6Mambet K O I G E L D I E V

The Alash Movement
and the Soviet Government:
A Difference of Positions

Tsarist Repression of the Kazakh Elite
The 1730s saw the start of colonization of the Kazakh steppe by the Russian Empire,1 and it was from this period that the question of the relationship with the Russian administration and attitude toward its reforms
would become a fundamental problem for the Kazakh ruling elite. Polarization of opposing views on the issue would eventually lead to a split
amongst them. Exacerbation of relations between pro- and anti-Russian
camps often ended in tragedy. Khan Abulkhair, with whom the start of
the Junior Juz’s incorporation into the Russian Empire is associated,would meet his death at the hands of sultan Barak, an opponent of therapprochement between Kazakh society and Russia (1748). Khan Esim
Nuraliev, the grandson of khan Abulkhair, was killed by supporters ofbatyr Syrym Datov who held that the latter was beholden to Russia
1 The annexation of Kazakhstan to the Russian Empire is generally considered to havebegun in 1731, when khan Abulkhair of the Junior Juz signed an agreement accepting thestatus of a Russian subject. The process of integrating the Middle and Senior Juzes wascompleted in 1864, when the Siberian and Syr Darya military fortification lines were combined in the city of Turkestan.

153

Mambet KOIGELDIEV(1797). Khan Zhantore Aichuvakov, known for faithfully doing the Russian administration’s bidding, was murdered by men acting on the instructions of sultan Karatai (1809), who also did not wish to see the Kazakhs under the Russian Empire.
This was the time of the Empire’s protectorate over the Junior andMiddle Juzes. The Russian administration during that period set itself aclear objective: to weaken and bring about the gradual dissipation of the
Kazakh khanate from within so as to prepare it to eventually accept Russian control. During this period the Russian government did not allow
any one khan or sultan to bolster his position, artificially brooking hostility between them and supporting those sultans who would serve Russia faithfully and loyally in becoming khans. In short, in the Kazakhkhans the Russian administrators were looking for men who would
compliantly do their bidding, not the independently minded or strong
politicians with dreams of sovereignty.
Khan Nurali’s son, Karatai Nuraliev, for example, despite having been
elected khan on several occasions (in 1809 and 1815 at any rate) in the
Kurultai of the Junior Juz’s largest clans—the Baiuly and the Alimuly—
was never officially recognized as such by the Tsarist administration.
The reason was the sultan’s vigorous opposition to the Tsar’s predatory
policies, and in this respect he received strong support from his tribesmen. When asked by sultan Karatai to respect the will of those who
elected him, Orenburg governor-general Volkonskii replied: “I must rejoin that unless his Majesty wills it so, none should venture to addressyou ‘khan,’ nor may you bestow upon yourself that estimable title, uponrisk of legal consequences.”2
Of course there were no laws requiring that a khan elected by the Kazakh Kurultai also had to be officially endorsed by the Tsarist administration: in this case the colonialists’ intentions were simply tantamountto law.
One victim of the Tsarist administration’s repressive policies was
Aryngazy Abulgaziev, a khan of the Junior Juz who held considerable
influence in the latter. Count Nessel’rode, a senior Tsarist official, described him thus: “Aryngazy is brave, ambitious and generous, and so
2 Trudy obshchestva izucheniia Kazakhstana: Otdel istorii i etnografii, tom 7, vyp. 2(Kyzyl-Orda, 1926), p. 92.

154

The Alash Movement and the Soviet Government
may instill devotion towards himself or, through fear, grow to become
sole ruler of the Horde, and then we will find ourselves moving in directions not of our own choosing but instead seeking to satisfy his demands.”3
In May 1821 khan Aryngazy was summoned to St. Petersburg by thevery Tsar himself. The defiant and intransigent khan was detained enroute and sent to Kaluga, where he lived in exile for another 13 years
until his death in 1833. In his homeland he was survived by a large family and children. To the sultan’s request that he be given his freedomcame the reply “it deigns the Tsar to find that the expected benefits ofreleasing sultan Aryngazy cannot compare with the dangers, which
seem highly probable.”4
Yet during this period the process of recruiting servants of the Tsarfrom among the ruling Kazakh elite was already successfully underway.
The sultans Akhmet Zhanturin, Baimukhamed Aichuvakov and others,
having been conferred military rank and other privileges by the Russian
administration, took charge of detachments of the Tsar’s army to suppress anti-colonial actions of their compatriots.5
Once the Russian system of government had been established in Kazakhstan, the way in which the Kazakh ruling elite was dealt withchanged significantly.6 To professionalize the running of Kazakh society,the colonial administration switched to training Kazakhs themselves toserve among its ranks. The younger generation of Kazakhs, recipients ofa Russian education and upbringing, were meant to lead the line interms of advocating the interests of the Russian state and Russian culture.
3 Ibid., p. 147.
4 Ibid.; Istoriia Kazakhskoi SSR s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei v piati tomakh, vol. 3(Alma-Ata, 1979), p. 168.
5 “The descendants of khan Shirgazy Aichuvakov and the sultans Baimukhamet Aichuvakov and Akhmed and Arslan Zhanturin, and the families whose relatives participated insuppressing the feudal movement of Kenesary Kasymov were freed from paying taxes.”
Istoriia Kazakhskoi SSR, vol. 3, p. 230.
6 As a result of administrative reforms in 1867–1868 the Kazakh steppe was blanketedin a uniform system of government. Administration was clearly military in nature. All
power was concentrated in the hands of the Russian military and bureaucratic machine.
The influence of the Kazakh aristocracy and sultans, bais (the rich and influential), bis(tribal leaders who served also as judges in customary courts) and village chiefs was essentially destroyed. And this system of administration was maintained until 1917.

155

Mambet KOIGELDIEVThis objective was realized, to a certain extent, through Kazakh scholars
and leading educators Ch. Ch. Valikhanov, I. Altynsarin and others who
were products of Russian educational institutions. Yet at the same timethey were not simply blinkered agents of their colonial masters, and thus
in their behavior and sentiments there was a certain duality. On the one
hand they understood that without European education and culture
Kazakh society could not be freed from its medieval ways and backwardness, but at the same time they could not help but see the negative
consequences of colonial dependence. The sharply critical stance taken
by Ch. Valikhanov, I. Altynsarin, Zh. Chuvakov and other leading
members of Kazakh society towards the Tsarist administration’s reforms
evidence the dawning of a qualitatively new period in relations between
the national elite and the administration.

The Alash Movement
In the second half of the nineteenth century, Russia, throwing caution to
the wind, began overt colonization of Kazakhstan. Once the legislative
framework was in place, it began intensive resettlement of Russian peasants to the steppe, convinced they were the bearers of an advanced culture. According to the Tsarist ideology, and later that of the Bolsheviks,
there was not, and could not be, anything particularly serious in life on
the steppe, and so it should be reformed fundamentally and immediately so as to convert it to Russian ways. Kazakh youth being taught inRussian educational institutions were inculcated with this idea. Tsarist
agrarian policies, mass expropriation of Kazakh lands for the newcomers,
and increasing impoverishment of the masses compelled educated Kazakhs to enter politics on a professional level, nurture the idea of national liberation, and organize a political party with a concrete agenda.
The Tsarist administration engaged in double dealing with them. On
one hand, representatives of the national elite (A. Bukeikhanov, A.
Birimzhanov, A. Kalmenov, B. Karataev and others) were elected to thefirst two State Duma convocations. On the other, the issue of resettlement, which was keenly and persistently raised by them through the
Muslim faction and Cadet deputies, and heated debates on the topic at

