Bitter truth is better than sweet lies. The bitter truth about us Kazakhs The bitter truth about us Kazakhs

The bitter truth about the Kazakhs. The 20th century in the history of the Kazakhs was full of tragic events. The uprisings in the First World War, the famine during the years of collectivization, the migration of Kazakhs to neighboring countries, the Second World War, the virgin campaign and the resettlement of the Slavic population - as a result, the Kazakhs found themselves in a numerical minority on their own land. The consequences of colonial policy are not yet fully understood by the Kazakhs themselves. In this article, we will try to calculate the fruits of the spiritual degradation of the nation. Let's start with the leaders of Kazakhstan over the last hundred years of history. Table 1. Leaders of Kazakhstan from 1920 to 2016: 1920-1920 Pestkovsky Pole 1920-1921 Akylov Russian 1921-1924 Korostelev Russian 1924-1925 Naneishvili Georgian 1925-1933 Goloshchekin Jew 1933-1939 Mirzoyan Armenin 145 Ckvorkov Russian Russian 1946 - 1954 Shakhmetov Kazakh 1954 - 1955 Ponomarenko Ukrainian 1955 - 1956 Brezhnev Russian 1956 - 1957 Yakovlev Russian 1957 - 1960 Belyaev Russian 1960 -1962 Kynaev Tatar 1962- 1964 Yusupov Uigur 1964 - 1986 Kynaev Tatar 1986 - 1989 Kulbin Russian 1989 - 2016 Hasarbaev Kalmyk What we have as a result: out of 17 leaders of Kazakhstan - 1 Pole, 1 Georgian, 1 Jew, 1 Armenian, 1 Kazakh, 1 Ukrainian, 1 Tatar, 1 Uighur, 1 Kalmyk, 8 Russian. The only Kazakh on this list, Zhumabai Shayakhmetov, was born in the Omsk region of Russia and married a Tatar woman. Under today's constitution, he would not even have the right to run for president. Thus, FOR A HUNDRED YEARS, NOT A ONE KAZAKH BORN IN KAZAKHSTAN HAS LEADED OUR REPUBLIC. You can, of course, say that Moscow appointed, but after all, they appointed not only to Kazakhstan. They were afraid to send strangers to other republics, and there, unlike us, there were plenty of local charismatic personalities. Now let's look at the Internet and trace the ethnic roots of the Kazakh elite. Table 2. “Famous Kazakhs with an admixture of blood on the maternal side”: 1. Bibigul Tulegenova singer, nar artist of the USSR mother Tatar 2. Timur Bek*****ov film director Jewish mother 3. Ermek Serkebaev singer, nar artist of the USSR mother Tatar 4 5. Karl Baipakov, archaeologist, mother, Jewish 5. Alibek Dnishev, singer, artist of the USSR, mother, Tatar 6. Bulat Ayukhanov, choreographer, mother, Tatar 7. Tungyshbai Zhamankulov theatre. director Uzbek mother 8. Bari Alibasov music. producer mother Tatar 9. Gulfairuz Ismailova Nar. artist of Kazakhstan, mother Tatar 10. Natalya Arinbasarova actress, honored artist of the RSFSR mother Pole 11. Murat Auezov culturologist, writer mother Tatar 12. Serik Sapiev boxer, Olympic champion mother Mari 13. Shamil Serikov wrestler, Olympic champion mother Tatar 14. Talgat Bigeldinov pilot, twice Hero of the USSR mother Tatar 15. Talgat Musabaev cosmonaut mother Tatar 16. Aman Tuleev Governor of the Kemerovo region mother Bashkir 17. Rakhat Aliev politician , president's son-in-law, mother Tatar 18. Zamanbek Nurkadilov akim of Almaty 1985-1994 mother Dungan 19. Mustafa Chokaev leader of the Kokand autonomy mother Uzbek 20. Oraz Zhandosov vice-premier pr-va 1998-2001 mother Jewish 21. Madel Ismailov leader of the "Workers' Movement" mother Tatar 22. Khasen Kozha Akhmet, dissident, leader of Zheltoksan, Ukrainian mother 23. Amanzhol Nalibayev, leader and organizer of Zheltoksan, Tatar mother 24. Aron Atabek political prisoner. leader of "Alash" mother is Karachay 25. Zhasaral Kuanyshalin leader of "Azat" mother is Tatar 26. Marat Shormanov leader and organizer of "Azat" mother is Tatar Although, in fairness, only Nos. 2, 4, 10 18, 20, 22 can be called such. The mothers of the rest are representatives of the fraternal Turkic peoples. A large Tatar component, among the creative intelligentsia in general, can be explained by the influence of two Tatar women, the first ladies - Mainur Chokabaeva (Shayakhmetov's wife) and Zukhra Yalymova (Kunaev's wife). Let's pay attention to the last six names from the list. These are the leaders and organizers of "Azat", "Alash", "Zheltoksan" and "Workers' Movement" - opposition movements of the era of perestroika and the first years of independence. The mentioned organizations, at the very least, tried to interfere with what we have come to today. Does this mean that if the blood of other peoples had not flowed into their veins, then we would not have had any opposition at all?!

