A bitter truth is better than a sweet lie.

Kazakhs and Russia

The unforgettable founder of the Soviet state, V. Lenin, believed that politics is only a concentrated expression of the economy. In essence, the materialistic understanding of history was based on this concept. However, in modern international relations, contrary to all logic, ... historiography is beginning to play an ever greater role. The current politicians, basing their rhetoric on the conclusions of the national historical schools, forget about any expediency and sometimes manage to exacerbate relations with neighboring states to the limit.

In the post-Soviet space, all such excesses are colored by local specifics. More and more often, historiographic scores arise between Russia, on the one hand, and the once fraternal republics, on the other. The former metropolis and national outskirts stubbornly insist on their conflicting historical versions. Some talk about occupation, Russification and genocide, while others say in response that Russia, it turns out, was the only empire in history that always gave more than it took. Moreover, assessments of the past, voiced by academicians and even top officials of states, are far from the usual norms of political correctness.

Many Kazakh scientists contribute to this discussion. Increasingly, the entire period of Kazakhstan's stay in Russia and the USSR is portrayed as 260 years of the Russian yoke. In scientific works and textbooks, the Soviet formulation “voluntary annexation of Kazakhstan to Russia” is replaced by the terms “conquest” and “colonization”. In the works of M. Kozybayev, M. Magauin, K. Daniyarov and others, the compulsory nature of the annexation of Kazakhstan to Russia is no longer questioned.

In this regard, many scientific works are now devoted to the activities of such personalities as Srym Datov, Isatay Taimanov, Karatay Nuraliev, Kenesary Kasymov. It is believed that it was under the leadership of these historical characters that the Kazakhs fought to preserve their independence, but, apparently, due to the lack of artillery, they were constantly defeated. Anyone who objects to such an understanding of history is immediately declared a mankurt or a great-power chauvinist.

Internal disputes between historians concern only certain points. For example, some authors, originating from the Senior and Middle Zhuzes, categorically call the Khan of the Younger Zhuz Abulkhair (1693-1748) a traitor for his well-known initiative in accepting Russian citizenship. But such an interpretation of events, in turn, strongly hurts the tribal pride of West Kazakh scientists, some of whom are already putting forward versions of the innocence of Abulkhair, who, they say, never attached anyone, and all the documents about this are a fake of the colonialists ... The very fact of Kazakhstan's joining Russia has a clearly negative assessment in the scientific community.

It is clear that many issues in the history of Kazakhstan are controversial and cannot be otherwise by definition. I remember that Olzhas Suleimenov said that he knows the history of many neighboring countries, but does not know the past of his Motherland. Due to a number of objective reasons, the notorious “white spots” in the history of Kazakhs simply cannot be eliminated. Even the history of the Kazakh Khanate is practically unknown to us. We do not know the exact number of the khans, nor the reliable dates of their reign, nor much else. How can you analyze the activities of, for example, Khan Kasym, if there is only half a page of information about him? printed text... All the same, if historians of the XXV century will know about M. Gorbachev only that for some reason he met with E. Honecker and somehow traveled to Bulgaria.

Only starting from the 18th century, from the time of the accession of Kazakhstan to Russia, it becomes much easier to study and understand the history of Kazakhs. You can talk as much as you like about the bias and one-sidedness of the documents of that era, but at least historians are already dealing with the exact text of the “Charter on Siberian Kirghiz”, and not with the folk legends about the code “Kasym khannyn kaska zholy”. And it is surprising that Russian historiographers manage to create myths even when covering this time period.

Unfortunately, for Kazakh national historians, there are objective reasons for a negative assessment of the period when Kazakhstan was in the Russian Empire no, it cannot be. While claiming the version of the conquest of Kazakhstan as an axiom, historians forget about one, but very significant, detail. The fact is that the Russian monarchs, unlike the current American presidents, did not need euphonious justifications for their military campaigns. For example, the forced annexation of Poland or the Caucasus was called conquest, and the soldiers and officers who took part in these wars received military medals and orders.

The entry of Kazakhstan into Russia really took place for the most part in a peaceful manner. Of course, it would be foolish to deny, for example, the fact of the defeat of the Siberian Khanate by the Cossack freemen and the subsequent exodus of many Horde people under the rule of the Kazakh khans. But the latter, on their own initiative, took Russian citizenship, as evidenced not only by their numerous oaths, but also by a host of other sources. And Khan Abulkhair can only be guilty of being able to get ahead of all the other Kazakh rulers of that time, since dozens of applications for admission to citizenship flew to Petersburg from all over the steppe.

The activities of the Kazakh batyrs for the most part are groundlessly characterized as a national liberation movement. The same Srym Datov became famous only as a stubborn opponent of the descendants of Khan Abulkhair and did not harbor any thoughts of independence. In this Kazakh civil strife, the Russian administration mainly acted as an arbiter, trying in vain to establish the right and the wrong. In turn, Isatay Taimanov did his best to harm the activities of Khan Dzhangir. And if the Russian authorities had not helped the latter to deal with the rebel, then there would not have been those reforms for the implementation of which this khan is now so revered.