156

The Alash Movement and the Soviet Government
sessions of the Duma led to the Kazakh people being stripped of theright to vote.7 And while all this was going the most active members of
the national elite were being subjected to persecution and deportation.8
In response to these brutish colonial policies, Tsarism engendered astrong opposition among the Kazakh intellectual elite, which pressed fora return to independence. The formation of the Alash Orda government
and the autonomy of Turkestan (Kokand) in 1917 were not just the resultof intense political activity by the national elite; at the same time these
events attested to the immense potential of such activity to bring about anational revival.
Thus, the Alash movement was born of the serious crisis that
stemmed from the Tsarist colonial policies in Kazakhstan. Progressive
forces in Kazakh society, first and foremost the emerging national intelligentsia, understood perfectly well the sinister implications of colonial
dependency and saw as a way out of the situation the reinstatement of
national statehood.
Here certain specific features of the Kazakh liberation movement at
the start of the twentieth century are worth noting. Firstly, the liberation
movement of this period was a logical continuation of the Kazakh people’s struggle for independence, only under new historical conditions. It
was a logical continuation, for example, of the anti-colonialist actions of
the Kazakhs in the nineteenth century.9
Secondly, however, at the start of the twentieth century the liberation
movement was led by a political force new to Kazakh society: the national intelligentsia. Though modest in number, they were extremely
7 The Regulation on Elections to the State Duma of July 3, 1907. See V. I. Kovalenko etal., eds., Politicheskaia istoriia Rossii: Khrestomatiia (Moscow, 1996), p. 607.
8 In 1907–1910 the leaders of the national liberation movement Alikhan Bukeikhanov,Akhmet Baitursunov and Mir-Yakub Dulatov were convicted and received sentences ofvarious lengths, then were deported from Kazakhstan for involvement in the anti-colonial
movement.
9 Soviet historiographers did not acknowledge that the manifestations of Kazakh
anti-colonialism of the twentieth century had its roots in the nineteenth century. For example, the Kazakh revolt under the leadership of Kenesary Kasymov in 1837–1847 wastreated as a feudal-monarchist uprising, while the social and political activity of the national intelligentsia at the start of the twentieth century as a bourgeois nationalist movement. In contemporary historiographies of Kazakhstan both of these developments aretreated as stages of the one and the same anti-colonial movement.

157

Mambet KOIGELDIEV

active and politically sophisticated.
A distinctive result of the progress of the national liberation movement was the founding of the Alash party in the summer and autumn of1917. The party’s platform, which was published in the newspaper Qazaq(Kazakh),10 essentially consisted of two objectives: liberating the Kazakh
people from colonial dependency and taking them forward to surmountthe nation’s social and economic backwardness. As was stated quite
clearly in the party’s program, it intended to achieve these main goals
through political and socio-economic reform rather than radical revolutionary change. Thus, in terms of the methods it advocated to achieve its
objectives, the Alash movement was fundamentally different from theBolshevist faction of social democrats. It was no accident, therefore, thatthe ideas and slogans of the October socialist revolution of 1917 were
rejected out of hand by Alash. And during the civil war the Alash party
and the Alash Orda government joined forces in rallying against the Bolsheviks and the Soviets.
Let us now take a look at the key aspects of the Alash party’s program.
In the section on state structure it is stated that “Russia should become ademocratic, federal republic (in a democracy the power belongs to thepeople, a federation is a union of states with equal rights. Each state in afederal republic has its own territory, may independently determine its
own agenda, and is bound by ties of friendship).”11 The head of stateand government would be the president, elected by the State Duma for a
fixed term. All citizens would have the right to vote, irrespective of their
origin, faith and gender. The power to legislate would lie with the State
Duma, which would monitor the activities of government agencies, hear
their reports and make enquiries regarding specific areas of interest.
It is interesting to note that before the 1917 Bolshevik revolution theleaders of the Alash movement were hesitant to discuss the question of
independent statehood, limiting themselves to the demands that Kazakh
oblasts be given the right to a certain amount of local self-government(zemstvo) and a greater role in the judicial process and military service,
10 The decision to create the Alash political party was made at the all-Kazakh congressin July 1917. Alash qozghalïsï / Dvizhenie Alash: Sbornik dokumentov i materialov, vol. 1 (Almaty, 2004), pp. 438–441.
11 Ibid., pp. 504–505.

158

The Alash Movement and the Soviet Government
with account for local customs. The Alash program states that “all Kazakh lands are united as a consolidated whole, are sovereign and join the
Russian Republic on federal grounds.”12 The political state of affairs in
the former empire at the end of 1917 was such that the leaders of the national liberation movement could quite openly discuss the question ofstate autonomy within the framework of the federation.
The party also took a moderate line when it came to social policy. Its
program contains no hint of restricting the rights of the feudal aristocracy. The movement’s leaders were convinced that in Kazakh society,due to certain circumstances, class differentiation had not evolved as it
had in, for example, Russian society. Moreover, for Kazakh society,which was at the stage where the liberation movement was gaining
popularity, it was more important to consolidate the nation than to leadit to confrontation on the basis of class differences and interests. These
interests are reflected in the program in the distinctive assertion that the
Alash party is directing its efforts and energies for the good of the nation,is “leading people on the path to progress” and “championing justice.”
The program also makes no mention of disqualifying any socialgroups or forces from a role in governing the state. The question of taxation was decided along roughly the same line: “levying of taxes shall bedone fairly, depending on wealth and income, that is to say, the rich will
pay more, and the poor—less.”13 Workers rights would be protected by
special legislative acts. On this question the Alash party took the samestance as the social democrats (Mensheviks).
Under the Alash party program autonomous Kazakhstan would become a secular state, i.e., there would be no state religion, and all citizens
would have freedom of conscience to practice their choice of faith. The
anti-feudal and anti-colonial character of the program was particularly
palpable in the sections “Principal Rights” and “Teaching of Science andKnowledge.” Here it was noted that in the Russian Republic all citizens,irrespective of faith, nationality, race or gender, would be equal. Other
stipulations that were provided for included the right to assemble and toorganize associations, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, theinviolability of the individual and one’s residence, etc.
12 Ibid., p. 504.
13 Ibid., p. 505.

159

Mambet KOIGELDIEVAs follows from an analysis of the party’s program, the leaders of the
Alash movement advocated first and foremost implementation of steps
aimed at decolonization and the achievement of general democratic objectives. Their main, pressing task was to bring about national rebirth.
They were also well aware that this could be attained by creating a society receptive to progressive experience of others. And, naturally, they
had not the least intention of establishing an insular, mononational state,
as Soviet historians claimed.

Soviet Hostility to the Alash Intelligentsia
The leaders of the national liberation movement also understood clearly
it was impossible for these objectives to be reached in Russia without
creating a democratic system and giving freedom of choice to people
who had previously been dependent on the metropolis. On this platformthey were prepared to co-operate with the new regime. Expressing thegeneral view held by the Alash party’s founders, A. Baitursunov in a
letter to Lenin wrote: “The proletariat of the Russian nation, which has
for centuries been stealing from and oppressing the Kazakhs, must
prove and demonstrate through deeds that they are the liberators of oppressed peoples and not their new subjugating masters who wish to
sponge off them in place of the Tsar’s bureaucrats.”14 At the same time
he urged the Soviet leadership to tackle the escalating problems in Kazakh society in conjunction with the nation’s political elite who had
gained experience in the pre-revolutionary struggle. He wrote, “ . . .
among the Kirgiz [i.e., Kazakhs] there is a certain part of the intelligentsia that the people trust wholeheartedly and who, while not being immune to mistakes or losing their way, would never deliberately sell out
their people no matter the reward or benefit. The most direct route, if theRussian proletariat wishes to gain the trust of the Kirgiz, is through thesemembers of the intelligentsia.”15
Were the calls of Baitursunov and others heard by the central leader14 A. Baitursunov, “Pis’mo tov. Leninu V. I. 17 maia 1920 g.,” Arkhiv Prezidenta Respubliki Kazakhstan (AP RK), f. 811, op. 20, d. 568, ll. 46–46 ob.
15 Ibid.