How to move from the mythologising clown way of building Mangilik-Eli to the real federal way of democratic Kazakhstan? The author of the ARD, Doctor of Historical Sciences Vladimir Khandrusai, reflects on the ideologemes instilled in the people in this republic.

The annexation of Crimea raised a national question throughout the world and the CIS

But in Kazakhstan, as noted by the media in the CIS, it caused a real "ethnic revolution", an unprecedented rise of Kazakh nationalism. And the first question hotly discussed in the press: why is it only now that the “beast of nationalism” shuddered here, when ethnoeuphoria in connection with the collapse of the USSR danced in other republics a long time ago? Why are the Kazakhs “excited” only now? After all, “liberation from the Soviet empire” and ethnoeuphoria were, as you know, in December 1991?

Then it was, indeed, a holiday of the peoples, the all-democratic forces rejoiced, Bush greeted all the “liberated”. But since then, almost a quarter of a century has passed, and only now the Kazakhs have come to realize that “fact”?

Many explain their long maturation by the mentality of the steppes, aptly reflected in the Kazakh song “Kazek lies”. Yes, but there is a second reason. And it is in reaction to that liberation in this part of the Union: until the very dissolution of the USSR, ex-shepherds and farmers with their "leaders" zealously advocated not for freedom, but for the preservation of "indivisible". Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, Georgians and others fought for their freedom for decades, paid for it with the blood and even the lives of fighters, and they brought it to the steppe "Russian underbelly" on a silver platter: take it, use it! And only after 22-23 years, this Freedom, donated by the Baltics and Yeltsin, finally reached the brain of the authorities of the Republic of Kazakhstan and began to realize its pricelessness. And then after the next imperial hook, when the "independence" of a huge neighbor (poorly realized) helplessly fell to the ground before the eyes of the entire planet.

The next question, hotly debated: why did Kazakh nationalism revolve around the name of Genghis Khan?

Historians, culturologists, publicists and other "Herodotes of the steppe" put at the forefront of "raising the national spirit" ... Genghis Khan - but as ... a Kazakh. The answer to this puzzle was given by me earlier (ARD: Why Kazakhs are rewriting history). I will give only a generalized opinion of Kazakh journalists, who boldly avoided nationalism, but therefore were subjected to vicious (to put it mildly) criticism of ethnopatriots.

An explicit government order was received for: 1) making the history of the Kazakhs ancient and 2) glorifying their “nation”, respectively, new great history and its heroes were needed in order to urgently “make” fame to anyone in the world unknown to the “nation-stan”.

This task of the “father of the people” to the patriots was clearly manifested in the most popular dictum in the Republic of Kazakhstan today, attributed to Lomonosov: “The antiquity of the people is the basis for political claims”, hanging everywhere on the websites of patriots as an incentive and a hint-instruction - how to boldly and quickly arouse ethnopatriotism.

It was announced that "the Kazakh historical prize will be awarded to those who can prove the origin of any Kazakh family from the Kara-Kytays" and other ancient ones.

Second: We don't have our own heroes? So, you need to “make” them too! By stealing them from other peoples with world history. Thus, the dashing competition of the Herodotus of the steppe was launched.