Srym Datov, Zholaman Tlenshiev, Isatay Taimanov, Zhankozha Nurmukhammedov and many other “fighters for independence” did not even raise the issue of secession from Russia in their demands. Perhaps, only Khan Kenesary can be recognized as the only serious bearer of the national liberation ideology in the 19th century. But after all, his activities met with resistance, first of all, among the steppe people themselves, who realized the benefits of Russian citizenship. Kazakhs made up the bulk of the punitive squads dispatched by the Russian authorities to quell the riot.

Also, our historians like to reproach the colonialists for the seizure of Kazakh lands for the construction of fortresses. And such facts did take place in history, but there were also completely different episodes. In 1801, Emperor Paul I, by his decree, granted the Kazakhs the interfluve of the Urals and the Volga, where the Bukeev Horde was formed. Thanks to this territory, geographically belonging to Europe, Kazakhstani soccer teams now they play in the UEFA zone, and Kazakhstan has theoretical chances of joining the European Union.

Naturally, not all the processes that took place in the Russian Empire, which was more and more economically lagging behind the developed states, had a positive effect on the life of the indigenous population of Kazakhstan. But even ordinary Kazakhs-Sharua were in much better conditions than, in particular, the Russian peasants, who until 1861 were generally under the yoke of serfdom. And the steppe aristocracy, without any particular difficulty, achieved personal or hereditary nobility for themselves.

The transformations accomplished during Kazakhstan's stay in the Russian Empire, in principle, can hardly be overestimated. According to the 1897 census, the number of Kazakhs reached 4 million, i.e. hitherto unprecedented figure, and this circumstance refutes any insinuations that the Russian authorities carried out “genocide at the stage of transition to ethnocide against the Kazakh people”, as the well-known historian M. Abdirov writes about in the book “History of the Cossacks of Kazakhstan”. Improvement demographic situation contributed by the following factors:

1) By the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian authorities managed to curb the barymta, in which much more nomads died than from any clashes with external enemies.

2) The Kazakhs did not carry military service and took part in the war of 1812 or the conquest of Central Asia exclusively as volunteers.

3) The authorities in every possible way contributed to the transition of the Kazakhs to a sedentary and semi-sedentary lifestyle.

As for the era of socialism in the history of Kazakhstan, it should be recognized that it was under the Bolsheviks that the Kazakhs received formal sovereignty, which later turned into real statehood. Moreover, such Kazakh Bolsheviks as T. Ryskulov, A. Dzhangildin, A. Imanov, S. Seifullin are still considered national heroes. It would take a long time to list everything positive sides coexistence of the Kazakh and Russian peoples in a single political, economic and cultural space. But they are not a secret for any person who studies history impartially.

The author of these lines is, in principle, against the demonstrative expression of repentance, as well as against any other emotions in the study of history. But it is clear that the act of national repentance itself is not so much scientific as political. The same Russia, not recognizing in some cases crimes, for example, the Soviet state, simply will not be able to establish relations with many neighboring countries. In this regard, perhaps Russia should make an official apology to the same Estonians, Chechens, Poles, Jews, who, thanks to Moscow, were often really outside the law and were discriminated against only because of their nationality.

At the same time, it is not necessary to resort to the German version of national repentance, since it is perceived by many non-Germans as an extreme. The Japanese also apologized to the peoples of Asia, but at the same time they continue to pay tribute to their ancestors in the Yasukuni Shrine. Despite the fact that the latter in Korea or China are considered war criminals of the level of Hitler and Goebbels.

But as the same story says, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz or Mongols as ethnic groups still cannot count on such gestures from their northern neighbor. No wonder even such an inveterate Russophobe as Karl Marx, albeit in a peculiar form, was forced to admit that “Russia is indeed playing a progressive role in relation to the East. Despite all the meanness and Slavic filth, the domination of Russia plays a civilizing role for the Black and Caspian Seas and Central Asia ... ”.

Probably, the reasons for the appearance of historically incorrect fabrications of Kazakh historians and publicists lie not only in nationalism penetrating into science. The fact is that the conclusions of Russian historians are not at all original. Because a similar interpretation of Kazakh-Russian relations was developed by American and Western European researchers during the Cold War and as a result of geopolitical rivalry with Russia. It is no coincidence that domestic scientists are so fond of referring in their works to the works of A. Bodger, R. Pearce, M.B. Olcott and other foreign historians. In fact, in many of the current books on the history of Kazakh-Russian relations, we get acquainted with the American point of view on this issue.

Everything would be fine, but only, unlike the tales of the Kazakh origin of Genghis Khan, a biased interpretation of the history of Kazakhstan in the 18th-20th centuries. may, firstly, threaten to aggravate relations between the two main ethnic groups of the country, and secondly, lead to historiographic showdowns at the state level. This turn of events, perhaps, is included in the plans of the "White House", but, I think, is unlikely to meet the interests of the "White Horde"

Azattyk: Today the ex-president, chairman of the SDPK party Almazbek Atambayev met with the faction deputies. What issues were discussed at the meeting?