160

The Alash Movement and the Soviet Government
ship? Ensuing events and the process of Sovietization in the republic
show that the Soviet government was confident it knew better than anyone the local problems and the ways and methods of solving such problems, and had no intention of handing over the initiative to anyone elsein this regard. This was manifested in the following. Firstly, leadership
posts in Communist Party organizations in the Kazakh oblast (up to theyear 1925), and later the krai, were given to officials who were assigned
from Moscow16 and had no knowledge of local life or customs, andhence judged them “according to Moscow stereotypes.”17 As a result
they had no “specific work plan” other than the basic instructions set out
in the “Declaration of Rights of the Peoples of Russia” and the RussianCommunist Party program.18 Most of these officials, who had earlier
been involved in revolutionary activities and the civil war, behaved
themselves under the new conditions as some sort of higher caste of“celebrated heroes and liberators” and were carriers of that disease, Russian “Bonapartism”—i.e., viewing local problems from on high and withexcessive simplification.
Secondly, while solidifying their grip on power in Kazakhstan, theBolsheviks methodically and consistently propagated the view that the
pre-revolutionary Kazakh intelligentsia were some sort of reactionary,counter-revolutionary force that had acted in opposition to the cardinalinterests of the Kazakh population on the whole. As an example, in the
resolutions of the First All-Kirgiz (Kazakh) Party Conference it wasnoted unequivocally, “the Kirgiz intelligentsia have no connection (byorigin or status) to the Kirgiz masses and are least of all connected with
the interests of the poorest of the Kirgiz people.”19
While did exist other views among the Communist Party ranks as to
16 Before Goloshchekin was sent to Kazakhstan as the First Secretary of the krai party
organization the post was held by: S. S. Pestkovskii (1920), I. A. Akulov (1920–1921), M.
Murzagaliev (1921), M. M. Kostelovskaia (1921), G. A. Korostelev (1921–1924) and V. I.
Naneishvili (1924–1925). Of these, the only Kazakh was M. Murzagaliev, who led the oblast
party organization for less than six months in 1921.
17 T. Sedel’nikov, “Tsarskaia okraina: vzgliad iznutri (Pis’mo V. I. Ul’ianovu-Leninu),”
Mysl’ 7 (1993), p. 80.
18 Baitursunov, “Pis’mo tov. Leninu,” l. 46.
19 Kazakhstanskaia oblastnaia (kraevaia) partiinaia organizatsiia v rezoliutsiiakh i resheniiakh
konferentsii i plenumov obkoma i kraikoma, vol. 1, 1921–1927 (Alma-Ata, 1981), p. 33.

161

Mambet KOIGELDIEV

the place and role of those of the intelligentsia who were not party
members, it was on the former that social policy of Kazakh Krai Committee (Kazkraikom) of the Russian Communist Party was to be based insubsequent years. Admittedly it could not have been any other way,
given the political predominance of a party that explicitly claimed thesolution to national problems lay in resolving class conflict. Stalin himself was the inspiration for this approach. Having raised the issue ofTatar “nationalism” (embodied by M. Sultangaliev) at the Fourth Meeting of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) with the responsible officials of national republics and oblasts in
1923,20 he imposed the task of “turning Turkestan into a model republic” before railing against “Kazakh nationalism.” In his letter to themembers of the Kazkraikom Bureau of May 29, 1925, regarding thenewspaper Aq-Jol (formerly an organ of the Central Committee of theCommunist Party of Turkestan and the Central Executive Committee of
the Turkestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic), he took an emphatically negative view of the newspaper’s line, adjudging that the critical comments on its pages “had no place in the country of the Soviets.”
The Kazkraikom’s stance towards “non-party intelligentsia” was also
set out in the letter. He wrote: “I am against non-party intelligentsia educating Kirgiz youth in politics and ideology. We did not seize power to
let the political and ideological education of our youth be handed over tothe bourgeois, non-party intelligentsia.”21
Stalin’s letter essentially signified the hardening of policy towards the
Alash Orda intelligentsia, restricting their activities in the fields of science, the arts and especially in the press. And what is particularly interesting is that the offensive that was to be launched against the main
leaders of the Alash party (which had already long since ceased to exist
as such) was prepared simultaneously by the various ranks of the Communist Party and OGPU.22
The Kazakhstan OGPU took to its task with enthusiasm, providing
20 I. V. Stalin, Sochineniia, vol. 5 (Moscow, 1952), pp. 291–341.
21 AP RK, f. 141, op. 1, d. 479–A, ll. 1–2.
22 The acronym OGPU stands for Ob”edinennoe Gosudarstvennoe Politicheskoe Upravlenie(Unified State Political Administration), later renamed the Committee for National Security,
or KGB, of the USSR.

162

The Alash Movement and the Soviet Government
quarterly status reports “On the Activities of the Alash Orda and Kazakh
National Factions.” In one such report the activities of former leaders
and activists of Alash and national factions in the final quarter of 1922
were described as being characteristic of a movement whose purpose
was national liberation. Taken together with others, this document
serves as confirmation that the Soviet leadership understood and recognized internally the existence of a real national liberation movement in
Kazakh society. However, obscuring it in class-related slogans, they
purposely wrote it off as anti-Soviet activity by the national bourgeoisie.
From about the year 1925 the process of forcing the Alash Orda intelligentsia out of printed media began. For example, on two occasions(March 2 and October 23) that year the Central Committee of the RussianCommunist Party (Bolsheviks) (hereinafter the “Central Committee”)
reviewed the status of the press in Kazakhstan. Decisions adopted by theCentral Committee’s secretariat on March 2, 1925, cite “inadequate control of printed periodicals on the part of the Kirgiz [Kazakh] Krai Committee and local party bodies” and “the influence of nationalistic members of the intelligentsia who are not party members on the leading political line in certain periodical publications.”23
At a meeting on October 23, 1925, the Organizational Bureau of theCentral Committee heard a report by Secretary of the Kazakh Krai
Committee F. I. Goloshchekin entitled “On the Kazakh Press,” in which
he focused on the “stranglehold” the Alash Orda intelligentsia had on
the republic’s Kazakh-language press. The Organizational Bureau, expressing its “understanding” of the situation and the need to increase
party control over the Kazakh press, instructed the Kazkraikom “to organize a Press Department under the Kazkraikom and staff it with as
many trained workers as necessary.”“Having noted the inadequate editorial work in general political publications of Tsentroizdat [the Central Publishing House for Peoples of theSoviet Union] in the Kazakh language,” the Organizational Bureau proposed that the Tsentroizdat board “а) release all its Kazakh-language
publications only after meticulous political editing; b) relieve comrade
Bukeikhanov of his duties as editor.”24
23 AP RK, f. 141, op. 1, d. 377, l. 1.
24 Ibid., ll. 33–38.

163

Mambet KOIGELDIEV

It was prescribed by the Central Committee’s Press Department thatthe “general principle is to preserve a single, mass-circulation peasants’newspaper for each guberniia [province]” and close all uezd (district)newspapers (with the exception of Jŭmïsker Tílí). The range of departmental publications was also to be reduced. The final list of periodicals
to be available in the Kazakh Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic(ASSR) was to be submitted for approval to the Press Department of theCentral Committee of the Russian Communist Party. The Press Department of the Kazkraikom of the Russian Communist Party was instructedin the space of two months to study the state of literature in the Kazakh
language and submit a “special report to the Press Department of theCentral Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks).”25
By decision of the Kazkraikom Bureau dated June 10, 1925, the instructions given by Stalin and the Central Committee were accepted to
be enacted and a circular was distributed among the provincial committees with recommendations on how to manage the national press and on
procedures for using the national non-party intelligentsia in it. Local
party organizations were instructed to step up the operations of theirpropaganda departments in support of control over local press.
All of this meant the chartering of a new course designed to force
leaders and activists of the Alash movement out of public and politicallife. The realization of this course was accompanied, firstly, by purposefully and explicitly undermining the Alash Orda intelligentsia in theeyes of the Kazakh people by characterizing them as bourgeois, bais andreactionary, and, secondly, by encouraging acceptance into the upperechelons of the party and administration those Kazakh nationals who
were willing to tow the line set by Moscow. Thus was the foundation
laid for a new phase in the political life of the people and their intelligentsia. Intellectuals, who until that time had expressed general nationaland democratic interests, now had to hand over that function to party
officials and Soviet nomenklatura, whose role was to fulfill Moscow’s
directives.
In order to at first isolate, and then eliminate altogether the thin layerof pre-revolutionary national intelligentsia, the Soviet leadership chose a
25 Ibid., l. 38.

