The uprising of Kenesary Kasymov 1837 1847 Kenesary kasymov

The uprising of Kenesary Kasymov 1837-1847- the longest and largest uprising of the Kazakh people on the territory of modern Kazakhstan under the leadership of Khan Kenesary Kasym-uly against the Russian Empire.

background

Having exhausted peaceful means of resolving the Kazakh-Russian contradictions, Kenesary began hostilities that covered most of the Kazakh lands and clans. In the rebellion, in addition to the clans of the Middle Zhuz, the clans of the Younger Zhuz - shekti, tama, tabyn, alshyn, shomekey, zhappas, etc., the clans of the Senior Zhuz - shapyrashty, uysuns, dulats, etc. took part in the military battles of the Kazakhs against regular Russian troops together such well-known batyrs as Agybay, Iman, Basygara, Angal, Iman Dulatuly, Zhanaidar, Zheke, Sauryk, Suranshi, Baiseit, Zholaman Tilenshiuly, Bugybay, Bukharbay and others selflessly fought from Kenesary.

Kenesary gained wide popularity in the Steppe in 1837, when his detachment managed to successfully carry out an operation to capture a caravan moving from Petropavlovsk to Tashkent, accompanied by a convoy of 55 Cossacks led by cornet Alexei Rytov. All this destabilized the situation in Kazakhstan and forced P. D. Gorchakov to take appropriate measures, trying to coordinate his actions with the Orenburg Governor-General V. A. Perovsky. This was necessary, since Kenesary Kasymov from the Siberian detachments pursuing him went to the territory of the Kazakhs of the Orenburg department.

Kenesary began active hostilities in the spring of 1838 with the siege of the Akmola fortification. The rebels then moved to the Turgay region, where they were joined by members of Isatai Taimanov's defeated army.

The actions of Kenesary posed a serious danger to Russia's trade with the Central Asian states. In this regard, measures were taken to protect merchant caravans by detachments of Cossacks. In the summer of 1838, by order of P. D. Gorchakov, parties of Cossacks of 50 people were sent from orders. pickets and patrols were strengthened in places of the most probable appearance of Kenesary, between Kokchetav, Uch-Bulak, Akmola orders. Despite this, caravans were constantly attacked and brutally robbed. To persecute the supporters of Kenesary and return to the places of residence of the migrated auls in June 1838 on the river. Mokur-Turgay was sent a detachment of the military foreman Karbyshev and a detachment of Colonel Shcherbachev from Akmola, although the latter was forced to turn to Aktau.

In August 1841, the rebels, led by Khan Kene, besieged and took the Kokand fortresses Sozak, Zhana-Kurgan, Ak-Mechet, Zhulek. A number of victories won over Kokand contributed to the expansion of the army of Kenesary.

All-Kazakh Khan

Under the reign of Khan Kenesary, the court of biys was restored, which tried cases according to the norms of customary law of the Kazakhs. In tax policy, the norms of Muslim law were also restored: for pastoral areas, the zyaket (a mandatory annual tax is one of the 5 pillars of Islam) was preserved, for agricultural areas - ushur (a tax levied on the settled population).

As a result, in Russia, some of the officials responsible for relations with Asia, in particular the Orenburg Governor-General Perovsky, began to lean towards negotiating and organizing a semi-autonomous entity following the example of the Bukey Horde. The answer of Nicholas I in 1843 to these projects was that two monarchs cannot be in the same kingdom, and armed clashes continued. In addition to the Cossacks and regular troops, sultans loyal to the government took part in the campaign against Kenesary.

The passivity and sometimes flirting with Kenesary of the Orenburg administration often brought all the efforts of the "Siberians" to naught. In the khan's rule, Kenesary adhered to cruel methods, carrying out repressions against his opponents.

The tough domestic policy of Khan Kenesary caused indignation among certain clans. In 1844, several auls of the Zhappas clan entered into an armed conflict with Sultan Nauryzbay (brother of Kenesary), who arrived with a detachment of Yesauls to collect zyakets. Kenesary pursued the policy of his grandfather Ablai, who believed that only cruelty could make the khan's power strong. He maintained his power through strict discipline, sometimes bordering on terror. On the occupied lands Kenesary established a dynastic regime.

At the end of 1846, forced out by the Russian tsarist troops and military formations of the Kazakh sultans-rulers from the territory of the Younger and Middle Zhuzs, he occupied a hard-to-reach peninsula at the mouth of the Ili River.

Strongly weakened the position of Kenesary in Semirechye, who fought for the independence of Kazakhstan from Russia, in 1846 the Kazakhs of the Senior Zhuz accepted Russian citizenship.

Fall of power

After returning from a campaign in Kokand, Kenesary came to the lands of the Middle Zhuz. However, by that time, decisive measures had been taken by Russia, due to which it became impossible to continue the struggle on the territory of the Middle Zhuz. Then Kenesary decided to leave for the lands of the Senior Zhuz. He sent his younger brother Nauryzbay to the Senior Zhuz with a hundred jigits to ask for land allocation for nomads. Sultan Rustem received Nauryzbay and promised to allocate land, as well as fully support Kenesary Khan. In 1846 Kenesary Khan left the territory of the Middle Zhuz. Arriving in the lands of the Senior Zhuz, he began to negotiate with the Kirghiz manaps, who promised to support him, but pursued a dual policy. Despite the truce between Kenesary-khan and the Kirghiz, the latter violated it by killing one of the batyrs beloved by the khan, Sauryk-batyr. In response to their actions in April 1847, Kenesary invaded Kyrgyzstan with a 15,000-strong army. This invasion was extremely brutal, after which the Kirghiz began to prepare for war. In the town of Maytobe - Keklik-Sengir, a battle took place with the Kirghiz manaps led by Ormon. But during the battle, the sultans Rustem and Sypatai betrayed Kenesary and took away a significant part of the army. The battle went on for several days. Even left with five hundred soldiers, Kenesary did not give up. When asked to run away, he replied that if the Kazakh Khan ran, it would be a bad example for posterity. Kenesary was caught and stayed in captivity for about three months, since the Kyrgyz did not know what to do with him. The decision was made to execute him. Before the execution, he asked permission to read the prayer. A large number of Kazakh prisoners were driven to the place of execution so that they could watch the execution of the last Kazakh khan, and after suffering, they cut off his head. The head of Kenesary Khan was presented by the Kirghiz manap Ormon with a letter with a wax seal as a gift to the Governor-General of Western Siberia Gorchakov as a sign of loyalty of the Kirghiz to the Russian Empire.

The reasons for the uprising are the deterioration of the political and economic situation of the Kazakh people. Growth of mass dissatisfaction with the policy of tsarism aimed at the complete elimination of the independence of the Kazakhs (construction of military lines and fortifications, massive seizure of the best pasture lands, the introduction of high taxes, the implementation of the tsarist administrative reform).

The uprising began in the autumn of 1837 in the organization of insurgent detachments. Already in the spring of 1838, armed clashes with the tsarist detachments began. At the same time, the Akmola fortress was destroyed by the Kenesary detachment. In the summer, the attacks of the hated sultans who rebelled against the villages continued. In autumn, the center of the uprising moves from the Middle to the Younger zhuz.

