THE BULGARIAN POLICYTHE BULGARIAN POLICY ON THE BALKAN
COUNTRIESANDNATIONALMINORITIES,OUNTRIESAND
1878-1912
Vladimir Paounovsky
1 . IN THE NAME OF THE NATIONAL IDEAL
The period in the history of the Balkan nations known as
the “Eastern Crisis of 1875-1879” determined the international
political development in the region during the period between
the end of 19th century and the end of World War I (1918). That
period was both a time of the consolidation of and opposition to
Balkan nationalism with the aim of realizing, to a greater or
lesser degree, separate national doctrines and ideals. Forced tomaneuver in the labyrinth of contradictory interests of the GreatPowers on the Balkan Peninsula, the battles among the Balkancountries for superiority of one over the others, led them either
to Pyrrhic victories or defeats. This was particularly evident
during the 1912-1913 Balkan Wars (The Balkan War and The
Interallied War) and World War I, which was ignited by a sparkfrom the Balkans.
The San Stefano Peace Treaty of 3 March, 1878 put an end
to the Russo-Turkish War (1877-1878). According to the treaty,
an independent Bulgarian state was to be founded within the
ethnographic borders defined during the Istanbul Conference ofDecember 1876; that is, within the framework of the Bulgarian
Exarchate. According to the treaty the only loss for Bulgaria
was the ceding of North Dobroujda to Romania as compensation for the return of Bessarabia to Russia.
The Congress of Berlin (June 1878), however, re-considered the Peace Treaty and replaced it with a new one in which
San Stefano Bulgaria was parceled out; its greater part was put
under Ottoman control again while Serbia was given the regions
around Pirot and Vranya as a compensation for the occupationof Novi Pazar sancak (administrative district) by Austro-Hun- 331 -VLADIMIR PAOUNOVSKY

gary. The Congress did not consider the territorial interests of
the Balkan countries according to national principles and did
not settle the contradictory claims of the Great Powers. Thus,
new conflicts were soon to arise that would turn the Balkans
into the “powder-keg of Europe.” After the Congress, Bulgarian foreign and, to a considerable degree, internal policy was
entirely and immediately orientated towards the destruction of
the Berlin status quo in the name of the liberation of the Bulgarian population that remained under foreign rule.1
So, like the other Balkan countries established on the national principle, children of the 19th century such as Greece,
Serbia, Montenegro and Romania, Bulgaria faced the problem
of forming a state united in its ethnic and territorial entirety.
After the Congress of Berlin, sizable territories with a predominant Bulgarian population remained outside Bulgaria, often in
Balkan countries with different political and national statutes.
Bulgarian policy on the resolution of the national problem had
to confront not only the hegemonic interests of the Great Powers in South-Eastern Europe but also the ambitions of its young
neighbours. The ruling circles of the Balkan countries often
took an ideological stand of the political programs such as“Nacertanije” [Mapping Out] written by Iliya Garashanin in
Serbia or the so-called “Megali Idea” [The Great Idea] in Greece.
The governments of Greece, Serbia, Montenegro and Romania
pursued the policy of territorial compensation in the name of“balance in the Balkans.” However, this policy did not take into
consideration the importance of nationality for the majority ofthe population in the lands that were planned for return. At thesame time, it was necessary to take into consideration the national movements in each of the Balkan countries, which had
territories with ethnic majorities still under foreign oppression
in many regions.
1 G.P. Genov, Iztochnijat vapros (politicheska i diplomaticheska istorija)(Sofia, 1926), II, pp. 348-359, 394-405; I.P. Ormandzhiev, Bulgarija ot
San-Stefano do Njoi (1878-1919). Ustremi za obedinenie (Sofia, 1938);
K.D. Kozhuharov, Iztochnijat vapros i Bulgarija 1875-1890. Diplomaticheski studii (Sofia, 1929).

- 332 -

THE BULGARIAN POLICY

The main aim of the foreign policy of the Bulgarian Principality was the union of all Bulgarians into one country by meansof supporting the national-liberation movement of compatriots
then living under foreign rule. The significance of this policy
was expressed by the slogan “A Whole Bulgaria,” while theprogram for resolving the Bulgarian national problem within its
ethnic borders could be called “San Stefano Bulgaria.” Although
this meant that Bulgaria would become the biggest country in
the Balkans, that program, at least during the period under consideration here, could not be characterized as one proposing a
Pan-Bulgarian state or be identified with the Serbian foreign
policy of “Mapping Out” or the Greek “Megali Idea.” It did nothave pretensions to other territories or aspirations to the assimilation of the non-Bulgarian population. Still, before politicalliberation in 1878, the national idea of the Bulgarians had found
its realization through the Bulgarian Exarchate established in
the Ottoman Empire in 1870. This institution was a result of the
struggle for an independent Bulgarian church and against theassimilation and oppression of the Greek priesthood and thePatriarchate. The 1870s, along with the building and consolidation of the Exarchate and the struggle against the supporters of
the Patriarchate, saw the idea of Bulgarian State Union within
its own ethnic borders become crystallized. These borders wereinternationally confirmed during the Istanbul Conference, heldfrom 11 December, 1876 to 20 January, 1877, and to some degree in the London Record of Proceedings of 31 March, 1877,
signed between England and Russia and handed in at the Sublime Porte, and later at the San Stefano Peace Treaty of 1878.2
Bulgarians, by means of mass protests, immediately started
to struggle against the resolutions of the Berlin Congress, withthe brightest expression of the resistance being the Kresna-Razlog rebellion. After the Congress of Berlin, the Bulgarian Principality began to secretly support the movement towards unityin Eastern Rumelia and the struggle for the consolidation of the

2 L.S. Meush, Natsionalno-teritorialni problemi na Balkanite ot Berlinskija kongres do 1918 godina (Sofia, 2000), pp. 34-39, 50.

- 333 -

VLADIMIR PAOUNOVSKY

Bulgarian character of the autonomous region.3 At the beginning of the 1880s, Bulgarian-Serbian relationships became tense,
especially after the Timok rebellion (October 1883), when members of the opposition radical party fleeing from Serbia with its
leader N. Pashich sought refuge in the country. In 1885, theBulgarians achieved a great success with the Union of the Bulgarian Principality with Eastern Rumelia, which was defended
through political means as well as on the battlefield with thestunning victories of the young Bulgarian army over Serbia near
Slivnitsa, Dragoman and Pirot in 1885. The ruling elite in Serbia, who could not resist Austro-Hungary, then occupying Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Novi Pazar sancak in the westernand southeastern parts of the Balkans, directed their attention to
the territories of Bulgaria and especially to the regions of Vidin,
Breznik, Samokov, Ihtiman, Belovo, Chepino, Dospat, and soon. Serbia started the war, representing itself as a defender ofthe Balkan status quo, threatened by the shift in the balance ofpowers. The Bucharest Peace Treaty of 19 February, 1886 restored the pre-war borders between the two countries. The resolutions of the Tophane Conference (1885-1886) untied the handsof the Bulgarian rulers to eliminate the Constitutional Statuteand to spread the Tarnovo Constitution and the laws of Bulgarian Principality in the united territory, led by the Bulgarian king.
Thus, the first step towards a revision of the Berlin Treaty was
taken.4
3 Bulgarski patriarh Kiril. Saprotivata sreshtu Berlinskija dogovor - Kresnenskoto vastanie (Sofia, 1955), pp. 13-28, 35-62, 74-113; K. Pandev,
Natsionalnoosvoboditelnoto dvizhenie v Makedonija i Odrinsko 18781903 (Sofia, 1979), pp. 36-65; D. Doinov, Komitetite “Edinstvo.” Roljata i prinosat im za Saedinenieto 1885 (Sofia, 1985); D. Doinov, Kresnensko-Razlozhkoto vastanie (Sofia, 1979).
4 Bulgarskata darzhavnost v aktove i dokumenti. Sastavitel Vasil Giuzelev(Sofia, 1981), pp. 268-270 [records No. 154, 155]; I. Dimitrov, Predi
100 godini: Saedinenieto. Istoricheski ocherk (Sofia, 1985), pp. 224264; E. Statelova, Diplomatsijata na Knjazhestvo Bulgarija 1879-1886(Sofia, 1979), pp. 91-179; Meush, Natsionalno-teritorialni problemi...,pp. 56-60; I. Salabashev, Srabsko-bulgarskata voina (Sofia, 1971); I.
Mitev, Saedinenieto 1885 (Sofia, 1980); G. Stefanov, Mezhdunarodni
otnoshenija i vanshna politika na Bulgarija (1789-1970 g.) (Sofia, 1977),
pp. 59-68.