164

The Alash Movement and the Soviet Government
sophisticated method through which to punish it. In the decisions of theparty congresses and conferences the important role of the small numberof national intelligentsia was openly acknowledged, while in practice thepolicy was to squeeze the most active members out of public life. In theirdirectives the Bolshevik leadership always noted that it saw better thananyone the internal problems in Kazakh life and therefore was in a position to solve them without the involvement of any “bourgeois intellectuals.”
As early as the first years of the 1920s the central leadership began acourse aimed at preventing any manifestations of “local separatism,”taking resolute steps to allow the Communist Party to take root and survive under local conditions and working to bring about uniform living
conditions and social structures. At this time certain languages and cultures were already given preference over others. The necessary foundations for successful implementation of these policies were laid by the
migration policy of the Stolypin government, and this was continued
during the Soviet period. In 1925 the indigenous nation accounted forapproximately 58 percent of the republic’s total population, compared to81.7 percent in 1897.26
Around the same time the Communist Party’s national policy moved
away from the principle of self-determination in the structuring of thestate, and the idea of social equality became noticeably dominant overthe idea of freedom. In party documents statements of the following ilk
became widespread: “ . . . national problems can be solved only in thecourse of building socialism, the building of socialism is possible on thebasis of close economic and political ties with the entire Union, the latterbeing a possibility only together with solution of the main problems inbuilding socialism throughout the USSR.”27

26 N. V. Alekseenko and A. N. Alekseenko, Naselenie Kazakhstana za 100 let (1898–1997gg.) (Ust-Kamenogorsk, 1999), pp. 61–63; Ana Tílí 1 (1991).
27 Partiinoe stroitel'stvo v Kazakhstane: Sbornik rechei i statei (1925–1930 gg.) (Moscow andAlma-Ata, 1930), p. 150.

165

Mambet KOIGELDIEV

Goloshchekin’s Assault on the Kazakh Elite
Goloshchekin, appointed to the post of First Secretary of the party’s Krai
Committee in 1925, in a letter to I. Stalin outlining the main tasks involved in state-building in Kazakhstan and confirming the commitmentof the republic’s leaders to that course, noted that “in all oblasts before
the Fifth conference [in December 1925] building was underway, without affecting the auls [nomadic settlements], and aimed at tackling national issues, without concerning class issues within the nation.”28
It should also be noted that Goloshchekin and other henchmen sentfrom Moscow who strove for absolute power in the republic did not
identify in any way the word “Kazakhstan” with the concept of anautonomous state. As the first leaders of the krai party organization, they
acted for the most part as the fulfillers of various directives from Moscow
and the party’s General Secretary. Goloshchekin, for example, at a meeting of the Bureau challenged the sentence “Approving the political lineof the Kazkraikom” in a draft resolution, stating, “I will categorically
oppose this sentence. . . . I hold that the political line is the line of theparty’s Central Committee. We do not have our own political line.”29
Of course this outburst was not accidental, but most likely the fundamental position of a political officer fully and completely dependent on
the party leadership in Moscow. Therefore it would be wrong to talk ofany special position of the Kazkraikom during this period regarding any
particular major problems. After Goloshchekin took over, the Kazakhkrai party organization not only became compliant and a “reliable” partof the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) organization, but successfully turned into a state structure, taking over all other forms of government administration.
Goloshchekin’s lack of concern for the interests of the Kazakh republic
could also be seen when it came to territorial issues. In 1925 the Presidium of the All-Union Central Executive Committee decided, without
discussing the matter with the Central Executive Committee of the Kazakh ASSR, to transfer the Ilek district of the Aktyubinsk province to the
28 Ibid., p. 152.
29 AP RK, f. 141, op. 1, d. 8, l. 532ob.

166

The Alash Movement and the Soviet Government
Orenburg province of the RSFSR. The numerical predominance of Russians among the region’s population was cited as grounds for the decision. The matter was a topic of intense debate at a meeting of the
Kazkraikom Bureau. The All-Union Central Executive Committee’s decision was harshly criticized by the chairman of the Council of People’s
Commissars of the Kazakh ASSR N. Nurmakov, the chairman of the
Kazakh Central Executive Committee Zh. Mynbaev, member of the
Kazkraikom Bureau S. Khodzhanov and others. Nurmakov noted, “thisdecision is tantamount to eliminating the Kazakh republic on the basis of
its national composition, for the day when the ethnic European population
reaches 70 percent is not far off, given the current rate of resettlement.”
In response to Goloshchekin’s assertion that in dealing with this issue
not only considerations of nationality, but economic factors should betaken into account, Khodzhanov declared: “We cannot side with the
viewpoint that national considerations are of no significance here. The
situation in our republic is such that the question of nationality is of extraordinary importance . . . Now, to all appearances, there has been acertain move towards increasing resettlement. Mass resettlement to Siberia is becoming an official strategy. The Siberian settlers, having donea circle, end up here. Twelve thousand wagons have already been registered. I am of the view that this question should be considered from thestandpoint of ensuring the preservation and further strengthening of the
Kazakh republic as a state, not as a krai or region within Russia . . .
therefore I suggest that this question be considered in detail from thestandpoint of . . . preserving the Kazakh republic as a viable state, andnot let it slip through the hands as certain comrades would be disposed . . . ”30
Thus, within the first days of arriving in Kazakhstan, Goloshchekin
behaved as a representative of Moscow, not as the leader of an autonomous republic within the Russian Federation. Accordingly, the fightagainst “regionalism and Kazakh nationalism” would become one of his
main concerns. Goloshchekin began the assault on “Kazakh nationalism” by removing from the highest ranks of the republic’s leadershipthose officials who had the greatest influence on public opinion and who,
30 Ibid.

167

Mambet KOIGELDIEV

being independent from Moscow and its representative, could resist
their course.
From the very beginning of his time in Kazakhstan Goloshchekin alleged there was a certain “August alliance” that opposed his appointment as leader of the krai party organization. He purported that the alliance was headed by the second secretary of the Communist Party Krai
Committee, Sultanbek Khodzhanov, with people’s commissar of education Smagul Sadvokasov and the chairman of the Kazakh Central Executive Committee Zhalau Mynbaev also being among its supposed members. In actual fact there never was any anti-Goloshchekin alliance. Goloshchekin had to circulate such a rumor to justify his actions against
these people in the republican government.
Among the republic’s leaders, second secretary of the Communist
Party Krai Committee Sultanbek Khodzhanov, a strong-willed advocate
of decolonization, stood out in particular, having risen to prominence
during the period of land and water reforms in Turkestan in 1921–1922
and held in deserved esteem by the people. A month after arriving in
Kazakhstan Goloshchekin was to have Khodzhanov relieved of his office
and reassigned to the Communist Party Central Committee in Moscow.
His place would be taken by N. I. Ezhov, who would eventually move to
Moscow to become director of the NKVD (People’s Commissariat forInternal Affairs) of the USSR. Khodzhanov himself, of course, understood full well the meaning of the reassignment. At the meeting of the
Kazkraikom Bureau at which he was told of the Central Committee’s
decision he said: “I was not summoned to Moscow to get things done, ofcourse, but to not get things done.”31
Having gotten his staunchest opponent called to Moscow, Goloshchekin at the same time requested that the Communist Party Central
Committee send “some senior party, administrative and economic policy
officials” to Kazakhstan. Notifying the Kazkraikom Bureau of this hesaid, “one comrade has already been assigned to our command. This iscomrade Vakhmanov, the head of the organizational committee from
Nizhny Novgorod. I requested another person as well, but a decision has
yet to be taken.” Regarding this matter the following was resolved:
31 AP RK, f. 141, op. 1, d. 18, l. 231.

