Defense of Central Asia from Jingoism

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

The paradox of history: in the historical annals the opinion was established that Russia has always threatened the integrity of England and has always undermined its authority with its peace-loving policy.

Even when she is England, by force of arms and the power of the navy, she forced all her European allies to leave the territory of India and turned her gaze on all the states adjacent to the mountain peaks of the Pamirs, Tien Shan and Tibet, she persuaded that Russia was encroaching on her territoriality …

Poor Yorick!

“English capitalism has always been, is and will be the most vicious strangler of popular revolutions. Starting with the Great French Revolution at the end of the 18th century and ending with the current Chinese revolution, the English bourgeoisie has always stood and continues to stand in the forefront of the thugs of the liberation movement of mankind …

But the British bourgeoisie does not like to fight with its own hands. She always preferred the war to someone else's hands. (J. V. Stalin 1927)

In 1810, the commander of the Russian troops in Georgia, Tormasov, reported to St. Petersburg that the British envoy in Tehran demanded permission from the Shah of Iran to travel to Anzali, Astrabad and other points on the southern coast of the Caspian Sea in order to choose a place for the construction of warships.

These aspirations of the British continued periodically until almost the 60s, as evidenced by an important report from Mackenzie, the British consul in Rasht and Anzeli, the secretary of state for foreign affairs. Referring to the creation of the Russian joint-stock company Kavkaz, he insisted on immediate preventive action in Central Asia. Mackenzie called for "at any cost" to take control of the Rasht-Anzeli port under British control. “With this tool, we would easily have mastered the trade of all of Central Asia,” wrote Mackenzie.

Mackenzie sent a detailed plan for the "acquisition of the Rasht-Anzeli port from Persia" to the British Maritime Office. The report of Mackenzie, published in the summer of 1859 by the Times newspaper, caused serious concern to the tsarist government.

But if so far only "plans" (albeit very serious and symptomatic) were associated with the basin of the Caspian Sea, then in Central Asia the British aggressive plans were gradually being carried out more and more actively.

If with the mountain tribes of Afghanistan the British fought a fierce struggle for obedience, then with individual emirs they tried to create a large khanate. So their protégé Dost Muhammad, relying on the support of the British, opposed the Kunduz and Meimenniok khanates and demanded from the Bukhara emir the entire territory of the left bank of the Amu Darya.

Of particular importance was Charjui, located somewhat away from the main fortresses of the khanate, on the left bank of the Amu Darya. Even from the time of A. Burns's visit to Bukhara, the British ruling circles made plans to use the Amu Darya for trade and military-political penetration into Central Asia.

Chardjuy could easily be turned into a military base where England could achieve a dominant position throughout Central Asia.

In the fight against Russia for domination in Central Asia, England used the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish ruling elite actively promoted British politics, but did not forget about their own interests. From the very beginning of the formation of the Ottoman Empire, the sultan appropriated the name of a prophet, whose command was the law for the fanatical followers of Islam, of whom there were many in the downtrodden Asia.

Even before the start of the Crimean War, the British government, with the help of Turkey, sought to organize subversive activities in the territory inhabited by Muslim peoples and partly part of the Russian Empire - in the Crimea, the Caucasus, as well as in the khanates of Central Asia.

The Khiva embassy, which in 1852 negotiated in Orenburg with the governor-general V. A. Perovsky, threatened to cede territory in the lower reaches of the Syr Darya to "the Turkish sultan or the British" to create an Anglo-Turkish stronghold there. The ambassador let slip that back in 1851 a special Khiva dignitary was sent to Tehran to discuss this issue.

Turkish emissaries were especially active during the Crimean War. The agents of the Ottoman Empire, on an English assignment, tried, under the slogan of a "holy war," to involve as many countries as possible in the struggle against the Russian Empire.

At the end of 1853, emissaries of the Ottoman Empire appeared in various regions of Central Asia. They brought the appeals of the Turkish Sultan, who called on Bukhara, Khiva and Kokand to attack the Russian Empire.

It is no coincidence that at this time a twelve thousandth detachment of the Kokand troops undertook an offensive against Fort Perovsky. The Kokand troops were thrown back, and the tsarist authorities considered this a failure not only of Kokand, but also of England and the Ottoman Empire.