Why exactly Genghis Khan? And who is more famous Asian commander than him? Yes, and the current Mongols are a cultured people: they will not fight much. But can you snitch from the Arabs-Persians-Muslims? It is dangerous, they will instantly slaughter a scribbler who threatens their heroes or their symbols.

True, it should be noted here that the Kazakhs were not the first to fall ill with the writer's itch. Back in the 1990s, their dekhkan neighbors gave out delightful myths, which, apparently, have now aroused the envy of the Kazakhs. And they brought a young, only now emerging ethnic group, into a rage of shameless childish boasting.

In Central Asia, nationalist doctrines were formed based on the thesis of exclusivity

So, Turkmenbashi, having dispersed the Academy of Sciences (!), himself wrote, not trusting historians, the historical work "Rukhnama" - about the Turkmen nation, about its great history and the tasks of "educating strength and greatness of spirit in Turkmens" - which has been studied for many years and children and adults. Just like in their time other despot eastern neighbors rushed about with Mao and Juche quote books. The history of the Turkmens here began to be traced back to the mythical Khan Oguz, who allegedly lived 6,000 years ago. The Azerbaijani president does not want to lag behind either: he also accepted the concept of bashism, becoming Azerbaijanis.

In Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, it is the same - "not religion, but nationalism has become the main ideological strategy of these countries" (Din D. Dagiev. Rus.osodi.org). At the same time, the Uzbeks recognize the participation in their ethnogenesis of a number of specific Mongolian clans, although they emphasize that "the language of the Mongols and their culture did not have a serious impact, and some Mongolian clans like Barlas, Jalairs, Kungrats and others were assimilated by the Turkic clans." That is closer to the truth.

And in the Kazakh “research”, where Mongolophobia stupidly dominates and all those who write the truth about the Mongolian tribes in the ethnogenesis of the Kazakhs are subjected to severe obstruction, these Mongolian tribes are stubbornly called Turks - almost the ethnic basis of the Kazakh Turks.

In Tajikistan, the only urban culture of the region, emphasizing the "pre-Islamic Persian-Aryan civilization" (unlike all neighbors-nomads) - actualize the so-called. “clumsy division of the 1920s”, when Samarkand, Bukhara and other cultural and historical centers of the Tajiks, the Kremlin brazenly handed over to Uzbekistan.

In general, the thesis of the exclusivity of the indigenous nation is common in the nationalist doctrines of all countries of the region, which is substantiated by all kinds of historical "research".

Abulkhair inside out, or "objectionable" Uzbek ancestors

But the Kazakh myth-makers became the undisputed champion in this competition. Dozens of books and hundreds of articles instantly appeared, in which Genghis Khan, Mode, Atilla, King Arthur, "Queen Tomiris" and dozens of historical figures were "recognized" by the Turks - moreover, by the Kazakhs. None of the neighboring republics had thought of this before.

In Kazakhstan, even films about the “great” Kazakh warriors were shot, where at a difficult moment in the battle between the “Kazakhs” and the Dzungars, “a sudden exclamation is heard: “Abulkhair with a detachment is on the way!”, And he puts the Dzungars to flight.” Here the usual nationalist method "from the opposite" is applied.

Abulkhair was just completely defeated with his shepherd "army" and recognized himself as a full vassal of the Dzungar Khanate (1457), and on shamefully humiliating conditions. It was after that demonstrative defeat of the warriors of Abulkhair that various kinds of “nomadic shepherd tribes” fled from him, and later formed a new, but the same artificial and loose gathering called “Uzbek-Cossacks”.

The Uzbek origin of the Cossacks Girey and Dzhanibek is well known: they were formed from fugitive fragments of different tribes, but one Uzbek ulus. The future "Kazakhs" themselves, as documented in 1876 in Turkestanskie Vedomosti, answered the question about their origin: "My ancestors, my beginning is Uzbeks."

"fell into ecstasy" ...

Historical myth-making is generally characteristic of young nations, but in Kazakhstan it has become the ideology of ... the state (if Kazakhstan is recognized as such).

Secretary of State Marat Tazhin, responsible for this ideology, angrily scolded on February 22, 2013: “State media should perform a propaganda (!?) function, but superficial “cheers and cheers” should be stopped replacing real work. Otherwise, there will be no trust index, no readability.” The authorities of the Republic of Kazakhstan, apparently, felt ashamed of the frank opuses-myths of the "historians of the Republic of Kazakhstan" and they demanded "to strengthen and deepen the ideological work!", "to cover the masses more widely!".

