Introduction
This work presents the autograph manuscript of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi (TheHistory of Eastern Turkistan), the most important work of Muতammad AmƯnBughra, a well-known 20th-century nationalist among the Uyghurs.
The Uyghurs are the largest group of Turkic peoples indigenous to the
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (᪂␩⥔࿃∞⮬἞༊) of China. Today, theUyghurs live primarily in Xinjiang, and have communities in almost all of the
newly independent Central Asian republics, the largest being in Kazakhstan.
Today, it is usual for this group of people to use the term “Uyghur” to refer tothemselves. It is also a popular idea among them that the “Uyghur” as an ethnic
group have existed in the area since ancient times. However, from a historicalpoint of view, the Uyghurs only started to be called by the ethnic group name“Uyghur” during the 20th century, when Turkic urban-dwellers and farmers in
Xinjiang, which included Kashgharia and Jungaria, began to be regarded as one
ethnic group.
During the period of the Republic of China, the “Uyghur” people began
exploring what it means to be a nation (ethnic group), in the modern meaning of
the word. At this time, Uyghur intellectuals began independently publishing in
conjunction with their rising sense of nationalism. Those intellectuals produced
large volumes of material, including newspapers and journals. This flurry ofintellectual activity had never been witnessed before, and it is no exaggeration to
say that it is testimony to the modernization of Uyghur society.
Of particular interest is the fact that, throughout the published material, one
constantly finds questions such as “Who are we?” “What is our motherland?” and“What is our history?” The Republic of China represented a period of transition,in which attempts were made to classify and establish ethnic groups in the modern
sense of the word. Accordingly, differences began to emerge among fellow“nationalist” intellectuals over their nation’s proper name, the location of theirethnic homeland, and the geographical/physical scope of such a homeland.
Thus, the intellectual consciousness and opinions regarding ethnicity inparticular are still a matter of debate, because it has formed the core of theirnationalism. One must ask how this disparity in thinking reflected and had anxiThe Autograph Manuscript ofMuhammadAmīn Bughra’s Sharqī Turkistān Tārīkhi.

impact on the actual activities of the intellectuals. In the era of the Republic ofChina, there was no consensus over the name of the nation even among
intellectuals, leaving one to inquire about the process by which the name “Uyghur”
was introduced as a unified term.1 In addition, one must ask how this name andthe consciousness associated with it permeated and became established among the
population at large. As long as a lack of clarity remains as to the intellectuals’
consciousness, which underlined their practical activities, it will not be possible tounderstand the norms of early-modern Uyghur society or the essence of its
historical transformation.
In order to explore this issue, I direct
my especial attention to Muতammad AmƯnBughra’s SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi. As
described later, Bughra was a leading
figure who took an active part in themodern history of Xinjiang and SharqƯ
TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi, his most importantwork, is noteworthy for being a systematic
historical narrative written by a Uyghurfrom a nationalist perspective. I ought tomention here that Bughra did not see
himself as a Uyghur, but a Türk—this will
be discussed in detail below. I believe that
SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi is one of themost appropriate sources to use whenMuতammad AmƯn Bughra
attempting to examine the Uyghur
intellectuals’ nationalist consciousness, as well as the various intellectual issues
associated with such consciousness, in relation to the Uyghur intellectuals’
historical awareness.
There are a number of reasons for this approach. First, the historical context inwhich SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi was written has been largely clarified by past
research, and recent studies are increasingly unveiling Bughra’s own background.2
1
2

Regarding the issue of the ethnic name Uyghur, refer to Roberts 2009 and ΎỈ 2011.
Regarding the life history of Muতammad AmƯn Bughra refer to ΎỈ࣭᪂ච࣭㕥ᮌ
2007: 4 –12, ΎỈ 2009: 22–29, Ỉ㇂ 2008: 32–37 and SHIMIZU 2012: 4–16.
xii

Introduction

Therefore, when used as a historical source, there is relatively little possibility
that defects and discrepancies will emerge, based on the researcher’s perspectives
and research methods. Of course, as Shinmen Yasushi (᪂චᗣ), Suzuki Kentaro(㕥ᮌ೺ኴ㑻), and I have pointed out,3 given that SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi is ahistorical record of Bughra’s own homeland and people, and based on his own
nationalist perspective, anyone using it as a historical source should be aware ofhis bias, as the accounts are heavily colored by Bughra’s nationalist views.
However, if one is trying to clarify the universality and particularity of Uyghur
intellectual thought, the bias in the accounts may actually provide a valuable
historical perspective.
The second reason is that SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi is sufficient, due to both its
size and its systematic nature, to serve as a reliable source for historicalexamination. As mentioned previously, the Uyghurs published many newspapers
during the 1930s and 1940s, including Yengi ‫ۉ‬ayƗt (New Life) 4 and Erk(Freedom).5 These newspapers warrant investigation, because they contain manytreatises, including opinions on Uyghur ethnicity and history that were held at thetime by the Uyghur intellectuals who published the material. However, thesetreatises have limited value as historical sources. Owing to the mediatized natureof newspapers, authors’ backgrounds (individual treatises were probably written
by multiple authors) are not always clear, and only fragmented information can beobtained. In this respect, SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi is significantly better than otherhistorical sources, as it constitutes a systematic historical source penned by asingle author, and is more than 800 pages long.6
Thirdly, notwithstanding SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi’s exceptional value as ahistorical source, it has not been adequately utilized at an academic level. SharqƯ
3ΎỈ࣭᪂ච࣭㕥ᮌ 2007: 25.
Yengi ‫ۉ‬ayƗt made its first appearance in March 1934 in Kashghar. It was issued until
May 1937, when the Xinjiang provincial government forced it to cease publication. Yengi‫ۉ‬ayƗt was published by Uyghur intellectuals in Kashghar on their own initiative. For thatreason, their nationalistic beliefs are observed everywhere in the newspaper. For details,see ΎỈ 2007: 62.
5
Erk made its first appearance in December, 1946. It was published by Altay Publishing
House, which was established in Urumchi in 1946 by ‘Ʈsa Yǌsuf Alptekin (see below) and
Bughra. They made Erk a propaganda weapon for clearly stating their political claims andopinions regarding their history and ethnicity. For details see ΎỈ 2010: 25.
6
The book contains the initial 40 pages and 776 pages of the main part. See below forfurther details.
4xiii

The Autograph Manuscript ofMuhammadAmīn Bughra’s Sharqī Turkistān Tārīkhi.

TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi has been referenced in historical works on the Uyghurs such as
Polat QƗdirƯ’s Ölkä TƗrƯkhi (The Province History), which was published in
Urumchi in 1948. 7 In China, Han-Chinese historians have vilified SharqƯ
TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi as a text inciting ethnic separatism.8 However, in each of theseexamples, referencing SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi is based on specific ethnic or
political interests, and so it is questionable whether these examples are objective
and academically sound.
In Japan, on the other hand, SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi’s existence and generalcontent were known as early as 1994 due to Shinmen’s work.9 However, otherthan being briefly referenced by Shinmen himself in order to clarify the history ofa revolt, SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi has hardly been used worldwide as a historicalsource. The reason for this absence of citation could be due to the scarcity ofcopies in circulation, as well as the fact that it is written in a Uyghur dialect thatretains heavy elements of Chaghatay Turki, a language that has often been called“Eastern Turki” in previous research.10
Under these conditions, Shinmen, Suzuki, and I have provided an annotatedJapanese translation of the key parts of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi based on the1987 edition of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi, as well as its 1971 edition, which iscalled SharqƯ TurkistƗnning MillƯ InqilƗb TƗrƯkhi (described later).11 We havealso discussed the work’s features and historical value. Through these efforts,
research on SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi has achieved some degree of progress.
However, subsequent research developments and changes in the status ofhistorical materials have led to various issues, which have forced us to review ourassumptions. Mizutani Naoko (Ỉ㇂ᑦᏊ) conducted interviews with FƗ৬ima
Bughra (FatÕma Bu÷ra), the only daughter of Muতammad AmƯn Bughra, and herhusband Yǌnus Bughra (Yunus Bu÷ra) in Izmir in the Republic of Turkey, on

7Polat QƗdirƯ 1949. For details see Chapter V.
Turghun Almas, a modern Uyghur historian and poet, published a history titled“Uyghurlar” (the Uyghurs) in Urumchi in 1989 [Turghun Almas 1989]. As described
below, this book attracted criticism from Han-Chinese historians as a text inciting ethnic
separatism. In connection with this, SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi also became the target ofcriticism. See Chapter V.
9See ᪂ච 1994b.
10
See Raquette 1912: 1–2 and Jarring 1964: 3–4.
11ΎỈ࣭᪂ච࣭㕥ᮌ 2007.
8xiv