Mombekov: This is a usual working meeting of the party leader with the faction deputies. The chairman of the party Almazbek Sharshenovich spoke about the results of the trip to China, the meeting with the leader of the faction in the Jogorku Kenesh and the direction in which the party will work. He said that next week there will be a meeting with members of the political council of the party, changes in the composition of the political council, re-election of the deputy chairman of the party, internal party politics, and also expressed his opinion on the socio-political situation in the country.

We also expressed our opinion, tried to tell the "bitter truth". I personally tried to tell Almazbek Atambayev this bitter truth. Not only me, but also Elvira Zhyrgalbekovna Surabaldieva, Evgenia Strokova tried to tell the whole truth. We spoke out. Better a bitter truth than a sweet lie. He listened.

Almazbek Sharshenovich said that it would be good to meet more often. I also said: “When you were president, you never met with members of the faction. Meet after you left the presidency. Of course, what has not happened in 2.5 years in the faction. " He doesn't know the whole truth either. They told the truth about his inner circle, random people in politics, about past and future about political actions. In general, it turned out to be an interesting working meeting that satisfied both parties.

Azattyk: During the meeting, did you talk about the political situation in the country, the dismissal of the head of the State Committee for National Security, the Prosecutor General, and relations with the current President Sooronbai Jeenbekov?

Mombekov: Of course, the ex-president expressed his opinion on this matter. According to him, since this happened, it means that Indira Ryspaevna's share of guilt was in some way. She had to go, and if she didn’t go, she could write a statement so that the issue would not be brought up to a vote.

He also said that there are certain mistakes in the personnel policy of the current president. But we also talked about his personnel mistakes. We said that at one time we were also unhappy with some of the appointments. We tried to restore relations. He listened to a lot. A lot of bitter truths were told. He was forced to listen to this. He listened in silence. He said that he had a meeting with the speaker of Yakutia, he was short on time. That he knows what we are talking about, but disagrees with some things.

We tried to give facts. He said that such meetings are necessary. This week we are also organizing a meeting to hear the opinion. He said that he has a great responsibility to the people. Because it was he who proposed the candidacy of Sooronbai Sharipovich [Jeenbekov] and made many promises, in particular, that there would be no clan rule as in Bakiyev's time. He talked about his worries about it.

Azattyk:How many deputies came to the meeting?

Mombekov: The meeting was attended by exactly 50 percent of the faction members - 19 deputies. A number of deputies did not come for good reasons, some were abroad, some were in the south on a working trip. There were 19 of us in total.

Azattyk: Sapar Isakov appointed Bolot Suyumbayev to the post of the head of the State Security Service of the USSR; earlier, President Sooronbai Jeenbekov dismissed him from the post of Deputy Chairman of the State Committee for National Security. Some experts believe that this dismissal and appointment showed a confrontation between the president and the prime minister. How did you take this appointment?

Mombekov: I supported the candidacy of Bolot Turarovich and will support it. He was not an important deputy there, he was a simple deputy. And I have not yet heard that he made a big political mistake. This is not a continuation of the confrontation, it is, if necessary, a softening of the confrontation. Bolot Turarovich is a man who, at dangerous moments, did his job perfectly as a bodyguard, ensured the safety of Sooronbai Sharipovich, Almazbek Atambayev and, in general, the leaders of the SDPK party. Regarding his appointment, I do not think that Sapar Dzhumakadyrovich decided everything on his own. I think this is a personnel decision that was agreed with Sooronbai Sharipovich.

I think this is the most objective opinion about Kalmyk-Kazakh relations. The Dzungars are a union of many tribes, including Kazakh ones. Only now history has decreed that we were torn apart by two powerful states, China and Russia. We even had one faith, Tengrianism. And the appearance of the Kazakhs, especially Astana, is closer to the Kalmyks than to their relatives, the Kyrgyz. There are many genera with Kalmyk roots. Yes, and Abylai - khan was Chingizid, i.e. Mongolian blood. Here is an interview with a Kazakh historian. So the Kazakhs are for you to judge whether to believe in the official version of Kazakhstan of Soviet times, or to believe the popular opinion formed by the history of the two peoples.

- Dzhambul, what made you get carried away with the Kalmyk theme? Some kind of legend that caught your imagination? Or the realization that many things concerning the Kalmyks were misinterpreted?