Perovsky reported to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in St. Petersburg that the rumor that would spread throughout Central Asia in connection with the defeat of the Kokand people would "help to weaken the hostile dispositions for us, aroused by the agents of the Turkish and British governments in Bukhara and Khiva."

Noting good relations with Bukhara, Perovsky continued: “One cannot rely on the strength of this friendliness, if only the Turks act as zealously in Bukhara as in Khiva. Here … they are trying to instill confidence in the British … against the Russians, to arouse mistrust. He wrote that as a result of the trip of the Khiva embassy to Istanbul in 1853, cannon masters came to the khanate from there, who cast several guns for the Khiva army.

British and Turkish agents sought to take advantage of the struggle between Russia and the Kokand Khanate for the Kazakh lands seized by the Kokand people. Rumors were spreading among the Kazakh tribes about the sending of a large army to Central Asia by the Sultan to fight against Russia, and his call for the creation of a Bukhara-Kokand military bloc, so that, "uniting their heads, go to war to Kizyl-Yar, on the Russians."

Soon the Bukhara envoy returned from Istanbul, who brought a message about conferring on the emir of Bukhara the honorary title of "zealot of the faith."

The activities of British and Turkish agents exacerbated the situation in Central Asia. The tsarist authorities took into account the possibility of joint action by the British Empire, Turkey and the Central Asian khanates.

In 1860, several representatives of England arrived in Bukhara to get the emir of Nasrullah to agree to organize English shipping along the Amu Darya. At the same time, a special intelligence officer of the Anglo-Indian government, Abdul Majid, entered Kokand through Karategin and Darvaz, who was instructed to establish contact with the ruler of Kokand, Mallabek, and to give him gifts and a letter with a proposal to maintain contact with British India.

From Kokand, information was continuously received about preparations for military operations against Russia in the spring of 1860. A weapons specialist from Afghanistan arrived in Turkestan and offered the local bek assistance in making guns, mortars and artillery shells of the European type.

The military authorities of Orenburg, not without reason, believed that this master was sent from British India.

The Governor-General of Western Siberia also reported to St. Petersburg about the preparation of the Kokand Khanate for war. Kokand officials, driving around the Kazakh and Kyrgyz villages, under pain of death, selected cattle and horses for their army. The point of concentration of the Kokand army was - Tashkent was appointed.

At the same time, the outposts of the Kokand Khanate were strengthened in the Kazakh and Kyrgyz lands - in Pishpek, Merka, Aulie-Ata, etc.

The historical milestones of the countries of Central Asia are indicated only from the beginning of the 19th century, when the newly formed khanates, encouraged by England and Turkey, as state power began to gain strength. This is characterized by social uprisings of farmers against the appropriation of land and public channels in the hands of the newly minted khans.

Water! Water in Central Asia is a source of life-giving moisture, both for drinking and for irrigation from time immemorial was considered an inviolable public product. Therefore, the appropriation of public canals and the collection of payments for water provoked social uprisings against the arbitrariness of the khans.

The most powerful were the movements in the Kokand Khanate in 1814 (uprising in Tashkent), the Chinese Kipchaks, one of the Uzbek tribes of the Bukhara Khanate, in 1821-1825. and a massive uprising of Samarkand artisans in 1826.

The anti-feudal actions of dekhkans and urban poor in the Khiva Khanate in 1827, 1855–1856 were also acute; in 1856-1858 (in South Kazakhstan), etc.

The famous Russian traveler Philip Nazarov, who visited Central Asia at the beginning of the 19th century, reported that in 1814, after another attempt by the inhabitants of Tashkent to throw off the Kokand domination, mass atrocities continued in the city for 10 days.

In April 1858 the famous scientist-traveler N, A. Severtsov was taken prisoner by the Kokand soldiers. When he was brought to the city of Turkestan (South Kazakhstan), a popular uprising was raging there. The rebellious Kazakh tribes laid siege to Turkestan and Yany-Kurgan and for a long time successfully resisted the troops of the Kokand Khanate.

The owners and guides of the trade caravans of Tashkent, mostly Kazakhs in Orenburg, talked about the prohibition of Khan Mallabek to “cut horses for food” suitable for cavalry service, and about the Khan's attempt to enter into an alliance with the Bukhara emir for a joint attack on Russian possessions.