Introduction

which she reported in 2008.12 I also conducted field surveys in Izmir in July 2007
and September 2008 and collected new information and historical materials on
Muতammad AmƯn Bughra. 13 One particularly notable change occurred when
Bughra’s autograph manuscript of the SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi, whose existence
had not been previously confirmed, was introduced to Japan after my fieldwork.
In view of these developments, this book aims to present the autographmanuscript of Muতammad AmƯn Bughra’s SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi, which has
not yet been shown to the public. As I will discuss later, a number of editions of
SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi have been published since 1947, but to date no editions
have been faithful representations of the original manuscript. Having received themanuscript from its current owners, FƗ৬ima Bughra and Yǌnus Bughra, I will
present the Turkic text of the manuscript in this volume, and present a facsimile ofthe manuscript in the second volume.
In the following chapters, I will provide an overview of the complex
circumstances surrounding SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi’s publication, much of which
has not been disclosed in previous research.14 I will also briefly discuss thedistinctive features of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi as a historical narrative, as well as
its historical value, by drawing upon the findings of previous research as well as
new information obtained through my own studies. In spite of recent research into
early-modern Uyghur society, unresolved issues remain, and I hope that this bookwill provide fresh material for understanding the norms of Uyghur society and theessence of its historical transformation.

12

See Ỉ㇂ 2008. Regarding the biographies of FƗ৬ima and Yǌnus, refer to Ỉ㇂ 2008:
30–32.
13
As a result of this survey, I published a book on Bughra’s unpublished memoirs,“Muতammad AmƯn Bughraning SiyƗsƯ ণayƗti” (The Political Memoir of MuতammadAmƯn Bughra) and “Muতammad AmƯn Begning Qisqacha TarjumaiতƗli” (A Brief Historyof Muতammad AmƯn Beg). See SHIMIZU 2012.
14
Through our research, it was revealed that there were a number of editions of SharqƯ
TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi which differed from each other in date and place of printing [ΎỈ࣭᪂ච࣭㕥ᮌ 2007: 12–14]. However, it was not known how and why these editions were
published.
xv

The Autograph Manuscript ofMuhammadAmīn Bughra’s Sharqī Turkistān Tārīkhi.

I. Historical Background
Before discussing SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi, I will first briefly outline thehistorical context in which it was written. As previously mentioned in our joint
work, Muতammad AmƯn Bughra lived during a time when the Uyghurs of
Xinjiang were dominated by the rule of Han-Chinese dictators while also
developing autonomous social and political movements.15
In 1911, the Qing Dynasty was overthrown by the Xinhai Revolution, butconditions remained unchanged in Xinjiang. The province was placed under therule of the despotic Han-Chinese ruler Yang ZenXin (᳿ቑ᪂),16 while at thesame time Uyghurs were completely deprived of political rights and lagged
behind economically. Under these conditions, however, the “bay” bourgeoisie wason the rise among the Uyghurs with the growth of Russian–Xinjiang trade, which
had started at the end of the 19th century. As they saw the other Turkic Muslims
in Russia or the Ottoman Empire developing and acquiring a wide range ofknowledge and education, a sense of crisis began to emerge among them. As aresult of that, a social and political movement, led by these bays and founded
upon national consciousness, emerged and gathered momentum.
The initial driving force behind this mobilization was the reform movement of
the 1910s, which sought the modernization of society. It particularly strove for a
popularized school education that adopted new, modern teaching methods using
the vernacular language, as an alternative to traditional Islamic education and theChinese language-based education imposed by the provincial government. The
so-called usǌl-i jadƯd (“new method” of teaching)17 flourished in Kashghar andTurfan and ultimately spread to every area throughout Xinjiang.18 To some extent,
the emergence of this trend reflects the influence of the Islamic reformmovements in Central Asia and Turkey. However, it also indicates that a newsocial group was emerging among Uyghur society, composed of the bays and15

This section is based on ΎỈ࣭᪂ච࣭㕥ᮌ 2007: 2–4 unless otherwise specified.
Yang Zengxin was a Han-Chinese who ruled Xinjiang province from 1911 to 1928.
During the Qing period, he had held various important posts as local governor. Taking
advantage of the confusion after the Xinhai Revolution in 1911, he seized real power andestablished a dictatorship over Xinjiang. However, he was assassinated in 1928.
17
As for ‘usǌl-i jadƯd, refer to ᑠᯇ 1996: 120–123.
18
Regarding this educational movement, refer to ᪂ච 1990: 2–8, Hamada 1990 and ኱▼ 1996.
16xvi

Introduction

modern intellectuals, and that this group was leading a new movement.
However, the reform movement eventually became a disappointing failure
after it succumbed to a government crackdown and obstruction by conservative
elements within Uyghur society.19 Teachers were arrested and imprisoned andnewly established schools were closed one after another. Few schools were left
after that and the educational movement soon collapsed. Nevertheless, it had had
a significant impact, not only in enlightening people about reformism and raisingnational consciousness among the Uyghurs, but also in leading them to an armed
uprising instead of peaceful social reform movements. In other words, the 1931
Kumul uprising and wide-scale Uyghur rebellion that encompassed all of
Xinjiang 20 was directed primarily by the bays and intellectuals who had
previously led the reform movement, as well as by Uyghur leaders associatedwith the new movement.
This rebellion resulted in the short-lived Eastern Turkistan Republic in
Kashghar in 1933.21 As far as can be ascertained from the declared constitution,
this “republic” was founded on a framework of national consciousness, in which
the citizens’ ethnicity was Türk (not Uyghur) and the homeland was Eastern
Turkistan, and it represented an attempt to establish the people’s own modern
nation-state. The historical fact that the Eastern Turkistan Republic wasestablished, if only for a few months, would continue to exert a tremendous
influence on subsequent Uyghur political movements. In fact, during the 1944
revolt in Ili, in the north of Xinjiang, the Eastern Turkistan Republic wasestablished again.22
Efforts were also made by Uyghur leaders working within the Chinese
government to promote a nationalist agenda. While these political activities were
nationalistic, they also built upon fears that the confusion and chaos caused byrevolts might invite intervention from foreign powers, such as the Soviet Union.
They sought to put pressure on the Republic of China government in a variety ofways, in order to improve the situation in Xinjiang and achieve self-rule for the19

᪂ච 1990: 6–7.
Regarding the Muslim rebellion in Xinjiang in the 1930s, see ᪂␩♫఍⛉Ꮫ㝔Ṕྐ◊✲ᡤ 1980 (3): 132–205, Forbes 1986: 38–127, ᪂ච 1990.
21
As for the Eastern Turkistan Republic, refer to ᪂ච 1994a.
22
Regarding the independence movement in the 1940s, see Forbes 1986: 163–228,
Benson 1990 and ⋤ᰓ 1995: 97–252.
20

xvii

The Autograph Manuscript ofMuhammadAmīn Bughra’s Sharqī Turkistān Tārīkhi.

Türks. These activities began during latter half of the 1930s, and further
developed within the Nanjing (༡ி) government, the subsequent Chongqing (㔜៞ ) government, 23 and, from 1945 to 1949, under the Xinjiang provincial
government.24
As explained above, these movements led by the Uyghur leaders had anenormous impact on the modern history of Xinjiang. Above all, Muতammad AmƯnBughra recorded prominent achievements compared to his contemporaries. As I
have already provided a detailed discussion of Bughra’s activities in a previous
work,25 I will only touch briefly on the main points here.
Bughra was born in Khotan, located in southern Xinjiang, in 1900. At the timeof the Muslim rebellion that swept across the whole of Xinjiang from 1931 to
1934, he organized a revolt in Khotan to drive Chinese power out of the country
and succeeded in establishing his own government. After the failed national
independence movement of the Uyghurs, Bughra took refuge in Afghanistan from1934 to 1942 and during this period he completed SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi. He
then moved to inland China and Xinjiang. While working in the 1940s as an
official of the Republic of China in Chongqing and Urumchi (ⅲ㩃ᮌ඼), theprovincial capital of Xinjiang, he waged a political campaign alongside ‘Ʈsa Yǌsuf
Alptekin26 to attain autonomy for the Uyghurs. After the People’s Republic ofChina was founded, he fled from his country to Turkey and there he devoted
himself to publishing periodicals and books to arouse awareness of the problemsof his homeland “Eastern Turkistan” until the end of his life in Ankara in 1965.
This overview of Bughra’s life reveals the transition points of his activities.
Nonetheless, these transitions do not necessarily mean that his nationalist core
had been altered. The transitions in his activities should be regarded as a struggle
to find and pursue the most realistic choices to achieve his goal. Whether throughan armed uprising or a political campaign, Bughra consistently searched for a way
to liberate his nation. He devoted himself to arousing international attention about
the problem of “Eastern Turkistan” and to propagating his nationalistic ideas. This23

