2/2006 Conversations about Motherland: Individual and Collective Experiences of “Homeland”

От родословной к территории: пространственное измерение мусульманской идентичности в имперской России

Кристиан Ноак

2/2006

Материал публикуется на английском (на английской части сайта).

SUMMARY:

Статья Кристиана Ноака посвящена пространственному измерению идентичности мусульман Волжско-Камского региона в Российской империи в XIX – начале XX вв. Автор анализирует пространственное измерение мусульманского сообщества на трех уровнях: община и место непосредственного проживания мусульман; регион как место мусульманской общины в общем экономическом, социальном и политическом пространстве империи; символическая география (представления) о родной земле самих мусульман. Ноак отмечает, что до периода Великих реформ пространственная идентификация мусульман характеризовалась стабильностью на всех анализируемых уровнях, при этом границы идентичностей не были четко маркированы: местные мусульманские общины определяли себя в терминах исламских институтов (являвшихся одним из инструментов имперского управления различиями), исторический опыт дворянских и купеческих мусульманских групп формировался в рамках имперской региональной сетки, а общей основой для дискурса о родной земле выступала идентификация с Булгаром и булгарскими священными местами, которые, в общем, совпадали с территорией Российской империи и тем самым способствовали идентификации религиозной группы с пространством государства. Постреформенный период принес изменения в политике по отношению к мусульманам Волжско-Камского региона и, как результат, критику булгарской идентичности. При этом пространственная идентификация “малой родины” существенно не изменилась и осталась тесно связанной с религиозными институтами (судом и школами). Критики булгарской идентичности из числа улемов все больше подчеркивали связь мусульманской общины с Казанью и территорией компактного проживания татар. Революция 1905 года привела к значительному изменению территориального компонента мусульманской идентичности, в значительной степени под влиянием джадидов Волжского региона. С одной стороны, джадиды настаивали на границах мусульманской общности, охватывающих всю империю, с другой стороны, их понимание этой общности все больше основывалось на тюркском или татаро-тюркском элементе. В целом, до 1917 года пространственные маркеры мусульманской идентичности оставались зыбкими, что выразилось в господстве идеи внетерриториальной культурной автономии. Только в 1917 году в рамках мусульманского движения появилось новое направление, которое отличалось более левой ориентацией и требованием территориализации автономии, при этом рамки этой автономии были маркированы по этническому принципу, а не по границам религиозной общины. Именно такая версия отношений между групповой идентичностью и пространством родной земли легла в основу советского этнотерриториального проекта.

1.See the introduction in Robert J. Kaiser. The Geography of Nationalism in Russia and the USSR. Princeton, 1994. Pp. 5-24.↩

2.For example Galina Yemilianova. The National Identity of the Volga Tatars at the Turn of the 19th Century: Tatarism, Turkism and Islam // Central Asia Survey. 1997. No. 16. Pp. 543-572.↩

3.In the wake of the classical Soviet studies of Ia. G. Abdullin. Tatarskaia prosvetitel’skaia mysl’. Sotsial’naia priroda i osnovnye problemy. Kazan, 1976, and B. Kh. Iuldashbaev. Istoriia formirovaniia bashkirskoi natsii. Dooktiabr’skii period. Ufa, 1972.↩

4.For a brief overview see Bernard Lewis. Watan // J. Reinharz and G. L. Mosse (Eds.). The Impact of Western Nationalisms. Essays Dedicated to Walter Z. Laqueur on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday. London, 1992. Pp. 169-179.↩

5.John Agnew. Place and Politics: The Geographical Mediation of State and Society. Boston 1987. Pp. 230-231. Cf. Kaiser. The Geography of Nationalism. P. 5.↩

6.The provinces (guberniia) of Viatka, Perm, Kazan, Nizhnii-Novgorod, Penza, Simbirsk, Samara, Saratov and Orenburg (and, from 1865 onwards Ufa). Cf. R. G. Kuzeev. Narody Srednego Povolzh’ia i Iuzhnogo Urala. Etnogeneticheskii vzgliad na istoriiu. Moscow, 1992.↩