Kenesary conducts military operations not only in the north-west. In order to liberate the Kazakhs of the Senior Zhuz from the oppression of Kokand, in 1840 he undertook an invasion of the Kokand Khanate. The murder of Kenesary's father by the Kokands.

In 1841, the center of the uprising moved to the Turgai steppe. In the same year, on September 7, at the kurultai, Kenesary was elected as a khan (against the royal decrees). Kenesary's attempt to carry out socio-economic reforms, to establish parity relations with Russia.

In 1843, the struggle continued on two fronts - attacks on the western border line and on the possessions of Kokand. At the same time, the organization of the royal punitive detachment against Kenesary takes place.

Although in 1844-45 the uprising covered all the main regions of Kazakhstan, and even an attack was organized by the rebels on the Konstantinovsky fortress, but the punitive forces significantly narrowed the territories whose inhabitants supported the rebels. Here the cruelty of Kenesary was manifested. Those auls that had already been subjected to executions by punitive detachments and, out of fear of new ones, did not support Kenesary, were subjected to cruel defeats by his sarbas. Seeing the lack of protection from Kennesary, the support of the people more and more moved away from the uprising, which caused a severe reaction from him. And when in 1845 two new royal military fortifications were built in the nomadic places of Kenesary, he could no longer hide on his territory. Withdrawal of the rebels to the south. New clashes with the Kokandans.

In 1846, the detachments of Kenesary entered the territory of the Kyrgyz clans. In April 1847 he entered the Chui valley. Conflicts between Kenesary and Kyrgyz manaps. The Kirghiz were afraid, and not unreasonably, that after him Russian troops would come to their territory. They did not support Kenesary. As a result, the detachments of Kegesary began to ravage the Kyrgyz villages, kill civilians. All Kirghiz rose against Kenesary. As a result of a many-day battle and the departure of a number of sultans from him, the troops of Kenesary were defeated, and he himself was killed.

The meaning of the uprising. This is the most extensive national liberation movement in terms of coverage of territory, mass character. It demonstrated the strength of the resistance of the peoples in the struggle for independence, in an effort to create a single centralized state.

The unification of the Kazakh detachments under the leadership of Kenesary Kasymov and the restoration of the Kazakh Khanate (1837-1841)

The transition of the leadership of the Kenesary movement. The death of Sarzhan briefly stopped the further growth of the national liberation movement of the Kazakhs. However, already in the summer of 1837, a new, more powerful performance began, led by Sarzhan's brother - Kenesary.
Kenesary himself was repeatedly persecuted by the colonial authorities. In one of his letters to Major General Gens Kenesary, he lists in detail how, at the slander of Sultan Jamantai Bukeev, the detachments sent to the steppe were ruined in 1825, 1827, 1830, 1832, 1836. Kenesary fought first under the leadership of his father Kasym, and then his brother Sarzhan. The first mention of the participation of the 23-year-old Kenesary in the ranks of the Sarzhan detachments dates back to 1825. As the leader of the Kazakh detachments, he entered the arena only after the murder of his father and brother.
Having become the head of the national liberation movement, Kenesary abandons the policy of his brothers, who were looking for support in the "universal" Central Asian khanates. He decides to fight on two fronts - against tsarist Russia and the Central Asian khanates, first of all, against Kokand, which enslaved part of the Kazakh people. Actually, the armed uprising was preceded by a series of attempts to remove the system of fortifications on the lands of the Middle Zhuz by letters addressed to the Siberian authorities, but they remained unanswered.
In the spring of 1837, Kenesary with a small detachment appeared on the territory of the Akmola district. The Kazakhs began to flock in masses under his banner. Both the closest relatives of Kenesary - Nauryzbay, Abylgazy, Alzhan, Bopay khanum, and unborn batyrs from the people - Agybay, Zhanaydar, Iman Dulatuly, Zholaman Tlenshiuly, Bukharbai became at the head of separate detachments. In addition, there were many fugitive Russian soldiers, exiled Poles, and Bashkirs in the detachments of Kenesary. The Bashkirs and Russians cast cannons, made guns, and trained Kazakh soldiers on foot. One of the fugitives, whose name is unknown, served as Kenesary's personal secretary. In addition, at the first stage, some of the sultans and biys who were in the Russian service joined him, partly pursuing their own interests, partly out of fear of Kenesary.
Successes of the Kazakh army. In the summer of 1837, the punitive detachment of Chirikov was defeated and the territories of Akmola, Kokchetav, Karkaralinsky and Bayan-aul districts were under the authority of Kenesary. At the beginning of 1838, scattered detachments of Kazakhs united under the rule of Kenesary. In the spring, he sends an embassy to the West Siberian governor Gorchakov with a special letter of protest against the policy of the Russian authorities.
In his letter, Kenesary demanded the destruction of fortified points on the Kazakh territory, the return of the selected pastures, in case of non-compliance, reserving the right to continue the war. The representatives of the Sultan failed to deliver the letter to Gorchakov. On the way to Omsk, they were captured and put on trial. The breakdown of negotiations with Russia forced Kenesary to resume active operations.
Detachments of the Kazakhs defeated the detachment of the military foreman Simonov, the auls of the agha-sultan Konurkulji Kudaimendin, attacked the Amankaragai order. In the summer of 1838, the troops of Kenesary concentrated at the Akmola fortress. On August 7, after a fierce assault, the fortress was taken, all its fortifications were demolished, and the buildings were burned. The commandant of the fortress Karbyshev and Konurkuldzha fled under the cover of darkness. After that, during the autumn, the Kazakhs continued the partisan struggle, systematically attacking orders, pickets and patrols, devastating the villages of the sultans-rulers and interrupting communications. At the same time, the detachments of Kenesary begin to move to the areas of the Torgai and Yrgyz rivers in order to unite with the detachments of the Younger Zhuz, led by Zholaman batyr.
From the end of 1838, the regions of Torgai and Yrgyz became the main base of the Kazakh detachments, and the army of Kenesary united most of the clans of the Middle and Younger zhuzes. The colonial administration, seeing the futility of punitive expeditions deep into the steppe, changes tactics and concludes a truce with the Kazakhs. In 1840, Kenesary received an amnesty, his relatives were returned from captivity, punitive campaigns of Russian troops in the steppe were stopped, negotiations began between the Kazakhs and the Russian government.
Restoration of the Kazakh state. Since 1840, a new stage of the liberation war began, associated with the revival of the Kazakh statehood. The prepared meetings of representatives of the Kazakh clans ended in September 1841 with the election of Kenesary as the khan of the restored Kazakh state. Khan Kenesary carried out a number of administrative and judicial reforms aimed at strengthening the centralization of power and creating a solid rear to continue the struggle. Under the khan, an advisory khan's council, which included his associates, worked. Departments responsible for tax collection, military training, and diplomatic correspondence were organized.
The khan's special assistants, zhasauls, were assigned to various clans and had to monitor the implementation of the khan's orders. Only those biys who had permission from Kenesary had the right to engage in court. For the entire nomadic population of the khanate, the tax “zyaket” was determined, for the agricultural population - “ushur”. The Kazakh clans subordinated to Kenesary were exempted from taxes in favor of the Russian and Kokand treasuries.
Reformed the khan and his army. Under him, artillery appeared among the Kazakhs, the Kazakhs began to master the foot system. From captured and runaway soldiers and officers, Kenesary adopted the basics of Russian tactics. He first introduced insignia and a system of rewarding distinguished soldiers. Khan managed to create a disciplined, well-trained, mobile cavalry army, numbering up to 20 thousand people.