- 334 -

THE BULGARIAN POLICY

According to Article 23 of the Berlin Treaty, the Ottoman
Empire accepted the responsibility for founding special committees in each province of its European lands with wide representation from the local population for preparing statutes, similar to the Constitutional Statute of the Island of Crete from 1868.
This formulation was used by the Bulgarian government to pressure the Ottoman Empire for reforms through which to relieve
the situation of the Bulgarian population in Thrace and Macedonia. After the status quo was established in Berlin, Bulgaria,
like a typical young and not yet militarily capable country, wasunable to achieve its purposes independently by military operations and, thus, it directed its efforts towards supporting the national spirit in the regions under Ottoman domination by themeans of education, culture, customs and the clerical influenceof the Exarchate. Still, initially, there was the idea that the country
could be turned into a prosperous modern European bourgeoisdemocratic state that would provide an economic and cultural
center for the fragmented parts of the former motherland. Byrendering an account of its experience of the Union of Eastern
Rumelia with the Bulgarian Principality in 1885, and the claims
and policies of Serbia, Greece, Romania, the Ottoman Empire
and even the Albanian national-liberation movement for Macedonia, the idea of achieving autonomy for these regions was
accepted as a step in the process of their joining Bulgaria. Thiswas why, especially during the government of Stephan Stambolov, policy played at a fictitious rapprochement with Ottoman
Turkey with the aim of gaining advantages for the Bulgarianreligious and educational institutions in Thrace and Macedonia,
such as the appointment of Bulgarian bishops in Scopje and Ohridin 1890. In that way, it was opposed to the idea of Greece andSerbia, that Macedonia be divided into spheres of influence and,after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, joined respectively
to the Bulgarian, Serbian and Greek states.
In the 1890s, Greece and Serbia entered into serious negotiations over a zone of influence, although they did not initiallyachieve agreement. The slaughtering of the Armenians in 1894,
and again in 1895-1896, which caused indignation among theEuropean public, provided an excuse for a more active Bulgar- 335 -VLADIMIR PAOUNOVSKY

ian policy after 1895. At that time, the Internal MacedoniaAdrianople Revolutionary Organization (VMORO), which became the organizer and leader of the Bulgarian national-liberation movement in Macedonia and Thrace, was established. The
organization adopted a program of absolute autonomy, agitating and uniting the different nations in a common struggle against
Ottoman despotism in the name of democratic and social transformation. In the Statute, it was recorded that the organization
opposed the division or invasion of regions of any country. Parallel with the establishment of the VMORO and influenced bothby the Palace and the Government of K. Stoilov, was the founding of the Supreme Macedonian (Macedonia-Adrianople) Committee in Sofia, which also officially aimed at autonomy but
considered it a transitional stage to annexation. Led by professional soldiers, the committee aimed at subordinating the independent revolutionary organization and leading the liberation
movement in Macedonia and Thrace. Through rebel actions,provocative and badly organized rebellions, propaganda andother activities, the members of the Supreme Macedonian Committee caused tension in the relationship between Bulgaria andTurkey with the hope of prompting intervention by the GreatPowers in support of the Bulgarian aspirations towards Macedonia.
The visits of the Prime Minister K. Stoilov and the Bulgarian King Ferdinand to Istanbul in 1896 were an expression of
improved relations between Bulgaria and Turkey. However, thepressure for reforms in the subordinate regions continued, as
did the demands for the appointment of bishops in Macedonia,
for the establishment of a Synod and a mixed committee in the
Exarchate as well as trade representations in the bigger cities ofEuropean Turkey, and for the connection of the Bulgarian and
Macedonian railways. Negotiations were also begun in 1897
for a union between Bulgaria and Turkey. During the Creterebellion of 1896-1897, Greco-Turkish relations were strained
when the Bulgarian Government rejected an offer by the Serbian King Alexander for compensation in the case of Crete being
annexed to Greece. Signed on 19 February, 1897, the Bulgarian-Serbian agreement, to which Montenegro later joined, fore- 336 -THE BULGARIAN POLICY

saw the preservation of the Balkan status quo and the signing ofadditional agreements by both sides concerning Bulgarian andSerbian populations in European Turkey. Both countries desisted from unilateral actions aimed at changing the status quo andthey agreed not to interfere in any eventual Greco-Turkish Waror political complications on the Island of Crete and the Southern regions of European Turkey. Intervention was foreseen only
in case of problems in Northern and Middle Macedonia.5
In the Greco-Turkish War of 1897, Bulgarian neutrality was
greatly appreciated by Turkey, which gave bishops berats (appointments confirmed by the authorities) for the Monastir, Debar and Strumitsa Exarchates, amnesty for the exiles on the Island of Rhodes and an agreement on the establishment of tradeagencies in Thessaloniki, Monastir, Scopje, Adrianople, Seres
and Dedeagach.
In 1891, the Greek politician and statesman Trikoupis visited Belgrade and Sofia to discuss the matter of eventual union
among the three countries on the grounds of an agreement on
the division of Macedonia into spheres of influence. The Bulgarian government declined the offer, maintaining its positionon the autonomy of Macedonia. For the very same reasons,another political mission from Montenegro to Belgrade, Athensand Sofia for a Balkan rapprochement ended in failure in 1896.
Thus, Prime Minister K. Stoilov was in the unenviable positionat the end of December 1896 and the beginning of January 1897
of trying to organize a collective attempt by Sofia, Belgrade andAthens to seek support from the Great Powers in Istanbul andthe Sublime Porte for reforms in the European Vilayets of Ottoman Turkey and for the transformation of Macedonia into a privileged province.6
5 R. Popov, “Bulgaro-srabskata spogodba ot 19 fevruari 1897 g. i otnoshenijata mezhdu dvete strani,” in Studii po nova bulgarska istorija (18781944) (Sofia, 1985), pp. 119-157.
6 Meush, Natsionalno-teritorialni problemi..., pp. 76-103; Pandev, Natsionalnoosvoboditelnoto dvizhenie..., pp. 66-186; D.G. Gotsev, Idejataza avtonomija kato taktika v programite na natsionalnoosvoboditelnoto
dvizhenie v Makedonija i Odrinsko (1893-1941) (Sofia, 1983), pp. 4-19;
R. Bozhilova, “Sarbija i bulgarskoto natsionalnoosvoboditelno dvizhe-- 337 -