168

The Alash Movement and the Soviet Government• The question of the posting of other officials (comrades Lur’e, Piatkin
and Smirnov) to Kazakhstan shall be referred to the Secretariat for consideration so that the Secretariat can make a decision within one week;• It shall be proposed to the Moscow Party Committee that at least threeparty officials be allocated for Kazakhstan.32
All these proposals had been considered and approved at a meeting of
the Central Committee Politburo the middle of October 1925, and theKazkraikom was duly notified by telegram. Thus the Central Committee,
having received an inspector in the person of Khodzhanov, in exchange
sent to Kazakhstan several officials from the “proletarian center” thatwas Moscow. This was not the only such case: in the second half of the
1920s T. Ryskulov, A. Dosov, S. Asfendiarov, S. Sadvokasov, N. Nurmakov and other high-profile public figures in Kazakhstan were sent to
Moscow on various grounds to work in a range of institutions. Dozensof “senior officials” were sent from Russia in exchange.
Having prevented Khodzhanov from engaging in further political activity in Kazakhstan, Goloshchekin turned his attacks to Smagul Sadvokasov, a member of the Kazkraikom Bureau of the Communist Party,
people’s commissar of education and editor-in-chief of the republic
newspaper Engbekshí Qazaq. Sadvokasov condemned vocally and in his
writings Goloshchekin’s idea of a “little October,”33 sharply criticized
the pace of indigenization (korenizatsiia) policy in the state apparatus, theBolshevist method of confiscating property from Kazakh bais, and thefocus on raw resources in industrializing the republic’s economy. At thethird krai conference Sadvokasov proposed a course diametrically opposed to that advanced by the Communist Party Central Committee andKazkraikom with respect to expropriation of assets of the propertiedclasses. He noted in particular that in Kazakhstan the poor suffer mostfrom a lack of work opportunities and a shortage of land, work tools andequipment, “and not due to anyone exploiting them.” “Give Kazakh a
32 Ibid., l. 230.
33 F. Goloshchekin in one of his keynote speeches said, “there must be a little Octoberfor Kazakhstan.” He reckoned the Russian kulaks had already been weakened and humbled by then, and that going after the Kazakh bai was not enough. So a mini-October revolution in the Kazakh auls was what was needed. In other words, Goloshchekin was advocating civil war in the auls.

169

Mambet KOIGELDIEV

horse, hay, a scythe,” he said, “make it so that his farm is sustainable andit will be a hundred times more benefit than simply distributing what
there already is. The idea of distribution of what there already is essentially an extremely dangerous idea, for distributing what there already is
has an inherently consumerist aspect. Give a poor man a cow today, tomorrow he slaughters and eats it, and another day he may ask for another one, and if there isn’t another one then we’re left with nothing. . . .
Today it’s not some shock the country is waiting for, but constructive
and peaceful work. And it is not new expropriations that will save it, butwork and science.”34
Regarding the idea of confiscating the property of the bais, Sadvokasov suggested not getting carried away with the extremely politicalside of the issue but implementing a flexible tax policy so as to draw
their money into cooperative endeavors, the construction of social welfare infrastructure and so forth. Sadvokasov’s criticism of the Communist Party line in this respect was regarded as upholding the interests ofthe propertied classes, and he was dubbed the “bais’ ideologue.”
There were also disagreements between Sadvokasov and Moscow regarding the nature of industrialization. In the open press Sadvokasov
condemned the position held by those who wanted to turn Kazakhstan
and the Central Asian republics exclusively into suppliers of raw materials for the industrially developed central regions of the Soviet Union.
“Whereas the imperialistic Russian bourgeoisie would only take strip
raw materials from outlying regions while planting numerous factories
and industrial works in their own backyard,” he noted, “socialist industry should develop according to the principle of economic expediency.”35
In 1927 the newspaper Pravda Vostoka published an article entitled“The General Line” by chairman Zelenskii of the Central Asian bureauof the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in which the author criticized local “nationalists” and “backers of
the idea of a closed economy.”36 Responding to Zelenskii’s indictments,
Sadvokasov wrote: “Firstly, comrade Zelenskii’s allegation that there issome trend (read: among the [non-Russian] nationals) supporting the34 AP RK, f. 141, op. 1, d. 485, ll. 25–26.
35 S. Sadvokasov, Izbrannoe (Almaty, 1994), p. 74.
36 Pravda Vostoka, October 7, 1927.

170

The Alash Movement and the Soviet Government
establishment of a closed economy in each republic (a laughable idea) iswrong, and secondly, according to what theory does it follow that taking
cotton out of Central Asia is a good thing, while taking textiles is a signof a closed economy. It doesn’t work like that, comrade Zelenskii. In fact,from the standpoint of economic expediency, industry should be situated as close as possible to the sources of raw materials.
Here the objection may be presented to us that setting up industry in aregion requires not only raw materials, but working hands and fuel.
The answer to that is the millions of poor in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan
and Turkmenistan, and the billions in reserves of coal and oil in Kazakhstan.
They could also claim yes, that’s all very well, but there are no railroads in Central Asia. To that it may be answered that in our time railroads are built with people’s hands, and railroad construction is also apart of industrialization.
Therefore, ‘economically’ speaking, everything goes against comrade
Zelenskii.”37
To finally put an end to “Kazakh nationalism” amongst the republic’s
leaders Goloshchekin held the Third Plenary Session of the Kazkraikom,
where the group of S. Khodzhanov, S. Sadvokasov and Zh. Mynbaev
was named on the agenda. They were accused of nationalism and ofideological ties to the Alash Orda intelligentsia. In his closing speech at
the session Goloshchekin said “there are two types of Alash Orda members: old leaders and a new generation of Alash Orda. There is a majordifference between them. I believe that if we take the old Alash Orda
members, they have something that lies in the past. In the past they were,in Kazakh terms, Kazakh revolutionaries in the making—bourgeois
revolutionaries. The younger don’t have that. They are more malevolence. They grew up fighting Soviet authority.”38
As it became clear from the speeches by Kazakh party members at theplenary session, under pressure from the emerging totalitarian regime
seeking to create a national ruling elite noticeable changes were occurring; a large portion of them were adapting to the demands of the com37 Sadvokasov, Izbrannoe, pp. 74–75.
38 Vnutripartiinye voprosy na 3-m Plenume Kazakhskogo Kraikoma VKP (b) (Kzyl-Orda,
1927), p. 162.

171

Mambet KOIGELDIEV

mand-administrative system and championing Moscow’s policies in
Kazakhstan.
Having tasted victory at the Third Plenary Session of the Kazkraikom
over the “members of the opposition” sitting on the bureau, Goloshchekin expanded the scope of the offensive front to “dissenters”
among the republic’s leadership. The use of openly retributive measuresagainst opponents became the norm for him, and the republic’s
law-enforcement agencies rendered every possible assistance. Punitive
measures were taken by the Krai Control Commission, which was led
primarily by Russians (for example, Morozov, Titov and others). While
the republic was under Goloshchekin’s leadership there was full cooperation between the Communist Party Krai Committee and the authorized representative of the OGPU in Kazakhstan throughout the spectrum of political life, particularly in work with the national intelligentsia.
It is interesting to note that during these years not a single Kazakh wasamong the first directors of the OGPU in the republic.
As is common knowledge, the concentration of all power in the handsof Communist party structures was a key aspect of the USSR’s transitiona totalitarian regime. Goloshchekin expended no small effort ensuring
this process was completed successfully in Kazakhstan. However, theparty’s rise to power was not without considerable difficulties, accompanied as it was by clashes between Soviet and Communist party structures on various levels. Here the most obvious reasons for the conflictcan be identified. Firstly, striving to consolidate power, Communist
party structures at the republic, province and district levels began toforce the Soviet authorities into a lesser role, which naturally led to retaliation by the latter. Secondly, all across Kazakhstan, Russians or persons of other European lineage were appointed to the posts of first secretaries of the Communist party’s provincial committees, while thechairmen of the executive committees of provincial Soviets were mostly
Kazakh. Against a backdrop of the party’s growing influence in society,this situation gave rise to various talk and rumor among the ruling elite
regarding the nature of political power in Kazakhstan. The power struggle between the Soviets and party structures was particularly evident inrelations between the chairman of the Central Executive Committee ofthe Kazakh ASSR Mynbaev and first secretary of the Communist Party