For details, see ᪂ච 2001: 163–171.
See ΎỈ 2010.
25
SHIMIZU 2012: 4–17.
26‘Ʈsa Yǌsuf Alptekin was a Uyghur political leader who worked as an official of the
Republic of China both in inland China and Urumchi. Regarding studies on the roles andactivities of Alptekin, refer to ᪂ච 2001.
24

xviii

Introductionis why I describe him as an outstanding leader in both thought and action.
In the following chapter, I will outline the circumstances in which SharqƯ
TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi was written and published. I would like to explain in advancethat the description of the next chapter is, to a great extent, based on the dictationof FƗ৬ima and Yǌnus, the persons who best knew Bughra, as well as on Bughra’s
works.27

II. Background to the Production and Publicationof SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi
1. The production of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi (1940)
As mentioned above, the national independence movement ended in failure in
1934, after which Bughra fled Xinjiang and resided in Kabul, Afghanistan from
September 1934 to March 1942. According to Bughra’s own account, he sought towrite a modern history book as a way of serving his homeland while in Kabul,28
and he completed SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi on April 18, 1940.29
Bughra’s autograph manuscript, which
is currently owned by FƗ৬ima and Yǌnus,
was written with a quill pen in a green
notebook with a red spine. It was written
in so-called “Eastern Turki.”
The text is more than 800 pages long.
The initial 40-page preliminary section
includes endorsements by IsmƗ‘Ưl ণikmat
Beg, an educational advisor in Afghanistan
Autograph manuscript(formerly the director of public educationin the Republic of Turkey) and MiyƗn ণasan KhƗn, a teacher at teacher training
college in Kabul.30 The other 776 pages form the body of the main text. It should27

The next chapter is a revised and expanded edition of Chapter 2 of my thesis publishedin 2009. See ΎỈ 2009: 29–34.
28
Bughra 1950: 8.
29
Bughra 1940: 776. See p. 3 in vol. II.
30
See pp. 5–8 in vol. II.
xix

The Autograph Manuscript ofMuhammadAmīn Bughra’s Sharqī Turkistān Tārīkhi.

be noted that pages 3 to 50 in the main text were lost,31 but the rest of the pages
have been preserved in near perfect condition. In addition, 24 colored maps arealso preserved, as Bughra had prepared them with the intention of including themin SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi. These maps are presented in the second volume ofthis book alongside facsimiles of the text.32
2㸬The publication of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi (1947)
When Bughra was residing in Kabul, a group of Uyghur exiles named the
SharqƯ TurkistƗn MillƯ Birlik Jam‘Ưati (Association for the Unity of the People ofEastern Turkistan) was established in Kashmir. The head of the association was
Muতammad QƗsim,33 Bughra’s fellow revolutionary, and most of its members
came from southern Xinjiang like Khotan, Guma, and Yarkand, although it also
included members from northern areas like Ili. The association established its
headquarters in a building called ণƗjƯ SarƗy, situated in the center of Kashmir.
The association had a membership of somewhere between 150 and 200, and its
primary activities included providing financial assistance to exiles, and helping
exiles with the legal requirements for acquiring visas.
The association held the original manuscript of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi after
its completion in April 1940, and preparations for its publication began in 1941.
However, this process was delayed by six years because of the contemporary
political situation surrounding the Uyghurs in Kashmir, as well as the rivalries
within the association. Bughra himself explained that while the association began
the publication process in 1941, it was delayed until 1947 because of financial
31

According to Yǌnus, Bughra left the original manuscript of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi inthe hands of Muতmmad QƗsim (see below) in Kashmir for publication and left for China
via India. It was delivered to Bughra in Urumchi in 1948 by Yǌnus’ parents who hadtaken refuge in Afghanistan with Bughra in 1934. Yǌnus said that the loss of the pages
probably happened in 1948 in the process of the republishing of the SharqƯ TurkistƗn
TƗrƯkhi or during the confusion of Bughra’s second exile in 1949.
32
Yǌnus said that these maps were drawn by Bughra himself based on an edition of the
Oxford World Atlas. See pp. 775–800 in vol. II.
33
Muতammad QƗsim, who originally came from Karakash, joined the revolt in Khotan
while it was in progress and managed the finances of the Bughra government. He fledfrom his country with Bughra in 1934 and served as head of SharqƯ TurkistƗn MillƯ Birlik
Jam‘Ưati in Kashmir [Muতammad QƗsim 1981: 3–5]. As for Muতammad QƗsim, Ʈsa Yǌsuf
Alptekin relates in his memoir that he was a comrade of Bughra, both in ideas and war[‘Ʈsa Yǌsuf Alptekin 1985: 425].
xxIntroduction

reasons and the impact of the Second World War.34
On the other hand, according to Yǌnus, there were three principal reasons forthe delay in publication. (1) SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi portrays Khǀja NiyƗz,35 acentral figure in the Kumul Uprising, in an unfavorable light. Members in theassociation came from a variety of backgrounds, and many refused to support the
publication financially unless this content was modified. (2) Originally, SharqƯ
TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi’s publication was to be supported by donations from theassociation, specifically zakat (alms-tax) from merchants who were members. For
this reason, it took an extremely long time to gain the members’ consent. (3) In
addition to these funding difficulties, many members were concerned that since
Bughra’s position was critical of China in the book, its publication might lead topolitical problems. Not only was the publication considerably delayed, when it
was finally published it omitted all accounts of the national independence
movement (this will be discussed later). I thus conclude that even his fellow
countrymen regarded the book as something that could ignite political tensions
with China or within Uyghur society.
The first edition of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi was
finally published in 1947. The paperback’s faintly
purple front cover listed “SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi”
as the book’s title, Muতammad AmƯn Beg as theauthor, and SharqƯ TurkistƗn MillƯ Birlik Jam‘Ưati as
the publisher. Muতammad QƗsim was accredited as
the general editor. This 1947 edition was anoil-based print of a transcription of Bughra’s
original manuscript, completed by an individual in
Kashmir. It has a total of 461 pages, and includes
content corresponding to pages 1–614 of the original
text. However, it does not contain the preliminary
The 1947 edition
section and the last part of the main text, which
34

Bughra 1948: a.
Khǀja NiyƗz was a Uyghur independence movement leader who played an importantrole in the Muslim rebellion in the 1930s. At the beginning, he led the revolt of the
Uyghurs against the Chinese, but later he formed a cooperative relationship with Sheng
Shicai (see below), who had the real executive power in the Xinjiang provincial
government. In exchange for his cooperation, he was appointed as a vice-chairman by
Sheng in 1934, but was executed in 1937. For details, see Sherip Khushtar 2000: 155–190.

35

xxi

The Autograph Manuscript ofMuhammadAmīn Bughra’s Sharqī Turkistān Tārīkhi.

concern the “millƯ inqilƗb” (national revolution) of the 1930s, in other words, thenational independence movement from 1931 to 1934. In addition, Bughra’s maps
are also omitted.
3㸬The plan to publish SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi (Bughra’s revised edition) andfailure of this plan (1948)
Bughra was extremely dissatisfied with the 1947 edition of SharqƯ TurkistƗn
TƗrƯkhi, and was determined to publish a revised edition.36 His primary reasons
included the numerous transcription errors (as it was transcribed by an individualin Kashmir who did not know “Eastern Turki” very well), the omission of thepreliminary section, the content on the “national revolution,” maps andillustrations, and the fact that several sections had been deliberately amended.
Yǌnus also explained that Bughra was unhappy with the small number of copiesof the 1947 edition published (only 300).
In 1948, when Bughra based his activities in
Urumchi, he was planning to publish a revised
version of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi from the Altay
Publishing House.37 However, the great change inthe military and political situation in Xinjiang
forced him to abandon this plan. As thecommunist forces that had defeated theKuomintang Party in the Chinese civil war
advanced west and closed in on Xinjiang, Bughra
was forced to leave his country.
There is a galley proof of this revised edition.
It contains 3 pages for the opening section,
The 1948 edition
including the aforementioned endorsements byIsmƗ‘Ưl ণikmat Beg and MiyƗn ণasan KhƗn, and 76 pages for the main text.
Having viewed the 80 pages of the galley proof, now in FƗ৬ima and Yǌnus’
possession, I noticed that Altay Publishing House had produced the text using a
36