These guides confirmed that there are several Englishmen in the Kokand Khanate, who "are engaged in casting cannons on the model of European ones." He even stated that he had already seen about 20 copper guns in Tashkent, set on carriages. They are also involved in the defense of Chimkent and Tashkent.

Summarizing all the information from Central Asia and fulfilling the numerous requests of the northern Kazakh clans, subjects of Russia, for the release of their southern relatives and protection from the raids of the Kokand people, the Russian Government at the beginning of 1865 decided to occupy the border Kokand possessions between the Syrdarya line and the Altava district.

The occupation of these border possessions was supposed to be carried out from two points - from the side of the Syrdarya line and from the side of the Altavsky district in order for both detachments to unite in the city of Turkestan. The Orenburg detachment was commanded by Colonel Verevkin, Altavian Colonel M. G. Chernyaev, who was instructed to take Aulie-Ata and then move to Turkestan to join up with Colonel Verevkin.

Chernyaev's detachment, assembled in Verny, set out on May 28, 1864 and on June 6 he took the first fortified city of Aulie-Ata by assault.

From here, on July 7, Chernyaev's detachment moved along the road to Chimkent, consisting of 6 incomplete infantry companies, one hundred Cossacks, a division of a horse-artillery battery, numbering 1298 people and a little more than 1000 policemen from Kyrgyz citizens.

To join with part of the detachment of Colonel Verevkin heading from Turkestan. M. G. he made this wonderful passage along the waterless steppe for a distance of almost 300 versts at 40 heat with extreme haste and good luck.

Having united with the Turkestan detachment of Lieutenant Colonel Lerhe and Captain Mayer in the number of 330 people, Chernyaev won the battle against 18 thousand Kokands, on July 22, who blocked the road to Chimkent, made a detailed reconstruction of Chimkent and returned back to Arys.

The consequence of this campaign was the presentation of M. G. Chernyaev. about the need to seize Chimkent as the main assembly point for the Kokand forces. This presentation with an explanation of the reasons prompting the occupation of the aforementioned city and plans for the military movement was sent to St. Petersburg on 12.09.1864.

Meanwhile, by this time Chernyaev M. G. was appointed chief commander of the Turkestan troops (Novokokand line). This circumstance and the fact that Chimkent, under the leadership of some European, was undertaking tremendous work to strengthen and arm the city, forced Chernyaev, without waiting for permission to implement his plan, to immediately begin the occupation of Chimkent, which he did on September 21.

The garrison of the fortress consisted of Kokand troops, over 10 thousand, under the leadership of some European. The citadel was built on an impregnable hill and was armed with powerful artillery with a huge supply of explosive and other shells.

The rapid fall of Chimkent was also facilitated by the local population with their own views and views of the newcomers Kokand. This was the first cruel blow not only to the Central Asian khanates, but also to their Turkish and English patrons, a vast region with 1.5 million inhabitants was liberated.

Not having permission to move further to Tashkent, Chernyaev's detachment remained to spend the winter in Chimkent, collecting the necessary information from local residents. In his reports, Chernyaev especially noted a significant improvement in the quality of the Kokand artillery, the speed and accuracy of its fire, and; the use of large-caliber floor-ricochet-explosive shells. He reported on the arrival in Tashkent of "a European who enjoys respect and is in charge of the casting of guns."

In another letter, Chernyaev pointed out the danger of underestimating the forces of the Kokand Khanate: “… Their leaders are no worse than ours, the artillery is much better, proof: what are rifled guns, the infantry is armed with bayonets, and there are much more funds than ours. If we don’t finish them now, then in a few years there will be a second Caucasus”.

Successful actions in Central Asia, which did not require special expenses, did not distract large military forces, were quite satisfactory for the government of the Russian Empire.

“In order to rule autocraticly within the country, tsarism in foreign relations had not only to be invincible, but also to constantly gain victories, it had to be able to reward the unconditional obedience of its subjects with chauvinistic frenzy of victories, more and more new conquests,” F. Engels pointed out.