- In central Kazakhstan there is a monument of Kalmyk architecture of the 17-18 centuries - the Kent Palace, the Kazakhs call it Kyzylkench. There are the ruins of an old Lamaist monastery. As a student, I was told by local elders that Erezhep, the daughter of Ayuki Khan, stayed in this palace. Edrezhep was married to the ruler of the eastern Kalmyks (Dzungarian). Ayuka Khan sent her, accompanied by 40 batyrs. When they reached our mountains, they had to stop at Kyzylkench. They stayed for the winter, and the Kazakh legend says that they built this monastery. As a student, I took these legends literally. Later I found out that Ayuki Khan really had a daughter, but her name was Seterjab; indeed, she was passed off as the Dzungarian ruler Tsevan-Rabdan and, in fact, spent the winter in Kyzylkench in 1697. One thing did not agree - the Buddhist monastery was built much earlier, in the middle of the 17th century. I think it was built by the Oirat Kundelen-tayshi, the Khosheut ruler. The Kazakhs have a term "oilout" - these are not your hocheut, I wonder? We called Derbets and Torguts that way, but there is no name for Hocheuts. But this was a large tribe, there were more of them than the Torguts.

- A small part of the Khoshuts came here, to the Volga, and now their descendants make up about a dozen clans.

“It would be interesting for me to meet them, to write down their legends and traditions. And as for your question, indeed, there have been many incorrect postulates in the official history. As a representative of the younger generation of Kazakh historians, I had to state my positions; maybe that's why I was more principled than others in defending my point of view. I believed and still believe that in the 18th century, the main opponents of the Kazakhs and Kalmyks were Russia and China. It seems to me that I realized this earlier than our other historians. He defended his Ph.D. thesis on the ethnosocial structure of Kazakh society in the 19th century. The topic of the doctoral dissertation is the Kazakh ethnosociety of the 18th century.

- I wonder what you talked about with your Kalmyk colleagues?

- We are like-minded on many issues. But I must say, before coming here, I had a slightly different idea of ​​the Kalmyks.

- Tell us about it, please.

- In recent months I have been very busy with the Dean's concerns and archaeological excavations. Therefore, I asked my young colleagues to collect material on the Kalmyks that appeared in the 90s. Their conclusion was as follows: the Kalmyks are a rather Russified people, whose native language big problems; it will be difficult for us to find Kalmyk-speaking Kalmyks in modern Russia; traditions in your republic in a large "corral". Based on this, we did not expect much. And here, to my great surprise, I discovered a living developing culture and science. And I got a big positive emotional charge. I am extremely happy about this.

- This is the joy of a friend.

- Yes. In addition to communicating with colleagues, I was at a concert in a museum. The national spirit reigns here, behind which is the state policy. Kalmyks are not lost in the modern period - in such an abyss of repression. How this one hundred thousand people managed to save themselves is amazing and amazing. What your ancestors, Zaya-pandita, laid down, turned out to be a powerful foundation. After all, over the centuries your position in the Russian state has been very difficult historically, even marginal. And in these conditions it is worth a lot to develop as well. Such a resilient people undoubtedly have a future.

Here I heard a wonderful lively Kalmyk speech from the lips of excellent orators, one of them, and perhaps the best, is the Deputy Minister of Education Badma Salaev. The structure of his Kalmyk speech is simply amazing.

- Let's talk about the distant past, about the "beginning of the beginnings" of Kalmyk-Kazakh relations - where and when?

- I asked my colleagues if the legends about Ablai Khan, Oguz Khan were preserved here. Alas, there are no parallels. According to our oral legends, Kazakhs, Kalmyks, Nogais and some other peoples descend from a single ancestor, ancestor. And religion divided them. Kazakhs and Nogays adopted Islam, Kalmyks and Mongols - Buddhism. This has become a border.

Yes, the Kazakhs converted to Islam in the middle of the 14th century, but we are talking about legends.

Yesterday I listened to a concert of the Kalmyk National Orchestra, the sounds of the Kalmyk dombra reminded me of the sound of the Kazakh dombra. And your songs are more similar to Kazakh than to Mongolian.

- Do you want to say that the Kazakhs are closer to the Kalmyks than the Mongols? This is news, at least for me ...

- Of course, languages ​​are different. But a lot, in my opinion, suggests that we have some common roots.

- Nevertheless, there were conflicts between our peoples in the historical past. How does Kazakh historical science interpret this period?

- Official historical science and fiction Kazakhstan has a very negative attitude towards Kalmyks. The image of the Kalmyk as an eternal enemy is present in our history and literature.

In the written historical literature, this began to manifest itself clearly from the 30s of the 20th century. In the oral tradition, the image of a Kalmyk is somewhat different; he did not necessarily have hostile features.

- What is the reason for the fact that during the formation of the Soviet Kazakh historical science the image of the enemy-Kalmyk began to be cultivated?

- It is difficult to say something definite. Apparently, it was necessary to interpret the history of the 17-18 centuries in this way, and the task was set for Kazakh historians, among whom, by the way, there were no professionals in the 30s. The repression destroyed those who had received a good education even before the revolution.

There were no deep reasons for enmity between our peoples. There is no reason to believe that in the foreseeable historical space, two peoples, Kazakhs and Kalmyks, had deep roots for protracted enmity.