VLADIMIR PAOUNOVSKYIn 1902, the supporters of the Supreme Macedonian Committee, with the knowledge of the Bulgarian government andPalace, began, by the means of armed groups, the so-called Gornodjumaya and Razlog rebellions in separate border regions of
Macedonia. That situation led to merciless new retributions on
the population by the Ottoman authorities. After preparing andarming the population through a network of revolutionary committees similar to the ones established by Vassil Levski and theorganizers of April Rebellion (1876), the Ilindensko-Preobrajensko Rebellion broke out in 1903 only to be drowned in blood.7
Nevertheless, the rebel movement continued its activities, notonly in opposing the Ottoman oppressor but also Greek and Serbian propaganda through military operations.
The revolutionary actions of the Bulgarians in Macedonia
in 1903-1904 led to a crisis in Turko-Bulgarian relations. An
attempt at surmounting this problem was sought in the agreement of 26 March 1904, which granted an amnesty for and repatriation of refugees. In return, Bulgaria was obliged to block theentry of rebel groups and arms into the territory of the Ottoman
Empire. Under pressure from Austro-Hungary and Russia, anera of reforms was begun in Macedonia with the so-called
Murzsteg reforms of 1904-1908. That process, however, did
not provide the necessary democratic results and instead of improving the situation, the Bulgarian population fared even worse.
Macedonia was turned into an arena for fratricidal rebel collisions and large-scale acts of terror were often carried out on the
Bulgarian population on behalf of the Ottoman authorities, andat the instigation of Greek and Serbian propaganda.8
nie v Makedonija v kraja na XIX vek (1893-1900),” Izvestija na Instituta za istorija 25 (1981), pp. 40-73.
7 L. Panaiotov, Ilindensko-Preobrazhensko vastanie 1903 (Sofia, 1983),
pp. 60-115.
8 T. Vlahov, Kriza v bulgaro-turskite otnoshenija 1895-1908 (Sofia, 1977),
pp. 102-115; Panaiotov, Ilindensko-Preobrazhensko vastanie 1903, pp.
141-146; A.I. Krainikowsky, La question de Macedoine et la diplomatie
europeenne (Paris, 1938), pp. 153-154; A. Pantev, “Anglija i reformenata aktsija v Evropeiska Turtsija (1895-1903),” Istoricheski pregled 6(1971), pp. 23-24; R. Bozhilova, “Sarbija i bulgarskoto natsionalnoos-- 338 -

THE BULGARIAN POLICY

Despite the entry of armed rebel groups into Macedonia in
the winter of 1903-1904 and disputes with Bulgaria over thematter of autonomy or partition and the definition of spheres ofinfluence, the reform process at least led both countries to thenegotiation table.
After continuous negotiations in 1904-1905 the following
contracts were signed: the secret “Contract of Union” supporting reforms in Macedonia by peaceful means, the “Amicable
Contract” toward identical customs and policies, and a tradecontract toward the establishment of an incomplete union ofcustoms, to which Austro-Hungary was utterly opposed. The
dual monarchy achieved not only its economic but also politicalaims through its active support of the cooling of Serbo-Bulgarian relations.9
Emigration of the Young Turks led to the establishment, inParis in 1901, of an organization called the “Ottoman Society ofUnion and Progress,” which later opened branches in a numberof European cities as well as in the bigger Bulgarian towns suchas Sofia, Plovdiv and Rousse. In 1905, a circle of intellectuals
established in Thessaloniki the “Ottoman Society of Liberty,”which entered into direct contact with the Young Turks in Paris.10 Collaboration between the Bulgarian national-liberation
movement in Macedonia and Thrace and the Young Turks began on the basis of anti-absolutism. Diametrically opposed tovoboditelno dvizhenie v Makedonija v nachaloto na XX v.,” in Bulgarskiyat natsionalen vapros sled Berlinskija kongres (do Sotsialisticheskata
revoljutsija) (Sofia, 1986), pp. 7-70; V. Georgiev and S. Trifonov, Istorija na bulgarite 1878-1944 v dokumenti 1:2 [1878-1912] (Sofia, 1996),
pp. 259-330; V. Georgiev and S. Trifonov, Gratskata i srabskata propagandi v Makedonija (Krajat na XIX - nachaloto na XX vek). Novi dokumenti (Sofia, 1995).
9 S. Dimitrov and K. Manchev, Istorija na balkanskite narodi 1879-1918(Sofia, 1975), pp. 289-300; R. Popov, “Kam vaprosa za politicheskite
otnoshenija mezhdu Bulgarija i Sarbija prez 1904 g.,” Studia balkanika
4 [Balkanski prouchvanija - XX vek] (Sofia, 1972), pp. 221-225; H. Kiosev, “Srabsko-bulgarskijat mitnicheski sajuz ot 1905 godina,” Izvestija
na Bulgarskoto istorichesko druzhestvo 24 (1968), pp. 40-43.
10 D. Hakov, Istorija na Turtsija prez XX vek (Ankara, Sofia, 2000), pp.
24-25.

- 339 -

VLADIMIR PAOUNOVSKY

the public opinion in Bulgaria supporting the Young Turk revolution, the Government and Palace treated the change with resentment and suspicion. They considered it to be a new Turkish
manoeuvre for concluding the reform work and escaping fromforeign diplomatic and military interference. In order to tarnish
the prestige of the Young Turks, Royal Prince Ferdinand andthe Government of Malinov rejected the formal vassalage and,on 22 September, 1908 in Tarnovo, pronounced the country an
independent kingdom.11 After the disappointment of the Young
Turk revolution, the right-wing circles in association with the
Bulgarian national-liberation movement in Macedonia andThrace took advantage of new constitutional freedoms to establish, in 1908, the Party of the “Bulgarian Constitutional Clubs”
in support of an autonomous Macedonia and its union with Bulgaria. The leftist forces established the “National-Federal Party” with the similar aim of achieving autonomy. Thus the rebel
struggle was renewed.12
Bulgaria took part in the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 in thename of the liberation of Bulgarians in Macedonia and the Adrianople region, and thousands of them applied to the Military
Ministry in order to gain their freedom in a battle against thedisintegrating Ottoman Empire. The Balkan Wars of 1912-1913
and the agreements that followed marked a change in the “status quo” or “balance” in the region, as proclaimed through theorganization of South Eastern Europe by the Great Powers, andimposed by the dictates of the Berlin Treaty.
The ruling elite in Bulgaria looked toward war as a meansof resolving the national problem. However, by stubbornly following that course of action they led the country to two national
11 Bulgarskata darzhavnost v aktove i dokumenti, pp. 271-272, 276-278[records No. 157, 159]; Vlahov, Kriza v bulgaro-turskite otnoshenija
1895-1908, pp. 21-102, 155-180; Ts. Todorova, Objavjavane na nezavisimostta na Bulgarija 1908 g. i politikata na imperialisticheskite sili
(Sofia, 1960).
12 Georgiev and Trifonov, Istorija na bulgarite 1878-1944 v dokumenti
1:2 [1878-1912], pp. 515-542; Meush, Natsionalno-teritorialni problemi..., p. 59; M. Pandevski, Politicheskite partii i organizatsii vo Makedonija (1908-1912) (Skopje, 1965).

- 340 -

THE BULGARIAN POLICY

catastrophes – the Balkan Wars and World War I. As a result,
new territories were taken away from Bulgaria.13

2 . BETWEEN THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE MINORITIESAND NATIONAL CONSOLIDATION
After the Liberation of Bulgaria from Ottoman domination,
the legal status of the individual representatives of national minorities as citizens of the country and a part of her society wasdetermined by two main factors; international contracts, approved or signed by Bulgaria either of her own free will or byforce, and the country’s domestic legislation. Shortly after 1878,
the Principality of Bulgaria (in geographic terms – northern
Bulgaria) and the autonomous region of Eastern Rumelia (ingeographic terms – southern Bulgaria) were founded in accordance with the Treaty of Berlin (July 1-13, 1878). In 1885, they
united to form a state under the name of the Principality of Bulgaria, which became legally independent after 1908. The system of government as well as the citizens’ participation in exercising and controlling power were regulated by the two fundamental laws of these state structures. These were the Constitution of the Principality of Bulgaria, the so-called Tarnovo
Constitution because it was adopted in the old capital city of
Tarnovo on 16 April, 1879, and the Constitutional Statute of
Eastern Rumelia passed on 14 April, 1879 in the city of Plovdiv.
These acts determined the basis of the internal legal status of thenational minorities in Bulgaria. They did not, for example, discriminate between the Jewish population and other citizens as
13 A. Ganchev, Balkanskata voina 1912-1913 (Sofia, 1939); A. Ganchev,
Mezhdusajuznicheskata voina 1913 (Sofia, 1940); A.S. Toshev, Balkanskite voini 1-2 (Sofia, 1929-1931); A.A. Girginov, Narodnata katastrofa. Voinite 1912/ 1913 g. (Sofia, 1926); A.A. Girginov, Ot voina kam
mir (Sofia, 1937); Balkanskata voina 1912-1913 g. (Sofia, 1961); K.
Kosev, “Prichini, tsel i sashtnost na Balkanskata voina 1912-1913 g. iprichini da ne se postigne obedinenieto na bulgarskija narod,” Izvestija(Institut za voenna istorija - Generalen shtab) 37 (1984), pp. 3-30; Ch.
Spelanzon, Iztochnijat vapros. Pobedeni i pobediteli na Balkanite 1-2(Sofia, 1930).