That is why some "excess of authority", which was allowed by Chernyaev, that is, open aggressive actions, by no means aroused objections in St. Petersburg, as long as there were no serious defeats. With the small number of Russian troops in Central Asia, any defeat could put them on the brink of disaster, and any victory over the numerically superior enemy forces increased the prestige of the Russian Empire. This prompted repeated warnings from the government to local authorities and suggestions "not to bury yourself."

At the end of 1864, a prominent dignitary Abdurrahman-bey, who ruled the eastern part of the city, fled from Tashkent to Chimkent. He informed Chernyaev about the situation in Tashkent and the fortifications of the city.

One of its richest inhabitants, Mohammed Saatbai, played a special role in preparing favorable conditions for the capture of Tashkent. A major trade figure who traded with Russia for many years, he kept permanent salesmen in Petropavlovsk and Troitsk, visited Russia several times, was associated with the trading houses of Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod and knew Russian.

Chernyaev wrote that Saatbai, one of the most influential people in Tashkent, belongs to a group of "civilized Muslims" who are ready "to make concessions against the Koran, if this does not contradict the fundamental rules of Islam and is beneficial for trade." Chernyaev emphasized that Saatbay headed the pro-Russian group of the population of Tashkent.

At the same time, some of the inhabitants of Tashkent, mainly Muslim clergy and circles close to him, sought to establish contact with the head of Central Asian Muslims - the Bukhara emir. They sent an embassy to him and, taking advantage of the advance of the emir's troops to Tashkent, announced their acceptance of Bukhara citizenship.

Referring to the threat to Tashkent from the Bukhara Khanate, the military governor of the Turkestan region on the twentieth of April 1865 set out on a new campaign at the head of his detachment.

On April 28, 1865, Chernyaev's detachments approached the Niyazbek fortress on the river. Chirchik, 25 versts northeast of Tashkent. This fortress controlled the city's water supply. After a long fierce bombardment, Niyazbek's garrison surrendered (losses of Russian troops - 7 wounded and 3 lightly shell-shocked).

Having seized the fortress, Chernyaev took the two main branches of the river. Chirchik, who supplied Tashkent with water. However, the deputations about the surrender of the city did not arrive, and Chernyaev decided that the Kokand garrison was in full control of the situation in Tashkent. On May 7, the tsarist troops took up a position 8 versts from the city.

Khan Alimkul himself arrived here with a six-thousandth army and 40 guns. On May 9, a stubborn battle began, as a result of which the Kokand sarbazes were forced to retreat, having lost, according to Chernyaev, up to 300 killed and 2 guns. The losses of the tsarist troops were 10 wounded and 12 wounded. In the battle on May 9, the ruler of the Kokand Khanate, Alimkul, was killed.

The death of this prominent commander and statesman gave Chernyaev a reason to raise the question "about the future fate of the Kokand Khanate." Chernyaev proposed to draw the border along the river. Syr-Darya "as the most natural" and requested instructions in connection with the intention of the Bukhara Emir to occupy the rest of the Kokand Khanate - "beyond Darya."

The War Ministry pointed to the undesirability of the approval of the Bukhara Emir in the Kokand Khanate. Chernyaev was instructed to notify the emir that any seizure of the Kokand lands would be regarded as a hostile act against the Russian Empire and would lead to "complete restraint of the trade of the Bukharians in Russia."

The death of Alimkul, the organizer of the city's defense, reduced the resistance of the Kokand garrison. Dissensions began between the Kokand military leader Sultan Seid-khan, who in Chernyaev's reports is called “the young Kokand khan”, the head of the city of Tashkent Berdybay-kushbegi, associated with the local nobility, and the head of the Tashkent clergy Hakim Khoja-Kaziy.

Lack of food and water caused riots, during which many members of the highest Muslim clergy were beaten.

The Tashkent poor achieved the expulsion of Sultan Seid Khan: on the night of June 9-10, he left the city with 200 people close to him. Some representatives of the clerical elite (Hakim Khoja-kaziy, Ishan Makhsum Gusfenduz, Karabash-Khoja mutuvali, etc.) appealed for support to the Bukhara emir, who was at that time with a large army in Khojent.

In order to prevent the Bukhara Khanate from interfering in the struggle that unfolded in Tashkent, Chernyaev in early June sent a small detachment of Captain Abramov to the "Bukhara road" and occupied the Chinaz fortress on the river. Syr-Darya, destroying the crossing.