In the revised edition of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi, for which publication was planned in
1948, Bughra expressed his dissatisfaction with the 1947 edition in his foreword entitled“the reason for publishing a revised edition of the book.” [Bughra 1948: a]37
This publishing house served as the base for their political activities. For details, see
Khewir Tömür 1983 and ΎỈ 2010: 29–34.
xxii

Introduction

contemporary Uyghur print type, and that Arabic numerals (instead of the Eastern
Arabic numerals in the original manuscript) and even Roman characters are used.
It is also worth mentioning that the structure and content are evidently different
from the original 1940 manuscript. Regarding these changes in structure andcontent, Bughra himself records that “I wanted the material to be republished in
the best condition possible. I therefore resolved to add new information, andaugment the existing content so as to compensate for incomplete accounts and the
deficiencies thereof that exist in the first edition.”38 This edition includes content
approximately corresponding to pages 1 to 54 of the original text, although they
do not always coincide due to the above-mentioned changes.
4㸬The publication of SharqƯ TurkistƗnning MillƯ InqilƗb TƗrƯkhi (1971)
The original text’s content regarding the“national revolution” was finally published in1971 in Kashmir, half a decade after Bughra
passed away in 1965. The editor was MuতammadQƗsim, the same person who edited the 1947 work.
The funding for the printing work came from AlƯRǌzƯ al-KhotanƯ, an old comrade of Bughra’s whocame from Khotan.39 The book’s title was SharqƯ
TurkistƗnning MillƯ InqilƗb TƗrƯkhi (The Historyof the Eastern Turkistan National Revolution),
which reflected the fact that it contained content
on the “national revolution.” It was a paperback
The 1971 edition
with a yellow-colored binding, and like the 1947
edition, the text was transcribed in oil-based print. This edition contains noinformation about the copyist. According to Yǌnus, the 1971 edition is not atranscription of Bughra’s original manuscript, but rather is based on the transcriptionof the document prepared by Muতammad QƗsim for the 1947 publication.
The 1971 version has a total of 208 pages, and includes the content
38

Bughra 1948: b.
Bughra 1971: 1. According to Yǌnus, AlƯ RǌzƯ, having left his country with Bughra,
started a business in Mecca and made a fortune. Yǌnus said that he supported Bughra’s
activities as a powerful patron for many years.
39

xxiii

The Autograph Manuscript ofMuhammadAmīn Bughra’s Sharqī Turkistān Tārīkhi.

corresponding to pages 581 to 771 of the original text. It includes accounts from
“SharqƯ TurkistƗnda awwal daf‘a millƯ oyghanish” (The first awakenings ofnational consciousness in Eastern Turkistan) to “Jin Shurenning তokǌmat dawri”(The period of Jin Shuren’s rule), which pertain to the time before the “revolution.”
This content was also in the 1947 edition, but the final section regarding“revolution” was not. This section asks, “Is the Eastern Turkistan revolution over,or is it still underway?”40 I should also mention that the final section of the bookcontains material not found in Bughra’s original autograph manuscript, including
Bughra’s poetry, a biography of Muতammad NiyƗz Akhun, and MuতammadQƗsim’s biography of Bughra.
5㸬The publication of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi (Yǌnus edition) (1987)
In 1987, Bughra’s daughter FƗ৬ima andYǌnus republished SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi
in Ankara. According to Yǌnus, the 1987
edition was published at the request of the
Uyghur community in Saudi Arabia who
were originally from Karakash, Xinjiang
and it was funded by them. The hardback
book had green binding and was based on
the print type of Bughra’s original
The 1987 edition
manuscript. The 1987 edition is made up
of a 32-page preliminary section and a 661-page main text, and the maps andillustrations that had been prepared by Bughra for SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi were
finally included. The preliminary section of the 1987 edition includes a table ofcontents, an address by FƗ৬ima, a table of character equivalents, a biography ofBughra, an endorsement by MiyƗn ণasan KhƗn, a foreword by Bughra, and abibliography. The main text includes 23 maps and photographs prepared byBughra.
As stated above, the 1987 edition includes the original text’s entire contents.
However, Yǌnus modified the vocabulary of the entire text, out of consideration
for the convenience of contemporary readers, and edited some parts (based on his
own research) while respecting the will of the deceased. Therefore, I feel that the40

Bughra 1940: 771–776. See pp. 3–8 in vol. II.
xxiv

Introduction

book, in terms of its structure and content, should properly be referred to as“SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi (Yǌnus edition.)”
6㸬The publication of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi (Muতammad Ya‘qǌb edition)(1998)In 1998, Yǌnus’ younger brother,Muতammad Ya‘qǌb Bughra, published amodern Uyghur-language version of
SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi. A hardback witha blue binding, it contains a 37-page
preliminary section and a 527-page maintext. The 1998 edition is a modern-day
Uyghur translation of the 1987 edition,
which generally retains the latter’s structure
The 1998 editionand content. However, Muতammad Ya‘qǌb
included some new information in the first part, specifically, a table of contents; aforeword by Bughra; an explanation of why the book has been republished (arerecording of the 1948 edition); a bibliography; an address by FƗ৬ima; abiography of Bughra; a list of Bughra’s published works; endorsements by MiyƗn
ণasan KhƗn and IsmƗ‘Ưl ণikmat Beg; an address by Batur Rasid al-DƯn, whotransliterated the text into the Cyrillic script; and an address by the editor, Ya‘qǌb
Bughra. This edition also contains annotations that were not present in the 1987
edition.
*
The above is a full picture of the editions of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi
published to date including Bughra’s original manuscript.41 I have listed theversions in chronological order below.

41

In 1991, another edition of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi was published in Almaty,
Kazakhstan. However, as the publisher has no connection to Bughra and this edition isthought to be a mere transcription (into the Cyrillic alphabet) of the 1987 edition, it has
been omitted here.
xxv

The Autograph Manuscript ofMuhammadAmīn Bughra’s Sharqī Turkistān Tārīkhi.

Chronology of the Publications of Sharqī Turkistān Tārīkhi
1940: SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi––written in Kabul
1947: SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi (first edition) ––published in Kashmir
1948: SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi (revised by Bughra himself)––preparations for publication in Urumchi
1971: SharqƯ TǌrkistƗnning MillƯ InqilƗb TƗrƯkhi––published in Kashmir
1987: SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi (revised by Yǌnus) ––published in Ankara
1998: SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi (revised by Muতammad Ya‘qǌb)––published in Ankara.
Having viewed the original manuscript of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi as well as
all of the published editions, I can safely assert that no publication to datefaithfully reflects Bughra’s original text. As mentioned above, the discussion of
the 1930s national independence movement––a topic that constituted the core of
the original SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi––is omitted from the first edition. The 1971
edition sought to include the missing content, but still lacks a part. Moreover, thecopy used for the 1947 edition contained numerous transcription errors. The 1971
edition also suffers in terms of accuracy, as it is a transcript of a transcript. One
could perhaps consider the 1987 edition as providing a “complete version” of
SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi, in that it includes the entire content of the autographmanuscript as well as Bughra’s maps and illustrations. However, this version was
subjected to extensive editing by Yǌnus, including a reorganization of thestructure and substitutions of words, as well as other additions and amendments.
In this sense, it is even further from providing a reproduction of the original text
than the 1947 and 1971 versions. The 1998 modern Uyghur translation of the1987 version can also be dismissed in this regard. Given this situation, future
research will significantly be aided by the fact that it is now possible to utilize theoriginal SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi manuscript that obviously faithfully reflects
Bughra’s intentions.
That being said, I do not deny the value of the previously published versions of
SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi or their significance for research. ণƗjƯ Ya‘qǌb,42 who
42ণƗjƯ Ya‘qǌb was born in Bursa, Turkey and raised in Aksu, Xinjiang. After graduatingfrom a teacher training college in Aksu, he became a teacher in Uchturfan and thenworked for a newspaper in Khotan. In 1945 and later, he was involved in publishing inxxvi

Introduction

organized independent publishing activities in 1940s inland China, and wasconsidered a “national writer,” attests to the weighty influence of SharqƯ TurkistƗn
TƗrƯkhi. In Do÷u Türkistan’da Milliyetçilik Hareketleri (The Nationalist
Movements in Eastern Turkistan), ণƗjƯ Ya‘qǌb used the description of a “spiritualbombshell” to describe SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi’s wide impact.43 ণƗjƯ Ya‘qǌb’s
claim is supported, as SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi appears to be among the top
prohibited books in present-day Xinjiang.
On the other hand, research into the published versions of SharqƯ TurkistƗn
TƗrƯkhi is necessary in order to determine the impact and significance that SharqƯ
TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi has had among the Uyghurs and in Xinjiang generally. The
1948 version will provide a particularly valuable resource for analyzing how
Bughra’s own views changed. As mentioned previously, regarding theunpublished 1948 version, Bughra writes, “I wanted the manuscript to be
republished in the best condition possible. I therefore resolved to add new
information, and augment the existing content so as to compensate for incomplete
accounts and the deficiencies thereof that exist in the first edition.”44 The 1948
galley print reveals that Bughra made extensive revisions to the content from the1940 manuscript. Therefore, a painstaking comparison between the content of the1948 version and the corresponding sections in the original text will illuminate
Bughra’s internal changes. This process will also contribute to advancing researchon the thought of Uyghur intellectuals.