172

The Alash Movement and the Soviet Government
Krai Committee Goloshchekin. Mynbaev’s efforts to secure a leadingrole for the Soviets in administration of the republic were viewed by the
first secretary of the Communist Party Krai Committee as pitting the Soviets against the party structures.
The confrontation between party and Soviet structures could also bequite clearly seen on the provincial level. A typical example was theso-called “Syr Darya affair.” The disagreement, which would escalate
into a confrontation, between first secretary Fimin of the Syr Darya provincial Communist party committee and chairman I. Mustambaev of theprovincial executive committee, arose due to their differing views regarding the Communist party’s indigenization policy and Soviet administration of the province, yet again confirmed Goloshchekin’s resolve
to strengthen the position of the Communist party structures. The conflict ended with Mustambaev being relieved of office and subjected topolitical persecution. He was accused of being a member of Sadvokasov’s group and was linked to Trotskyists. Certain personal motives
also played a role here. Goloshchekin, vindictive by nature, never forgave Mustambaev for the harsh criticism he had directed towards theformer. Below is an extract from the stenograph from Mustambaev’s interrogation on March 27, 1928, by chairman Titov of the Krai Control
Commission.
Titov: Mustambaev, can you specify which particular facts in Kazakhstani
life compelled you to you declare there is something wrong with our inner
regime?
Mustambaev: As regards the party regime on the Kazakh scale I can saythat the leadership is one-sided, and this view is not only in connection withthe opposition. I still have the same opinion now—after the opposition andwithout any opposition. It is there without any connection to the opposition
whatsoever, and I believe that we have one-sided leadership in Kazakhstan.
Titov: In what is this manifested?
Mustambaev: What do you mean “in what is this manifested?” In the orientation towards certain officials, their being listened to in priority. Then repressive measures against all other active Kazakh functionaries who might
have sound ideas or who might be mistaken, but they are persecuted unduly.
And I continue to have that impression.

173

Mambet KOIGELDIEV. . . Titov: So Goloshchekin is not leading the right way. But surely it’s the
Krai Committee, the Bureau, the Plenary Session that do the governing?
Mustambaev: If you say that Krai Committee Bureau is comprised of sevenor eight people, I will answer you that these are only arithmetical data. But
comrade Goloshchekin alone counts as almost the entire Krai Committee.
Titov: A dictator?
Mustambaev: Call it as you like. Perhaps a dictator, perhaps such a strong
comrade and party worker that the others pale in comparison, find themselves subordinate to his influence and so forth. But in any case it is my subjective opinion that the entire Krai Committee consists of comrade Goloshchekin.39

Mustambaev was expelled from the party. His request to the Central
Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) that he bereinstated as a party member and assigned to work in a different capacity in some other republic of the Soviet Union fell on deaf ears.
The chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars (i.e., the government) of the republic, Nygmet Nurmakov, spoke out against theemasculating role of the Soviet structures. Speaking before the Krai
Committee Bureau he said: “our Soviet structures are completely being
supplanted by the party structures. This has been the case and is now thecase. I have told this to comrade Goloshchekin many times. I have sometimes objected to making the work of the Soviet structures too innocuous,and turning the leadership into wardship.”40
The disagreement between Goloshchekin and Nurmakov reached its
apogee at the Meeting of the Central Committee Politburo of the
All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), where the question of confiscation of property belonging to the Kazakh bais was discussed. Nurmakov gave a rather well-argued speech against confiscation. For a time hehad been left in place as leader of the republic government, but had been
deprived of decisive influence when it came to the most important matters. And in 1929, after a campaign of confiscating the bais’ property wascompleted, Nurmakov was relieved of office and by decision of theCommunist party Central Committee was sent to work in the admini39 AP RK, f. 141, op. 1, d. 2409, ll. 70–73.
40 Ibid., d. 1649, ll. 6–59.

174

The Alash Movement and the Soviet Government
stration of the All-Russia Central Executive Committee in Moscow.
And with Nurmakov’s departure the republic leadership underwent
substantial changes. It became virtually the way that Goloshchekinwanted it to be: obedient. S. Khodzhanov, Zh. Mynbaev, S. Sadvokasov
and N. Nurmakov, free and bold thinkers with an independent disposition, were replaced by E. Ernazarov (chairman of the Central Executive
Committee of the Kazakh ASSR), U. Isaev (chairman of the Council of
People’s Commissars of the republic), I. Kuramysov (second secretary of
the Communist Party Krai Committee)—public figures with the opposite
qualities who would allow Moscow and Goloshchekin to bring the“grandiose” experiments of the Bolsheviks to the Kazakh aul.

OGPU Eliminates the Alash Intelligentsia
Having removed almost all opponents from among the republic’s leadership, Goloshchekin essentially continued on the direct route to his
cherished goal. Now he could turn his attentions and tackle headlong the
Alash Orda intelligentsia who were so despised by him and by Moscow.
In October 1927 inside an OGPU torture chamber in Kzyl-Orda one of
the active figures in the Alash Orda, Eldes Omarov, was subjected tointensive interrogation. The reason for his arrest, to all appearances, wasthe fact that he had invited the movement’s leader, Alikhan Bukeikhanov to a retreat on the Buzanov farm, located in the Chelyabinsk districtof the Russian Federation, where there were more than 30 Kazakh
households.
Judging from the text of the interrogation reports of E. Omarov, it canbe surmised that the OGPU investigators were interested first and foremost in:
1. Alash Orda members’ position on the question of land;
2. Their position on the Trotskyist opposition and their possible ties tothem;
3. Their level of political organization.41
Omarov’s interrogation, however, did not yield the desired results.
41 Arkhiv Komiteta Natsional’noi Bezopasnosti Respubliki Kazakhstan (Arkhiv KNBRK), d. no. 78754, arkh. no. 124, t. 2, ll. 1–4, 7–7ob.

175

Mambet KOIGELDIEVNo serious arguments were discovered that could be used to justify repressive measures.
The transition to such measures against the Alash Orda intelligentsia
began at about the same time as the confiscation of property from the
major bais, which was authorized by a decree of the Central Executive
Committee of the Kazakh ASSR dated August 27, 1928. The authorities,
perceiving the Alash Orda as a potential catalyst for opposition and organizer of a popular movement, preferred to keep its members imprisoned. On October 16, 1928, in the city of Semipalatinsk agents from the
GPU arrested Khalel Gabbasov, a member of the Board of Gosplan of therepublic and a former member of the Alash Orda government. He wascharged with “activity, the purpose of which is to counteract and disrupt
the campaign of confiscating bai property, authorized by decree of theCentral Executive Committee of the Kazakh ASSR of 27/VIII of this year,that is, of a crime envisaged under Article 58/13 of the Criminal Code(1926 ed.).” At the end of the document, in Gabbasov hand, is written:“This decree has proclaimed to me. I do not acknowledge any guilt on
my part. [Signature]”42
It should be noted that the materials on Gabbasov’s interrogation also
could not serve as grounds for carrying out mass arrests of Alash members. Such a chance would only come with the arrest of Dinmukhamed
Adilev, drama theatre director and former Alash movement activist. In
the course of his interrogation, which began in December 1928, the
OGPU investigators got Adilev to give evidence that could be used as abasis to fabricate a case of counter-revolutionary activity by the Alash
Orda in Soviet times. The case is built on suspect and contradictory evidence of the existence of underground counter-revolutionary organizations comprised of former Alash Orda members in 1921. This completely
groundless evidence given by Adilev served as the basis for imprisoning
44 people, chiefly leaders and activists of the Alash movement. These
included such well-known figures in the fields of science and culture as
A. Baitursunov, M. Dulatov, Kh. Gabbasov, Zh. Aimautov, M. Zhumabaev, M. Ispulov and others.
There were two stages to the investigation in which these 44 were
42 Ibid., l. 329.