- 341 -

VLADIMIR PAOUNOVSKY

in some neighboring Balkan countries as well as in some countries belonging to the Great Powers. The main principle underlying the said basic acts was the legal equality of all citizens
regardless of their religion and nationality. There were two prerequisites for adopting this principle. On the one hand, it coincided with the democratic views of the figures of the Bulgariannational revival – both the enlighteners and revolutionaries. In
the “Regulations of the Workers for the Bulgarian People’s Liberation,” the draft statute of the Bulgarian Revolutionary Central Committee in Bucharest drawn up by the national hero Vassil Levski, it was claimed that “through a general revolution to
make a radical reorganization of the present despotic state system and replace it with a democratic republic (people’s ruling)...
the Turkish status of a master should give place to the consent,brotherhood and absolute equality among the all nationalities.
Bulgarians, Turks, Jews, etc., will be equal in every respect, be
it religion, nationality, civil respect – everything. All will fallunder one general law voted in by the common consent of allnationalities.”14
These views, accepted as a sacred tradition in building the
newly liberated country, became the guiding principles for the
Bulgarian Constituent Assembly, which passed the Tarnovo
Constitution. This basic law of state was officially in force from
16 April, 1879 till 4 December, 1947. It proclaimed the following: freedom of worship in Bulgaria for all citizens and foreigners living permanently or temporarily there (Article 40); autonomy in ruling ecclesiastical matters (Article 42); equality in theeye of the law and political rights for all Bulgarian citizens (Articles 57 and 60); the right to hold a post in the state, or public or
military service for all Bulgarian citizens (Article 65); property
rights for all citizens (Article 67); guarantees of the inviolability of person, property and correspondence for all citizens (Articles from 73 to 77 inclusive); and the freedom of meetings, associations and the lodging of personal and collective petitions,

14 D.V. Strashimirov, Levski. Zhivot, dela i izvori (Sofia, 1929), pp. 218226; I. Undzhiev, Vasil Levski (Sofia, 1945), pp. 364-365.

- 342 -

THE BULGARIAN POLICY

claims and applications for all citizens regardless of their religion and nationality (Articles from 82 to 84 inclusive).15
According to the Tarnovo Constitution, the Bulgarian state
was at first defined as politically autonomous, but national,
monolingual and with a dominant Eastern-Orthodox religion.
Not only the principle of citizens’ equality but also that of theequality of nationalities was expressed more firmly in the Constitutional Statute of Eastern Rumelia than in the Constitution.
The Constitutional Statute was drawn up by the European Commission, which was then in session in the city of Plovdiv. Eastern Rumelia was an autonomous region under the direct political and military power of the Ottoman Empire (Article 1). The
state was characterized as being multinational and trilingual.
Turkish, Bulgarian and Greek were proclaimed as the official
languages. They were used by the central and the local administrative authorities, the judiciary and by the private individuals
according to specified rules (Article 22). The state posts were
distributed among the nations proportionally, on the basis of elections (Article 21). The spiritual heads of the ethno-religious
communities, including “the chief rabbi who judges in the chief
town of the region,” participated in the Regional Assembly, theprincipal councils and the commissions in making the district
electoral lists by their right as members (Articles 69 1-o, 125,
165). The following civil obligations, rights and freedoms wereproclaimed in the Constitutional Statute: conscription for all in
the Regional Militia (Article 6), income and property taxation
for all (Article 25), equal rights for all citizens irrespective of
nationality and religion, their access to the public services, honours and posts (Article 24); the right of free movement andplace of habitation (Article 27); freedom of worship and protection in the performance of divine service (Article 28); the ban
15 A. Kalev, “Pravnoto polozhenie na evreite v Bulgarija. Evreite - svobodni i ravnopravni grazhdani v Narodna Republika Bulgarija,” Godishnik na Obshtestvena kulturno-prosvetna organizatsija na evreite v
NRB 1-1 (1966), p. 50; Konstitutsija na Bulgarskoto knjazhestvo i Zakon za izbirane predstaviteli na Obiknovenoto i Velikoto narodno sabranie (Sofia, 1880).

- 343 -

VLADIMIR PAOUNOVSKY

on interference by religious communities in the religious matters of another religion, to impose its own rituals and to require
other communities to observe its own holidays (Article 29); theinviolability of the person (Articles 30 and 32), home (Article33), possessions and property (Articles 36 and 37); the right towork (Article 34), education (Article 38), to legal defense (Article 31), to freedom of opinion and speech (Article 39), to a freepress (Article 40), to call meetings (Article 41), to found societies (Article 42), and to lodge personal and collective claims withthe authorities (Article 43). There were some very conservative
terms regarding the rights of citizens to vote and to be elected.
Electoral qualification was connected with property and education, but there were no restrictions in relation to nationality or
religion (Chapter V, Sections 1 and 2).16
International treaties were the other prerequisite for proclaiming legal equality for all citizens irrespective of religion,
mother tongue, ethnic origin and nationality. These were embodied in the Treaty of Berlin (1878) and the protection of minority rules in Articles 49 to 57 (inclusive) of Section IV of thePeace Treaty of Neuilly (1919) with which the international legal matter of minority protection by the League of Nations wasregulated. The Tarnovo Constitution had to conform to Article
5 of the Treaty of Berlin, which did not provide grounds in Bulgarian law for the restriction of civil and political rights, employment in public and state services, the conferring of titles
and honours or the exercising of certain professions and industry in any part of the Principality because of differences in religion.17 Moreover, Article 8 of the Treaty of Berlin obliged thePrincipality of Bulgaria to observe not only the commercial andmaritime conventions, agreements and contracts concluded between the Great Powers and the Porte that were relevant to the
Ottoman Empire but also the rights and privileges of the foreign
citizens including their right to the consul’s protection and jurisdiction, as specified by capitulations and common practice.
This article guaranteed complete equality of the different na16 Organicheskii ustav na Istochna Rumelija (Plovdiv, 1879).
17 Bulgarskata darzhavnost v aktove i dokumenti, p. 209.

- 344 -

THE BULGARIAN POLICY

tions and the trade of all powers.18 Among these foreign citizens from western European nations and the Ottoman Empire
were also a large number of Jews who lived in the Principalityof Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia. The Tarnovo Constitution
guaranteed that all people living in the Principality had “civilrights” according to the laws (Article 60). The Bulgarian laws
were valid for the estates of the foreigners (Article 63) and in allother cases the situation of foreign citizens was regulated bylaws made especially for them (Article 64). The Constitutional
Statute followed almost word for word Article 8 of the Treaty of
Berlin by regulating that the international contracts and agreements of any character between the Great Powers and the Porte,
either concluded in the past or which might be concluded infuture, were also to be enforced in Eastern Rumelia. The freedoms and privileges acquired by the foreigners were valid also
for the autonomous region despite the conditions of their acquisition (Article 20).19
Based on these specified prerequisites, equality for all Bulgarian citizens was the underlying principle of all official internal legal acts. Of course, this does not mean that there was no
anti-Semitism in Bulgaria, just that the degree to which it did
exist could not be compared to that in most other countries. In
the interest of historical truth we should mention that there weresome restrictions on the Bulgarian Jews regarding access to highmilitary ranks and many posts in the state administration; i.e.,there were restrictions regarding the access of the Jews to the
Military School, the School of the Officers of the Reserve, andthe Bulgarian National Bank.20 These restrictions, however, wereregulated by internal rules and confidential circular letters andtheir application or non-execution depended on various subjective factors. The confidential character of these acts, however,
18 Ibid.
19 Konstitutsija na Bulgarskoto knjazhestvo...; Organicheskii ustav na Istochna Rumelija.
20 V. Paounovski and Y. Ilel, The Jews in Bulgaria between the Holocaust
and the Rescue (Sofia, 2000), pp. 67-71; Kalev, “Pravnoto polozheniena evreite ...,” pp. 50-51.