Kalmyk lessons - the outcome of 1771, deportation of 1943 ...
There were campaigns, migration of nomadic people to the west, to the south ... Passing through the Kazakh lands, the Kalmyks did not set themselves the goal of exterminating the Kazakhs. For example, the Oirat Galdan-Tseren captured Ablai Khan in 1741, held him for two years and released him. Moreover, he arranged it very solemnly and even gave the daughter of Khuchun Mergen Topush-khanum to Ablai Khan. If Galdan-Tseren wanted to destroy the Kazakhs, the first thing he would have done was to eliminate Ablai Khan.

- Yes, for Kazakhs Ablai-Sultan is an iconic figure.

- Exactly. And Galdan-Tseren knew this very well. Kalmyk Topush-khanum gave birth to sons Ablai who left a mark in Kazakh history, including Kosum-terim, who was the father of the last official Kazakh khan Kenesary. He was "raised on a white felt." Kenesary is the last khan who fought for the independence of the Kazakh Khanate, and he was the grandson of a noble Kalmyk woman.

Next example. At the end of the first half of the 18th century, when the Dzungar Khanate was surrounded by enemies, when Qing China and the Khalkha Mongols did everything to destroy Dzungaria, Ablai Khan saved Amursana, the last ruler of Dzungaria, and gave him shelter.

- And now tell me, Dzhambul, why, according to Kazakh sources, Oirat, the Khoyt prince of Amursan, is a Kazakh ?!

- Yes, our legends say that Amursana carried Kazakh genes. I do not know why. In general, the famous Amursana is a loser. The ruler of Dzungaria, on whom the Oirats had high hopes. With the Kazakh Khanate, he supported good relationship, helped the Kazakhs a lot, but the Kazakhs paid him the same. The weakening of Dzungaria was not beneficial to the Kazakhs. Dzungaria was a "buffer" between the Kazakh Khanate and the Chinese Empire. The Kazakhs, frankly, were afraid of the Chinese, and not at some particularly dangerous period in their history, but always. This fear persisted for a long time. The Oirats felt differently in the face of the immense power of the Chinese empire. With their lands and troops, they covered the eastern borders of the Kazakh Khanate. So the Kazakhs helped the Amursans not so much out of personal sympathy as out of political considerations.

Amursana during his confrontation with Qing China was a national hero for the Kazakhs. We are proud that our ancestors did not give Amursan to the Chinese. Even when the Qing troops began to threaten military confrontation, the Kazakhs stood their ground. And the Kazakhs risked a lot.

- Less than 20 years have passed since the events when the Kalmyks in 1771, led by Ubashi, left Russia for China to their historical homeland. We walked through the Kazakh lands, and the sad memories that the Kazakhs tormented the Kalmyk carts stretching for many kilometers with raids remained in the memory of both the Xinjiang and Volga Kalmyks. The perfectly trained Kalmyk cavalry was few in number, and the Kazakhs chose the tactics of guerrilla attacks in small groups. The Kalmyks lost many and many things in the campaign. That is why the songs dedicated to that period are sad.

- And the Kazakhs have historical songs, legends on this topic. These are also very "heavy" songs. The year 1771, the great exodus of Kalmyks to their historical homeland, from one empire to another, is a terrible instructive example, a lesson for the Kazakhs. “Do you see how the Kalmyk state collapsed? Do you see how the Kalmyks are leaving to the east because of the crowding, because of the lack of land? You see how they suffer, how they starve, how their children die ... ”. A terrible picture is described in Kazakh historical songs, and this campaign is explained solely by Ubashi's mistake.

We believe that the Kalmyks reached Balkhash, this is central Kazakhstan, without great losses. At Balkhash they split up - one group went along the southern shore of the lake, the other along the north, along the Kazakh shore. So, the group that walked along the northern route, through the Kazakh lands, completely reached Dzungaria. And the southern group, which went through the Kyrgyz lands, was destroyed. It is this version that is contained in our legends.

Yes, there were clashes, clashes between the soldiers of Ubashi and the Kazakhs. But we must not forget that Ablai Khan never gave a general battle to the Kalmyks ...

There is a legend that the Kalmyks gave Ablai Khan a white yurt as a sign of peace. And then it was as if Uburkhadzhi (the great Kazakh priest) said to Ablai: “Ablai Khan, the Kalmyks do not raise weapons against you. Forgive them (for the invasion?), And let them pass through our lands. "

- And the Kalmyks still have the conviction that it was the Kazakhs who greatly annoyed Ubashi Khan during the transition ...

- In any case, the Kazakhs, judging by the folklore, do not take credit for this. On the contrary, we are convinced that if Ubashi had chosen the northern route from Balkhash, the Kalmyks would not have suffered losses. And there were raids by individual groups. But not by order of the khan. It was just the temptation of easy prey, apparently.

- Let's skip almost two centuries and fast forward to our times. When the Kalmyks were exiled in 1943, it was easier for the Kalmyks to survive in Kazakhstan than, say, in Siberia. We remember this.