7.V. M. Kabuzan. Narody Rossii v pervoi polovine XIX v. Chislennost’ i etnicheskii sostav. Moscow, 1992. Pp. 121-125, 195; D. M. Iskhakov. Istoricheskaia demografiia Tatarskogo naroda (XVIII-nachalo XX vv.). Kazan, 1993. P. 76 (Tatars); Iuldashbaev. Istoriia formirovaniia. P. 135 (Bashkirs).↩

8.Cf. Christian Noack. Les musulmans de la région volga-oural au XIXe siиcle: L’arriиre-plan social, économique et culturel du mouvement d’emancipation // Stéphane A. Dudoignon, Dämir Is’haqov, Räfyq Möhämmätshin (Eds.). L’Islam de Russie. Conscience communautaire et autonomie politique chez les Tatars de la Volga et de l’Oural depuis le XVIII siecle. Paris, 1997. Pp. 89-114.↩

9.Andreas Kappler. Russlands erste Nationalitäten. Das Zarenreich und die Völker der Mittleren Volga vom 16.-19. Jahrhundert. Köln/Wien, 1982. S. 503-504; Kuzeev. Narody. Pp. 121-127, 138, 143-156, 161-174; Iuldashbaev. Istoriia formirovaniia. Pp. 70, 77-80, 107, 167, 172. Both, Orthodoxy and Islam, were highly intolerant of cross-confessional marriages.↩

10.Bauer et al. (Hg.). Die Nationalitäten des Russischen Reiches in der Volkszählung von 1897. Bd. B: Ausgewählte Daten zur sozio-ethnischen Struktur des Russischen Reiches. Stuttgart, 1991. Table 40. S. 226-227; Kuzeev. Narody. P. 161.↩

11.Imams were attached to a certain mahalla, where their rights as spiritual leaders and as judges of the sharia-courts were respected. Moreover, they were charged with administrative tasks, such as maintaining the census rolls. Cf. Danil’ D. Azamatov. Russian Administration and Islam in Bashkiria (18th-19th centuries) // Michael Kemper et al. (Eds.). Muslim Culture in Russian and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries. Vol. 1. Berlin, 1996. Pp. 91-111.↩

12.As independent waqf-institutions were not foreseen by Russian legislation for the Volga-Urals, maintaining Islamic structures there depended very much on informal arrangements with the peasant communities or wealthy individuals. These arrangements were simplified by the legal limitation of the number of communities and the conscription of learned men to them. M. N. Farkhshatov. Narodnoe Obrazovanie v Bashkirii v poreformennyi period, 60-e – 90-e gody XIX v. Moscow, 1994. Pp. 61-62; Michael Kemper. Sufis und Gelehrte in Tatarien und Baschkirien, 1789-1889. Der islamische Diskurs unter russischer Herrschaft. Berlin, 1998. S. 40; Ia. D. Koblov. O magometanskikh mullakh. Religiozno-bytovoi ocherk. Kazan, 1907, passim; I. K. Zagidullin. Tatarskie krest’iane Kazanskogo gubernii vo vtoroi polovine XIX v. / Kand diss. Kazan, 1992. Pp. 40, 87-88.↩

13.The donators made use of their wealth and sponsored Islamic institutions and eventually raised in esteem and influence among their communities. Cf. U. Idrisov et al. (Eds.). Iz istorii Nizhegorodskikh musul’manskikh obshchin. Nizhnii Novgorod, 1997. Pp. 53-55; Kemper. Sufis und Gelehrte. S. 147-172; R. R. Salikhov. Obshchestvenno-reformatorskia deiatel’nost’ tatarskoi burzhuazii Kazani / Kand. diss. Kazan, 1997. Pp. 90-135.↩

14.Kemper. Sufis und Gelehrte. S. 468-473.↩

15.These differences further eroded with the Russian efforts to standardize the complicated soslovia or estate system. For the Muslim peasants and livestock breeders of the Volga-Ural, this meant the abolition of a number of privileges and an adaptation of their juridical and fiscal status to that of state peasants. This process was completed with the dissolution of the Bashkir Cossack Host in the 1860s. Thus not only the unification of Islamic institutions and the establishment of a new elite, but the adjustment of the fiscal and juridical status, too, transcended the traditional boundaries of local, regional, tribal, and ethnic Muslim groups. See B. S. Davletbaev. Krest’ianskaia reforma 1861 goda v Bashkirii. Moscow, 1983. Pp. 9-29; D. M. Iskhakov. Etnograficheskie gruppy tatar Volgo-Ural’skogo regiona. Kazan, 1993. Pp. 42-47; Kappeler. RuЯlands erste Nationalitäten. S. 442-445; Kuzeev. Narody. Pp. 176-221; Noack. Les musulmans. Pp. 89-114.↩