The offensive of the Russian troops and the death of Kenesary (1841-1847) The fighting of 1841-1844. Using a short respite in the fight against Russia, Kenesary began a war with Kokand to liberate the clans of the Elder Zhuz. In September 1841, his troops occupied the cities of Sozak, Yany-Kurgan, Zhulek and Ak Mechet. However, in 1842 the truce with the Russian government was broken. The Siberian detachment under the command of Sotnikov attacked the villages of Kenesary, stole a large number of cattle and prisoners, including his wife.
Hostilities in the steppe resumed in August 1843. A detachment of 5,000 men under the command of Colonel Vizanov set out from the Sakharnaya Fortress, other detachments left Omsk, Petropavlovsk, and Karkaralinsk. From the side of the Tobyla River, a detachment of Sultan Akhmet Zhantyurin, consisting of Kazakhs devoted to tsarism, came out. Skillfully maneuvering, Kenesary exhausted Bizanov's detachment in battles and forced him to retreat to Orsk in September 1843. The rest of the detachments, with the onset of autumn cold weather, were also forced to leave the steppe and return to the fortresses.
The army of Kenesary at the end of 1843 numbered 8 thousand people, well trained and armed, the steppes of Torgai and Yrgyz served as its main base. The colonial authorities decided to surround the rebels with a simultaneous attack of three columns from Orsk, from Tobyl and the Ulytau mountains. The Orsk detachment was commanded by military foreman Lebedev, the Tobyl detachment was commanded by Sultan Akhmet Zhanturin, the Siberian detachment was commanded by Major General Zhemchuzhnikov. These detachments were supposed to connect at the end of May and close the encirclement around Kenesary in the Torgai area. However, ignorance of the steppe conditions, skillful disinformation launched by the Khan's scouts, and constant raids by partisan detachments frustrated this plan. Maneuvering, the rebels easily left Lebedev's detachment and left the encirclement. The Siberian detachment was late, and Lebedev was forced to return to Orsk.
In the summer of 1844, a detachment of Colonel Dunikovsky was sent to connect with Zhemchuzhnikov. In the upper reaches of the Tobyl, Akhmet Zhanturin was to join him. But on the night of July 20-21, on the Ulkoyak River, Kenesary completely destroyed Zhantyurin's detachment and, bypassing the detachments of Dunikovsky and Zhemchuzhnikov, attacked the Orenburg line. In mid-August, he defeated the Catherine village with a fortress. The punitive detachments were forced to retreat. The tsarist government again began negotiations with Kenesary. The Khan asked to draw a border between the Kazakh Khanate and the colonial troops along the Nura and Yesil rivers to Zhaik, that is, he no longer demanded the release of the lands seized earlier. However, the tsarist government intended to seize the entire Kazakh steppe in order to begin the conquest of Central Asia. And in these plans of tsarism there was no place for the independence of the Kazakh state.
The retreat of the Kazakh army. By the mid-1940s. Russian troops have already advanced far into the depths of Kazakh territory. The lines of fortifications coming from Siberia and Orenburg were supposed to join in the nomad camps of the Senior Zhuz. Russia was faced with the task of completing the conquest of Kazakhstan. For this, new fortresses began to be built in the center of the Kazakh pastures - Kokpektinskaya (1844), Orenburg (Turgay) and Ural (Irgiz) (1845).
In the autumn of 1845, Russian troops and detachments of agha sultans devoted to tsarism began new attacks on the villages of Kenesary. Bearing heavy losses, the Kazakhs were forced to leave the Torgai steppe and retreat to the areas of the Sarysu and Shu rivers.
Having retreated to the south, the khan did not stop fighting the Russian troops, but the main forces were sent to the war with Kokand. Having united with the batyr Zhankozha Nurmukhameduly, Kenesary began the liberation of the Kazakh clans under the rule of Kokand. At the beginning of 1846, the union of Bukhara with Kokand and the campaign of the punitive detachment of Major General Vishnevsky forced Kenesary to retreat and gain a foothold on the Kamal Peninsula at the mouth of the Ili River. In the winter of 1846, detachments of the Kenesarians appeared in the camps of the Senior Zhuz on the Ili River and in the vicinity of Alatau. Kenesary appealed to the Kyrgyz manaps, urging them to jointly fight against Russia and Kokand. However, the Kyrgyz, led by manap Ormon, rejected his proposal and began raids on the villages subject to Kenesary. A heavy war began on three fronts - against the Kokand troops, the Kyrgyz and the Zhemchuzhnikov detachment operating in Zhetysu.
The death of Kenesary. During 1846-1847. Kenesary managed to unite the forces of the Kazakhs of the entire Senior Zhuz, capture the Merke fortress, and begin building a fortification on the Shu River. In the autumn of 1846 a truce was concluded with the Kyrgyz, but soon, at the instigation of the Kokand people, the Kyrgyz killed the Kazakh batyr Sauryk, and the war resumed.
Detachments of Kenesary entered the Kyrgyz lands in 1847. Here the Kazakh troops faced enormous difficulties. Ignorance of the area, hostile attitude on the part of the local population, joint actions of the Kyrgyz, Kokand and Russian detachments predetermined the defeat. The last battle of Kenesary took place in the Kekla mountains, not far from Bishkek. The Kazakhs were surrounded by Ko-Kand and Kyrgyz detachments, the brother of the khan-batyr Nauryzbai was killed in the battle, Kenesary himself was captured. Before the execution, he once again turned to the Kyrgyz manaps with a proposal to stop the hostility and join forces for a joint fight against a common enemy, but this time the manaps rejected his proposals.
The West Siberian Governor-General Gorchakov awarded all the Kyrgyz manaps who distinguished themselves in the war, and addressed the killer of Kenesary, the manap Kaligul Alibekov, with a letter of thanks and awarded him a silver medal. The heads of the Kazakh zhigits who died in battles were sent as a gift to the Kokand Khan. In revenge for the death of the khan, the Kazakhs of the Senior Zhuz undertook a series of campaigns in Kyrgyzstan, and several manaps were severely punished.
After the death of Khan Kenesary and the defeat of the Kazakh army in Kyrgyzstan, almost all the lands of Kazakhstan came under Russian rule, but the resistance of the Kazakhs continued. In the Younger Zhuz, detachments of the batyr Eset acted, in the Syrdarya - Zhankozhi Nurmukhameduly, in South Kazakhstan - the Sultan Syzdyk Kenesaryuly.

T.A. Shemetova
(Barnaul State Pedagogical University)
ON THE QUESTION OF THE NATURE OF KENESARA KASYMOV'S MOVEMENT IN THE 30-40s. nineteenth century IN KAZAKHSTAN

In the 30-40s. HGH c. in Kazakhstan, a major uprising unfolded under the leadership of Sultan Kenesary Kasymov (grandson of the famous Ablai). This uprising, according to modern official Kazakh historiography, was a response to the military-political transformations of Russia in Central Asia. For example, Professor of Alma-Ata University Zh.K. Kasymbaev in the article "The abolition of traditional statehood in Kazakhstan as a result of the military-political actions of tsarism" as the main reason for the uprising of 1837-1847. the tsarist government puts forward administrative and political reforms in Kazakhstan, which should

We want to put an end to the self-will in the steppe, which Zh.K. Kassymbaev characterizes it as "traditions of a nomadic country".