Analytical center Prudent Solutions confirms: “the place of the state ideology in Kazakhstan was taken by the state mythology”. It got to the point that the scientist-ethnologist Tulebaev wrote a textbook of the ancient world, but in his zeal to “deepen ideological work”, he drove into the ancient world ... zhuzes of the 18-19th centuries and issued another stunning myth of the Republic of Kazakhstan: “Russia divided the single monolithic Kazakh people into zhuzes, created separate clans and tribes” (the Kazakhs of the Republic of Kazakhstan have two main horror stories - Russia and the Kalmyks-Dzhungars).

In order to justify state myth-making, it is now openly declared in the Republic of Kazakhstan that “people are not interested in scientific history. A large number of works by historians of the Institute of History do not find their consumers”; “mass consciousness does not need a logical chain (of ethnogenesis), it needs an emotionally colored past”; “in a time of difficult trials, historical myths help to maintain the spirit of the people”; "the mythologization of history is an objective process."

As a result, "local historians fell into ecstasy on the basis of inventing the history of Kazakhstan", there is a "falsification of history on a given topic" (Renat Baytov).

The "luxurious heyday" of such a story led to the announcement of ... "Kazakhanthropes" in the Republic of Kazakhstan, who lived 2.5 million years ago. The neighbors of the Kazakhs, who deepened their history to only 2-4-6 thousand years, are now clearly embarrassed!

Hundreds of other world "discoveries" were made by Kazakh herodotes. According to Ochirov, a Kalmyk doctor of historical sciences, in ten years everyone will be studying the Kazakh phenomenon. As Doctor of Historical Sciences Lamin bitterly remarked: “History is made a girl, but how can it be ?!”. It turns out that in the Republic of Kazakhstan - you can ...

Follow our news on

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

Crimea’s withdrawal from the “united and indivisible” Ukraine instantly “awakened” the national question in many multi-ethnic countries of the world, according to the age-old principle: why can they (Crimeans) be freed, but we (Scots, Catalans, Flemings, Uyghurs, Kurds, Basques ... can’t? And this is not surprising, because it is clear that nations looking to the future (even having excellent working conditions, wages, recreation like the Scots, Catalans, Walloons) do not reconcile themselves to the political "dumbness" in the world, they want to play in the "first line-up" of the peoples of the world and not sit in the spare - autonomy.

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

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

Ethnopolitical projects of Elbasy (President Nazarbayev). On March 4 this year, in the midst of the annexation of Crimea by the "little green men", Nazarbayev held an emergency meeting with the generals in the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Kazakhstan and announced a number of ideas-projects.

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

2. To urgently develop something like the concept of "Mangilik el" - "Eternal people", with the aim, apparently, to immortalize the Kazakhs with some kind of elixir of eternity.

KAZAKHSTAN in the past was called KAZACHIY STAN

About the great Tartaria and the Mongol-Tatars. ancient maps

Kazakh women have ceased to trust their men and prefer foreigners.

This is stated in the release of the program on kaz.site. We bring to your attention the translation.

If I choose a foreigner - this is the weakness of Kazakh men

Nurlan Espanov and Zhanerke Elshin

- The vast majority of Kazakh guys work in security and are happy about it. This suits them, pride does not hurt. They do not even try to improve their lives, they do not want to correspond to their time - they are content with what they have. How can such men be trusted with their lives, their future? - says the guest of the studio Zhanerke Elshina, who decided to link her fate with a foreigner. - I am 27 years old. I met with many Kazakh men, but I could not meet my betrothed. Maybe I'm too selective, maybe this is the weakness of our Zhigits, who failed to charm me. Previously, I looked with disgust at the Kazakh women who walked hand in hand with foreigners, but recently my opinion has changed dramatically. There are reasons for this.

Now I do not condemn Kazakh women who want or have already married foreigners.

If I marry a foreigner - this is the weakness of our zhigits

For example, Caucasians do not give their women to foreigners. If this happens, the whole village is in mourning. Their women marry only representatives of their own nation. If our zhigits had self-esteem and pride, then the Kazakh women would not leave in droves over the hill. They would take at least some steps to meet their requirements. Unfortunately, I do not see such a desire. On the contrary, they only gloat. No, really, I was very disappointed in our young people.