- 345 -

VLADIMIR PAOUNOVSKY

indicated the fact that they were a way to get round the Bulgarian legislation and, in principle, they were in violation of it.
The struggle against the results of the Berlin Treaty and thedevelopment of the national idea were reflected to a considerable degree in the state policy towards the minorities. In character the state policy did not differ from the policy implemented
by the other Balkan countries, except the fact that the Bulgarianpolicy was much milder. The reason for this was the necessityof taking into consideration the international factors and thenational psychology of the Bulgarians, which was influenced
by some objective circumstances. It should be added that a considerable Bulgarian population remained as a minority in neighbouring Balkan countries, and the Bulgarian politicians had totake this fact into consideration.
Among the main questions for the government of Eastern
Rumelia during its existence from 1879 to 1885 was the cohabitation of the many different ethnic minorities and religious
groups. In principle, the Ottoman government’s traditional methods of suppressing ethnic-religious conflicts were followed. But
in fact, the predominating Bulgarian presence in the government, legislative authorities, court system, police force and army
made it impossible to exert influence in favour of the Bulgariannational cause. The Rumelian government implemented a balanced policy, based on legal principles, towards the minorities
and religious societies. According to the statute, the region was
multinational with three official languages (Turkish, Bulgarianand Greek), which were used by the central and local authorities
according to the two dominating nationalities in the districts andwhile promulgating documents of special social importance(Article 22). While constituting this main law, the principles of
ethnic and, therefore, of religious balance were as well grounded in the principles of equality as those between the ethnic majority and minorities.
The predominating problems connected with the life of theethnic religious communities in the autonomic region had to beresolved by the administrations of two executive authorities –those of national education and internal affairs. The Rumelian
government managed to organize the educational activities in- 346 -

THE BULGARIAN POLICY

terms of ethnic religious tolerance. Religious minority groups
profited from their legal rights concerning self-government andself-support of the primary education and equality in the distribution of budget funds. Each ethnic religious community choseand studied its own particular school subjects in their native
language, had its own internal self-governing board for organizing and operating the schools, and freely sought trained teachers and negotiated with them with regard to salaries.
Referring to the attitude towards the distribution of funds, it
happened that Bulgarian Catholics (Pavlikyani), Bulgarian Protestants and Bulgarian Mohammedans (Pomatsi) were tolerated
despite usually experiencing losses. The department of the Minister of Foreign Affairs was responsible for the religious sects in
the Principality. The fundamental laws of both the Bulgarian
Principality and Eastern Rumelia were grounded on the principle of separating the church from the state, as it was logicallyformulated in Article 62 of the Berlin Treaty for the free contactof religious communities on the borders of the Ottoman Empire
and its autonomous parts with the supreme clerical preceptor.
Thus, outside factors might influence the country since the nationalities as minorities were identical with some religious communities. The Greeks obeyed the Patriarch in Istanbul, Bulgarians the Exarch, Armenians the Gregorian Bishop in Adrianople, formally the subordinate to the Istanbul Patriarch, Turks theCaliph and Sheikh-yul-Islam, the Jews the Main Rabbi in Istanbul, and the Catholics of different nationalities together withforeign citizens the Pope and so on. The Constitutional Statuteguaranteed the freedom of worship – the right of divine service,
the structure of the communities, and the connection of the parishioners with their spiritual heads. The state interfered in thedeeds of the church on matters connected with immovable church
property, the extent of taxes and duties, and licenses for realizing local activities by the clerical heads.
The main nationalities in the new state structure, according
to a Russian census from immediately after the Russo-Turkish
War, were: 70.3% Bulgarians (72.3% in 1885; 64% in towns)
professing Christianity and Islam and comprising a majority oforthodox Christians (mainly Exarchate supporters with some Pa- 347 -VLADIMIR PAOUNOVSKY

triarchate supporters), Catholics (among them Bulgarian Catholics – Pavlikyans – and a few Uniates), Protestants – and 2%
Bulgarian Mohammedans (Pomatsi); 21.4% Turks (21.3% in
1885; 26% in towns) professing Islam; 5.2% Greeks (5.6% in
1885; 26% in towns) professing mainly orthodox Christianity(Patriarchate supporters) with a few Catholics (Uniates); 2.4%
Gypsies (2.9% in 1885; 7% in towns) professing orthodox Christianity (Patriarchate supporters) and Islam; 0.5% Jews (0.7% in
1885; 6% in towns) professing Judaism; and 0.2% Armenians(0.2% in 1885; 4% in towns) professing orthodox Christianity(mainly Gregorians and a few Patriarchate supporters) and Catholicism. A number of foreign citizens also lived in Eastern
Rumelia, mainly professing Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism) and Judaism. The slight variations in the statistics
between years was due to demographic changes, such as migrations (escapes and returns) during and immediately after the war,
especially of the Muslim and, to a lesser extent, Jewish populations, as well as problems connected with self-determination
during the counting of the Slav-speaking Bulgarian Mohammedans and the Romany Muslims, such as the Turks, and Bulgarian
Patriarchate supporters and Wallacians, such as the Greeks.
There were conflicts on a national level between Greek Patriarchate supporters and Bulgarian Exarchate supporters, calledschismatics, in the Plovdiv (1879 and 1885) and Kavakly areas(July 1884). These conflicts were caused by religious arguments
or arguments over church and monastery property as well as
rivalry over bishoprics. The Patriarchate supporters considered
the authorities pro-exarchate and treated them with distrust orcomplained outspokenly that they infringed upon their ethnic
and religious rights. This was particularly noticeable during
elections. The matter of sending Bulgarian bishops to Macedonia, also led to a rise in anti-exarchate feelings among the
Greeks in Plovdiv in 1885. As well as the other religious communities, the Patriarchate supporters were represented by theirbishop as a deputy by right in the Regional Assembly.
Religious tension also existed between Bulgarian Exarchate
supporters and Bulgarian Protestants in Sopot, Panagyurishte
and Merychlery, who were regarded as heretics. In the Bulgar- 348 -THE BULGARIAN POLICY

ian Principality, the Protestant missionaries complained of theirliving conditions, the lack of collaboration and protection by
the authorities in obviating the inconveniences and pressure fromthe Exarchate aimed at stopping their publishing activities. In
Eastern Rumelia, the protestant clerical preceptors were included in the membership of the Regional Assembly by right, as was
one of the two representatives of the Catholics. The other Catholic representative was appointed by the governor. However,there were complaints by the Protestants to the authorities here,
too, despite the fact that a number of representatives of the administration were alumni of Robert College in Istanbul.21
The main guarantee of civil rights and freedoms was the
Department of Internal Affairs, led by the Bulgarians Gavril
Krastevich and Nacho Nachov. Turks participated, according
to their abilities, mostly in the lower executive (with positions
in district administration, prefectural and town councils, and as
assistants to town and village mayors, according to the proportional principle as contained in the Constitutional Statute) andin the legislation authorities (through their eligible and appointed representatives and the deputies by right in the Regional Assembly). They were also present in the gendarmerie and in the
military as commissioned and non-commissioned officers. The
Muslim religious communities were subordinate to the Main
Mufti in Plovdiv, who was, by right, a member of the Regional
Assembly. In contrast to the difficulties in the Principality, in
Rumelia the problems with vakif property and the incomes derived thereof were settled quickly, as in 1883 when a law introduced by the regional governor concerning vakifs was approved.
In 1879, the Muslim clerical preceptors complained of and protested, on behalf of their communities, the demolition of Turkish houses by Bulgarians and other violations by armed rebel
groups.22

21 A. Zheljazkova, B. Aleksiev, and Zh. Nazarska, Mjusjulmanskite obshtnosti na Balkanite i v Bulgarija. Istoricheski eskizi (Sofia, 1997), pp.
152-190.
22 Ibid., pp. 155-158.