The interpretation of the uprising of Kenesary Kasymov also looks somewhat odious in the collective work of Kazakh scientists “History of Kazakhstan”, published in 1993, in which this movement is presented as “a nationwide, anti-colonial struggle of the Kazakh people”, and the leader of the uprising, Kenesary Kasymov, as a national hero. The authors of the “History of Kazakhstan” prefer to see in him not a despot who seeks to preserve the khan’s power by any means, up to the destruction of individual Kazakh rulers who are rebellious to him, calling these acts only “outbursts of anger”, but a “clever, peculiar politician” who advocates “restoring the integrity territorial limits of Kazakhstan from the time of Ablai".

One can agree with the authors of this work only in the sense that already from the end of the 18th century. The Russian authorities repeatedly tried to carry out a number of administrative reforms, as well as the reform of public administration by abolishing the khan's power in the Younger and Middle zhuzes. However, things in this direction made little progress during the reign of Catherine II, only at the beginning of the 19th century. this problem has found its final solution.

In 1817, St. Petersburg decides to abolish the election of khans in the Middle Zhuz. Further development of reforms was entrusted to M.M. Speransky, the result of which was the “Decree on the Siberian Kirghiz (Kazakhs)”, approved by Alexander I on July 22, 1822. On the basis of this decree, the territory occupied by the nomads of the Middle and part of the Senior Zhuz was called the “Region of the Siberian Kirghiz” and became part of the newly formed the West Siberian General Governorship with the center in Tobolsk (until 1839), and then in Omsk.

According to the new provision, the districts were to be headed by senior sultans, who were elected from among influential sultans. The Kazakh nobility took these innovations ambiguously. Part of the steppe aristocracy, at least outwardly, expressed solidarity with the policy of Russia. Some representatives of the tribal aristocracy opposed, which led to further military confrontation between St. Petersburg and part of the Kazakh aristocracy and the simple nomads supporting it. In modern Kazakh historiography, the following reasons for the uprising in the mid-30s-40s are put forward mainly. XIX century, which Kazakh

Historiographers characterize it as a national liberation struggle of the Kazakh people:

1) the destruction of a kind of Kazakh statehood;

2) violation of the traditions of a nomadic country, especially everyday
no liberties.

The goal of the movement, defined by the leaders of the dissatisfied, is depicted in very lofty tones: “Movement for the territorial integrity and independence of the lands that were not part of Russia,” at the same time, the activities of the Siberian administration during the ten-year crisis are extremely negatively assessed.

The documents and materials at our disposal allow us to take a somewhat different look at the uprising of Kenesary Kasymov and the activities of the Siberian administration during this period.

The institute of the khanate in its development was considered in a number of his works by the well-known researcher and educator Chokan Valikhanov. He came to the conclusion that "that the khan's power has already become an obstacle in the development of Kazakh society", and supported measures aimed at eliminating the khan's power. The fact is that by the beginning of the XIX century. the struggle for the redistribution of wealth and power intensifies, some of the sultans began to economically surpass the impoverished khans, as a result, there is an increase in the number of internecine conflicts tearing the steppe apart. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the main reason for the uprising is: 1) the struggle for power among the steppe aristocracy; 2) open robbery and redistribution of power and property under the plausible pretext of fighting "minions of the Russian state."

This point of view is confirmed in numerous reports addressed to Emperor Nicholas I by Orenburg governors V.A. Perovsky, V.A. Obruchev, Siberian Governor Prince P.D. Gorchakov, Chairman of the Orenburg Border Commission N.F. Gensom and others, from which it is clear that in order to economically weaken and undermine the political influence of his opponents (the senior sultan of the Akmola district Kudaimendin, the sultans - the rulers of the Younger Zhuz, the Dzhantyurin brothers, Sultan Aichuvakov) Kenesary Kasymov repeatedly robs their possessions. In just one raid in July 1843, “17 people were killed, 15 girls and women were taken prisoner; 5,500 horses, 3,500 camels, 970 cows and 7,000 sheep were stolen.

It must be emphasized that such raids were made repeatedly. Along the way, Kenesary solved another problem: by defeating

Recalcitrant families force the Kazakhs to support him. Kenesary Kasymov's claims to power are also evidenced by the fact that in September 1841 he proclaims himself Khan (there is no question of any election according to "tradition"). His relationship with the Siberian administration cannot be called constructive; it looks more like trading in his loyalty, maneuvering tactics. As soon as the conditions proposed by the administration to stop the struggle (to roam in a certain territory, to give up the rank of khan), he is not satisfied, he resumes hostilities, using the truce to free "his" people from Russian captivity and replenish food supplies.

The assertion of modern Kazakh historiography about the nationwide national liberation nature of the movement, which was defeated only due to the quantitative and qualitative superiority of the Russian army and the parts of the Kazakh nobility and ordinary nomads supporting them, does not stand up to criticism. This statement can also be challenged by analyzing the documents on this issue. In fairness, it should be noted that Kenesary Kasymov managed to unite part of the Kazakh clans under his banner. Sometimes the number of his troops reached 10 thousand people. (for comparison: the population of the Middle Zhuz was 1 million 60 thousand people, the Younger - 1 million 100 thousand people, the Senior - 500-600 thousand people, which is about 3 million people in total). Based on the foregoing, and also taking into account the fact that the quantitative increase in followers was often carried out by violent means, we cannot speak of the general character of the uprising. There was also no unity in the Kenesary camp itself. So, after his transfer to Zhetysu (Semerechye) - (Senior Zhuz), the descendants of Ablai Khan Ali and Suyuk took an irreconcilable position against the rebels, i.e. relatives of Kenesary himself. And the initial position in relation to the merchants (when he robbed caravans) did not bring him much popularity among this category of Kazakhs. An ill-conceived, hasty policy towards part of the nomads who were forcibly forced to engage in agriculture, and all because it was beneficial to the leader of the uprising (given independence in the food supply of the detachments). This once again emphasizes the purpose of the uprising - the struggle for power, and not for the sake of the mythical idea of ​​Kazakhstan's independence. It’s just that one part of the aristocracy fought for power, relying on the help of the Russian state, the other - on part of the local nobility and “community”.

Sedei - Russia's opponents in this region - the Khiva and Bukhara khanates.

Of course, it is necessary to note the mistakes of the Siberian administration, which led to an increase in the number of dissatisfied people who joined the ranks of the movement of K. Kasymov. But the administration cannot be accused of a one-sided approach to solving this problem by force alone. Based on the available documents, two directions for solving this problem can be distinguished. Supporters of the first direction, who advocated peaceful resolution of conflicts, were headed by the Orenburg governor V.A. Perovsky. Siberian Governor Prince P.D. Gorchakov, who headed the 2nd direction, offered a military solution to the issue. Followers of V.A. Perovsky explained their position as follows: from an economic point of view, “financial costs are too high: from 5 to 8 thousand rubles were required for only one expedition. silver. This is the payment of salaries, and the provision of horses, and the maintenance of artillery pieces in combat readiness, etc. From a strategic position, they assessed the armed method of struggle as unpromising, due to the impossibility of endlessly pursuing the enemy in such a vast area. An external factor played an important role in determining their position - the inexpediency of the conflict with the Bukhara and Khiva khanates, which was possible with the loyalty and in some cases direct support of K. Kasymov by the rulers of these territories.