Having thus surrounded Tashkent on three sides, Chernyaev's detachment, numbering 1950 people with 12 guns, approached the walls of the city and started a firefight on the approaches to it, they were opposed by the 15-thousandth Kokand garrison.

However, the poor placement of artillery and the scattering of the Tashkent garrison over numerous defensive structures facilitated the breakthrough of the fortifications. In addition, there was no unity among the inhabitants of the city, and some of them were ready to assist the Russian troops.

On the night of June 14-15, the tsarist troops launched an assault on Tashkent. After two days of street fighting, the resistance of the city's defenders was broken. By the evening of June 16, representatives of local authorities arrived at Chernyaev with a request to allow the aksakals of Tashkent to appear. On June 17, aksakals and "honorable residents" (city nobility), on behalf of the entire city, "expressed their full readiness to submit to the Russian government."

Supporters of the Russian orientation played an important role in the relatively quick achievement of victory. In particular, even during the assault, when the tsarist troops captured the city wall, Muhammad Saatbai and his like-minded people called on the Tashkent people to stop resistance and, according to Chernyaev, contributed to the surrender of the city.

In an effort to restore normal life in Tashkent as soon as possible, to undermine the anti-Russian agitation of the Muslim clergy and adherents, the Bukhara emir, after the occupation of the city, Chernyaev published an appeal to its residents, in which he proclaimed the inviolability of their faith and customs and guaranteed against standing and mobilizing into soldiers.

The old Muslim court was preserved (although criminal offenses were considered according to the laws of the Russian Empire), arbitrary extortions were abolished; for a one-year period, Tashkent residents were generally exempted from any taxes and taxes. All these measures have largely stabilized the situation in the largest center of Central Asia.

There is another interesting detail of international relations. On November 24, 1865, ambassadors of the Maharaja Rambir Singh, the ruler of the North Indian principality of Kashmir, which had long maintained trade and political ties with the Central Asian khanates, arrived in Tashkent.

The Kashmiri ambassadors arrived a few months after the entry of Russian troops into Tashkent, having made a long, difficult and dangerous journey. This indicated that India was closely following the development of events in Central Asia.

The embassy was unable to reach the target in full. Of the four people sent by Rambir Singh, only two made it to Tashkent. In the territory controlled by the British authorities (between the borders of Kashmir and the city of Peshawar), the embassy was attacked, two of its members were killed, and the maharaja's message to the Russians was stolen.

The loss of the letter, which was of no value to casual robbers, suggests that the organizers of the attack had political goals. It is possible that the departure of the embassy became known to the British resident in the capital of Kashmir, Srinagar, and that the British colonial administration took measures to prevent the envoys from reaching their goal.

However, the surviving members of the mission - Abdurrahman-khan ibn Seid Ramazan-khan and Sarafaz-khan ibn Iskander-khan, having passed through Peshawar, Balkh and Samarkand, arrived in Tashkent. They told Chernyaev that they were not familiar with the content of Rambir Singh's letter, but in words they were instructed to convey that in Kashmir they were already aware of the “successes of the Russians”, that the purpose of their mission was “an expression of friendship,” as well as studying the prospects for the development of Russian-Kashmir relations. …

The ambassadors reported that the Maharaja wanted to send another embassy to Russia, through Kashgar, but they did not know if this intention was realized. From conversations with the Kashmiris, it became clear that the masses of India are outraged by the colonial activities of England.

So the benevolent attitude of the inhabitants of Central Asia, India to Russia has a centuries-old common history of trade, religion, constituting a common spirituality in ancient times, which is so carefully hidden by imposing a fabricated history of wars, savagery and paganism.

Approx. Jingoism (eng.jingoism, from jingo - jingo, the nickname of the English chauvinists, from by jingo - I swear to God) is defined as “extreme chauvinist and imperialist views. Jingoism is characterized by propaganda of colonial expansion and incitement to ethnic enmity”.

In practice, this means using threats or actual force against other countries in order to protect what is perceived as the national interests of their country. Also, jingoism is understood as extreme forms of nationalism, in which an emphasis is placed on the superiority of one's own nation over others.