State and Conflict in Semirechye, 1850-1938

Frontiers of Violence: State and Conflict in Semirechye, 1850-1938 Aminat Chokobaeva A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of The Australian National University Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies (The Middle East and Central Asia) Research School of Social Sciences College of Arts and Social Sciences The Australian National University October 2016 i Authorship Declaration I hereby declare and confirm that this thesis is entirely the result of my own scholarly work except where otherwise indicated, and has not been submitted, either in whole or part, for a higher degree or qualification at this or any other university or institute. Aminat Chokobaeva ii Acknowledgements This research is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship. I would like to thank the Australian National University and the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies for the opportunity to pursue this project. Without the university and the kind people who work in it, this thesis would not have been possible. I am especially grateful to my thesis committee members Kirill Nourzhanov, Madeleine Reeves, and John Besemeres for their boundless patience and faith in my project. It is to their willingness to forego personal needs that I owe this thesis. I would like to thank our librarian, Anita Mack, for the help she lent me throughout my research and writing. I owe her heart-felt gratitude. I am most indebted to my partner Drew Ninnis who supported me emotionally and financially while sacrificing his personal ambitions for my sake. I would also like to use this opportunity to tell him how much I appreciate his love and care and apologize for taking him through the tribulations of my thesis writing after he has gone through his own. Bohdan Krawchenko supported me in my desire to delve deeper into researching the Uprising of 1916 and turned my attention to the socio-economic condition of the native nomads in the decades after the Uprising. He also gave me invaluable advice on life in academia and beyond. For that, I would like to thank him. Chad Thompson and Norma Jo Baker introduced me to critical theory approaches that sparked my interest in analysing my home region from unexpected angles. Their efforts provided me with the foundation I continue to draw upon in my academic pursuits. Throughout my research and writing I enjoyed the company of my friends and colleagues at the Centre, including Raihan Ismail, Kate Quenzer, Liyana Kayali, Jessie Moritz, Gia Ubiria, Nemat Bizhan, Yahya Haidar, Aly Zaman, Caroline Ladewig, and Anas Iqtait. I would like to thank them for moments of laughter and for cheering on me when I needed it most. I have been fortunate to meet exceptional scholars and invidiuals who contributed to my research in many different ways. I would like to thank Svetlana Jacquesson for giving me an opportunity to discuss my preliminary findings with prominent scholars in my field and for commenting on my work. I would also like to thank Daniel Prior for his comments and useful advice. I owe another opportunity to discuss my research with a company of like-minded individuals and scholars to Olivier Ferrando and Aida Abdykanova who co- organized a conference on the Central Asian Uprising of 1916 and were kind enough to let me be a part of the project. Finally, I would like to thank my family. Without their unconditional love and support I would not be where I am today. My mother, Asel Mambetalieva, taught me that there is nothing that I cannot do and reminded me that hardships are temporary. My grandmother, Klara Mambetalieva, taught me to persevere and instilled her values in me. It is to her and to her father, Ussein Mambetaliev, who lived through the rebellion of 1916 and the turbulent years in its aftermath that I would like to dedicate this thesis. iii Abstract In August 1916, the native nomads of southern Semirechye rose in a popular rebellion that reduced the colonial presence in the region to several beleaguered towns and settlements. While the rebellion claimed over 3,000 victims in the settler society, the punitive actions of the authorities led to a far greater loss of life among the native communities. Beyond the loss of life, the uprising had much broader implications. The decimation of the nomadic population, which had shrunk to less than two thirds of its pre- rebellion level, and the plans of the government to resettle the remaining nomads in the geographically isolated and resource poor area of Naryn suggest that the administration came to view the rebels as a potential threat not only to the well-being of the settlers, but also to the integrity and security of the colony at large. The rebellion had in effect engendered long-standing concerns among the Russian military and statesmen about the ability of the metropole to protect its borderlands and maintain sovereignty in the ethnically and religiously “alien” regions. Indeed, the then military governor of Semirechye, General Fol’baum, framed the rebellion in the strictly state-centred terms: “the situation” he said of the rebellion “could change so suddenly that the entire Russian enterprise will come to ruin in Semirechye.” Placing the uprising of 1916 and the region of Semirechye, where the uprising was at its most violent, at the heart of the broader political history of Russian imperialism, this thesis examines the forms and strategies of state-building in the colonial context. Semirechye’s frontier position – on the border with the Qing Empire – and its ethnic diversity make it an ideal region from which to study the relationship between the centre and the periphery. At the same time, treating the uprising of 1916 as a point of rupture, which had ushered in the “continuum of crisis” that engulfed the Russian Empire during World War I and determined, to a considerable extent, the course and content of the early Soviet policies in the region, allows us to understand how certain conceptions of nationality became central to questions of state security and sovereignty. Substantively, this study traces the political history of Semirechye from the early years of conquest and colonization in the second half of the 19th century until the beginning of World War II, which the region entered as a part of the Kyrgyz Soviet Socialist Republic. Organized around the cross-cutting themes of empire, state, and nation, this thesis advances the key proposition – that sovereign power is predicated on the control of territory and population. Crucially, this study demonstrates that both the imperial and later Soviet state sought to impose and consolidate its power over the region’s landscape and peoples through the establishment and use of institutions, policies, and practices targeted at the management and supervision of Semirechye’s natural and human resources. Furthermore, by arguing that both governments sought to fashion popular loyalties, create a productive labour force, and develop the economy for the purposes of national defence, this thesis highlights the critical continuities between the imperial and Soviet practices and ideas in governing the region. By examining Semirechye as a zone of state formation, this thesis also illuminates the critical nexus of state-building and control over natural resources and foregrounds the relationship of asymmetry and dependence between the centre and the periphery accomplished through the seizure of the region’s vital resources – namely agricultural land and livestock. iv In order to develop these arguments, the thesis draws upon approaches from history, political science, and anthropology. Based on archival research, this study contributes to current debates on colonialism and state formation. Drawing attention to the security rationale of the state-sponsored programmes of nation- building, such as the national delimitation and the policies of indigenization, implemented by the Soviet administration, this study offers a departure from the long-standing view of ideology as the primary engine of the state-led national construction in Central Asia. Instead, this thesis argues that the “affirmative action” principles of the early Soviet regime were grounded in the efforts of the government to mobilize resources of the region to maintain the regime’s internal and external security. Consequently, the harmonization of the Soviet and ethnic affiliations under the rubric of Soviet nations allowed the Bolshevik leadership both to enforce the boundaries of the state and to mobilize the indigenous population for the task of nation and state-building. v Note on Transliteration I have used the Library of Congress transliteration system for Russian and Kyrgyz language materials with some modifications. I have rendered ё as io for Russian sources and where the phonetic spelling of native terms demanded, I have used j instead of dzh. Original quotations have been left unchanged as have been established English spellings of locations and persons. vi Table of Contents Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………iii Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….iv Note on Transliteration……………………………….…………………………............vi Introduction…………………………………………………………………….............1 Chapter One From Natural Frontiers to National Core: The Conquest and Administration of Semirechye…………………………………………………………………..17 Chapter Two When the Natives Went to War: The Uprising of 1916 in Semirechye………..38 Chapter Three The Revolution Comes East: Civil War in Semirechye………………………..74 Chapter Four Semirechye, the Frontier of the Revolution…………………………………...107

Load more