III. Structure of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi
This chapter examines the structure of the original SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi
manuscript. Regarding its overall structure, the original manuscript is broadly
divided into three time periods. The main text begins with an introductory section,
which discusses the history of humankind and ancient Turkic history. This isfollowed by the unique history of Eastern Turkistan, which is addressed in threeinland China. During the era of the People’s Republic of China, he spent 20 years inprison and was exiled to Turkey in the latter half of the 1990s. For details, see HacÕ Yakup2003.
43HacÕ Yakup Anat 2005: 67–85.
44
Bughra 1948: b.
xxvii

The Autograph Manuscript ofMuhammadAmīn Bughra’s Sharqī Turkistān Tārīkhi.

sections covering the first, second, and third ages. The section on the first age
examines the ancient Uyghurs. The second begins from the time of the Huns (໢ያ) and describes the rise and fall of the Türks, including the Khanates of Rouran(ᰂ↛), Gokturks (✺དྷ) and Turgesh (✺㥽᪋). The third concerns the period
from the Islamization of this area, that is, the acceptance of Islam by the Türks
during the Karakhanate period, until the end of the 1930s national independence
movement in Xinjiang (1931–1934).45
I should mention here, that the latter part of the third age, that is, thediscussion of the independence movement titled “SharqƯ TurkistƗnning akhrƯqi
inqilƗbi” (The last revolution of Eastern Turkistan) was added later. Bughra states,
to ensure fairness as a historian, that he initially did not dare to write about theindependence movement in which he was a key participant. However, after muchconsideration, he decided to write this part at the request of many fellow
countrymen. 46 Therefore, the content of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi is actuallycomposed of four sections, the first three (until the middle of the third section)
presented as a traditional historical narrative, but the rest (Bughra’s portrayal of
the independence movement) based largely upon his own recollections. Thus,
while this latter content is chronologically contiguous with the former, there issomething of a break in terms of the nature of the accounts.

IV. Features of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi as a Historical Narrative
Now, let us discuss the historical narrative that Bughra sought to develop
around the structure described in Chapter III.47 The first and most distinctive
feature of this work is that it is a systematic history book written by a Uyghurfrom a nationalist perspective. Notably, Bughra describes his people as “Türks”and his homeland as “SharqƯ TurkistƗn” (Eastern Turkistan) and portrays thehistory of this Turkic homeland as an unbroken lineage from prehistoric times tothe present. It must be stressed here that while Bughra’s people would today bedescribed as “Uyghurs,” according to the ethnic framework on which Bughra45

See the index of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi on pp. 731–761 in vol. II.
Bughra 1940: 615–618. See pp. 161–164 in vol. II.
47
This and the next chapter is a revised edition of Section 4–6 of the Introduction of our
joint work. See ΎỈ࣭᪂ච࣭㕥ᮌ 2007: 14–28.
46

xxviiiIntroductionbuilds his historical narrative, they are not Uyghurs but rather Türks.
As pointed out in my previous work, in 1934, the ethnic name “Uyghur” began
to be used in Xinjiang as part of the ethnic policies of Sheng Shicai (┒ୡᡯ),48
who had the real power in the Xinjiang provincial government, although Türk
nationalism had many advocates among the Uyghurs who led the former
independence movement.49 Although Bughra penned SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi
after Uyghur was determined as the group’s official ethnic name, he resisted thissubdividing ethnic framework and rigidly adhered to the term Türk in his
historical narrative. Bughra’s advocacy of Türk nationalism is clear from hisarguments in a paragraph titled “Shengning তokǌmatining mƗhiyati” (The realitiesof Sheng’s rule). In this paragraph, Bughra severely criticizes the ethnicclassification made by Sheng Shicai, as follows:
After Sheng seized control of the government, he gradually revised the system
for governing in accordance with the manner of the Russian communists.
Moreover, the Russians gave him full support, providing arms, airplanes, andtroops in exchange for his efforts. In this manner, Sheng eliminated therevolutionaries of Eastern Turkistan and subjected this country to his rule. […]In accordance with the flawed manner in which Russian Bolsheviks divided
the Türks [within Russian the territory], he proposed to divide the people ofEastern Turkistan, which had been existing as the “Türk nation” since ancient
times, into fourteen groups. Of the fourteen ethnic groups created, one is [agroup of] Buddhists composed of immigrants from China, and another is [agroup of] outsiders composed of Russians. The other [groups that is, the othereleven groups including Uyghur] had artificial names, which were quite
unfamiliar in Eastern Turkistan.50
Bughra’s stance as a Türk nationalist is clear from not only SharqƯ TurkistƗn
48

Sheng Shicai was a Chinese warlord who ruled Xinjiang province from 1933 to 1944.
After Jin Shuren (㔠ᶞோ), the chairman of Xinjiang province at the time, lost his power
following a coup in 1933, Sheng Shicai took over the government. He suppressed therebels with the aid of the Soviet Union and brought Xinjiang under his control. During thelong period from 1933 to 1944, he was in power. See ᪂␩♫఍⛉Ꮫ㝔Ṕྐ◊✲ᡤ 1980
(3): 166–334 in detail.
49
See ᪂ච 1994a: 22–25 and ΎỈ 2011: 51–60.
50
Bughra 1940: 763–764. See pp. 15–16 in vol. II. Supplementations by the editor are
shown in square brackets ([ ]).
xxixThe Autograph Manuscript ofMuhammadAmīn Bughra’s Sharqī Turkistān Tārīkhi.

TƗrƯkhi but also his political campaigns conducted from 1943 to 1949, whileworking as an official of the Republic of China in Chongqing and Urumchi.51
Another important characteristic of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi reflecting
Bughra’s nationalist position is that Eastern Turkistan is presented as a country
that has features influenced by only its historical and cultural backgrounds. In
SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi, hundreds of pages describe Eastern Turkistan’s history
dating from prehistoric times to the present day, and the people of Eastern
Turkistan are presented as the protagonists. It is noted that Bughra applies his
consideration of Eastern Turkistan as an “autonomous country” in its relations
with China also. However, it is well-known that following its subjugation by the
Qing Dynasty in the 18th century, Eastern Turkistan, or Xinjiang, became part of
the territory of Qing China and later the Republic of China and was administeredaccordingly. When Bughra was born in 1900, one hundred and fifty years had
already passed since Xinjiang’s subjugation. Nevertheless, Bughra considers that
Eastern Turkistan and its people are entirely separate from China and its people
and that the two do not overlap. The use of this concept was not limited to theperiod of Bughra’s life; in fact, he applied it throughout his account of history,
extending far into the past. Examples are shown here.
According to the official Chinese view (described later), Xinjiang was annexed
to China during the era of the Han Dynasty. Since then, Xinjiang has been an
inseparable part of China.52 However, Bughra describes this historical event as
the “first invasion” by China and the rule of the famous Protectorate of theWestern Regions ( す ᇦ 㒔 ㆤ ᗓ ) established by the Han Dynasty as “thethirty-year war” between Eastern Turkistan and China. He stresses that the
influence of the Han Dynasty was limited and the invasion was only a short-lived
phenomenon, not a complete subjugation.53 Bughra also gives an explanation of
the invasion by the Tang Dynasty and its withdrawal and concludes as follows:“After that, Eastern Turkistan was free from the invasion by China for thousand
years.”54
Of course, although Bughra posited Xinjiang and China as separate countries,
he did acknowledge the reality that Xinjiang belonged to the Republic of China.
51

