CENTRAL ASIA in the HISTORY of the MUSLIM EAST Yuri Bregel
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CENTRALASIA IN THE HISTORY OF THE MUSLIMEAST by Yuri Bregel Institute of Asian and African Affairs The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Occasional Paper #20 THE ROLE OF CENTRALASIA IN THE HISTORY OF THE MUSLIMEAST by Yuri Bregel Institute of Asian and African Affairs The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Occasional Paper #20 February 1980 Afghanistan Council The Asia Society 112 East 64th Street New York City .. Introduction The present paper was read at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University, on 5 April, 1978, and for the second time, in Hebrew with some alterations, at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem on 6 June, 1978. The subject of it is very general. Though it was proposed to me by the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and, therefore, it is the Center that is to be blamed first, I am by no means trying to decline the responsibility for this choice. Perhaps it may be useful to discuss some ~e!leral fc.cts and opir:ir:,:ns concerning the place of Central Asia in the history of the Islamic world and the role of some historical movements which originated in this region during the Isla.mic period. It may be worthwhile for a historian of the Middle East, who is sometimes too fascinated by the great imperial past~ or present - of Turkey, Iran or Abu Dhabi 1 to pay attention to such. a marginal area as Central Asia. It also may be of use for a historian of Central l'.sia, who is usually so busy tackling numerous unstudied and unresolved problems of the region's history that he does not try to place them in some broader perspective and to realize that he can claim an equal place in the .sun with bis colleague studying the Shurubiya or the Abbasid revolution. Thus, this paper is an attempt not only at an evaluation but also, in a sense, at a self- . -justification. The text of the paper is being published as it was read at Harvard, with al terations included in the Hebrew version and ·with the addition of notes. The general character of the subject precludes references to primary sources. The references given in the notes, which are at the end of the text, are roainly to some modern works where the same problems have been discussed (though there is no attempt at a complete bibliography). It is my pleasant duty to express my thanks to the Afghanistan Council of the Asia Society for its willingness to publish this lecture in its "Occasional Paper" series. Yuri Bregel March, 1979 I I must begin with the definition of the area which I shall refer to as "Central Asia" because this term does not yet have a meaning that is generally accepted. I shall define this region as the western part of the Inner Asian heartland; the part which now culturally belongs to the Islamic world. It is thus distinguished from Mongolia and Tibet which form the eastern part of Inner Asia. In other words, Central Asia is the same as Turkestan - in the meaning that this latter term acquired in the l9th century - designating, to my mind, a definite historical and cultural entity. It comprises Western, Eastern and Afghan Turkestan and the areas with.in the Soviet Union termed the "Central Asian Republics," :1.ccording to current S~viet usage, and Kazakhstan. I shall add two more introductory remarks: Firstly, in using the terms "Turks" and "Turkish" I shall mean the Turks of Central Asia, their languages and their culture. Secondly, by the term "Islamic" or "Muslim" world, I shall mean, for short, chiefly the eastern part of the Islamic world, from the Fertile Crescent to India. II For a long time Central Asia was largely neglected in general historical studies of the Islamic world. Even now, several decades after the appearance of Barthold's works and despite the growth of a vast literature on Central Asia in the Soviet Un.ion, this subject does not receive proper treatment in such a standard reference work as The Encyclopaedia of Islam; In The Cambridge History of Islam Central Asia isincluded among the "central Islamic lands" in the first volume but Professor Spuler, who wrote the chapter on Central Asia, declares that from the beginning of tre 16th century Central Asian history becomes a "provincial history" and, therefore, de;erves only a sketchy survey at best. 2 The reason seems to me quite obvious. It is the geographical position of Central Asia within the Islamic world. From.its Islamization, Central Asia was, and always remained, on the periphery of the Islamic world with barbarian nomads on its north and Chinese civilization at its east. It is und~rstandable that its history could not attract the same attention as that of the Fertile Crescent. Central Asia belongs not only to the Islamic world; it is