Supporters of P.D. Gorchakov justified their position by the fact that Kenesary Kasymov was only playing for time, further connivance in the fight against him would only lead to the rooting of the spirit of “permissiveness” in qreoh, the temptation of easy money and, accordingly, increase the number of “fans” of Kenesary, which means continued confrontation and increased costs states. At the same time, you need to act “carefully” and not let emotions take precedence over a sober mind:

1) do not rob the population who supported for one reason or another
us rebelling;

2) try to attract the Kazakh population to the side of Russia;

3) increase the contingent of troops to fight Kenesary.
Kenesary, taking advantage of the inconsistency of the actions of the Orenburg

And the Siberian administrations maneuvered between them, which delayed the final resolution of the confrontation in the Steppe.

NOTES

1. Kasymbaev Zh.K. The abolition of traditional statehood in Kazakhstan as a consequence of the military-political actions of tsarism // Bulletin of Science of Akmola Agrarian University named after. S. Seifullin. Akmola, 1996, p. 39.

2. History of Kazakhstan from ancient times to the present day. Almaty, 1993, p. 203.

3. Ibid. S. 215.

4.Valikhanov Ch. Collected. op. T. 1. S. 430.

5. Collection of materials for the history of the conquest of the Turkestan region. Tashkent, 1914. T. IV. pp. 41, 76.

6. Levshin A.I. Description of the Kirghiz-Kaisak hordes and steppes. Almaty, 1996, p. 288.

7. Collection of materials for the history of the conquest of the Turkestan region. pp. 78-80.

Knight of the spiritual heritage of the Kazakh people - Kenesary Kasymov
M.K.Koygeldiev

Every nation has guardians-talismans of its spiritual and moral values. These include iconic, sacred sites of historical events; cities illuminated by historical traditions; prominent figures. And it's natural. At the critical stages of its history, each nation turns to its spiritual roots. And at the same time, it is important whether these significant events took place yesterday or several centuries earlier and these personalities lived - time does not matter. The Kazakh people will always refer to the events of the national liberation struggle of 1837-1847 - the events of national pride and pain. The interests of various regions of Kazakhstan, various zhuzes and tribal associations merged together in them. Sacred are the places of hostilities and the Headquarters of the rebel detachments. The names of batyrs - participants in the struggle will always live in the memory of people. And a special place among them is occupied by the legendary personality of Kenesary Kasymov.

The imperial policy of Russia was not conceived without territorial seizures, colonization of new lands and peoples. The Kazakh lands and the Kazakh people gradually, over a long period, were purposefully drawn by tsarism into the orbit of imperial influence. The liberation war of 1837-1847 took place during the expansion of the tsarist government and Kokand rulers to the Kazakh lands. Under these conditions, Kenesary Kasymov managed to raise the bulk of the Kazakh clans. And in this, the movement under the leadership of K. Kasymov is incomparable with either the previous or subsequent national liberation actions on the territory of Kazakhstan. At the most successful initial stage of the uprising, Kenesary Kasymov's Headquarters was supported by over 80 sultans, biys and foremen from the Middle Zhuz alone. During the uprising, the Kazakhs of the Junior and Senior zhuzs joined him. True, it was not at the same time and not equally. However, the thesis put forward by the historian E. Bekmakhanov that the Kazakhs of all three zhuzes participated in the uprising cannot be denied.

The liberation war led by K. Kasymov highlighted the depth of contradictions between the conflicting parties, the discrepancy between their fundamental interests, namely, the desire of the Russian side to annex a vast territory with its large natural resources and thereby provide itself with a solid sales market, and on the other hand, the desire Kazakhs to protect their lands from colonial seizure, to restore their statehood. True, the struggle of the Kazakhs for their independence began much earlier. Performances of the people led by Syrym Datov (1785-1797), Aryngazy Abulgaziev (1816-1821), Isatai Taimanov (1836-1937). Gubaidulla Valikhanov (1824-1825) were convincing evidence of the unwillingness of the people to live in conditions of colonial dependence. The uprising under the leadership of Kenesary Kasymov became, as it were, a logical conclusion, the apogee of popular resistance. The time of power discussions is a thing of the past, when the nationwide character of the struggle, the leading progressive idea of ​​this confrontation, was questioned. In the national liberation struggle led by Kenesary Kasymov, all layers of Kazakh society, from simple Sharua cattle breeders to Chingizid sultans, actively participated. The army of Kenesary, which at times reached 20 thousand jigits, included people from all three Kazakh zhuzes. As professor E.Bekmakhanov, K.Kasymov rightly noted in his time, “when he came to a new place, he immediately easily acquired new supporters”1. The vast majority of "of them voluntarily and even with enthusiasm" became under the banner of Kenesary. All this testifies to the attractive nature of the program requirements and goals of K. Kasymov, which were quite convincingly and clearly brought to the attention of Emperor Nicholas I and his governor-generals in Omsk and Orenburg. “Having the honor to inform you that my desire is that the people of the two possessions should live in peace, but now you suspect me that I am appropriating the subjects of your people. On the contrary, I say that you have established district sofas in the places belonging to our grandfather, Khan Ablai, and take a fee from the Kyrgyz people. Consequently, you oppress us, and we remain dissatisfied with this, and it is in no way possible for us to live under your control with a tax. For example, what would it be like if another possession was in charge of Russia, then you will take us into consideration, ”2 - Khan Kenesary wrote. Of course, these requirements were understandable and close without exception to all social strata of Kazakh society. And it was precisely this factor that lay at the basis of the unprecedented wide popularity of the khan. The Kazakh people, just like other peoples, in the centuries-old and stubborn struggle defended the right to respect their national dignity.

That is why the anti-colonial action of the Kazakhs under the leadership of Khan Kenesary Kasymov is assessed as an outstanding event in the history of our country. Taking an active part in this national liberation movement, the Kazakh people desperately defended their state and territorial integrity, and through them their ethnic authenticity. But as the Senegalese anthropologist Cheikh Anta Diop accurately put it, national sovereignty is the best school for the mind and soul of the people, the only means of preserving its main virtues.

The headquarters of K. Kasymov was able to create a mobile part of the insurgent detachments, and, if necessary, militias of various clans joined it. The proclamation of K. Kasymov as a khan, the conduct of numerous reconnaissance and military actions, military approaches and attacks on Russian troops, on Kokand fortresses, maintaining diplomatic relations with the royal administration, with the Bukhara and Khiva khanates - all this testifies to the extraordinary talent, personal courage and stamina of Kenesary Kasymov. It is impossible not to say about his associates, about the galaxy of military leaders who were next to him: Agbay, Iman, Bosygora, Zhanaydar, Angal, Suranshi, Zhauke, Zholaman. The struggle against the invaders and foreign policy activities were the main factors in the life of Kenesary Kasymov. However, one should also pay attention to the other side of his activity - domestic politics. Maintaining the economic activity of the rebels for a whole ten years, the policy in trade relations, the distribution of pasture lands, the relationship between clans, the resolution of contentious issues - all this was part of the field of activity of K. Kasymov's headquarters. And in these matters exact calculation and firm will were required. Only under conditions of strict discipline could it be possible to solve the problems of combating the royal punitive detachments and Kokand claims. Precisely because of this, during the uprising, moments arose that, from the point of view of today, are perceived as negative, although they reflected the difficult reality.