16.Cf. the superb local study on Muslim communities at the south-eastern frontier of the Volga-Urals: Allen J. Frank. Muslim Religious Institutions in Imperial Russia: The Islamic World of Novouzensk District and the Kazakh Inner Horde, 1780-1910. Leiden, 2001.↩

17.Unfortunately, earlier spatial perceptions have not come down to us, but subsequent manuscript copies of seventeenth-century works like the “Daftar-i Chingiz Nama” reflect a territorial division according to the old Chingisid yurts – clearly a political division. Cf. Allen J. Frank. Islamic Historiography and “Bulghar” Identity among the Tatars and Bashkirs of Russia. Leiden, 1998. Pp. 12-20; M. A. Usmanov. Tatarskie istoricheskie istochniki XVII-XVIII vv. Kazan, 1972. Pp. 97-122.↩

18.Allen Frank has compared the names of the followers with funerary inscriptions found on Muslim tombstones throughout the Volga-Ural region and convincingly interpreted the following section, a spiritual genealogy of the followers, as a “shrine catalogue.” Frank. Islamic Historiography. Pp. 69-72; Kemper. Sufis und Gelehrte. S. 326-327.↩

19.Frank. Islamic Historiography. Pp. 77-82.↩

20.Frank. Islamic Historiography. Pp. 84-86. For earlier concepts cf. Kemper. Sufis und Gelehrte. S. 86.↩

21.Zagidullin. Tatarskie krest’iane. Pp. 83-86; Cf. the ideologically biased account by Kh. Kh. Khasanov. Formirovanie tatarskoi burzhuaznoi natsii. Kazan, 1977. See also L. M. Sverdlova. Na perekrestke torgovykh putei. Kazan, 1991; N. F. Tagirova. Rynok Polvozh’ia v kontse XIX – nachale XX vv. // P. I. Savel’ev (Ed.). Imperskii stroi Rossii v regional’nom izmerenii (XIX – nachalo XX veka). Moscow, 1997. Pp. 149-175. On the social stratification of the Muslim population in 1897 cf. Noack. Les musulmans. Pp. 96-112.↩

22.Jörg Baberowski. Autokratie und Justiz. Frankfurt, 1996. S. 403-427; Farkhshatov. Narodnoe obrazovanie. Pp. 36-53; Salikhov. Obshchestvenno-reformatorskoe. Pp. 64-89; B. B. Veselovskii. Istoria zemstva za 40 let. Vol. 2. St. Petersburg, 1909. Pp. 404-417; I. K. Zagidullin. Tatarskaia shkola i russifikatorskaia politika tsarizma vo vtoroi polovine XIX v. // F. A. Sadykova (Ed.). Narodnoe prosveshenie u tatar v dooktiab’rskii period. Kazan, 1992. Pp. 60-84.↩

23.Another case in point was the 1897 census perceived by Muslim villagers as a prelude to forced conversion. Cf. NA RT. F. 199. D. 46.↩

24.Robert P. Geraci. Window on the East. Ethnography, Orthodoxy, and Russian Nationality in Kazan, 1870-1914 / Ph. D. Dissertation; Berkeley, 1995. Pp. 25-109; Jean Saussay. L’ apostasie des Tatars christianisés en 1866 // Cahiers du Monde Russe et Soviиtique. 1968. No. 9/1. Pp. 20-45; Paul W. Werth. Subjects for Empire: Orthodox Mission and Imperial Gouvernance in the Volga-Kama-Region, 1825-1881 / Ph. D. Dissertation; Ann-Arbor, 1996; I. K. Zagidullin. K voprosu otpadeniia kreshchenykh tatar Kazanskoi gubernii v musul’manstvo 1866 goda // S. Alishev, Iu. Smykov (Eds.). Natsional’nyi vopros v Tatarii dooktiab’rskogo perioda. Kazan, 1990. Pp. 66-78.↩