Official history is one thing, relations between nations is another. The Kazakhs, probably, should be grateful to other exiled peoples, for example, the Chechens. The Kazakhs are generally tolerant. The traditions of hospitality were strong. In addition, the historical consciousness of the Kazakhs was very developed, and, as it sometimes seems to me, there is no Kazakh who does not count Kalmyks among his ancestors. And this has nothing to do with the official interpretation of Kazakh-Kalmyk relations in the 17-18 centuries.
- Well, many girls were killed by Kazakhs ...

- Back in the 18th century, the great Bukhara-zhyrau, rhapsode, akyn, taught: “We must (as firewood) use a thorn; let a Kalmyk woman be your wife; let the Kazakhs be your warriors. If you marry a Kalmyk woman, your family will not be interrupted in this octahedral world ... Reclining in your honorable yurt, think about it and ponder ... ”.

- How did Kazakh women react to such speeches?

- I'm leaving here, to Kalmykia, on a business trip, my wife says: will you bring a Kalmyk woman? The setup is powerful, of course.

I grew up in an environment where old traditions have survived. One of my ancestors went on a campaign against the Kalmyks and returned with the booty. And in those days the most expensive prey were Kalmyk girls and teenage boys. Girl, okay, she must become the wife of a Kazakh. But the boy should be taken into the family and raised as a Kazakh, as a son. There was a special ritual for accepting a teenage Kalmyk into the family. This rite was developed only for Kalmyk children.

In general, Kazakhs have many rituals, legends and legends, where only Kalmyks appear. No other people are so clearly present in the oral folk art of the Kazakhs. This is also a reason to think and analyze.

I'll tell you about one such ritual. For example, a family wants to adopt a Kalmyk boy to become part of the clan. There is a small raid on the Kalmyk camps for this very purpose - to capture the boy. They bring him home. A ram is slaughtered. The boy is given a tibia in his hands, several men lift the yurt, and the boy must crawl into the yurt with the tibia in his hands from one side of the yurt. After that, the head of the family says: this boy is now my son and he holds this bone, etc.

If a big patronymia, that is, a clan, wants to accept a Kalmyk girl as a son, another ceremony was performed. I do not know where, at what time it was rooted, but the ritual is peculiar, of course. An old Kazakh woman stood near the yurt and lifted the hem of her large skirt, and the boy with a bone in his hands crawled under the skirt into the yurt. Well, if the head of the clan wanted to secure the adoption so that no one had doubts, he generally built a column of forty grandmothers. This is a complete guarantee of adoption.

- I wonder why this was done at all?

- It needs to be analyzed. I will tell you about my great-great-grandmother. There were two prisoners of Kalmyk women, one beautiful, the other ugly. When my ancestor returned to his aul, the beautiful woman was immediately taken as his wife. And he intended the second girl as a wife for his younger brother, just a boy. The teenager resisted - I do not want to marry at all. They locked him with a Kalmyk woman in a yurt for three days. So they got married. A Kalmyk wife gave birth to five sons. I am a descendant of a third son. 250 years have passed since then, but the memories remain. For example, about how her husband's friends, a Kalmyk woman, came to visit and made fun of her: you are, they say, a Kalmyk woman, but for some reason ugly. My great-great-grandmother retorted: what do you want from me, my eyes are my eldest son, my nose is my second son, etc. What does beauty have to do with it when I have five sons? Indeed, the woman who gave birth to and raised five sons, she enjoyed great respect and honor. They did not dare to contradict her at all.

As a child, I heard all these stories - for example, about how she got old. Great-grandchildren have already gone, imagine how many descendants it was from five sons. Someone will steal something from her, but cannot find the culprit - such a heap is small. In childhood, I was sometimes reminded that I was with Kalmyk blood. Especially if I get into a fight.

- Do you think you managed to say a new word in science?

- Maybe I managed to bring the image of Kalmyks in Kazakh literature in line with historical realities. Maybe I "broke" this image of the eternal enemy. I will not say that I created an exceptionally positive image instead, but I think my assessment of the role of Kalmyks in Kazakh history is more objective.

Modern Kazakhstan: how does City Chess differ from Astana?
- How do you explain the fact that in Kalmyk folklore Kazakhs, as enemies, do not pass at all? Especially in "Dzhangar". However, other peoples are also not called enemies. In the Oirat epic there is simply an enemy - without national coloring.

- Yes? It is interesting, but in our epics, the epics of other Central Asian peoples, we are necessarily talking about the confrontation with the Kalmyks. The main enemy is the Kalmyks. The Nogays were very unlucky with the Kalmyks in historical terms. After all, the Kalmyks defeated the Nogai Horde, and they still do not have an administrative center. Their statehood ended there.

There are many genera in Kazakhstan with Kalmyk ancestry, and the prefix "Kalmakh" has been preserved in the names. How many outstanding Kazakhs came from these clans. Our first cosmonaut Tokhtar Abakirov, philosopher, doctor of technical sciences Agzhan Masharov, the man who discovered the name of Al-Farabi for the Kazakhs. There are many more names.