- 349 -

VLADIMIR PAOUNOVSKYThere were anti-Semitic persecutions in Karlovo and Stara
Zagora during the Russo-Turkish War, and refugees were later
repatriated with the help of the administrative authorities, which
prevented the resentment demonstrated by local Bulgarians fromturning into outrage. Exarch Yossif I, himself, supported G.
Krastevich in accepting the Jewish refugees back to Karlovo.
Some of the unwanted Jews were accommodated in deserted or
newly established villages. The authorities in Eastern Rumelia
paid considerable attention to case, not only because they followed a policy of prevention and settlement of conflicts among
ethnic religious communities, but also because the matter waspresented at the Berlin Congress as a part of the Jewish affairs
examined there. Acceptance of the Jewish refugees was trouble-free in the towns of Kazanlak, Haskovo, Yambol and Sliven, as their properties had been saved and were given back. The
Jews were represented in the Regional Assembly by the Main
Rabbi (haham-bashi) of the Israelite clerical community with a
Head Office in Plovdiv. He was a deputy by right. The Main
Rabbi received a permit from the regional governor and confirmed the appointment of the Rabbis in the various religious
communities.23
Unlike the Turks and Bulgarians, the Greeks had a higher
percentage of representatives with high educational qualifications, but their small population prevented them from having
more than two district heads. This caused discontent, although
they had taken posts on behalf of the Turks and Bulgarians.
However, despite the assistance of international representatives,
they did not manage to achieve more than was their due at thetime. They participated in the local authorities as mayors, assistant mayors and municipal councilors. They often competed inelections with the Bulgarians, with who they often were in conflict. They were not enthusiastic about participating in militaryand police bodies, but they had their representatives there, too.
The Gypsies were also poorly represented in the army becauseof their nomadic way of life and their reluctance to serve. The
Jews served in the army, while the Armenians tended to prefer
23 Ibid., pp. 148-150.

- 350 -

THE BULGARIAN POLICY

the police force. In most elections, the Jews supported Bulgarian candidates, and so did the Armenians. The Jews did, however, have their representative in the municipal council in theregional capital Plovdiv for several years. This was possible
because of the resolution of the governor to unite, like the Catholics, their few scattered offices into a detached constituency.
Armenians became municipal councilors in Burgas in 1879 andin Plovdiv in 1883. The Gregorian clerical head participated in
the sessions of the Regional Assembly as a deputy by right.24
During the Temporary Russian Government, the Bulgarians were tolerated as part of the policy of persecuting the Turkish element that was considered to be a promoter of Ottoman
interests in the Principality and Eastern Rumelia. Some clashes
between exiled Bulgarians and Turks were permitted along witha series of minor injustices including predetermined legal proceedings, the appropriation of farm lands and movable properties, threats, obstruction of returning refugees (including official decrees, court prolongation of the return of property, a lackof or only symbolic compensation), orders for Muslim property
to be destroyed to make way for new towns and buildings, arbitrariness with Turks and Greeks (whose complaints and petitions were not granted), isolation of the Muslims in the municipality councils, anti-Semitic actions and so on. At the sametime there were attacks and revolts, like the one in the Rodopi
Mountains, where the Bulgarian population was the victim. The
solution of the refugee problem in the Principality and Rumelia
caused by the return of many Muslims in 1879-1882 also created a number of difficulties involving ethnic conflicts between
Bulgarians and Greeks, on the one hand, and Turks on the other.
The authorities in the Principality uncompromisingly continued
to implement the Russian policy, refusing to accept large groupsof tens of thousands of refugees or leaving their complaints unanswered. The Government in Eastern Rumelia pursued a more
flexible policy due to the menace of Turkish military interference and because of the supervision of the foreign commissars
and diplomats. In 1879, the Porte, without taking into consider24 Ibid., pp. 140-152.

- 351 -

VLADIMIR PAOUNOVSKY

ation the agreements and according to a British suggestion, flooded the Burgas coast with tens of thousands of refugees unloaded
from British ships, provoking an ethnic conflict as, according to
the British Vice-Council, Bulgarian-Greek rebel groups attacked
Turkish villages in the Messemvria region, and police officers
were involved in murders, rapes and thefts in the Burgas region.
Again, according to much diplomatic information, Turks weretormented in the Stara Zagora region and systematically threatened by Bulgarian gymnastic associations. The Government of
Rumelia, which was continuously criticized for its failures inconnection with the refugee problem, replied to the Ottomancomments and explained the situation before the European Commission by means of refutations and the findings of mixed survey commissions and so on. With this, financial aid began to be
granted, state lands given for establishing new villages, charities were supported and encouraged, and the Bulgarian gymnastic associations were dismissed. The period from 1882 to 1885
saw the start of mass emigration of the Turkish population from
Eastern Rumelia (Pazardjik, Srara Zagora, Nova Zagora, Yambol, Chirpan and other regions) and from the Principality (morethan 70 thousand people from the Shoumen region). There were
ethnic conflicts in the border regions as well, where, because ofrobberies and separatism, the police and army interfered. A
particular point of discussion involved cases in the Kardjali and
Aitos regions, where Turkish villages were struck.25
According to the census of 1881, the ethnic make up of the
Bulgarian Principality was as follows: Bulgarians 67%, Turks
26%, Romanians (Wallachians) 2%, Gypsies 1.9%, Bulgarian
Mohammedans (Pomaks) 0.9%, Jews 0.7%, Tatars 0.6%, Greeks
0.6%, and Armenians 0.2%.
Islam was professed by the Turks (Sunnites and Shi’ites),
Tatars, Circassians, Yuruks, Bulgarian Mohammedans (Pomaks),
Allians (Kazalbashes) and some Gypsies. It is worth mentioning the Gagauses, an ethnic group of uncertain origin, who were
Turkish in language and Orthodox in religion, and who num25 Ibid., pp. 118-140.

- 352 -

THE BULGARIAN POLICY

bered 12,000 people in 1880 and 9,329 people in 1910. The
community was under the clerical supervision of the Istanbul
Patriarchate. Besides Islam, the following religions were also
professed: Orthodox Christianity (Exarchate supporters, Patriarchate supporters and Gregorians), Catholicism (Bulgarian
Catholics and Uniates) and Protestantism (American Board,
Methodists, Baptists, and Lutherans).
As in the Principality, intolerance, to some degree, on religious or ethnic grounds existed between Bulgarian Mohammedans and Bulgarians, the Orthodox and Muslim communities,
Catholics and Protestants, Shi’ites and Sunnites among theMuslims, and the Ashkenazim and Sephardim among the Jewry.
The founders of the Tarnovo Constitution did not take into
consideration some of the articles of Berlin Treaty, such as Articles 5, 8 and 12, which dealt with matters associated with therights of minorities and religious communities. According tothese articles, it was guaranteed that religion, as professed by
the citizens, could not be used as grounds for restricting theirpersonal and political rights or as a impediment to their appointment to jobs or professions. The state could not interfere in thehierarchical structure or in the relations between clerical heads
and their communities. Emigrant Muslims were able to maintain rights over their properties and could sell or lease them.
The Principality was obliged to establish a mixed commission
for solving the problem of the vakif properties. The lack ofthese decrees in the fundamental laws of the country gave theauthorities the latitude to avoid dealing with the problems facedby the minorities. Besides the abovementioned restrictions, there
were a number of cases in which Jewish doctors were deprivedof their rights to practice their profession because of their religious affiliations or because of problems of their faith. It waspossible for the country to interfere in the cadre deeds of religious communities by dismissing Muftis, appointing clergymen
who were not approved by the religious authorities and did not
acknowledge the clerical heads of the Patriarchate supporters
and Gregorians, implementing police supervision of bishops inbishoprics and so on. Basic legislation regarding the educational system created serious obstructions for the schools supported- 353 -