176

The Alash Movement and the Soviet Government
named. During the first stage, from October 1928 to July 1929, the investigation was based in Kzyl-Orda and Almaty, while at the second stage,
from July 1929 onwards, it was carried out in Moscow. With the exception of Adilev, all 43 under investigation were sent Butyrka prison tounder tight security. Regarding Adilev, in an accompanying letter it is
written, “We are not sending you the accused Adilev as we consider his
evidence to be comprehensive.”43 It was the organizers’ intention thatthe process of transferring the Alash Orda cases to Moscow would create
the appearance of objectivity of the proceedings. However, the proceedings in Almaty and in Moscow were both of a pronounced politicalcharacter.
What is more, flagrant violations of the Criminal Procedure Code werecommitted in the course of proceedings: the investigation had beenlaunched without a corresponding decree being issued on institution of
criminal proceedings and it had been carried out with an incriminatory
bias. All of the accused had been arrested without sufficient grounds andwithout any authorization from a public prosecutor. And most importantly, the investigation never proved that any counter-revolutionary organization existed among the Alash Orda intelligentsia, and no information was provided about its platform, regulations, objectives or the actions
to achieve them. Upon completion of the investigation the accused were
never given the opportunity to examine the materials and were deprivedof the right to a defense. The case, such as it was and without any pronouncement by anyone of any formal indictment, was passed on to a
non-judicial body that handed down a “sentence in absentia.”44
By decree of the collegium of the OGPU of the USSR dated April 4, 1930,
13 of the 44 on trial were sentenced to be executed by shooting, seven received death sentences that were commuted to ten years in a concentration camp, another seven received a ten-year sentence in a concentration
camp, and fifteen—imprisonment for terms ranging from three to six
years. Two of the accused died during the course of the investigation.45
In January 1931 the OGPU collegium revisited its decree of April 4,43 Ibid., t. 3, l. 130.
44 See the protest of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Kazakh SSR no. 13/54zh–88 of October 19, 1988. Ibid, t. 2, ll. 118–125.
45 Arkhiv KNB RK, d. no. 78754, arkh. no. 124, t. 6, ll. 242–278, 285–285ob.

177

Mambet KOIGELDIEV

1930, and found that the accused’s sentences could be “mitigated.” As aresult, 28 of them were exonerated. The sentence that four of them beshot (Baitursunov, Dulatov, Ispolov and Beremzhanov) was commuted
to a ten-year term of imprisonment in a concentration camp. To date thecircumstances surrounding the pronouncement of death sentence to Zh.
Aimautov, A. Baidildin, D. Adilev and A. Yusupov remain unclear.
Having “successfully” dealt with the first group of Alash Orda, Goloshchekin instructs the relevant authorities to press on without delay to
finally crush the Alash movement. In September and October 1930 the
OGPU carries out a second wave of repressive measures against Alash
Orda activists. By November 20 of the same year the cells of the OGPU’s
Almaty prison were filled with about 40 people being held in case No.
2370 against Kazakh nationalists. Among these were M. Tynyshpaev, Kh.
Dosmukhamedov, Zh. Dosmukhamedov, A. Ermekov, M. Auezov, Zh.
Akpaev, K. Kemengerov and other well-known figures. The charges
brought against them were more or less the same as those against theprevious group. The bill of indictment attributes to them “activity, thepurpose of which is to misrepresent and disrupt Soviet campaigns andmeasures in Kazakhstan relating to land regulation, confiscation of bai
property, agricultural collectivization, state purchases of livestock andmeat; aspiring to make use of senior Soviet officials to this end; and preparing an armed uprising against the Soviet government with the intention of overthrowing it.”46
Unlike the first group, the investigation in case No. 2370 on Kazakh
nationalists was conducted in Almaty from start to finish, and the involvement of OGPU headquarters in Moscow was limited to determining the final penalties to be imposed on the persons on trial. Yet again,
however, the interrogation of the accused was both contemptuous andprejudicial. The accused were left to languish in OGPU prison cells formonths without being interrogated or any specific charges beingbrought. Finally, having spent just under a year in detention, 20 of themwere released and the investigation into them was closed “due to insufficiency of evidence collected in the case.”
The indictment against the remaining twenty named was passed on to46 Ibid., d. no. 2370, arkh. no. 6610, t. 4, ll. 185–226.

178

The Alash Movement and the Soviet Governmenta Troika47 under the OGPU’s authorized representative in Kazakhstan.
In its turn, the Troika by its decree dated April 20, 1932, sentenced 15 ofthem to five years in a concentration camp, commuted to deportation to
the Central Chernozem (Black-Earth) Oblast for the same term. These
included M. Tynyshpaev, Kh. Dosmukhamedov, M. Murzin, Zh. Akpaev,
S. Kadyrbaev, Zh. Dosmukhamedov, K. Kemengerov, Zh. Kuderin, Zh.
Tleulin and others. A. Ermekov and M. Auezov were given suspended
sentences of three years in a concentration camp. The remaining three (B.
Suleev, B. Omarov and D. Iskakov) were released in light of the timethey had already spent in detention prior to trial.48
It should be noted that a draft of this decree had been sent earlier for
approval to the collegium of the OGPU of the USSR. The groundlessnessof the charges against the accused described therein was so obvious thateven all-powerful Moscow could not approve the proposal of the OGPU
authorized representative in Kazakhstan. The authorized representative
OGPU prosecutor Katanian, in official correspondence addressed toprosecutor Stolbova, who oversaw the OGPU authorized representativein the Kazakh ASSR, wrote: “ . . . scrutiny of the case demonstrates that,
despite the fact the investigation lasted one and a half years, it cannot beheard on its merits by the collegium for the following reasons:
1. The organizational and guiding role of the accused in political banditism in Kazakhstan has not been proven, just as no link has been established between the accused, as the main counter-revolutionary organization, and the bandit parties themselves;
2. The charges are principally based on the accused’s counter-revolutionary past in 1918–1922, whereas the case material relating to recent
years gives no suggestion of any revival of their past counter-revolutionary activities and rather may be seen as only evidencing nationalistic
views.”49
This was essentially an instruction to close the case owing to the absence of corpus delicti. However, Goloshchekin and the OGPU’s authorized representative in Kazakhstan Karutskii were not satisfied with
47 A non-judicial commission consisting of three members used to deal with anti-Soviet
elements (translator’s note).
48 Arkhiv KNB RK, d. no. 2370, arkh. no. 6610, t. 4, ll. 263–263ob.
49 Ibid., ll. 266–266ob.

179Mambet KOIGELDIEV

Moscow’s position, sensing in it the beginnings of a political scandal. In
an express telegram dated April 4, 1932, to deputy chairman Akulov of
the all-Union OGPU, which was signed by Karutskii’s deputies,
Fel’dman and Mironov, they advanced the following counter-arguments:“Further investigation in the case of the nationalists will not yield any real
results. Their release will give momentum to the counter-revolutionary nationalist element, give rise to a new wave of attacks on the Krai leadershipand OGPU structures. Based on this and on the political situation in the Kraiat this time, we request authorization to consider the case at an assize of the
OGPU collegium with the purpose of deporting the accused from Kazakhstan for various periods.
We await your response with urgency. No. 1145.”50

Moscow was accommodating. The assize of the OGPU collegium, themembers of which were Sol’ts, Fel’dman and Goloshchekin, “with due
consideration for the political situation in the Krai and the harmfulness
of indiscriminately releasing all the arrested parties in the case of thenationalists,” upheld the aforementioned decree passed by the Troika
under the OGPU’s authorized representative in Kazakhstan. The authorities may have been new, but their methods were recognizable as thesame. Moscow endorsed this decision of the OGPU’s Kazakh branch,behind which stood Goloshchekin. The telegram sent in response from
Moscow states: “ . . . the measures intended to be taken in relation to thearrested parties are agreed. The destination for the deported shall be theCentral Chernozem Oblast.” The decision had to be implemented as
quickly as possible.
And here is a detail that is crucial in order to fully understand the organizers’ intentions. Karutskii’s telegram to Moscow regarding the punitive measures to be taken with respect to the accused includes the following: “ . . . Third: release Alimkhan Ermekov and Mukhtar Auezov,
having imposed a conditional sentence in concentration camp and withconsideration for their having declared their ideological disarmament,
admitted their guilt and undertaken the commitment to work honestly.”
Goloshchekin pressed for “ideological disarmament” of the leaders of
50 Ibid., l. 320.