- Tell us about Olzhas Suleimenov. Kazakhs have always been proud of him. And even by the fact that he resisted the officialdom of Soviet science in the stagnant Brezhnev times.

- Yes, in the 80s, however, and now, the Kazakh nation was really personified by Olzhas Suleimenov, like your Kugultinov. When we talk about Kalmyks, we first of all mean David Nikitich, and vice versa. Now, however, we also know about Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. We tracked his chess epic. But the Kazakhs were not very interested in what the Moscow yellow press wrote about him. We have always understood that Ilyumzhinov is doing a lot for the world to know about the Kalmyks. And your people are few; to survive in this world, it is necessary that everyone knows about you. Everything else is lyrics.

Olzhas Suleimenov is our outstanding figure. He is a little over 60 years old. He is not at home, and, to be honest, we, the young generation, lack his presence in the life of modern Kazakhstan. And in Soviet years he really, in Moscow's opinion, committed a crime: he put the Kipchaks on a par with the great Russian people. And indeed he was defended by the first secretary of the Kazakh Central Committee of the CPSU Kunaev. Now Suleimenov is the ambassador of Kazakhstan to Italy. We have a joke: once Attila conquered Rome, and now Olzhas. After all, he remains the flagship of Kazakh culture to this day. Although in recent years we have felt the revival of Kazakh culture. I think in the near future we will have national leaders in the field of spirit, equal to Suleimenov.

- Over the past 10 years, has Kazakhstan developed its own national ideology?

- And when did the former republics of Central Asia begin to call themselves Central Asian? And why?

- The concept " central Asia»I, for example, like it better. It happened in the 90s, when I can't remember exactly. Recently I handed over to the printing house my book entitled "The origins and history of nomadic societies of Eurasia in the kaleidoscope of centuries and millennia." This book is the answer to your question.

- How many books do you have?

- He has written and published about 20 books. I write more than I speak. Monograph "Kazakh society in the 19th century ...", tutorials on the history of Kazakhstan in the 19th century, "Ethnicity and society of the 19th century." By order, he prepared a three-volume book on the history of Kazakhs, starting from the 15th century. I have artistic things, a popular science plan, most likely. I write them in Kazakh language... The series "History of Kazakhstan: a look in profile" is published. He also wrote for her. I am interested in the history of Kazakh clans, tribes and so on. He wrote a book about Kazakh-Kalmyk relations in the 17-18 centuries.

- Kazakhs are Muslims. Do you feel the influence of the Islamic factor in international relations?

- We condemn terrorism at the state level, but we believe that the Afghan people should not be helped by bombing. The Taliban may be replaced by more terrible forces. For Kazakhstan, there is a danger of increased migration from the south, from this state. There are Afghans, Tajiks, Kazakhs who lived in Afghanistan (the interview was taken in the fall of 2001 - ed.). This is a very undesirable turn of events for Kazakhstan.

- What are your wishes for the Kalmyk scientists with whom you would like to establish working contacts?

- Success, the same as that achieved with us - Chokan Valikhanov, Nomto Ochirov - with you. These are excellent examples for us historians. And also - the realization that our works will be appreciated by descendants. Today's difficulties are temporary. I am ready in every way to support Kalmyk scientists who will deal with the ethnogenesis of Kalmyks and Kazakhs in a general historical context.

Having got acquainted with the Kazakhs of the Chelyabinsk region, I suddenly saw that in some ways they are even more Kazakhs than the people of this nationality living in Kazakhstan. They adhere more to traditions and customs. Some "tribesmen" from the neighboring country are even a little shy about them. But wherever Kazakhs live, their main qualities and rules remain unchanged.

All Kazakhs are relatives. The people have the concept of zheti ata - seven ancestors. Everyone should know seven generations of their paternal grandfathers. Their names, outstanding deeds. Not knowing this is considered a shame. Kazakhs know for sure their clans and tribes, there are connections between them. And, after talking for about ten minutes, you can find friends, relatives. As Bulat Khasenov says half-jokingly, in the region all Kazakhs are relatives, matchmakers, or simply know and have heard about each other. If we follow this logic, then one of the most respected Kazakhs of the Southern Urals, the head of the Nagaybak region, Kairbek Seilov, can be called a relative of ... the author of this material. In Kostanay I have a brother-in-law (in Kazakh - bazha) Muratbek Ashubaev - a retired police lieutenant colonel, very interesting person(our wives are sisters). His nephew Kairat recently married the niece of Kairbek Khakimovich Aigul. So Seilov and I are matchmakers! And the Kazakhs say: "A son-in-law is a 100-year-old son-in-law, a matchmaker is 1000 years a matchmaker."