The historical significance of Kenesary Kasymov is so great that there is no need to idealize it. Historical problems are always more complex than attempts to depict the past only in white or black, which was typical of the methodology of the command-administrative system.

The Stalinist methodology of history has always been at odds with this fundamental, original principle of the life of any ethnic group. Let's turn to a specific example. In 1944, on April 10, at the height of the Second World War, a meeting of historians was held under the leadership of the secretaries of the Central Committee of the party Malenkov and Andreev, which, having discussed the History of the Kazakh SSR in the theses, made the following decision: “1. The history of the colony should not be separated from Russia and other colonies. 2. Colonization is an objectively progressive fact... 3. The struggle of the masses against... the violent actions of the colonizers is progressive. 4. But one should not idealize the leaders of the national liberation movement…”/3/.

In a word, the historians of Kazakhstan, as well as other Union republics, studying the historical past of their people, were obliged to describe the process of its entry into the Russian Empire "as an objectively progressive fact" and at the same time did not dare to "idealize the leaders of the national movement." The confused, unacceptable guidelines of the Soviet resolutions merged with the ideological postulates of the official ideology of Russia in the 19th century. In Russian society, as Western researchers correctly noted, during the nineteenth century. the Eurocentric feeling of the superiority of Russians over the Kazakhs, the Turkic peoples of the empire in general, was constantly increasing, and with such strengthening, there was less and less room for tolerance and understanding of a different social order, a different economic structure, a different system of values. Like other Western European colonial powers, from which Russia adopted this self-consciousness, it was believed that it was supposed to fulfill a certain civilizing mission in Asia, bringing the light of a “higher” European culture to “primitive” non-Russians / 4 /.

Kenesary Kasymov, as a person endowed with outstanding qualities, could not but foresee the onset of a new stage of colonial dependence for his people. Russian legislative acts adopted already in the 60s. XX century, i.e. 20 years after the defeat of the Kenesary movement, the Kazakh people were deprived of their fundamental rights. Thus, the Provisional Regulations on the management of the steppe regions (October 21, 1868) declared the Kazakh lands state property, which, in essence, was their annexation. The highest social stratum of the Kazakh society (sultans, biys, batyrs, etc.) were equated with “rural inhabitants”. Increasing importance for the empire is acquiring the settlement of the Kazakh regions by settlers from the internal provinces of Russia. Thus, a decisive attack on the traditional foundations of national life became a kind of reaction of the authorities to the liberation movement of 1837-1846.

Nevertheless, the ten-year liberation war of the Kazakh people under the leadership of Kenesary Kasymov did not go unnoticed. The images of Kenesary and his associates are always alive and will live in the memory of the people, causing the pride of their descendants. Time moves inexorably forward, putting forward completely new methods and means of the struggle for independence. Since the beginning of the twentieth century. the national intelligentsia, the new political elite, the bearers of new ideas, for whom Khan Kene serves as an ideal of devotion to the interests of the people, entered the political arena.

Kenesary Kasymov was and remains for us a knight of the spiritual heritage of the Kazakh people.

Bibliography

Bekmakhanov E.B. Kazakhstan in the 20-40s of the XIX century. Alma-Ata. 1992. -S. 169-170.
National liberation struggle of the Kazakh people under the leadership of Kenesary Kasymov // Sat. documents. Almaty. 1996. - P.121.
Questions of history. 1988. No. 11.- S. 64-65.
A. Kappeler. Russia is a multinational empire. Emergence. Story. Decay. M. 1997.- S. 153.

For the preparation of this work, materials from the site were used.

The uprising led by K. Kasymov in 1837-1847 occupies a special place in the history of the national liberation movement of the Kazakh people. Unlike all other major uprisings of the Kazakhs of the 18th-19th centuries, the popular masses of all three zhuzes participated in the uprising of Kenesary. The mass nature of the movement, its wide scope, its pronounced political character are the specific features of the Kenesary uprising.
Kenesary Kasymov- Kazakh sultan, leader of the anti-colonial, liberation movement on the territory of Kazakhstan, grandson of Khan Abylai was born in 1802 in the tract of Kokchetau, the current Kokchetav region.
Kenesary requirements.
The restoration of the territorial integrity of Kazakhstan, the preservation of its independence were outlined in his correspondence addressed to Emperor Nicholas I, the Orenburg governors V. Perovsky, V. Obruchev, the Siberian governor P. Gorchakov, the chairman of the Orenburg border commission A. Gens.
Purpose of the uprising.
Restore the khan's power and return the khan's title to the Kasymovs, return the Kazakh lands taken away by the tsarism, destroy the built fortifications, stop taxation and collection of all kinds of duties. As well as the struggle of Kenesary with the Kokand and Khiva khanates for the return of the lands that previously belonged to the Kazakhs.
The social base of the Kenesary movement was made up of Kazakh nomads, as well as those dissatisfied with the expansive policies of neighboring states and the elimination of the khan's power of large feudal lords. The uprising of 1837-1847 was massive, anti-colonial, directed against the establishment of the colonial order.
The course of the uprising.

