their religion in Christian countries were termed heroes and saints while such Moslems were labelled fanatics.

Thus it may be seen that Russia found moral support for its rule over the natives of Russian Central Asia from the rest of the Western World. The Moslems of Central Asia could expect little in the way of encouragement, stimulus, and aid from their co-religionists in Africa and the rest of Asia, themselves fighting a losing battle with Western imperialism. The day had not yet come for the emergence of Moslem nationalism or the modern Pan-Islamic idea. The medieval dirt and picturesqueness remained along with the feckless acceptance of his lot by the native.

The Author's Notes:

1 Issik Kul, literally in Turkic, warm (issik) lake (kul). To be referred hence simply as Issik Kul.

2 In 1925 the First All-Kazakh Congress of Soviets adopted at Kzil Orda a motion for the change of the word "Kirghiz " to Kazakh in relation to the people inhabiting present-day Kazakhstan. The modern usage is conformed to in this study.

3 Up to the Revolution, the Russians used the word "Sart" as a general term for urban and settled agricultural inhabitants of Central Asia. The term was usually applied to people who spoke one or another of the Turkish languages or dialects, but also to Iranian-speaking Tajiks. It was not, however, applied to the Chinese-speaking Dungans. Use of the term was discontinued after the Revolution because it was considered derogatory and partly because it prevented use of the true names of nationalities, such as Uzbek. It has been necessary here to retain the term "Sart," however, because it has usually been impossible to determine with precision exactly what people was meant where the them "Sart" is used in the documents on which this study is based.

The most recent authoritative discussion of the term is in Paul Pelliot, Notes sur l'histoire de la Horde d'Or (Paris, 1949), p34: "Sartaq a abouti à la désignation actuelle des Sart (nos 'Sartes') du Turkestan russe; en réalité, Sartaq est une forme turque, parvenue par l'iranien, qui remonte au skr. sārtha, 'Marchand' ; le -q final peut être dû soit à un dérivé skr. Sarthaka, soit à un suffixe iranien."

The term has had a long history and wide travels in Inner Asia; it still survives among the Mongols as a tribal and clan name, in the form Sartagol.

4 George S. Jorré, The Soviet Union: The Land and Its People (London and New York, 1950), p91.

5 As many as 16,000 mullahs were turned out annually. Corliss Lamont, The Peoples of the Soviet Union (New York, 1946), p107.

6 M. A. Czaplicka, The Turks in History and at the Present Day (Oxford, 1918), pp36‑37.

8 Gen. Kuropatkin, who took part in this campaign, asserts that noncombatants were not intentionally harmed and the casualties for the Turkomans were 9,000 out of a total of 30,000. Doubtless many women and children were killed by the rain of petroleum shells on the enclosure before the final assault. F. Skrine and D. Ross, Heart of Asia: A History of Russian Turkestan and the Central Asian Khanates from the Earliest Times (London, 1899), pp296‑297.

9 See Zeki Velidi Togan, The Turkistan of Today and Its Recent History (Istanbul, 1940, and Cairo, 1947) (Turkish and Egyptian editions). Unfortunately I have not been able to consult this important book but have had access to an abstract in English.

11 Quoted by George Curzon, Russia in Central Asia in 1899 and the Anglo-Russian Question (London, 1899), p384.

Thayer's Note:

a Mt. Lenin is meant. I'm not sure that the peak was ever named for Stalin — but at any rate in 2006 the mountain, marking the border between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan and no longer under Russian control, was renamed: it is now Mt. Ibn Sina, in honor of the Moslem scholar the West knows as Avicenna.

p13 (p1) 1 The Revolt of 1916

The Author's Notes:

Thayer's Note:

p13 (p1) 1
The Revolt of 1916