An Historical Account to the process of changing Türk-Tatar
Diaspora Consciousness in North East Asia
between 1898 and the 1950s(1898 年から 1950 年代における北東アジアのテュルク・タタール・ディアスポラの意識変容過程についての歴史的な考察)

Abstractof Ph.D. thesis in Sociology
Usmanova Larisa R.
(Academic supervisors: Pr.Toshihiko Kishi, Pr.Osamu Inoue)

The University of Shimane (Japan)
The Institution for North East Asia
2006

The importance of the research. From the end of the Cold War, alongside theGlobalization process, the Migration theory as well as Community and Diaspora
Studies have been rapidly developing. However, the theoretical frameworks of theseworks are still indeterminate and require further historical and sociological research. Inaddition to the significance of the historical study of the Türk-Tatar emigration into
North East Asia, and its relations with the host countries for Russian-Japaneserelations, the sociological research of the transformation of its identity andconsciousness would prove useful in our understanding of the current changes in worldsocial structures that are characterized now by multinational diversity and by intensive
migration processes. Moreover, the research into the Türk-Tatar communities, as aminority with a national Islamic religious identity, would give a historical example of
how to resolve the problems surrounding the “clash of civilizations” and creating atolerant society, that have become especially relevant following the events of September
11th 2001. Since the end of the Cold War, a study of the Russian migration movement
into the North East Asian region has been developing steadily, thanks to the liberationof ideological approaches and access to new materials. However, researchers have notpaid attention to the national structure of “the regional Russian Diaspora”, to a division
based on the national-ethnical features.
The basic purposes of the research: 1) to show the historical transformation of thetransnational consciousness of the Türk-Tatar Diaspora in North East Asia between
1898 and the 1950s divided into five periods that would be specified in each Türk-Tatar
community; 2) to analyze the ideologies of the three main leaders, and the influence of
their ideologies on changes in the Türk-Tatar Diaspora’s behavior and consciousness; 3)
to analyze the organizational structure and institutions of the Diaspora, and its
relations with the homeland and the Russian Emigration, as well as with the hostcountries, particularly, involving Japanese Islamic policy; 4) to offer the Milli Bairaq
newspaper as a main source for Türk-Tatar Diaspora research; 5) to present unknown
historical facts, names and figures based on analysis; 6) to compile a catalog of thearticles of the newspaper, and a list of immigrants’ names.
The research methods: Two main approaches, historical and sociological, are used in
the research. For ease, the historical research of Türk-Tatar Diasporic development wasdivided into five periods, according to the history of the Russian Diaspora development.
To explain the adaptability of the Diaspora and its acceptance by the host country weused the cultural concept of Constructivism theories in the International Politics Studythat treats the Diaspora and Diasporic communities as transnational actors inInternational Relations. We used the following research techniques: questionnaire2(personal-life-history interviews of living immigrants); document study: analysis ofprimary documents (organizational records, memoirs); analysis of the print mass media.
The First Chapter “The theoretical approaches to researching the Türk-Tatar
Diaspora in North East Asia” presents analysis of the Türk-Tatar emigration’sbibliography, the historical and sociological substantiation for using the term
“Türk-Tatar Diaspora, or Türk-Tatar Emigration” and of the theoretical basis. The
primary object of and sources for the research is the newspaper of the Türk-Tataremigrants in North East Asia, Milli Bairaq. As additional materials, we use the Tatarémigré periodicals: the magazines Yeraq Šäréq, Yaŋa Yapon Mөһbiri, Milli Yul-Yaŋa