See ΎỈ 2010 and SHIMIZU 2012.
୰ᅜᅜົ㝔᪂⪺ᘚබᐊ 2003:➨ 3 ❶.
53
Bughra 1940: 103. See p. 676 in vol. II.
54
Bughra 1940: 187. See p. 592 in vol. II.
52

xxx

Introduction

However, it is precisely this reality––Xinjiang belonged to and was ruled by
China, despite being an essentially different country––that motivated Bughra tofiercely denounce the latter. In SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi, China is portrayed as acountry that was responsible for numerous cruel invasions and the despotic rule ofBughra’s homeland of Eastern Turkistan throughout history.
It is noted here that although Bughra strongly insisted on the uniqueness ofEastern Turkistan’s history, the range of Eastern Turkistan that he shows roughly
corresponds to the boundary of Xinjiang province drawn by China. 55 It is
common knowledge that the Uyghurs, or Turkic urban dwellers and farmers,
originally resided at oasis cities dotting the region around the Tarim Basin insouthern Xinjiang. Therefore, in earlier history books, such as TƗrƯkh-i AmnƯya
(The History of Peace) written by MullƗ MǌsƗ SayrƗmƯ in 1903, we often see theterm “alty shahr” (six cities) as a generic name referring to all the cities inhabited
the Uyghurs.56 It is evident that the Uyghur people of those days did not consider
the northern part of the Tianshan (ኳᒣ) mountains, which was inhabited bynomads, as their dwelling place. In contrast, Bughra presents a region that
includes both north and south Xinjiang as his historical homeland. Such
difference between earlier history books and SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi is importantto understand the transition process of Uyghur intellectuals’ nationalist
consciousness under the rule of China.
Let us continue with the original topic. As mentioned above, SharqƯ TurkistƗn
TƗrƯkhi vividly conveys Bughra’s Türk nationalist advocacy and perspective. In
addition, I cannot let another aspect––modernity––of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi
pass unnoticed. During the period from the 16th to 20th centuries, many
important and systematic history books were written in Xinjiang. However,
SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi clearly stands out from these works, as it is a rare
historical narrative laced with modernist intelligence, which is largely absent inprevious compiled Uyghur histories.
Earlier history books, including the aforesaid TƗrƯkh-i AmnƯya, werestylistically similar in that they depicted a contiguous history of the region fromancient times to the present day (from the author’s perspective), but they clearly
differ from SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi in terms of the author’s perspective and the55
56

See maps drawn by Bughra on pp. 797–800 in vol. II.
Ɇɭɥɚ Ɇɭɫɚ 1905: 203, ᇼ 1987: 33.
xxxi

The Autograph Manuscript ofMuhammadAmīn Bughra’s Sharqī Turkistān Tārīkhi.

norms of historical narrative.57 For example, in TƗrƯkh-i AmnƯya, narration starts
from the legendary Noah, and references to the mythological origins of theauthor’s people constitute the introductory section.58 Further, in TƗrƯkh-i AmnƯya,MullƗ MǌsƗ SayrƗmƯ explains that a historic change (a change in regime)
occurred because the people’s laments about their persecution reached the ears ofGod. Thus, he claims that the essential history was driven by the will of God.59
Therefore, it is obvious that religion (Islam) is an important factor in TƗrƯkh-iAmnƯya’s historical narrative. In contrast, the narrative of SharqƯ TurkistƗn
TƗrƯkhi has a more scientific basis.
SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi begins in the Stone Age and discusses the ancienthistory of the Türks, drawing on contemporary archeological research findings in
Xinjiang.60 It is specially mentioned that in the discussions in SharqƯ TurkistƗn
TƗrƯkhi, Bughra not only refers to former history books such as TƗrƯkh-i AmnƯyaor TƗrƯkh-i RashƯdƯ (History of RashƯd), written by MƯrzƗ ণidar in the 16th
century, but also takes into account research findings by Westerners.61 He quotes
the studies of Western researchers, including Aurel Stein, a famous Hungarian–
British archaeologist62 ; Vasily Vladimirovich Bartold, a famous Russian andSoviet historian63; Marc and Wilhelm Radloff,64 a German–Russian Turkologist,
while providing criticisms or cross-examinations of historical materials. The
words “This is an era of research and excavation” 65 mentioned in SharqƯ
TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi is a good example of the importance that Bughra attached tomodern historical and archaeological researches. Of course, there are several
factual errors in SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi; however, even when taking these into
consideration, it is clear that SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi is a rare history text basedon modern research.

57

For details, see ᪂ච 1994b.
Ɇɭɥɚ Ɇɭɫɚ 1905: 7–10.
59Ɇɭɥɚ Ɇɭɫɚ 1905: c.301–c.302. Regarding the study of this “the will of God,” refer toᇼ 1987: 82.
60
Bughra 1987: 1–34.
61
The 1987 and 1998 editions of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi include a list of references. See
Bughra 1987: XXX–XXXII and 1998: XVII–XVIII.
62
Bughra 1940: 70. See p. 709 in vol. II.
63
Bughra 1940: 240 and 346. See p. 433 and 539 in vol. II.
64
Bughra 1940: 468. See p. 311 in vol. II.
65
Bughra 1940: 298. See p. 481 in vol. II.
58

xxxii

Introduction

V. Historical Value of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi
Finally, I discuss the significance of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi as a historicalsource. There are several reasons why SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi has exceptional
value in terms of the history it describes. First, as mentioned above, the author of
SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi is a Uyghur leader and a key nationalist player inmodern history, and the text records the history of his homeland and people froma nationalist perspective. Further, SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi is the first history book
written by a Uyghur that is based on modern historical studies. Therefore, anexamination of this historical account reveals the political stance and ideas of anationalist. In comparison with earlier historical narratives, modern nationalist
overtones are conspicuous in SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi.
There is another reason why SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi is valuable as ahistorical source. It provides a continuous history of the region as written by a
Uyghur who expressed his historical understanding unencumbered by external
political restrictions. Under the considerable political restrictions of modern
China, historical narratives on Xinjiang and the Uyghurs––even those written by
the Uyghurs themselves––have been forced to adopt the official Chinese line,
which argues that Xinjiang has always been an integral part of China. Here, I
quote a passage from the foreword of A Brief History of Xinjiang (᪂␩⡆ྐ),
published in Urumchi as the official history of Xinjiang: “Xinjiang has been a partof our great fatherland from ancient times. The history of Xinjiang is a part of thehistory of our fatherland.”66 This statement emphatically endorses the orthodox
Chinese perspective that the Uyghurs consistently maintained political relations
with China.
In 1989, Turghun Almas, a modern Uyghur historian, published a history booktitled Uyghurlar in Urumchi. However, in this book, Turghun Almas expressed
his view that the Uyghurs have an eight-thousand-year history in the Tarim Basin,situated in south Xinjiang; as a result, Uyghurlar was not only criticized by Han–
Chinese historians as inciting ethnic separatism but also prohibited from being
published. In connection with this, SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi also became thetarget of criticism.67 This is merely one example of how when Uyghurs write66
67᪂␩♫఍⛉Ꮫ㝔Ṕྐ◊✲ᡤ 1980 (1): iii.
See Turghun Almas 1989; ⣖ 1992; and 㖹 1991, 1992.
xxxiii

The Autograph Manuscript ofMuhammadAmīn Bughra’s Sharqī Turkistān Tārīkhi.

their own historical narratives, they are not permitted to deviate from the official
Chinese view. In this context, SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi is even more outstanding
for its unabashed criticism of Chinese invasion and rule, because it was written in
Kabul, Afghanistan, whose government had established a foreign policy based on
neutralism in those days.68 For this reason, it is valued as a rare and precious
historical material conforming closely with the author’s thoughts and perspective.
The significance of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi as a historical material is that it
has strongly informed the nationalist discourse and continues to do so. As an
important historical text, SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi has proved to be useful for
subsequent books written from a nationalist perspective. For example, a history
book titled Ölkä TƗrƯkhi (The Province History) was published in Urumchi a year
after the publication of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi. The author, Potat QƗdirƯ,69
confirms that he wrote Ölkä TƗrƯkhi based on SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi70; similarly,
its composition does follow the style of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi. QƗdirƯ’s bookalso presents contiguous history from prehistoric times to current events from anationalist perspective. Apart from offering such books specific historicalinformation, SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi was also used as reference material for
Ulugh TurkistƗn FƗja‘asi71 (the Great Misfortune of Turkestan), the historicalnarrative by an Uzbek who took part in the establishment of the Eastern Turkistan
Republic in Kashghar in 1933. In addition, as mentioned in our joint work,
Turghun Almas’s Uyghurlar shows similarity to SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi incomposition and nationalist stance; although these two books adopted different
ethnic frameworks (Uyghurlar uses the framework of Uyghurs), it is probable that
SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi acted as a model for Uyghurlar.72
As mentioned above, SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi has influenced several
subsequent historical narratives; however, its significance to the Uyghurs extends
68