25.Frank. Islamic Historiography. Pp. 125-139, 142; Kemper. Sufis und Gelehrte. S. 383-392.↩

26.Kemper. Sufis und Gelehrte. S. 455-461.
27 For a detailed analysis of social and political mobilization cf. Christian Noack. Muslimischer Nationalismus im Russischen Reich, Nationsbildung und Nationalbewegung bei Tataren und Baschkiren. Stuttgart, 2000. S. 218-349. Contemporary surveys are G. Alisov. Musul’manskii vopros v Rossii // Russkaia Mysl’. 1909. No. 7. Pp. 28-61; Musa Bigiev (Ed.). Islahat esaslary. Petrograd, 1917. On Muslims in the State Duma cf. L. A. Iamaeva (Ed.). Musul’manskie deputaty Gosudarstvennoi Dumy Rossii. Sbornik materialov i dokumentov. Ufa, 1998; D. M. Usmanova. Musul’manskaia fraktsiia i problemy “svobody sovesti” v Gosudarstvennoi Dume Rossii 1906-1917. Kazan, 1999. For the Muslim press: Alexandre Bennigsen, Chantal Lemercier-Quelquejay. La presse et le mouvement national chez les Musulmans de Russie avant 1920. Paris, 1964; A. G. Karimullin. Tatarskaia kniga nachala XX veka. Kazan, 1974.
28 Western scholars like Azade-Ayse Rorlich (The Volga Tatars. A Profile in National Resilience. Stanford, 1986) and Alexandre Bennigsen and Chantal Quelquejay (Les mouvements nationaux chez les Musulmans de Russie. Le Sultangalievisme au Tatarstan. Paris, 1960) tended to overestimate the pre-revolutionary success of the jadids, as they relied either on contemporary jadid sources (as the Muslim press) or on the “new Tatar historiography” (Lazzerini) of the 1970s and 1980s, that tried to “rehabilitate” the jadidism in the wake of Ia. Abdullin’s “Tatarskaia prosvetitel’skaia mysl’.” Sober evaluations of the pre-revolutionary conditions are provided by: Farkhshatov. Narodnoe obrazovanie. Pp. 89, 94; Salikhov. Obshchestvenno-reformatorskoe deiatel’nost’. Pp. 135-150; Validov. Ocherk. P. 50. On jadidism more generally cf. the contributions of Stéphane A. Dudoignon, Thierry Zarcone, Yakhia Abdoulline and Rafiq Mouchammetchine in: Cahiers du Monde Russe. 1996. No. 37/1-2; Stéphane A. Dudoignon. Qu’est-ce que la ‘quadоmiya’? Éléments pour une sociologie du traditionalisme musulman, en Islam de Russie et en Transoxiane, au tournant des XIXe et XXe siиcles // L’ Islam de Russie. Pp. 207-225; Ahmet Kanlidere. Reform Within Islam. The Tajdid and Jadid Movement Among the Kazan Tatars (1809-1917). Conciliation or Conflict? Istanbul, 1997; Edward J. Lazzerini. Reform und Modernismus (Djadidismus) unter den Muslimen des Russischen Reiches // Andreas Kappeler et al. (Hg.). Die Muslime in der Sowjetunion und Jugoslawien. Köln, 1989. S. 35-48.↩

27.Christian Noack. Muslim Revolutionary Conspiracies as Retrospectively Seen by Local State Officials // J. Smele, A. Heywood (Eds.). The Russian Revolution of 1905. A Centenary Perspective. London, 2005. Pp. 119-136.↩

28.The 72 paragraphs of the Ittifak program in Bigiev. Islahat esaslary. Pp. 220-233. The slightly modified version of the second State Duma’s Muslim faction in: Iamaeva. Musul’manskie deputaty. Pp. 49-58.↩

29.After 1907 Muslims from the south-eastern periphery of the Empire, curtailed of political participation, increasingly took offence at the jadids’ limited perceptive faculty.↩