Milli Yul. Other additional sources include: 1) the reports kept in the archives of theJapanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Shanghai
Municipal Police and the Russian Federal Security Service, 2) the materials of the State
Archive of the Republic of Tatarstan, and especially, the private archive of Gayaz Ishaki,3) Russian periodicals containing information relating to Türk-Tatar immigrants, 4)interviews, private documents and photographs of immigrants.
We understand “Diaspora” as a culturally outstanding group, members of whichshare common ideas about homeland, characterised by the collective ties, groupsolidarity and a demonstrative attitude to the homeland that has a common base but
not a demographic or ethnical phenomenon. The Constructivism concept ofInternational Politics, (the “cultural theory” of Wendt), on which we based constructionof the research hypothesis, let us explain not only the change in diplomatic relations
between the home and host countries, but also the actions of the host country toreconstruct the international system in order to change the Diaspora status-quo.
According to this theory, Diaspora and the host country construct a collective (common)
identity, which makes its impact on the latter’s foreign and internal politics andencourages it to reform the system of international relations. Construction of a commonidentity

follows

anevolutional

processofsocial

communications

betweenrepresentatives of the host country and the Diaspora. Since the end of the nineteenth
century, when Russian national policy had become more oppressive towards theTürk-Tatar Muslim nations inside the Empire, (in other words, to destroy the common
identity with the homeland), immigrating Türk-Tatar intellectuals started to look to an
outside power for support. So, during the pre-revolutionary period the discussions ofGabdurashid Ibragim with Japanese intellectuals on modernization, helped to create acollective identity on a “common fate” base – an aspiration to unite the East (Asia)
against the colonial policy of the West. In the middle of the 1920s, international