See SHIMIZU 2012: 30–31.
Potat QƗdirƯ was a Uyghur intellectual who engaged in political activities with Bughra
as a member of the aforementioned Altay Publishing House. He served as a president of
the Uyghur–Kazakh Branch of the Xinjiang Ribao Company (⥔အᩥ᪂␩᪥ሗ♫). SeeΎỈ 2010: 29.
70
Polat QƗdirƯ 1949: 2.
71MǌsƗ TurkistƗnƯ was born in Andijan in 1904. In his country, he engaged in a resistancemovement against the Soviet Union and later took part in establishing the Eastern
Turkistan Republic in Kashghar. For details, see MǌsƗ TurkistƗnƯ 1981.
72ΎỈ࣭᪂ච࣭㕥ᮌ 2007: 27–28.
69

xxxiv

Introduction

even further. Today, the Chinese government considers SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi aharmful book stirring up nationalist feelings or even ethnic separatism. Therefore,
this book is banned in China. Furthermore, as SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi is written
in the Uyghur dialect used during the early 20th century, it diverges somewhat
from modern Uyghur in terms of alphabet, notation, vocabulary, and grammar;hence, one may assume that even Uyghurs would find it difficult to understandthe content accurately. Therefore, the direct impact of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi on
the Uyghur people will likely be limited. However, it seems that not a few Uyghur
intellectuals attribute a symbolic significance to SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi as abook written by a patriotic intellectual during the nationalist movement in the20th century. Even those who have never read SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi regard it a
precious book describing the history of their “homeland.” Therefore, due to its
symbolic importance, SharqƯ TurkistƗn keeps a certain position among the
Uyghurs even today.
***

In conclusion, it is clear that SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi deserves special mention
in the historical studies of the region, as well as the spiritual, cultural, andpolitical history, of the Uyghurs. In addition, SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi is valuable
beyond simply providing the most basic material for researchers of “Eastern
Turkistan” and Xinjiang. It will undoubtedly provide important data for
examining the particularities of ethnic nationalism of the various minority groups
in China, as well as that of the Turkic people in Central Asia.
As mentioned in the Introduction, the central aim of this book is to present the
autograph manuscript of Muতammad AmƯn Bughra’s SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi,which has never before been shown to public or used as a historical material.
Therefore, it is hard to say that previous discussions on the features and historicalvalue of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi are sufficient. Concerning this issue, I willcontinue investigating the book’s historical importance by comparing the original
manuscript of SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi with all its published or unpublishededitions.
I present the Turkic text of the manuscript in this volume. I will also provide a
facsimile of the manuscript in addition to all the attendant text and maps in thesecond volume (it has been previously published in 2014) of this book. In the text
xxxv

The Autograph Manuscript ofMuhammadAmīn Bughra’s Sharqī Turkistān Tārīkhi.

presented in the latter half of this volume, words are transcribed exactly as they
are spelled or presented in the original manuscript. As for exceptions, refer to the
Explanatory Notes section in this volume. Unfortunately, space did not permit me
to insert indexes for the text. I plan to publish the indexes as an appendix infuture.

xxxvi

Bibliography
1. Bughra’s works
Bughra 1940: Muতammad AmƯn Bughra, SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi (autographmanuscript), Kabul.
Bughra 1943: Muতammad AmƯn Bughra, “Muতammad AmƯn Begning Qisqacha
TarjumaiতƗli,” Chongqing.
Bughra 1948: Muতammad AmƯn Bughra, SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi, Ürümchi
(*unpublished).
Bughra 1950: Muতammad AmƯn Bughra, “Muতammad AmƯn Bughraning SiyƗsƯ
ণayƗti,” Kashmir.
Bughra 1971: Muতammad AmƯn Bughra, SharqƯ TurkistƗn MillƯ InqilƗb TƗrƯkhi,Kashmir.
Bughra 1987: Muতammad AmƯn Bughra, SharqƯ TurkistƗn TƗrƯkhi, Ankara: Ofset
Reprodüksiyon MatbaacÕlÕk.
Bughra 1998: Muhämmäd Imin Bughra, Shärqiy Türkistan Tarikhi, Ankara: Emek
Ofset LTD. ùTø.

2. Other Sources
Benson 1990: Benson, Linda, The Ili Rebellion: The Moslem Challenge toChinese Authority in Xinjiang 1944–1949, Armonk: M. E. Sharpe.
Erk: Erk, Ürümchi: Altay NashriyƗt IdƗrasi, no.74 (1947/9/1)– no.283(1949/5/26).
Forbes 1986: Forbes, Andrew D. W., Warlords and Muslims in Chinese Central
Asia: A political history of Republican Sinkiang 1911–1949, London:
Cambridge University Press.
HacÕ Yakup 2003: HacÕ Yakup Anat, HayatÕm ve Mücadelem, Ankara: Özkan
MatbaacÕlÕk.
HacÕ Yakup 2005: HacÕ Yakup Anat, Do÷u Türkistan’da Milliyetçilik Hareketleri:
Makaleler, Ankara: Özkan MatbaacÕlÕk Gaz. San. Ve Tic. Ltd. ùti.
Hamada 1990: Hamada, Masami, “La transmission du mouvement nationaliste au
Turkestan oriental (Xinjiang),” Central Asian Survey, vol.9, no.1, 29–48.
xxxvii

The Autograph Manuscript ofMuhammadAmīn Bughra’s Sharqī Turkistān Tārīkhi.

‘Ʈsa Yǌsuf Alptekin 1985: ‘Ʈsa Yǌsuf Alptekin, Mehmet Ali Taúçi (ed.), Esir Dogu
Turkistan Icin: Isa Yusuf Alptekin’in Mücadele HatÕralar, Istanbul: Dogu
Turkistan Nesriyat Merkizi.
Jarring 1964: Jarring, Gunnar, An Eastern Turki–English Dialect Dictionary,
Lund: CWK Gleerup.
Khewir Tömür 1983: Khewir Tömür, “Altay näshriyati wä nashqa ishlar
toghrisida äslimä,” Junggo Khälq Siyasiy Mäslihät Kengishi Sh U A R
Komiteti Tarikh Materiyalliri Tätqiqat Häy’iti (ed), Shinjang Tarikh
Materiyalliri, Ürümchi: Shinjang Khälq Näshriyati, 11: 163–176.
Muতammad QƗsim 1981: Muতammad QƗsim, NijƗt Yoli, Kashmir.
Ɇɭɥɚ Ɇɭɫɚ 1905: Ɇɭɥɚ Ɇɭɫɚ, Ɍɚɪɢɯ-ɢ ɗɦɟɧɢɟ (ɂɫɬɨɪɢɹ ɜɥɚɞɟɬɟɥɟɣ ɤɚɲɝɚɪɢɢ),Ʉɚɷɚɧ: ɂɡɞɚɧɧɚɹ ɇ.ɇ.ɉɚɧɬɭɫɨɜɵɦ.
MǌsƗ TurkistƗnƯ 1981. MǌsƗ TurkistƗnƯ, Ulugh TurkistƗn FƗj‘asi, MadƯna:MaĠƗba’ al-RashƯd.
Polat QƗdirƯ 1949: Polat QƗdirƯ, Ölkä TƗrƯkhi, Urumchi: Altay NashriyƗti.
Raquette 1912: Raquette, Gustav, Eastern Turki Grammar: Practical andTheoretical with Vocabulary, Stockholm.
Roberts 2009: Roberts, Sean R., “Imaging Uyghurstan: Re-evaluating the Birth of
the Modern Uyghur Nation,” Central Adian Surbey, vol. 28.
Sherip Khushtar 2000: Sherip Khushtar, Shinjang Yeqinqi Zaman Tarikhidiki
Mäshhur Shäkhslär, Ürümchi: Shinjang Khälq Näshriyati.
SHIMIZU 2012: SHIMIZU Yuriko, The Memoirs of Mu‫ۊ‬ammad AmƯn Bughra:
Autograph Manuscript and Translation, TIAS Central Eurasian Research
Series No. 6, TIAS: Department of Islamic Area Studies, Center for Evolving
Humanities, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, The Universityof Tokyo.
Turghun Almas 1989: Turghun Almas, Uyghurlar: Ürümchi.
Yengi ণayƗt: Yengi ‫ۉ‬ayƗt, Kashghar: KƗshghar Uyghur Aqartu Uyushmasi, no.2
(1934/8/11)–no.263(1937/5/27)
ໟ∞₎ 1984: ໟ∞₎ࠗ᪂␩஬༑ᖺ࠘໭ி: ᩥྐ㈨ᩱฟ∧♫.
ᇼ 1987: ᇼ┤ࠕṔྐㄆ㆑࡜Ṕྐླྀ㏙ࠖすᕝṇ㞝࣭ᑠ㇂ứஅࠗ⌧௦ṔྐᏛධ㛛࠘ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧఍.
⣖ 1992: ⣖኱ᳺࠕ㰘྿ἷ✺དྷ୺⩏ᑵ᫝↽ືẸ᪘ศ⿣୺⩏ࠖࠗࠗ⥔࿃∞ே࠘➼୕ᮏ᭩ၥ㢟ウㄽ఍ㄽᩥ㞟࠘, 243–258.
ᑠᯇ 1996: ᑠᯇஂ⏨ࠗ㠉࿨ࡢ୰ኸ࢔ࢪ࢔̿̿࠶ࡿࢪࣕࢹ࢕࣮ࢻࡢ⫝̸ീ࠘ᮾ
xxxviii