30.To be sure, Bulghar identity and Bulghar-oriented historiography (with its focus on the conversion to Islam as the central historical event) remained popular. But even Bulghar historians began to use Russian sources and secondary literature to advocate their cause. But the changing forms and contents during the several revivals of political Bulgharism do not have to detain us here. For an overview cf. Frank. Islamic Historiography.↩

31.Noack. Muslimischer Nationalismus. S. 466-469, G. Gubaidullin. Razvitie istoricheskoi literatury u tiurkskikh narodov // Pervyi vsesoiuznyi tiurkologicheskii s”ezd. Protokoly. Baku, 1926. Pp. 39-60. Dj. Validov. Ocherk istorii obrazovannoosti i literatury u Tatar. Vyp. 1. Moscow/Petrograd, 1923. Pp. 101-103. See also Frank’s brief summary in: Frank. Islamic Historiography. P. 159.↩

32.In fact, the brain drain to St. Petersburg and a roundup of leading ulema in 1907 deprived Kazan from this role for a couple of years.↩

33.Significantly, except for the revolutionary period in Turkey and Persia, cross-border solidarity with other Turkic communities was hardly ever articulated or exploited. International commitments remained largely “Islamic,” for example Gasprinskii’s efforts to organize an Islamic world congress in 1908.↩

34.Cf. Noack. Muslimischer Nationalismus. S. 510-513.↩

35.Ibid. S. 416-427.↩

36.Ibid. S. 501-507.↩

37.Ibid. S. 507-508.↩

38.Cf. Dj. Validi. Mīllet vä milliyāt. Orenburg, 1914. “I do not believe that there is a possibility of their [the Muslims’] unification, be it political, cultural or literary... When they have shown a certain unity, this was caused by their reluctance to progress...” Quoted in G. von Mende. Der nationale Kampf der Russlandtuerken. Ein Beitrag zur nationalen Frage in der Sovetunion. Berlin, 1936. S. 83-84↩

39.Cf. Dj. Validov. From the Orient to the West // Vakyt. 1917. May 23. Quoted in von Mende. Der nationale Kampf. S. 136-137.↩

40.Diliara Usmanova. Voprosy natsional’no-gosudarstvennogo samoupravlenija na stranitsakh tatarskoi periodicheskoi pechati 1917 – aprel’ 1918 gg. / Kand diss. Kazan, 1994. Pp. 126-128; Timurbek Davletshin. Sovetskaia Tataria. Teoria i praktika leninskoi natsional’noi politiki. London, 1974. Pp. 157-158. The Commission discussed five variants: 1) Validov’s “Small Bashkiria” with 75% Muslim population; 2) a Bashkir territory according to the resolutions of the second Bashkir kurultai (57% Muslims); 3) a territorial autonomy comprising Mari and Chuvashs (51% Muslims); 4) the Kazan gubernia and Muslim areas from the Simbirsk, Samara, and Astrakhan provinces (29% Muslims, 56% Russian, 9% Chuvash); and 5) a polyethnic autonomy comprising compact Chuvash and Mari areas, with 44% Muslim population.↩

41.Noack. Muslimischer Nationalismus. S. 528-531. For the deliberations on resettlement, see Étnopoliticheskaia mozaika Bashkortostana. Ocherki, dokumenty, chronika. Vol. 2. Moscow, 1990. Pp. 89-90.↩

42.Muslim negotiations with the emerging national movements of the Chuvash and the Finno-Ugrian peoples in the Volga-Urals remain to be studied.↩

43.Cf. Rorlich. Volga Tatars. P. 138; Kaiser. Geography. P. 112. More recent research, on the contrary, has stressed the “scientific” predisposition of many decisions in early Soviet national policy, including the efforts to provide each nationality with a territorially defined state or autonomy of their own. Cf. Jeremy Smith. Delimiting National Space. The Ethnographic Principle in the Administrative Division of the RSFSR and USSR, 1918-1925 // J. Smith (Ed.). Beyond the Limits. The Concept of Space in Russian Culture. Helsinki, 1999. Pp. 241-258.↩

44.Noack. Muslimischer Nationalismus. S. 530-533.↩

45.Usmanova. Voprosy. Pp. 129-137.↩

Ab Imperio

Ab Imperio

От родословной к территории: пространственное измерение мусульманской идентичности в имперской России

Примечания