3

accommodationism, as part of Japanese ideology was displaced by regionalism andculminated in the Declaration of the New Order in East Asia in 1938, Türk-Tatars
offered, besides the Islamic argument of a “common fate”, the “Altaic brotherhood”
argument for constructing the regional identity: M.G.Kurbangali’s argument based onconstructivism, the “homogeneity” factor which met Japanese expectations. Afterestablishing Manchu quo in 1932, Japan made an appeal for support of its foreign policy
to Muslims all over the world, by promoting an image of “Muslim Japan”. By the end of
the 1930s and the beginning of the 1940s, all previous transnational activities of theTürk-Tatar Diaspora and Japanese intellectuals, politicians and special agents played apart in the Japanese war strategy. The Japanese government utilized the state “Islamicpolicy”, (kaikyo seisaku), to mobilize the Muslims of East Asia and the Near East tochange the whole system of international relations. In the 1930s, a leader of theTürk-Tatar Diaspora Gayaz Ishaki in the West was aiming to create the nation-stateusing Islamic and Anticommunist bases of collective identity with Japan in the coming
system of international relations. But at the outbreak of WWII, he refused tocollaborate because he was disappointed in the policy methods. It was clear that thecollective identity and common interests were not enough to gain the desired results,and the lack of mutually acceptable foreign policy practices of both the host country andthe homeland caused rejection of the Diaspora collaborationism and re-emigration.
Our choice to apply the term “Türk-Tatar Diaspora” is based on the historical facts.
The first is the use of the Tatar language as a language of communication insidecommunities, as well as the language of the immigrants’ printed material. The second
argument was based on the historical resolution of the National Assembly of theAll-Russia Muslim Nations (Millet Mejilise) that took place in November 1917 in Ufa atwhich it was decided to re-name all the Turkic population in the Volga-Ural (Idel-Ural)
region as “Türk-Tatars”. The third argument was an acceptance of this name by thehost country of the given historical periods. We argue that “Türk-Tatar Diaspora” is themost preferable definition compared to the others available. This is a community ofimmigrants from Russia which shared a collective identity with the following
characteristics: 1) acceptance of the Tatar language (or one of the Türk-Tatar grouplanguages) as the native one, 2) personal identification with the labels “RussianMuslims”, “Russian Turks” and later “Türk-Tatars of Idel-Ural”, 3) acceptance of Islamas the crucial religious component of identity, 4) sharing the myth about the history of
the Türk-Tatar nation’s conception and development in Eurasia.
In contrast to Turkish researchers who divide the migration into periods correlating
to Turkish and Japanese history, we correlate it with a system of historical periods of4the Russian migration into Harbin. It is possible to divide the Türk-Tatar presence inNorth-East Asia into five historical periods and show how their identity shifts provoked
the community evolution from a Muslim mahallyah into a national community with adistinct political goal, the latter being recovery of national statehood, together with theretention of the Islamic origins of spiritual life.
Chapter 2 “The Türk-Tatar Diaspora leaders: their views and differences” is an
overview of the ideologies of the Diaspora leaders. The ideological goal of the three
Türk-Tatar Muslim leaders was found to be the same by Japanese at that time, andcalled for the “establishment of the nation-state”. However, the differences in themethods to achieve this were said to be so extreme, that the three men were not able tocome to any kind of consensus between themselves. All leaders were involved in theJapanese Islamic policy that was, partly, based on the Islamist activities of G.Ibragim in
Southern Asia, the national activity of G.Ishaki’s movement in Manchuria, andM.-G.Kirbangali’s idea of the establishment of a second Manchu-quo in Turkistan.
Chapter 3 “The Organizational Structure of the Türk-Tatar Diaspora in North East
Asia and Relations with the Host Country” provides historical details and apresentation of the organizational structure of the Diaspora (three Congresses andactivity of the Central Board of the Idel-Ural Türk-Tatars in the Far East) and its
periodicals (the newspaper Milli Bairaq), as well as its relations with the Russian
Diaspora and host countries (involvement in Japanese Islamic policy). The analyses
and a detailed history of the newspaper “Milli Bairaq” are given as part of the Chapter.
In the Fourth Chapter “The Changing Diasporic Identity between1898 and the 1950s:
Construction of the Collective Identity with the Host Country”, the historical andsociological analysis of the changes in the Diaspora’s identity in each historical period isgiven.
During the first period (1898-1917) Turkic nations in Russia identified themselves
as “Russian Muslims” in searching for a common identity with the homeland state. The
second period (1923-1933) is characterized by a massive flow of Turk immigrants from
Russia into Europe and East Asia and by their attempts to construct the commonidentity with the host countries on an anticommunist and anti-Soviet basis. The
concept of “Altaic brotherhood” presented to Japan by immigrant Kurbangali proposed
a construction of collective identity with the Diaspora in 1920s based on theconstructivist factor of “homogeneity” and to fit with the formation of a Japanese5regional identity. During the third period (1933-1939), the national identity of theTürk-Tatar emigrants in Northeast Asia was becoming stronger: a leader G.Ishaki
recognized by almost all immigrants had appeared, as well as the idea to return to thehomeland and to revive the independent nation-state, “Idel-Ural”. As a consequence,
the national part of “the Cultural Committees of the Idel-Ural Türk-Tatars” which
submitted to the Central Committee (Merkez) was allocated according to the mahallyah.
The Diaspora managed to achieve wide recognition from the Japanese authorities.
Tatar leaders tried to use the temporary situation in international affairs to attain theirnational political goals, and to create the nation-state in the frame of a new world
system in the event of the defeat of the Soviet Union in a war with Germany and Japan.
During the fourth period (1939-1945), after the German invasion of Poland in
September 1939, the Türk-Tatar leader G.Ishaki became disappointed in German
national policy methods, and refused to collaborate with them. However, the Diaspora
could not refuse to cooperate with Japan because of their relations based on thecommon identity. But the Diaspora, during this period, became passive. After the end of
the war, the Diaspora entered the fifth period. The leaders were arrested by the Soviets.
The main bulk of the immigrants was able to move to Turkey and was granted
citizenship in 1953. Others went on to Australia and the USA where they establishedthe modern Tatar Diasporas.
Chapter 5 “The Türk-Tatar Communities in the North East Asia: Historical andSociological Features” comprises the historical-sociological novels of each Türk-Tatar
community, with details, names, pictures and statistics. In the part “The difference