180

The Alash Movement and the Soviet Government
the entire liberation movement. Soon open letters of repentance by A.
Ermekov and M. Auezov would appear in the Kazkraikom newspaper
Sovetskaia Step’.
The accused, having read the indictment, maintained their innocence.
Only A. Ermekov, M. Tynyshpaev and Kh. Dosmukhamedov confessed
to being partly guilty as charged. On May 3, 1932, all fifteen of the deportees arrived in Voronezh to serve their punishment. Such were thechief results of the second wave of repression of the non-party Alash
Orda intelligentsia.
And so the repression in the 1920s and the early 1930s affected almost
all leaders and active participants of the national liberation movement. A.
Bukeikhanov was the only one not to be taken into custody. One may
speculate as to the reasons for this approach by the OGPU. Most likely inthis way the organizers of this large-scale campaign tried to conceal theirintentions. For all intents and purposes it constituted not just repressionof non-party intelligentsia, but a definitive rout of the national liberation
movement to an extent the Tsarist colonizers could not even havedreamt. The practically indiscriminate slaughter of Alash Orda intelligentsia in the late 1920s and early 1930s was a logical result of this dirty
policy of ideologues in the senior Bolshevik ranks.

Tragic Consequences
Most terrible was not the fact that the pre-revolutionary national elite
was destroyed, both in the literal sense and in terms of what they stoodfor, by the very government in which a long-suffering nation had placed
its hopes. The real weight of the consequences of this tragedy lay elsewhere. The younger generation of Kazakhs that came after the Alash
Orda saw clearly how the leadership in Moscow dealt with the generally
acknowledged leaders of the liberation movement, how all the politicalexperience they gained through the difficult circumstances of the Tsarist
period was crushed and wiped out. The emerging generation of national
elite in the Soviet Union sensed immediately the Damoclean sword ofrepression hanging above them, and understood that in order to work in
Soviet state structures or the party administration they had to learn well181

Mambet KOIGELDIEV

the rules of the game. Those who did not resign themselves to this but
rather stood up for national interests would be subjected to political execution and accusations of having “nationalist leanings” or being“pan-Turkic” or “pan-Islamist.” The party’s ideological apparatus, on
one hand crudely, with its intrinsic revolutionary enthusiasm, but also
methodically and consistently implemented a policy of undermining all
morally important and valuable gains made by that active first generation of the national intelligentsia. Thus the natural but fragile bond between generations was broken. And it was done to draw the nation’s
growing generation to the new Communist religion, a religion in which
there was no place for national values.
The elimination of the Alash Orda intelligentsia allowed Moscow and
Goloshchekin to carry out their wide-scale “experiments” in Kazakhstan
unhindered. As is stated in the Findings of the Commission of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 7, 1992, “here a criminal attempt was made to realize the orthodox Marxist theorem regarding the ‘possibility of transitioning backward peoples to socialism, bypassing capitalism,’ when resulted in destruction of the traditional systems supporting Kazakhstan’s ethnic
groups, ultimately leading to a catastrophe unprecedented in history.
The scale of the tragedy was indeed so monstrous, we may label itwith all due moral responsibility an attempt at genocide.” Further in the
Findings it is noted that this “statement derives from the strict rules ofinternational law as set out in the international convention ‘On the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide’.”51
As a result of the confiscation of the farmsteads of major bais (some696), campaigns for state purchases of agricultural products and heavyhanded tax policies, reprisals against the peasants, the arbitrary and violent policy of forcing nomadic and semi-nomadic livestock farmers to
51 “Zakliuchenie Komissii Prezidiuma Verkhovnogo Soveta Respubliki Kazakhstan po
izucheniiu postanovlenii KazTsIK i SNK KASSR ot 27 avgusta 1928 goda ‘O konfiskatsii
baiskikh khoziaistv,’ ot 13 sentiabria 1928 goda ‘Ob ugolovnoi otvetstvennosti za
protivodeistviia konfiskatsii i vyseleniiu krupneishego i feodal’nogo baistva,’ ot 19 fevralia
1930 goda ‘O meropriiatiiakh po ukrepleniiu sotsialisticheskogo pereustroistva sel’skogo
khozaistva v raionakh sploshnoi kollektivizatsii i po bor’be s kulachestvom i baistvom,”
Kazakhstanskaia pravda, December 22, 1992.

182

The Alash Movement and the Soviet Government
settle, and forced collectivization, Kazakhstan experienced a terrible
famine in 1932–1933. Starvation, associated epidemics and a perpetuallyhigh rate of natural mortality resulted in the nation’s population shrinking by 2.2 million people, i.e., roughly 49 percent of the total population.52
As was the case throughout the Soviet Union, the people in Kazakhstan had openly demonstrated their dissatisfaction, spilling over in a
number of incidences to armed insurrections. In 1929–1931 there were
372 uprisings in Kazakhstan involving about 80,000 people. From the
beginning of 1930 to the middle of 1931 alone some 1.13 million people
left the country, 676,000 of whom never returned, while 454,000 eventually resettled in Kazakhstan. The regular military and OGPU structures
carried out reprisals against the rebellious populace. In 1923–1931 some
5,551 people were convicted by the OGPU alone for taking part in major
uprisings and unrest, 883 of whom were shot.
These brutal measures were also taken against those who in any way
resisted, or were suspected of resisting, the policy of dispossessing thekulaks and bais. Although the information is incomplete, over the five
years from 1929 to 1933 some 9,805 cases went before the Troika under
the OGPU’s authorized representative in the Kazakh ASSR, resulting in
22,933 individuals being sentenced, of which 3,386 people were shot and13,151 were sent to concentration camps for three to ten years. The decisions taken by the Troikas were confirmed by the krai and provincial
party committees.53
Thus, the Communist Party Krai Committee, supported by Moscow,
implemented policies of repression of the people in Kazakhstan during
the period in question. In clashing with the dissenting national intelligentsia, the committee used the punitive measures available to state authorities to the fullest possible extent.
The systematic “battering” and purging of the national ranks—particularly the mass reprisals directed against the more sophisticated andactive of them in 1937–1938—led to degeneration of the ruling elite, andin the postwar period a real “new Soviet generation” of leaders finally
did emerge in Kazakhstan.
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid.

183

Mambet KOIGELDIEV

Thanks to their efforts, of all the Soviet republics Kazakhstan was considered the most reliable and loyal to Moscow, and in the post-Stalin
period its leaders were particularly trusted in the Kremlin. When D. A.
Kunaev was elected to the Central Committee Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, economic potential and the personalqualities of this distinguished man were primary considerations. But noless important was the faithful allegiance of the republic’s ruling elite “tothe ideas of socialism and internationalism.”
The long years spent by several generations under the weight of thetotalitarian regime extinguished or warped many inimitable features of
the national elite. What is more, perennial treatment as apprentices led
to an atrophied sense of self-esteem and fostered such qualities as thetendency to blindly follow others’ experience, the inclination to take thewell-trodden path and so forth.
(Translated from Russian by David Cassidy
and edited by Uyama Tomohiko)184