Zhanerke Elshin

Of course, the religion of the future chosen one is of great importance to me, because I was brought up in a Kazakh family.

The Kazakhs say "it is better for a zhigit to die than not to keep his word." Unfortunately, most of the guys I met on my life path turned out to be slippery, quickly forgot about the promises made, and this does not bother them in any way.

So now they don't exist for me.

I thought maybe older men are sedate. But they turned out to be no better - they are satisfied that they meet with one or the other. Although they are already over 30, they are the same "dummy".

Our guys are only interested in wealthy girls

The main drawback of our zhigits is irresponsibility.

If they were responsible for their actions, we would not have orphanages, and women would not have abortions. We are a small nation, but we are among the first in terms of the number of abortions

This is not my personal opinion, this is evidenced by statistics. Why are abortions allowed, why do we have many abandoned children? Because the Kazakh zhigits are not equipped in everyday terms, so they are afraid to create families, they doubt that they will be able to support their loved ones, and avoid responsibility.

According to the logic, our guys must first solve housing problems. But what do our men do instead?

They prefer to marry wealthy girls and women. The main thing is that they have housing, a car and even an established business.

And what prevents them from achieving everything themselves? Instead, they choose the job of a security guard and are not ashamed, but rather proud of it. So they found an easy way in life...

The girls are to blame

Zhanerke's opinion touched another guest of the studio, singer Nurlan Espanov. He rushed to defend his brethren zealously:

Zhanerke, don't treat everyone with the same brush, your entourage has no pride and vanity. For instance,

Turkmens, when they give a horse of the Akhal-Teke breed, sterilize it so that it does not give offspring. Therefore, the Kazakhs first of all need to think about how not to give their women to the side

A nation that has lost its women, in principle, is no longer a nation. Actually, I feel sorry for you. Perhaps you looked down on your surroundings that for 27 years you did not choose your betrothed. For example, there was an excellent student in our class. None of our classmates dared to approach her and confess their feelings. Later, she married a guy from a remote village. When years later we met again, she threw me in the face: “What was I supposed to do, Nurlanchik? None of you, as a man, has opened up to me.” And we were really shy, did not dare to approach her, were afraid to offend, thought that we were unworthy of her ...

Girls enchant with their manners, actions. We were young too. And they conquered us with their manners. But you could not imagine yourself from a favorable side for yourself. If I could, I would have found someone long ago. Previously, you wanted to study and answered all the proposals: “I need to study, get a diploma.” So I lost time, sat up. I thought that the guys would not go anywhere, they would wait. However, guys do not like to wait, give them everything right now. In addition, parents insist: “Oh bye, it's time to get married! What kind of guy are you? It's uncomfortable in front of people. At least bring a neighbor, we know our parents well, and our daughter grew up before our eyes. And what kind of girl is yours, who studies in the city, only God knows.

So my advice to girls is

the opportunity presented itself - get married!

And you missed the time. Moreover, you touch the nerve of our zhigits. And this is wrong...

As a man, I can say: in principle, girls like wild, unbridled guys, bold, arrogant, the one who "came, saw and conquered." Let's say a shy guy does not dare to approach the girl he likes, to open up to her. In order to somehow show his intentions, feelings, he constantly revolves around her under various pretexts, but does not dare to open up. And when such guys appear next to you, you turn up your nose and look down on them, you definitely need impudent, impudent guys. But don't dream

you can’t find the old zhigits this afternoon with fire - today men like us are a rarity

Today's guys are weak, indecisive. Yes, and you do not let them take a breath with your nit-picking. So they spin around you silently, preferring not to stick out.

Basically, women make boys into men. Everything depends on women. According to statistics, men need to be protected, cherished. Why do you want to marry a foreigner? Do you think he's rich and successful? Have you thought about why these foreigners came to Kazakhstan?

If he is smart, educated, competitive, then what should he do in Kazakhstan?

Perhaps he broke the law there, did something, and now he is hiding with us. If he is a sought-after specialist, why does he not work in his own country? Need to think about it. You should not pursue the goal of marrying a foreigner at any cost.