VLADIMIR PAOUNOVSKY

by the religious communities of the Israelites, Gregorians, Patriarchate supporters, Muslims and others, as the right of theiralumni to continue their education in the state schools was restricted. The distribution of funds was either absent or restricted for separate ethnic religious communities. The state stimulated education in the newly established municipality and stateschools, as their teachers were granted a number of privileges.
These schools were financed normally, while the others werelargely self-supporting despite being controlled by the state. With
regard to financing, preference was given to ethnic or confessional groups, which had the potential to “Bulgarize” themselves,
such as the Bulgarian Mohammedans, Gagauses, Wallachians
and Bulgarian Catholics (Pavlikyans), as well as those who taught
school subjects in the Bulgarian language, such as the Jews andArmenians. In the Principality, the so-called “regime of capitulations,” inherited by the Ottoman Empire and grounded in the
Berlin Treaty, was not accepted. As a part of radical agrarianreform, the forced confiscation of Muslim property was implemented by the Bulgarians. Under the patronage of the authorities, a policy that delayed the return of the property to refugees
was introduced. In this sense, laws for expropriation, even forthe breaking the Constitution, were introduced. Even the Ottoman vakif commissar was not acknowledged and, subsequently,
his work was obstructed. Thus, the problem with the vakifs was
not solved, and reflected the financial situation of the Muslim
institutions, which began to decay. Vakifs were either not or
only partially returned. A part of them were expropriated infavour of the state or municipalities, and the buildings were demolished or left until they fell down. Many Turkish schools
were closed because of a lack of funds. The laws of “seigniorial
and farm lands” and the acts of sub-law contradicted the texts of
the Constitution on the equitable and normatively based compensation for property.
The imperfection of the Tarnovo Constitution and the consolidation of the state with the dominant religion and language
also provided possibilities for infringement upon the rights of
the religious communities as well as for the state to interfere
through the power of the Minister of Foreign Affairs by inspec- 354 -THE BULGARIAN POLICY

tion of the management of their deeds. The fundamental law
foresaw equality before the law for citizens with Bulgarian citizenship. The foreign citizens among Catholics, Protestants,
Israelites, Patriarchate supporters and Muslims immediately fell
into an unequal position, as the state was able to refuse themestates and licenses to practice their professions, and to expel
them as school trustees and to close their schools.26
The representatives of the minorities were elected for the
National Assembly and Council of State according to their party appurtenance or their political affiliations.
The policy of the Bulgarian Principality towards the minorities was influenced by the interference of Bulgarian Orthodox
Church, which acted against the interests of the Catholics, Protestants and the Patriarchate in Istanbul. The state policy towards the minorities was also influenced by its foreign policy,
which was subject to the idea of national unity of the Bulgarianlands parceled out by the Berlin Treaty. Thus, the attitude towards the Muslims and Patriarchate supporters depended on
Ottoman and foreign pressure for their abiding sovereignty towards the Sultan and the implementation of article 23 of the
Berlin Treaty, connected with the necessity of reforms in Macedonia and Thrace. The steps against Romanian schools were a
26 Zh. Nazurska, Bulgarskata darzhava i neinite maltsinstva 1879-1885(Sofia, 1999), pp. 7-64, 81-115; G. Todorov, Vremennoto rusko upravlenie v Bulgarija (1877-1879) (Sofia, 1958), pp. 125-185; G. Todorov,“Urezhdaneto na agrarnija i bezhanskija vapros v Knjazhestvo Bulgarija v parvite godini sled Osvobozhdenieto (1879-1881),” Istoricheski
pregled 1 (1961), pp. 25-52; G. Todorov, “Politikata na bulgarskite
burzhoazni pravitelstva po agrarnija i bezhanskija vapros sled darzhavnija
prevrat ot 1881 g. (1881-1886),” Istoricheski pregled 2 (1961), pp. 332; Statelova, Diplomatsijata na Knjazhestvo Bulgarija 1879-1886, pp.
97-102; T. Dobriianov, T. Bakalov, K. Georgiev, Ts. Doinova, M. Kovacheva, R. Popov, and E. Statelova, eds., Vanshnata politika na Bulgarija. Dokumenti i materiali 1 [1879-1886] (Sofia, 1978), pp. 52-53,
60-62, 64-65, 67-68, 70-74, 92-119, 151-152, 205-206, 393-394, 428430, 483, 707-708 [records No. 19, 25, 29, 31, 33, 44, 46, 47, 63, 95,
184, 206, 229, 388]; V. Georgiev and S. Trifonov, Istorija na bulgarite
1878-1944 v dokumenti 1:1 [1878-1912] (Sofia, 1994), pp. 555-557, 558562, 573-581, 587-588, 593-596.

- 355 -

VLADIMIR PAOUNOVSKY

means of implementing pressure for the solution of the borderquestion and the rights of the Bulgarians in Northern Dobroudja. The policy towards the minorities was influenced by outside
interference from Great Britain, France, Austro-Hungary andothers through diplomatic missions in defense of the rights of
the Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and Jews. Contrary pressure was provided by Russia through its traditions of state building from the time of the Temporary Russian Government andthe activity of Russian colonels, clerks and alumni in the government of the country. The first measures against the Muslims,
Greeks and Jews dated from that time. During the regime of theattorneys, some steps were taken against the Jews to obstructtheir economic enterprises in the Danube and Black Sea towns.
Bulgaria pursued a policy of Bulgarization of the national selfconsciousness of Bulgarian Mohammedans, Gagauses, Bulgarian Catholics and Wallachians as a counterstep to the actions of
the Balkan countries in relation to the Bulgarian population there.
With regard to taxes, the Bulgarian Mohammedans were in a
privileged position compared with the Turks. In that way, theBulgarian policy stimulated the emigration of the Turks and theincorporation of the Bulgarian Mohammedans, especially thosewith a Turkish consciousness.27 It was this external factor that
helped determine the Bulgarian policy towards the minorities
till the end of World War I.

3 . NATIONAL INCORPORATION AND THE RETURN TO THE
WITHDRAWN FAITH
As a result of the centuries-old policy of the Ottoman Empire aimed at the Islamization on the Balkans, some of the Christian nations, such as the Serbians, Greeks, Bulgarians and others, were forced to adopt Muslim religion by the means of various voluntary and forceful methods. Bulgarian Muslims numbered about 400 thousand people and populated more than 500
villages in the Rodopi Mountains, Western Thrace and Mace27 Nazarska, Bulgarskata darzhava..., pp. 205-229, 232-236; Statelova,
Diplomatsijata na Knjazhestvo Bulgarija 1879-1886, pp. 102-105.

- 356 -

THE BULGARIAN POLICY

donia on the eve of the Balkan War.28 According to the San
Stefano Treaty, a part of these regions was included in the landsof Bulgarian Principality. But on the strength of the Berlin Treaty,
almost all the regions populated by Bulgarian Muslims were
given back to the Ottoman Empire. After the Russo-Turkish
War (1877-1878), due to religious and political reasons and at
the instigation of Turkish agitators, Bulgarian Muslims fromseveral villages in the Dyovlen region opposed the authorities
in Eastern Rumelia and established their own autonomous government. After the union of Eastern Rumelia with the Bulgarian Principality, the Dyovlen region and the Kardjaly district werejoined to the Ottoman Empire according to the Tophane Act of
5 April, 1886 in return for the Turkish refusal to keep garrisonsin Eastern Rumelia. Only a small territory, populated by Bulgarian Muslims, was included in Eastern Rumelia – the autonomic administrative region, which was under the direct political and military power of the Sultan. On 6 September, 1885,
this very small territory was integrated with the new united state
after Union. This Muslim population was considered by theauthorities to be Bulgarian. It differed only in its religion fromthe majority of orthodox Bulgarian Christians, the few Bulgarian Catholics, Bulgarian Protestants and others. They all had
their rights of citizenship, which were guaranteed by the Tarnovo Constitution, and the Muslims could profess Islam freely andfollow their customs without problem. On the other hand, theBulgarian Muslims in Thrace, the Rodopi Mountains and Macedonia, who remained in the lands of the Ottoman Empire, wereconsidered by the official authorities to be Turkish. They were
persuaded to accept this in spite of language differences.
After the Berlin Congress (1878), people of several different nations continued to live in the European territories of the
Ottoman Empire according to their ethnic origin and religious
affiliations, such as Bulgarians, Serbians, Wallachians and Albanians, and who were not forgotten by the respective Balkan

28 S.N. Shishkov, Bulgaro-mohamedanite (pomatsi). Istoriko zemepisen inarodonauchen pregled s obraztsi (Plovdiv, 1936), p. 34.