Very hospitable people. There is a concept of "kunak as": dinner - to the guest. Anyone could travel from aul to aul and stay at a completely strangers... The guests were obliged to feed, accommodate, question, etc. There is still a custom of Auz tiyu - having come to the house of another person, you cannot leave without a treat. And if a person is in a hurry, then he must eat at least a piece of bread and butter. The truth of these words I have repeatedly “experienced myself” with pleasure. When you sit on the floor in Kazakh and take a beshbarmak with your hand (you have to be able to do this, there is a whole "technology" here), the sensations are simply amazing. The words "kazy", "court", "shuzhyk" evoke the kindest feelings in me.

They love the holidays. A nomadic, free way of life largely determined the qualities of the steppe people. Winters in Kazakhstan are quite harsh, it was necessary to take care of livestock. In spring, Kazakhs migrated to summer pastures - dzhailyau. Summer passed in communication, in an endless series of holidays, as the cattle freely grazed on fat pastures. Kazakhs still like to visit and celebrate holidays. An average wedding in the region attracts from 100 to 250 people.

Great witches. Since ancient times, song competitions of akyns were held in the steppe, accompanied by dombra - aitys. Akyns improvised, glorified their clan, countrymen and were very sarcastic about their fellow tribesmen and the deeds of the opponent. Such competitions could go on for hours. Today, this line is continued by the Kazakh KVN teams, which reach the semifinals and finals of the KVN Major League. December 1, 2010 the team "Kazakhs" (Astana) performed in Chelyabinsk at the festival "Snow gullies" among the guests of honor.

They love to lead and control. The steppe itself is conducive to slowness, thoroughness. it good qualities for the first leader. But sometimes the fussiness of the Kazakhs borders on slowness. One of my good Kustanai acquaintances was quite lively, energetic, but as soon as she got a high position, she turned into a calm, importantly speaking lady. It took me a while to realize that this particular line of behavior is closer to its human and national essence. In Kazakhstan, representatives of the indigenous nation like to occupy positions in regulatory bodies - tax inspection, customs, sanitary and epidemiological supervision, etc. At the same time, young girls immediately have a solid folder in their hands.

Vladimir Khandrusai about myths that suddenly arose - Genghis Khan, Mode, Attila, and even King Arthur and Napoleonic commander Murat were ... Kazakhs.

The withdrawal of Crimea from the "united and indivisible" Ukraine instantly "awakened" the national question in many polyethnic countries of the world, according to the age-old principle: why can they (the Crimeans) free themselves, but we (the Scots, Catalans, Flemings, Uighurs, Kurds, Basques ... cannot? And this is not surprising, because it is clear that nations that are looking into the future (even having excellent working conditions, salaries, recreation like the Scots, Catalans, Walloons) do not reconcile themselves with the political "dumbness" in the world, want to play in the "first team" of the peoples of the world , and not sit in spare - autonomies.

But something else is more surprising and informative for us here: the harsh, fearful reaction of those who recently "turned away" from the USSR. Political scientist from Kazakhstan Viktor Kovtunovsky believes that “according to the logic of the Kremlin, Russia can send troops into any territory where, in its opinion, the rights of Russians are being violated. Then, at gunpoint, hold a plebiscite on the inclusion of this region in Russia. " Indeed, Putin's "hook", when the whole state practically collapsed before the eyes of the planet, dumbfounded all "small" countries and peoples of Europe and Asia.

"News with a Ukrainian accent" shook everything post-Soviet space, and interstate relations have reached a level of unpredictability, ”confirms the shock of the former Soviet republics, an informed figure in Kazakhstan, leader of the Kazakh Congress, Adil Toyganbaev. From here he makes a very formidable (to Kazakhs? Or to whom else?) Warning: "a radical and merciless time is coming upon us." Therefore, the leader of the titular nation ardently supports the projects of his president-elbasy, designed to urgently awaken the ethno-patriotism of the Kazakhs in the face of a real threat and thus unite the loose community of tribes-clans Mongols, Turks, Uzbek-Cossacks, etc., only legalized by the Kazakhs in the USSR, into an ethnopolitically united nation ... So, who is the "radical and merciless time" coming to? And how Kazakhstan reacts is, according to the definition of the great thinker of Russian nationalism A.I. Solzhenitsyn, the Russian underbelly? What is the phenomenon and reasons for the rise of modern Kazakh nationalism? What lessons does he teach us, neighboring peoples, and even fragile peace and democracy?

Ethno-political projects of Elbasy (President Nazarbayev). On March 4 this year, in the midst of the annexation of Crimea by the "green men", Nazarbayev held an emergency meeting with the generals at the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Kazakhstan and announced whole line idea projects.

1. Rename Kazakhstan to Kazakh Eli - the Country of Kazakhs.

2. To urgently develop something like the concept “Mangilik ate” - “Eternal people”, with the aim, apparently, to immortalize the Kazakhs with a certain elixir of eternity.

KAZAKHSTAN was formerly called KAZACHIY STAN

About the great Tartary and the Mongol-Tatars. Ancient maps