The First Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Republic Serikbolsyn ABDILDIN discusses the Independence Day and the lessons of Zheltoksan

- You, Serikbolsyn Abdildaevich, are considered by the people as a person who stood at the origins of many historical changes and a citizen who expresses his position without any retouching. How do you feel when it comes to Independence Day?

- The struggle for independence is inherent in all nations, peoples and states. Kazakhs and Kazakhstan are no exception. Our ancestors fought for centuries to protect their land and national identity. Many patriots laid down their lives in this struggle. The desire for independence is not nationalism. phrase independent Kazakhstan makes me feel proud and confident. This day is also bright for me because, by the will of fate, I turned out to be the first citizen of the country to announce the adoption of the Law “On State Independence of the Republic of Kazakhstan” and sign the Decree of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the introduction of this fateful act.

— What significant events preceded the day of declaration of independence of Kazakhstan?

— December 1991 was full of political events. If we talk about internal politics in the power system, then on December 1, the first President of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, N. Nazarbayev, was re-elected by the people, elected to this high state post on April 24, 1990 by the Supreme Council of the Kazakh SSR. The presidential elections were held without an alternative. On the day of the inauguration of the newly elected president on December 10, 1991, at the morning meeting, the Supreme Council decided to change the name of the country - the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic was renamed the Republic of Kazakhstan. On the same day, at the evening ceremonial meeting in the palace. Lenin, the Supreme Council introduced the popularly elected President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Abishevich Nazarbayev, to the highest state position.

I signed the resolutions on these issues, in the position of acting. Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Republic. And the next day, December 11, the first Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan was elected on an alternative basis. Of the six contenders for this high-ranking second state post, your obedient servant was elected. On December 10, they changed the name of the republic, on the 11th they elected the chairman of the Supreme Court, and on the 16th, they proclaimed the independence of the state. So I found myself on the crest of historical changes in the life of the country.

- And what happened, Serikbolsyn Abdildaevich, outside of Kazakhstan on the eve of the adoption of the law on state independence?

- History so ordered that by the time the law on state independence of Kazakhstan was adopted, we were left alone. On December 8, 1991, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine signed the Belovezhskaya agreement on the collapse of the USSR, and before that, all the union republics proclaimed their sovereignty. Even in this situation, it cannot be said that the law on independence passed “automatically” in our country, there was a substantive discussion of each article of this draft on December 14, 16. Among all the laws adopted by the Supreme Council of the 12th convocation (there were about 300), an act of solemn the proclamation of the state independence of Kazakhstan is and remains, undoubtedly, the most important day in the centuries-old history of ancient Kazakhstan and in the fate of its multinational people.

15 years have passed since that historic moment. How do you rate the path you have traveled?

- Of course, people expected better, the hopes of the majority did not come true. We have fallen greatly both financially and morally. To this day, the volume of industrial and agricultural output has not reached the level of 1990. The population has been significantly reduced. Society is divided into rich and poor, corruption is rampant in the structures of state power. I would not want to overshadow this holy day on December 16 - Independence Day. On the contrary, I would like to take this opportunity to ask our readers, all compatriots to accept my congratulations and wishes, so that from now on every inhabitant of Kazakhstan enjoys all the blessings and riches of his Motherland, as independent, proud, free and happy citizen! Of course, for this it is necessary to achieve a change in the system of political power, the election of decent sons and daughters in the structures of democracy.

- Throughout the territory of the former USSR, the collapse of the union state is associated with the December events in Alma-Ata. How do you assess that situation?

- In my understanding, an objective assessment of any events or phenomena elevates their significance, and the distortion of the truth - on the contrary. It would be frivolous to link the collapse of the USSR with the December events alone. Moreover, the demonstrators then did not drop a single word about secession from the Union, about the state independence of Kazakhstan. They were handed the slogans - "We are for the Leninist national policy!", "To each people - its own leader!" etc.

How do you assess today the lessons and significance of this mass protest of young people against the dictates of the authorities?

- First of all, it is positive that the youth responded to the call to protest against the dictates of the supreme power of that period, at the beginning in a small group, and then, due to the inexperience and rudeness of law enforcement agencies, according to the principle “let’s go, they are beating ours”, the columns spontaneously overgrown. I think that the instigators themselves did not expect such a course of events.