- 357 -

VLADIMIR PAOUNOVSKY

countries. The common interest in opposing the Ottoman Empire prevailed over any discrepancies among the young Balkancountries for a short time. In 1912, the Balkan Union was established among Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro, by themeans of synallagmatic agreements, directed at a decisive retribution against the Ottoman Empire and liberation of compatriots living on its borders. The Peace Treaty of 17 May, 1914 in
London put an end to the Balkan War. The Ottoman Empire lostits European possessions in the North and East from the MidiaEnos line. The Bulgarian military-administrative authorities
established the Lozengrad Military Province in the newly liberated lands in eastern and western Thrace and the Rodopi Mountains, and the Seres Military Province in Eastern Macedonia,
where compact masses of Bulgarians of Christian and Muslim
faith lived. From the very first months of the Balkan War, according to the initiative of King Ferdinand, the government of
Ivan Evstatiev Geshov, the Holy Synod of Bulgarian Orthodox
Church and leaders of Macedonia-Adrianople Revolutionary
Organization, and the Bulgarian civil, military and church authorities realized a policy for receiving the mass of Bulgarians
who had previously adopted the Muslim faith to the bosom of
the Eastern Orthodox Church. It was considered that, with theliberation of Thrace and Macedonia from Ottoman dominationand the geo-political union of the Bulgarian nation, the processof conversion would help in the consolidation of the nation andin the consolidation of Bulgarian State power in the newly liberated lands. Thus, the traditional attempts of the Ottoman
Empire at political influence by the means of confusing the national consciousness of the population with its devotion to theIslam and the customs established during the ages had to beprevented. Thousands of Bulgarian Muslims were mobilized in
the army of Ottoman Turkey during that war. In the Kardjali
region, they were included in the military corps, which first retreated under pressure from the Macedonia-Adrianople army ofvolunteers and was later captured. A considerable number ofthe captured Bulgarian Muslims, after they had been sent to theinterior of Bulgaria, were converted and later set free in order togo back to their homes.
- 358 -

THE BULGARIAN POLICY

During the conversion of the Bulgarian Muslims, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church had the full support of the state authorities, leading public and political circles and even of the influential Slavofile societies in Russia. The Holy Synod sent ecclesiastical missions of priests and teachers to regions with such
populations for the realization of the conversion, religious education and instruction in everyday customs, and agitation for
the establishment of churches and chapels. The authority of the
Plovdiv bishopric held sway over the regions of the Rodopi
Mountains and the newly liberated lands in western Thrace andeastern Macedonia. To aid in the mass conversion, the authorities made use of the hard conditions caused by the severe winteras well as the intensive military actions that had resulted in thedestruction of a number of villages. The population was overtaken by hunger and epidemics of cholera, typhus and other diseases. Bulgarian authorities rendered assistance to the Bulgarian Muslims, giving them money and delivering food, clothes
and other essentials. A part of the population thus adopted theChristianity hoping to escape the hard conditions as soon as
possible. To encourage reception into the bosom of the church,
the authorities used social psychology to make the most of themass euphoria caused by the military victories from the end of1912 to the summer of 1913 and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. The ritual of the conversion included a religious ceremony, the adoption of Bulgarian names, replacing the fez and yashmak of the Muslims with the hat and kerchief of the Christians,
and the choosing of a godfather by the newly converted person.
Thus, according to Christian tradition, a deep relationship wasestablished between the two persons. In the villages that wereconverted en masse, mosques were reconstructed into churches
and the old Turkish schools were transformed into Bulgarian
ones for the education of children and adults. The conversionof the Bulgarian Muslims was done both voluntarily and forcefully, but with an almost complete lack of knowledge by thegeneral public. The authorities did not want to acknowledge
the process and it was a matter of obvious concern for militarycensors. Separate articles on the past, the way of life and thecustoms of that population as well as the necessity of its conver- 359 -VLADIMIR PAOUNOVSKY

sion were published in the semi-official newspaper “Mir” [Peace]
and the printed organ of the Holy Synod “Tsarkoven Vestnik”[Church Newspaper], which also gave information about thedisastrous situation of the Bulgarian Muslims as well as about
the aid being given them. The independent newspaper “Dnevnik”[Journal] briefly reported the conversion of some villages in the
Rodopi Mountains. It was assumed that the total number of
Bulgarian Muslims converted in the Rodopi Mountains, western Thrace and Macedonia was around 200 thousand.
After the catastrophe that met Bulgaria in the Interallied
War, which started on 16 June, 1913 and finished with the Bucharest Treaty of 10 August, 1913, King Ferdinand and the government of V. Radoslavov were forced to radically change theirattitude towards the Muslims in western Thrace. The Turkish
re-occupation of eastern Thrace and the establishment of the
Gjumjurdjina Autonomic Republic, saw a cruel retribution
against the Bulgarian Christian population and the newly converted people, who did not revert to their former religion. Massive reversions to Islam began again. According to the Istanbul
Peace Treaty of 29 September, 1913, the eastern and central
Rodopi Mountains and the White Sea coasts remained within
the borders of Bulgaria, but the Muslims in these regions had
the right to keep their Turkish citizenship for four years. All
people liable to military service were excused. The people whowanted to emigrate during that period could keep their estatesand movable property could be moved duty free. The new attitude towards recognizing the religion of the Muslims in the country and, especially, towards Bulgarian Muslims had a direct connection with the political orientation of the King and the Government towards the Central Forces and Turkey. During theelections in 1914, the Liberal coalition of V. Radoslavov reliedon the strong support of the Muslims. Turkish emissaries were
let into the newly liberated lands and, thus, even more favourable conditions were created for the process of returning the
newly converted Bulgarians to Islam and emigration of a part ofthem to Turkish lands. Not many of them remained true to their
new Christian faith.29- 360 -

THE BULGARIAN POLICY

By signing the Treaty of Neuilly, Bulgaria assumed an unqualified obligation to protect the minorities. The clauses in
Section IV, however, did not make for a considerable change inthe legal status of the national minorities in Bulgaria. Guarantees of the rights and freedoms of the Jewish population to beconsidered as individual citizens and as organized groups existed in the Tarnovo Constitution and in the state legal system as awhole. Bulgaria, being a defeated country, deprived of territories with large Bulgarian populations, was interested in adopting the specified articles of Section IV as well as the convention
for the freedom of minority emigration. Thus, according to Article 49 of the Treaty of Neuilly, Bulgaria was obliged to recognize the protection of minority decrees as basic laws. There
were no laws, rules and official orders that could contradict theseorders or make them invalid.30 The adoption of the Nation Defense Act by the majority of the 25th Ordinary National Assembly in the years during the Second World War was an absoluterevision of this section of the Treaty of Neuilly and violation ofdomestic laws.31

29 V. Georgiev and S. Trifonov, Pokrastvaneto na bulgarite mohamedani
1912-1913 – dokumenti (Sofia, 1995), pp. 1-11.
30 B. Kesjakov and D. Nikolov, eds., Nioiski dogovor (Sofia, 1994), pp.
18-19.
31 Paounovski and Ilel, The Jews in Bulgaria..., p. 71.

- 361 -