RESISTANCE TO COLONIAL POLICY: THE 1916 TURKESTAN UPRISING BASED ON NEW RESEARCH

Аннотация

This article approaches the 1916 popular movement in Turkestan from the perspective of modern historiography, reanalyzing its regional, political, and social significance. The author interprets this movement not merely as a spontaneous revolt, but as a historical expression of public dissatisfaction with colonial policies and an important stage of national awakening. While Soviet historiography viewed the event through the lens of class struggle, post-independence scholarship reconsiders it as a national liberation movement. The article explains the roots of the popular movement in factors such as social injustice, political oppression, and economic exploitation. It also analyzes the consequences of the uprising, including demographic losses, mass killings, deportations, displacement, and famine. Attention is given to some scholars' application of the term “genocide.” The article emphasizes the need to reassess historical events free from political and ideological influence, framing the movement as part of a broader effort to restore historical memory and national identity. Thus, the 1916 uprising is presented as a courageous struggle of thepeoples ofTurkestan inpursuit offreedom. Keywords: 1916 uprising, popular movement, colonialism, national liberation struggle, historical memory, genocide, Soviet historiography, demographic losses, political oppression, historical interpretation, Central Asia, national awakening. Introduction. The 1916 popular movement in Turkestan stands as one of the most significant historical events in the history of Central Asia, closely associated with complex social, political, and cultural processes. This movement represented a major outburst of public discontent accumulated in the social consciousness of the local population, openly expressing opposition to the colonial policies carried out by the Russian Empire over many years. Although official historical documents and contemporary sources often described the movement as a “rebellion,” a “spontaneous uprising,” or “local disorder,” interpreting it merely as such is inadequate. In reality, the movement was a clear expression of public protest against long-standing social injustice, economic exploitation, national discrimination, and political oppression. The decree issued by theRussian Empire in 1916,known as the “mobilization order” —which called for the conscription of local male populations from Turkestan and other peripheral regions to serve in laborbattalions ontherear fronts ofWorld WarI—significantly intensified thealready growing discontent among the people. This decree was seen as a violation of the local communities’ social, cultural, and religious values, and was perceived as forcing them to sacrifice themselves for the interests of the Russian Empire. Especially for peasants, herders, artisans, and other working-class people who had lived independently on their lands for centuries, the decree http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass 230 Volume 15Issue 06, June 2025 Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023: 6.995, 2024 7.75 represented notonly economic butalso moral oppression. In essence, the Turkestan popular movement was driven not only by social or economic factors but also by deep national-liberation aspirations. Participants included representatives of various social strata — peasants, artisans, religious scholars, and even some members of the local intelligentsia. They fought for the honor and freedom of their homeland, to preserve their identity, and to secure justice and liberty for future generations. The movement spread across many regions of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, demonstrating that it was not a localized uprising limited to one group or region, but rather a broad expression of collective dissatisfaction throughout the Turkestan region. Throughout history, the approach to the Turkestan popular movement has varied. During the Soviet era, it was interpreted within the framework of class struggle, portrayed as a conflict between local exploiting classes and the Russian Empire. In this view, the people’s national liberation aspirations were either ignored or deliberately denied. However, after Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and other Central Asian states gained independence, attitudes toward this historical event changed drastically. Modern historians now interpret the movement as anational liberation struggle against colonial policies, striving touncover its truenature. Recent scholarly research based on archival documents and the memories of local witnesses has contributed to a fuller understanding of the movement’s complexity, scope, and the deep impression it left on the consciousness of the people. In this process, it is essential not only to restore historical truth but also to acknowledge and honor our people’s courageous struggle for freedom and justice. Main Body. The 1916 Turkestan People's Movement was not merely a local event, but a