Secondly, in order to draw lessons from that mass uprising today, knowledge of the reliable causes and sources of this phenomenon, which essentially repeated itself 70 years after the Turgai uprising, is needed. I am not an investigator and not a participant in the bloody December events. Most likely, I am close to the “victims”. The fact is that in those days he worked in the building of Kazgosagroprom, on the square named after. Brezhnev. And in the first minutes, the assistant showed me through the window how a group of people appeared on the square with banners. And then we saw all the horrors of this bloodshed. After the dispersal of the protesters began dismantling. We received an order to fire innocent employees of the agricultural industry, who fell into the lens when entering and leaving the building. I didn't fire a single person. Later it turned out, as if in retaliation, that I myself was dismissed from the post of minister and sent as an ambassador (permanent representative) to Moscow, again to smooth out the conflicts that arose because of the Alma-Ata events and establish contacts with the Center.

In the Central Committee of the CPSU (Mishchenko N.F. - the head of the sector of Kazakhstan of the department of organizational work) I was acquainted with the materials of the December events, collected to substantiate the well-known resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU on Kazakh nationalism. The materials were multi-volume, of various sizes, allegedly proving the development of nationalism and the support of this policy by the leadership of Kazakhstan. Leaving the office, Nikolai Fedorovich locked me up on a turnkey basis, saying that these materials were top secret from the relevant authorities ...

- Ser-aga, it turns out that in Alma-Ata you saw the dispersal of demonstrators, and in Moscow you got acquainted with volumes on these events. Therefore, you are one of the eyewitnesses?

— I not only saw and got acquainted… In Moscow, along with the main functions of the Permanent Mission, we had to deal with 64 universities where Kazakhstani students studied. In order to have a close connection with the youth, a dombra orchestra, an ensemble, a school for the study of the Kazakh language were organized at the Permanent Mission. I met with rectors, secretaries of party and Komsomol organizations of universities so that they would remove “suspicions” from our compatriots, and at cultural events they would give our talents the opportunity to perform with concert numbers. I remember very well our trip to Podolsk, where a construction division was stationed, formed mainly by recruits from Kazakhstan. The two-hour concert of the student ensemble with the participation of the servicemen themselves "blew up" the assembly hall for 800 seats.

When I returned to Alma-Ata to the Supreme Council, I was again “hung up” with questions related to the events of December 17-18, 1986. Thus, I was not only an eyewitness, but also a participant in the work carried out after these historical events. My activities in those years, as an ambassador and head of the Supreme Council, were aimed at consolidating the multinational people of Kazakhstan.

Many people say that the December events have not yet received a political assessment. Your opinion?

- I believe that these events were given a political assessment at the June (1987) Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, which adopted the well-known resolution on Kazakh nationalism. This assessment was fake, fabricated like how the authorities justify suicide with three shots today.

Three years later, by the Decree of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the CPSU “On the assessment by the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Kazakh SSR of the events in Alma-Ata on December 17-18, 1986”, Gorbachev was forced to cancel the decision of the Central Committee of the CPSU to accuse the Kazakh people of nationalism.

Of course, with the removal of the label about Kazakh nationalism, the so-called interethnic conflicts were also removed. The events did not shake the friendship of peoples. On the contrary, ordinary people, representatives of all nations inhabiting Kazakhstan, sympathized with what happened. Good relations between nations is the merit of the people themselves, rooted for centuries. Although the authorities are still manipulating interethnic issues.

I support the initiators of reassessing the significance of the December events. The tragic days of December 17-18, 1986 should not be left in the shadow of the bright independence day of December 16, 1991. They should be in the chain of struggle for justice, as the great Abay noted that “justice is the mother of all good deeds”.

- What assessment could be formulated 20 years after these events?

“We must establish the truth here, too. Analysts say it's impossible to get the truth under the current leadership. And that's right. At the same time, I suggest reading N. Nazarbayev’s book “Without Right and Left” (1991, “Young Guard” publishing house), where on page 180 it is written that he “ went with them, at the head of the column”, and on page 186 it says, “ that the December events in Alma-Ata were the work of Nazarbayev” with reference to D. Kunaev. Why look for another truth from other hands?