Bibliography

ி: ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧఍.
Ỉ㇂ 2008: Ỉ㇂ᑦᏊࠕ࣒ࣁ࣐ࣥࢻ࣭࢖࣑࣭ࣥ࣎ࢢࣛ࡜ࠗᮾࢺࣝ࢟ࢫࢱࣥྐ࠘
ࢆㄒࡿ㸸ፉ፵ࣘࢾࢫ࣭࣎ࢢࣛࠊፉࣇ࢓ࢸ࢕࣐࣭࣎ࢢࣛࡢཱྀ㏙ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏ୰ኸ࢔ࢪ࢔Ꮫ఍ሗ࠘4: 29–39.
኱▼ 1996: ኱▼┿୍㑻ࠕ࢝ࢩࣗ࢞ࣝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢪࣕࢹ࢕࣮ࢻ㐠ື࣒࣮̿̿ࢧ
࣮࣭ࣂࣚࣇᐙ࡜᪂᪉ᘧᩍ⫱̿̿ࠖࠗᮾὒᏛሗ࠘78 (1): 1–25.
⋤ᰓ 1995: ⋤ᰓࠗᮾࢺࣝ࢟ࢫࢱࣥඹ࿴ᅜ◊✲̿̿୰ᅜࡢ࢖ࢫ࣒ࣛ࡜Ẹ᪘ၥ㢟̿̿࠘ᮾி: ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧఍.
㖹 1991: 㖹఑Ἠࠕ✕⨖㯲ᚨ࣭ఀᩄࠗᮾ✺དྷ᪁ᆠྐ࠘㑅ẁᢈὀࠖࠗၻொᖌ㝔Ꮫሗ࠘㸦ဴᏛ♫఍⛉Ꮫ∧㸧1991(3): 48–68.
㖹 1992: 㖹఑Ἠࠕ᪂␩Ẹ᪘ศ⿣୺⩏ⓗ⨥ᝏ᰿※̿̿✕⨖㯲ᚨ࣭ఀᩄࠗᮾ✺དྷ᪁ᆠྐ࠘ᢈุ̿̿ࠖ
ࠗࠗ⥔࿃∞ே࠘➼୕ᮏ᭩ၥ㢟ウㄽ఍ㄽᩥ㞟࠘, 259–
279.
ΎỈ 2007: ΎỈ⏤㔛Ꮚࠕ࢝ࢩࣗ࢞ࣝ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢘࢖ࢢࣝேࡢᩍ⫱㐠ື㸦1934–37 ᖺ㸧ࠖࠗෆ㝣࢔ࢪ࢔ྐ◊✲࠘22: 61–82.
ΎỈ 2009: ΎỈ⏤㔛Ꮚࠕ࣒ࣁ࣐ࣥࢻ࣭࢚࣑࣭ࣥ࣎ࢢࣛ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹ̿̿ࡑࡢᛮ᝿ᙧᡂࡢ⫼ᬒ࡜ⴭసࠗᮾࢺࣝ࢟ࢫࢱࣥྐ࠘ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟̿̿ࠖࠗ᪥
ᮏ୰ኸ࢔ࢪ࢔Ꮫ఍ሗ࠘5: 21–36.
ΎỈ 2010: ΎỈ⏤㔛ᏊࠕᅜẸඪ⣔࢘࢖ࢢࣝேࡢᩥ໬࣭ゝㄽάື㸦1946–1949ᖺ㸧࡟ࡘ࠸࡚̿̿ࠗ⮬⏤࠘⣬࡟ࡳࡿࢸࣗࣝࢡẸ᪘ព㆑ࡢ᳨ウࢆ୰ᚰ࡟̿̿ࠖࠗ᪥ᮏ୰ኸ࢔ࢪ࢔Ꮫ఍ሗ࠘6: 23–45.
ΎỈ 2011: ΎỈ⏤㔛Ꮚࠕࠗ᪂⏕ά࠘⣬࡟ࡳࡿࠕ࢘࢖ࢢࣝࠖẸ᪘ព㆑෌⪃ࠖࠗ୰ኸ኱Ꮫ࢔ࢪ࢔ྐ◊✲࠘35: 45–69.
ΎỈ࣭᪂ච࣭㕥ᮌ 2007: ΎỈ⏤㔛Ꮚ࣭᪂චᗣ࣭㕥ᮌ೺ኴ㑻࣒ࠗࣁ࣐ࣥࢻ࣭
࢚࣑࣭ࣥ࣎ࢢࣛⴭࠗᮾࢺࣝ࢟ࢫࢱࣥྐ࠘ࡢ◊✲࠘ᮾி: NIHU ࣉࣟࢢ࣒࣭ࣛ࢖ࢫ࣮࣒ࣛᆅᇦ◊✲ᮾி኱ᏛᣐⅬ.
᪂ච 1990: ᪂චᗣࠕ᪂␩࣒ࢫ࣒ࣜ཯஘㸦1931㹼34 ᖺ㸧࡜⛎ᐦ⤌⧊ࠖࠗྐᏛ㞧ㄅ࠘99 (12): 1–42.
᪂ච 1994a: ᪂චᗣࠕࠕᮾࢺࣝ࢟ࢫࢱࣥඹ࿴ᅜࠖ
㸦1933㹼34 ᖺ㸧࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୍⪃ᐹࠖࠗ࢔ࢪ࢔࣭࢔ࣇࣜ࢝ゝㄒᩥ໬◊✲࠘46/47: 1–42.
᪂ච 1994b: ᪂චᗣࠕᮾࢺࣝ࢟ࢫࢱࣥ࠿ࡽぢࡓ୰ᅜࠖࠗ୰ᅜ㸸♫఍࡜ᩥ໬࠘
9: 15–31.
᪂ච 2001: ᪂චᗣࠕ࢘࢖ࢢࣝேẸ᪘୺⩏⪅࢚࢖ࢧ࣭ࣘࢫࣉ࣭࢔ࣝࣉࢸ࢟ࣥ
ࡢ㌶㊧ࠖẟ㔛࿴Ꮚ⦅ࠗ୰⳹ୡ⏺̿̿࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕ࡢ෌⦅࠘㸦ࠑ⌧௦୰ᅜࡢᵓ㐀ኚືࠒ➨ 7 ᕳ㸧ᮾி: ᮾி኱Ꮫฟ∧఍, 151–178.
xxxix

The Autograph Manuscript ofMuhammadAmīn Bughra’s Sharqī Turkistān Tārīkhi.

᪂␩♫఍⛉Ꮫ㝔Ṕྐ◊✲ᡤ 1980: ᪂␩♫఍⛉Ꮫ㝔Ṕྐ◊✲ᡤ⦅ⴭࠗ᪂␩⡆ྐ࠘(1), (2), (3), ⅲ㩃ᮌ඼: ᪂␩ேẸฟ∧♫.
୰ᅜᅜົ㝔᪂⪺ᘚබᐊ 2003: ୰ᅜᅜົ㝔᪂⪺ᘚබᐊࠗ᪂␩ⓑ᭩࠘.

xl