between the Türk-Tatar Diaspora and other communities in the region” we try todescribe the features of the Diaspora comparing it with other Diasporas in the region.
Last part of the Chapter contents a description of the Türk-Tatar Diaspora features andmakes “the difference between the Türk-Tatar Diaspora and other Diaspora
communities in the region”.
In the appendix, there are four lists: a catalog of newspaper articles, names ofimmigrants (1195 names), list of Türk-Tatar communities and list of pictures (237photopictures), which also became the primary sources for the research. The thesis ends
with a conclusion illustrating its originality, a glossary and a bibliography.
It is possible to consider the thesis as a contribution to the study of Russian Turk
Nationalism. The Türk-Tatar Diaspora in North East Asia was a step in thedevelopment of the Russian Turks Nationalism, but not the Diaspora Nationalism ofthe Turks of Turkey. The Türk-Tatar Diaspora in North East Asia passed through five6historical steps. From the sociological point of view, the dynamics of Türk-Tatar
Diaspora development in North East Asia do not meet the general schema: from labor
migration to immigrant community and, then, to regional consolidation above countries.
The specific of the Türk-Tatar Diaspora was a Muslim-type community that was a formof the self-organization used by the Russian Muslims for 400 years after the loss of their
independence. Thanks to this same style of community, Russian Muslim immigrants
were able to adapt faster abroad than Russians who had to create a new form of theimmigrant existence. Moreover, the Muslim community of Türk-Tatar immigrants wasable to transform into a national community and not integrate with the Asian nations.
The analysis of the ideologies of the three main leaders, and the influence of theirideologies on changes in the Türk-Tatar Diaspora’s behavior and consciousness gives
rise to an important conclusion that the leaders played a significant role in establishingstrong ties with the host country: Ibragim created a positive image for the acceptance of
the Russian Muslims; Kurbangali added the kinship argument; Ishaki centralized theDiaspora to better utilize it for Japanese policy goals.
The detailed analysis of the available facts on organizational structure andinstitutions of the Diaspora, and its relations with the homeland and the Russian
Emigration, as well as with the host countries, particularly involving Japanese Islamic
policy, shows that 1) Diaspora had a network type of its structure, especially in third
national step of its historical development; 2) Diaspora had a strong intention ofself-determination and, hence, sometimes demonstrated the same anti-Russian positionin attitude to those who lived in homeland as well as in the Diaspora; 3) Diaspora
demonstrated its friendliness to Japanese during almost all periods of its presence inthe region and treated Turkey as a “second homeland”.
There are two sides (internal and external) of the Türk-Tatar Diaspora’s
significance: the Russian Turk Nationalism itself and the host countries. On the one
hand, the Diaspora was able to transform its internal structure and developed a form of
independent exterritorial nation (it had a financial base and national taxation; anational school system, a publishing house and newspaper; a religious system including
mosques and imams; a national ideology and practical goals to gain its nation-state; it
had no military force but, due to the significant number of former White Army
personnel, would certainly have had the capability). We propose that the Türk-Tatars,
like the Jews, were able to create a “nation without territory”. The external significance,in our opinion, is its influence on the regions: introducing the Turk and Islamic cultures(from promoting languages in schools to publishing periodicals) and becoming amediator between the Japanese and Turk-Islamic cultures, supporting the penetration

7

of Western culture by trade of Western goods, anintellectual contribution to thePan-Asiatic concept of the Japanese strategy, and being one of its partners in the
anticolonial alliance against Russia (USSR) and Britain. We define the Türk-Tatar
Diaspora as a “victim” type of diaspora community and believe that it only among other
Diasporic communities historically and ethnically met all requirements to be treated aspartners by the Japanese at that time. Being “victim”, it was still powerful enough to bean independent political actor and tried to play its own game.

Originality
1. The thesis presents the historical development of the transnational consciousness
and identity of the Turk-Tatar Diaspora in North East Asia between 1898 and 1950s,
specifying five periods and each community, from a sociological point of view. Based on
previously untapped documents, the thesis reconstructs the specification of therelations with Japan, as the host country with the Russian emigration, historicaldetails of internal life including statistics and immigrants’ names. A list of immigrants’names is included as a primary resource for future research.
2. The term “Türk-Tatar Diaspora” is explained from both a historical andsociological point of view.
2. An attempt is made to explain the ideology of the main leaders in their attitudes
to the Diaspora.
3. The internal structure of the Diaspora and their activities are analyzed.
4. The main research source for the “Türk-Tatar” Diaspora Study, the Diaspora
periodical (the newspaper Milli Bairaq), is catalogued for future research.

8