of double cultural loyalty. A con siderable part of it belongs to the vast cultural world of Inner Asian nomadic civilization which is by no means composed only of Muslim peoples. For this civilization the steppe regions of Central Asia were also a periphery, its southwestern outposts facing the sedentary Iranian and Islamic civilization. Therefore, historians of Inner Asian nomads tend to neglect the history of Muslim Central Asia just as historians of the Middle East do. I once heard a.prominent Altaist say that "-!:::--.egenuine;" Inner Asia was Mongolia and Tibet - and he was probably right. Anyway, because of this "double cultural citizenship" Central Asia became a "double periphery" and was c::ten inadequately treated from both sides. III To be sure, the role of Central Asia in Islamic history and in world history in general has received a certain treatment in Soviet historiography, particularly in Central Asian Soviet historiography, where much has been written on two topics related to this problem: (1) commercial.and cultural ties and exchange between 1 \ Central Asia and the surrounding countries; (2) the contribution of Central Asia to world cultural development and, in particular, to Islamic culture in various fields such as literature, art and science. Unfortunately both subjects have some political and ideological con~otations in Soviet historiography. The treatment of the history of relations between Central Asia and its neighbors depends on the current state of political relations between the Soviet Union and the respective country. Discussion can prove century-old friendship or, if needed, a no less old aggressive policy of the other side.3 The contribution of Central Asia to Islamic culture is a recurrent theme in Central Asian Soviet historical writing. There have been two main ideological reasons for this interest. Firstly, the Second World War brought about a need to stress national and patriotic feelings instead of old-fashioned and unproductive internationalism - not only for the Russians but also for other nationalities in the USSR. Secondly, there was always an ideological demand to contrast everything Soviet with everything non-Soviet. I remember a Soviet street poster of the 1930s divided into two parts: one part was painted in black, the other in red. On the black side one could see beggars, slums covered by cobwebs, lines of unemployed and, in the foreground, the grinning face of a fat capitalist in a top-hat; on the red side one could see brave young workers and peasants on a background of new factories and fields full of crops. The heading was: "With them" .,.. on the black side, and "With us " -· on the red side. This simple device was applied also to the presentation of the past. Soviet citizens should know that they not only lived better than people in other parts of the world, they also had a better history. The glorious present must have a counter- part in the glorious past and, indeed, since the Second vlorld 0 War, there has been a permanent search for this "glorious" or, as it is more often called, "great past.,'' which has replaced the outdated term "the accursed past." It is natural that im pressive figures of "our great ancestors" rise from this "great past." 4 Soviet historians of Central Asia are required to de~onstrate the great cultural heritage of the peoples of Central Asia to counteract the bourgeois falsifiers of histors 1 who allegedly try to depreciate this heritage. As a result,, many Soviet works try to show that Central Asia produced a large number of great men and in their lists everybody is included who was born in Central Asia (even if he left it in his childhoodJ, who died there, who came for a visit (very much like the medieval hagio graphic local histories), and often, also, those who lived in neighboring countries, especially Iran. The tendency to encroach upon Iran in seeking "great ancestors" was ~specially strong after WW II, when almost all Persian poets and writers (some of whom lived in southern Iran and never even approached the borders of Central Asia) were described as Tadjiks. Later these claims were somewhat moderated and Central Asian historians began to speak about the "corrunon cultural heritage" of Central Asia and Iran. On the other hand, this is supplemented by inner quarrels between various re publics, each of them claiming its own part of the Central Asian cultural heritage. Suffice it to mention here the appropriation of Navoi (together with the Chaghatay lar.guageJ by the Uzbeks, not to the delight of other Central Asian Turks. 5 In the same way the Kazakhs recently tried to claim al-Farabi. Especially unscrupulous . scholars in the field of heritage hunting are probably found arnong the art historians .0 I shall not delve further into this fascinating subject which deserves a study for its own sake.