Kenesary decides to fight on two fronts - against Tsarist Russia and the Central Asian khanates, primarily Kokand, which enslaved part of the Kazakh people
In the spring of 1837, Kenesary with a small detachment appeared within the Akmola district. The Kazakhs began to flock in masses under his banner. Separate detachments were headed by both the closest relatives of Kenesary - Nauryzbay, Abylgazy, and batyrs from the people - Agybay. Zhanaidar Iman Dulatuly.
In the summer of 1837, the punitive detachment of Chirikov was defeated and the territories of Akmola, Kokchetav, Karkaralinsky and Bayanaul districts were under the authority of Kenesary. In May 1838, the rebels besieged and burned the Akmola fortification. After that, during the autumn, the Kazakhs continued the partisan struggle, systematically attacking orders, pickets and patrols, devastating the auls of the sultans and interrupting communications. Kenesary had to fight on two fronts: in the north with punitive detachments, in the south with the rulers of the Kokand Khanate. Then Kenesary Kasymov with his detachments migrated to the territory of the Younger Zhuz in the area of ​​the Turgai River. He counted on the support of the people, since there was an uprising led by Isatai Taimanov. Detachments led by the batyr Zholaman Tlenchiev joined the rebels. In 1839-1840 he had a number of successful skirmishes with punishers. The colonial administration, seeing the futility of punitive expeditions deep into the steppe, changes tactics and concludes a truce with the Kazakhs. In 1840, Kenesary received an amnesty, his relatives were returned from captivity, and the punitive campaigns of Russian troops were stopped. Negotiations began between the Kazakhs and the Russian government.
In August 1841, he besieged the fortresses of Suzak, Yanykurgan, Ak-mosque, Zhulek, which were under the rule of the Kokand people. In September 1841, Kenesary was proclaimed a khan, the Kazakh Khanate was restored.
The internal structure of the Khanate of Kenesary.
The state created by Kenesary was feudal. Under Kenesary, the feudal nature of production relations was strengthened. He considered the territory of Kazakhstan as the property of his khan's family and repeatedly emphasized this in his speeches. He demanded through Gern that the government return to him the Ulu-Tau mountains "which have long belonged to his family."
Organization of the state apparatus.
Kenesary himself was at the head of the state. Under him, there was a council consisting of his closest associates-batyrs, biys and individual relatives of the khan. The khan's council was an advisory body: the decisive vote remained with the khan.
All the most important issues of the internal and external life of the country were discussed at the Khan's Council. The administration of the state of Kenesary was carried out through individuals who dealt with judicial, diplomatic, finance, property requisitions and military affairs.
The financial department was in charge of collecting taxes and collecting duties from trade caravans. This department was headed by Seil-khan, a relative of Kenesary (zaket - one tenth of each khan).
The supreme judicial power was concentrated in the hands of Kenesary himself. Biys were appointed to resolve inter-tribal court cases.
The requisitions of property and livestock of large noble feudal lords were led by the sister of Kenesary Bopay. The property and livestock of those large feudal lords who refused to help the rebels were subject to requisition. Before forcibly taking away property and livestock, their owners were warned about this in advance.
Local executive power was exercised through Yesauls. They monitored the collection of taxes, the implementation of the orders of the supreme power, determined the nomadic areas, studied the mood of the clans that joined Kenesary, etc.
Tyulenguts were also used to carry out important assignments, and they were usually endowed with broad rights.
Thus, under Kenesary, the order of governing the country is brought into a certain system, the state apparatus is divided into separate branches - with the endowment of each performer with a certain state function (judicial, military, diplomatic).
The reform of the state apparatus of Kenesary undoubtedly played a positive role in the centralization of power.
The judicial and legal reform was aimed at improving the analysis of judicial and lawsuit cases, ending barymta and civil strife and reconciliation of warring clans.
In the field of tax policy, the main change was the desire of Kenesary to replace the exactions of individual feudal lords with a single taxation in favor of the khan's treasury.
In general, the tax burden of Kenesary was significantly increased, but the tax policy of Kenesary contributed to the strengthening of the state he created. If earlier every noble feudal lord could collect the tax, and this was one of the reasons for the weakness of state power, now only the supreme power could collect the tax. And this, along with the strengthening of the financial position of power, strengthened the stability of the Kazakh state.
Retreat of Kenesary to the south.
Frightened by the scope of the national liberation movement, not recognizing the legitimacy of the demands of the rebels, as well as the election of Kenesary as khan, the government of Nicholas I undertook large-scale military expeditions in the summer of 1843 in order to suppress the uprising. These are the campaigns of the detachments of the military foreman Lebedev, numbering up to 1900 people, the sultans A. Zhantorin, B. Aishuakov, lieutenant colonel Bizanov. But they did not give results. The rebels knew the area well, had an extensive network of agents. In July 1844, they defeated the detachment of Sultan A. Zhantorin, and on August 14 they attacked the Ekaterininsky village, burned the suburbs, and captured prisoners.

In an effort to oust Khan Kenesary from the boundaries of the Younger and Middle Zhuzes, the colonial authorities erected the fortifications of Irgiz and Turgai. This forced the rebels to migrate in 1846 to Semirechie, within the limits of the Senior Zhuz. Anticipating such a course of events, a detachment with artillery was sent to Semirechye under the command of the chairman of the Siberian border department, General Vishnevsky. Under pressure from superior forces, Kenesary moved to the right bank of the Ili, migrated to the foothills of the Alatau and approached the lands of the Kirghiz. The death of Kenesary. In the autumn of 1846, a truce was concluded with the Kyrgyz, but soon, at the instigation of the Kokand people, the Kyrgyz killed the Kazakh batyr Sauryk, and the war resumed. In the winter of 1846, detachments of the Kenesarians appeared in the camps of the Senior Zhuz on the Ili River and in the vicinity of Alatau. Kenesary appealed to the Kyrgyz manaps, urging them to jointly fight against Russia and Kokand. However, the Kyrgyz, led by manap Ormon, rejected his proposal and began raids on the forces subject to Kenesary. A heavy war began on three fronts - against the Kokand troops, the Kyrgyz and Russian troops. The last battle of Kenesary took place in the Kekla mountains, not far from Bishkek. The Kazakhs were surrounded by Kokand and Kyrgyz detachments, the brother of the khan, batyr nauryzbay, died in battle, Kenesary himself was captured and died with 32 sultans. This uprising was defeated.
Reasons for defeat: 1. Intra-clan disunity of the Kazakhs;
2. Lack of support from a number of feudal groups. Sultans, biys, who received many benefits from the rulers of the Russian Empire, were not interested in creating a centralized feudal state; 3. Fragmented by zhuzs, the Kazakh clans supported the uprising mainly within their own borders;
4. The arbitrariness of Kenesary and the harsh reprisals against the villages that did not support him were not in the traditions of the Kazakhs;
5. Kenesary failed to unite the fight against tsarist Russia, Bukhara and Kokand feudal lords.
However, in the history of the national liberation war of the Kazakh people, it occupies an exceptionally honorable place. This uprising was the largest uprising of the Kazakhs in the 19th century, which raised the majority of the population of all three zhuzes to fight against tsarism. It covered almost all of Kazakhstan, and was one of the longest revolts of the Kazakhs.
The uprising of Kenesary, which was anti-colonial in nature, played a progressive role in the history of the Kazakh people. It was a school of political education for the masses. The uprising showed the huge resistance of the Kazakh people. On the basis of this uprising, the uprisings of the 50-60s of the 19th century later developed.
78. Rebellion led by Zhankozha Nurmukhameduly 50s. 19th century

By the middle of the XIX century. the Kazakhs who roamed in the Syrdarya region found themselves in a very difficult situation. They were subjected to double oppression - on the one hand, the Khiva and Kokand khanates, and on the other, Russian colonial policy.

Back in 1843, the Kazakhs of the lower reaches of the Syr Darya, led by Zhankozha Nurmukhamedov, destroyed the Khiva fortress on the Kuandarya. In 1845, a detachment of 2000 people sent to restore it was destroyed. Zhankozha batyr with his detachments cleared the lower reaches of the Syr Darya from Khiva.

In 1853, Ak Mosche was taken by Russian troops led by V. Perovksim and the Syrdarya military line was created. This led to a withdrawal. Large areas of land belong to the Kazakhs and the settlement of Cossacks and settlers from Russia here. By 1857, about 3 thousand Kazakh families were driven from their places, and their lands were settled by settlers. The territory from Raim, the first fortress of the Syrdarya fortified line, to the Ak Mosque fell under the control of the tsarist troops. The collection of taxes and forcing the Kazakhs to build new fortresses intensified. This led to even greater impoverishment of the working people and the beginning of a new stage of the uprising.

Thus, the reasons for the uprising were:

the desire of the Khiva Khanate to establish its power over the Syrdarya Kazakhs, considering this region a sphere of its influence;

the tightening of colonial oppression and the aggravation of the land question;

the growth of taxes and taxes, the direction for their collection of military forces;

strengthening the arbitrariness of the tsarist administration;

violent mobilization of the Aral Kazakhs for the construction of fortresses.

