The Andizhan revolt of 1898 in the view of colonial officials

Аннотация

The article summarizes the views and interpretations put forward by the administrators of the Russian Empire, military historians, and advanced Russian intellectuals about the Andizhan uprising of 1898. Keywords: Andizhan uprising, Muhammadali Eshan, Tsarist officials, military historian, Russian intellectuals, Russian orientalists. The Andizhan uprising of 1898 was not an accident in the life of Turkestan. Dozens of anti-colonial uprisings have taken place in the country before. In particular, the Polatkhan uprising of 1876, the uprising led by Yetimkhan in Mingtepa in 1878, the uprising led by Kurbanjon Dodho, the “plague uprising” in Tashkent in 1892, the Sabirkhan uprising in Ferghana in 1893 are clear evidence of this. These uprisings began under various pretexts, but the essence is the same - an expression of the specific resistance of the people oppressed by colonial oppression. Tsarist Russian officials and the military have expressed differing views on the Andizhan uprising in their reports, such as Mir Bojiy, Russkiy Invalid, and Pravitelstvenny Vestnik. Treatises and dissertations (V. Salkov. Andijan uprising. Kazan, 1901., I. Kuznetsov. The struggle of civilizations and languages in Central Asia. Paris, 1913) even analyzed the Andizhan uprising in Vladimir Ulyanov’s “Books of Imperialism” and other works. In articles written by officials of the Russian Empire and in some research works, the uprising has been interpreted only one-sidedly. Many historians of Tsarist Russia have tried to hide the root causes of the uprising by denouncing the leader of the uprising, Muhammadali Ishan, as an enemy of the tsarist colonial regime. “The recent uprising of the subjugated Muslims against the pagan rulers was pan-Islamic in nature and therefore has an extraordinary religious character”, Ostroumov wrote. Lieutenant- General Korolkov, who served as governor-general in 1898, described the uprising as “the main reason for the revolt was Muslim fanaticism, which has become more active in recent times and enjoys the same prestige as Mingtepa”. Military historian, Lieutenant-General M.A.Terentev, in his book “The Conquest of Central Asia” states that “the fact that the people of Ferghana became accustomed to riots and tyranny is one of the main reasons for the uprising”. An ardent supporter of Tsarist Russia's colonial policy, in a pamphlet published in Kazan, Salkov [1] attributed the uprising to the fact that the Russian rulers in Margilan had “insulted” Muhammadali Eshan. V.P. Salkov tried to outdo everyone in denigrating Muhammadali 13 Scientific research results in pandemic conditions (COVID-19) Khalfa. In particular, he tried to describe Eshan as an illiterate person who could read and write. M.A. Terentev said a search of Eshan’s home turned up seven hundred and fifty-five books. According to him, these were the works of Eastern poets, hadiths, fiqh literature, verses from the Qur'an, books on Islamic history, various manuscripts. This fact alone proves that the idea that Eshan was an illiterate man was nonsense. The first official report on the Andizhan uprising of 1898 was published in the Turkestanskie Vedemosti newspaper under the headline “Bezporyadki v Fergane”. According to the report, the uprising took place at a time of general calm, peaceful life of the population, when there was no reason for the people to revolt. This article states that the main reason for the uprising was “the intensification of Muslim ideas”. In general, until 1917, the idea that the Andizhan uprising was caused by religious fanaticism was predominant in research. These official views were expressed by M.A. Terentev [2], N.S. Likoshin [3], N.P. Ostroumov [4]. It is associated with the names of tsarist officials such as Yuvachev [5]. Because they were representatives of the colonial administration, they were unable to reveal the true nature of the uprising. Informal sources, such as an anonymous author’s article, have suggested that the cause of the uprising was not religious fanaticism but an attempt to put an end to the people’s tragedy. The author, who did not want to be identified, wrote that the reason for the uprising was the acceleration of Russification in the colonial country, the humiliation of the religious interests of Muslims. V. Nalivkin points out the shortcomings in the activities of the colonial administration, noting that the system of governance in the Turkestan region is very strict and corrupt [6]. It should be noted that Tsarist officials and progressive Russian intellectuals understood that the Andijan uprising was not just a religious movement, but an act against colonial oppression. V.Nalivkin was distinguished among the representatives of the colonial administration by his deep knowledge, perfect knowledge of the language and customs of the people. Nalivkin and a number of other Tsarist officials also correctly identified the cause and factors of the uprising, which other researchers did not pay enou