As we see from the book itself, the truth is connected with the name of the author of these lines. According to my assumption, if the “leader” stood to the end, there would be no bloodshed and he would become a national hero and would go down in the history of Kazakhstan as Sultan Kenesary Kasymov, the hero of the Kazakh people Amangeldy Imanov, who led the national liberation movement against the tsarist autocracy with an interval at 70 years old. There have been other uprisings and movements in history, but these two had a nationwide character.

Repeated again, 70 years after the Turgai uprising, the December events, as an uprising against the dictates of the highest political power of the state, still remain without a leader's name. Why? This question is now unlikely to be answered by history, since there is another side of the coin. The death of people, thousands of crippled destinies of the young. You have to be objective in everything. There were negative consequences of these events for the nation and society. In any scenario, a clear advantage has the awakening of national self-consciousness, the protection of the honor of the nation, the struggle against the dictates of the Politburo in the selection of the first leader of Kazakhstan. Along with this, many believe that if N. Nazarbayev had been appointed First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan, these events would not have happened in Alma-Ata. And there is also a causal factor here.

Meanwhile, there is still a choice. Of course, the activity of the current leader in personal terms is high. But, in the aspect of protecting the interests of the people, he is far from the image of a fighter for the happiness of the nation. His anti-people policy, insincerity, injustice exhausted many people. They talk about it now, during his lifetime. What will they say then? It is advisable to make a political assessment of the December events in the presence of living defendants, eyewitnesses, witnesses. It is needed not only by Zheltoksanovites, but also by the authorities themselves. An objective, truthful assessment will strengthen the spirit of the nation, the friendship of peoples. It is important for posterity whether he should be the leader of the Almaty uprisings or remain the head of a corrupt state. There is another option - to become one and the other.

- What could you say about the parliamentary commission for assessing the circumstances related to the events of December 1986?

- We must pay tribute to the desire of this commission to truthfully assess the December events. The co-chairman of the commission, Mukhtar Shakhanov, did a lot himself, being a people's deputy of the USSR, then a deputy of the Supreme Council of Kazakhstan. The co-chairman was K. Murzaliev, and the members of the commission were N. Fokina, S. Abdrakhmanov, V. Kim, I. Tasmagambetov, only 15 people from representatives of different nations. The leaders of the “Zheltoksan” movement showed high activity, especially in releasing brothers in “arms” who were still there from prison.

- Do you think that the commission did not work properly?

- It's hard for me to judge, my opinion can be subjective. But it seems to me that the commission curtailed its activity too early. After the accusation of Kazakh nationalism was canceled, it was necessary to continue work and achieve a different version of the assessment of the Almaty events.

One more thing. The conclusion of the commission was received by the Presidium of the Supreme Council on September 19, 1990. I ordered that it be submitted to the Presidium of the Supreme Court on September 20. For some reason, before consideration at the presidium, the commission replaced 95, 96 pages of the material, where it was written that “the government, the secretaries of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan bear political responsibility”, leaving only “moral responsibility”.

- And how did you evaluate these events?

Your question is somewhat incorrect. Such assessments should be at least on the part of the country's highest representative body of power, supported by the majority of the population, and not by individuals. Nevertheless, I would classify this phenomenon as an uprising, especially of the younger generation against lawlessness, diktat and insulting the honor of the nation by the political authorities of that time (it doesn’t matter Moscow or Almaty). By and large, the authorities themselves provoked this protest. I remember that when the commission was working in 1990, girls came with tears and said: “Agalarymyz ozderi shygardy yes, korgaudyn ornyna sabatyp koydygoy” (the uncles themselves took us to the streets and, instead of defending, gave us to be torn to pieces). Then the commission was allocated several rooms in the building of the Supreme Council with an entrance from Sovetskaya Street. And at the request of the victims, I spoke with them in the parliament building. And in 1987, in Moscow, some officials said: “The Kazakhs themselves rose and lowered themselves. To disperse the rebels, everything was agreed with the government of the republic.” The most unforgivable thing is when people's destinies are broken because of the protection of the chair of adventurous officials. At the same time, the fighters for justice remain in the shadows, while the businessmen thrive. And here the bitter truth is better than the sweet lie.