The uprising began in 1856, it was headed by one of the leaders of the shekty clan, a participant in the uprising of Kenesary Kasymov, batyr Zhankozha Nurmukhamedov, who was over 90 years old. He turned the fortress of Zhana-kala into the center of the uprising. By the end of 1856, the entire region of Kazala was in the grip of an uprising. Zhankozha with an army of up to 1500 soldiers laid siege to the Kazalinsky outpost, destroyed the Soldier's settlement. Detachments of troops under the command of Mikhailov and Major Bulatov were sent against the rebels, but their actions were unsuccessful. Then, to suppress the uprising, a detachment of Major General Fitingof numbering 300 Cossacks and 320 soldiers with artillery was thrown. On January 9, 1857, a decisive battle took place in the Arykbalyk tract, as a result of which the rebels were defeated, although their number reached 5 thousand people. Zhankozha with the remnants of the rebels was forced to cross to the right bank of the Syr Darya and go within the Khiva Khanate. It took him up to 20 auls. Thus ended the uprising of the Syrdarya Kazakhs. The punishers plundered the villages, 21,400 heads of cattle were stolen.

Kenesary Kasymov

-
Predecessor:	Abylai Khan
Successor:	No
Birth:	(1801 ) /1802
Death:	Kyrgyzstan
Father:	Kasym Sultan
Children:	son of Syzdyk Sultan

The voluntary annexation of the Kazakh zhuzes to Russia, which began in 1731, was a complex process, and despite the colonial policy of tsarism, it was a historically progressive phenomenon that stretched for more than a hundred years and included a variety of events. The tsarist government gradually limited the power and privileges of local feudal lords and the sultan's elite. This was one of the reasons for the emergence of feudal-monarchist movements in the 19th century, which set as their goal the restoration of khan power. By the end of the XVIII - beginning of the XIX centuries. the situation in the Kazakh zhuzes has changed: the khan's power has lost its former importance, the rivalry of the sultan groups has intensified, the influence of the Russian administration on the course of internal Kazakh affairs has grown, at the same time, the Kazakhs experienced more and more powerful pressure from the Central Asian khanates, who pursued a policy of cruel exploitation of the population on their subordinates them the lands of South Kazakhstan. The adoption in 1822 of the "Charter on the Siberian Kirghiz" and in 1824 "the highest approved opinion on the Orenburg Kirghiz" meant a new stage in Kazakh-Russian relations. There was a clearer line in the implementation of Russian policy in Kazakhstan. The centers of influence and support in the Kazakh zhuzes became orders in the Middle Zhuz and distances in the territories subordinate to the Orenburg department. The tsarist administration sought to rely on sultans, biys, and foremen loyal to Russia. The new device naturally could not be met with a bang by the entire Kazakh nobility, because. it deprived them of the remnants of influence, many found themselves outside the system of administrative positions, considered themselves undeservedly bypassed by the attention of the authorities, the transition from the territory of one district to another was now possible only with the permission of the district authorities, which caused dissatisfaction with part of the nobility because. disrupted traditional migration routes, etc. One of the most consistent opponents of the new changes were the descendants of the famous Khan of the Middle Zhuz Ablay - the Kasymov sultans. Ablay's son Kasym Ablaykhanov, the grandchildren of Sarzhan and Kenesary Kasymova, for more than 20 years fought against the new order of the Steppe, hoping to regain their weakening influence. Belonging to the top of the steppe nobility, Kenesary sought the restoration of the khan's power liquidated by the tsarist government of Russia and the transfer of the khan's title to Kasymov. Kene's father Kasym and older brother Sarzhan regularly raided Russian settlements and caravans. Kenesary continued, after the murder of his brother and father by the Kokand, their work with the same slogans: the destruction of orders, fortifications in the Steppe, etc. He established a cruel despotic power, imposed exorbitant requisitions on the people, and mercilessly suppressed the discontented. In the struggle he relied on the Central Asian khanates. In order to raise his prestige and authority in the eyes of the Kazakhs, Kenesary in 1841, secretly from the Russian authorities, appropriated the dignity of a khan. At the same time, Kenesary did not open this in his correspondence even to the Orenburg governor V.A., who was loyal to him. Perovsky. In the initial period, Kasymova participated in the movement means. part of the Kazakh peasants, which was caused by the strengthening of the columns. and feud. exploitation of the workers of the village. Many auls and clans that did not want to adjoin K.K., he forced by force of arms. However, those who joined soon realized the anti-popular essence of KK's policy and began not only to move away from it, but also to fight against it. Feudal lords were the social support of the KK movement. The core of the troops were the closest relatives of Kenesary, while the main military force was the batyrs of his clans with their feudal squads. A turning point in the fight against Kasymov was outlined in 1845, when, based on the unsuccessful experience of pursuing the Sultan across the steppe expanses, the Ural and Orenburg fortifications were founded on the Irgiz and Turgai rivers. With the construction of these fortifications, Kenesary was forced to go south, which reduced his influence in the Steppe. It should be noted that until 1845, the policy of the central and Orenburg authorities towards the Sultan was quite flexible (for example, the amnesty he received in 1840 at the request of Perovsky), and on the part of Omsk, on the contrary, it was tough. Kasymov was given the opportunity to negotiate, and through correspondence he maintained contacts with Perovsky, Obruchev and Gorchakov, although the latter left them unanswered. The last attempt to peacefully persuade Kenesary to stop the armed struggle was the embassy of Dolgov-Gern in the spring of 1845, with which, in response to the request of the Sultan, his wife Kunymzhan and relatives were returned to him. Despite this, Kenesary did not go to the meeting, referring either to unpreparedness to receive such distinguished guests, or to illness, preparing for an attack on the villages of the Zhapas clan. Lacking the support of the people, K.K., pursued by the tsarist troops, left in 1846 to the south, within the boundaries of the Senior Zhuz. In 1847 he made a robbery campaign against the Kirghiz, during which he was killed.

The uprising of Kenesary Kasymov 1837-1847

The period after the Kazakh khans accepted the citizenship of the Russian Empire and the associated annexation of the Kazakh zhuzes to Russia was a complex process, during which the Russian authorities often faced a lot of ammunitions, related, in particular, to the torture of opposition to the inclusion of the Steppe in the legal field of Russia by part of the Kazakh nobility, especially some ambitious sultans who did not want to lose their privileges, which included the descendant of Ablai - Kenesary Kasimov. Kenesary Kasymov (born in 1802), already from the second half of the 1920s, together with his father Kasym and brother Sarzhan, actively opposed the new Russian administrative management in the Kokchetav and Karkaraly districts established in 1824. After the death of his brother, who was killed in 1836 in Tashkent, Kenesary continued his actions on the territory of the Middle Zhuz. With the arrangement of orders in the Middle Zhuz, the Kasymovs lost influence and authority, since they were not included in the new management structure and therefore tried with all their might to prevent the introduction of a new system of administrative management of nomads. In addition, they lost the right to collect yasak, which passed into the competence of district orders, collecting fees from trade caravans. Of course, the organization of orders, volosts, distances in the Younger Zhuz often violated the nomadic routes of the Kazakh clans, whose discontent was used by the Kasymovs for their own purposes. Kenesary became widely known in the Steppe in 1837, when he managed to rob a trade caravan that was going from Petropavlovsk to Tashkent, accompanied by a convoy of 55 Cossacks led by cornet Alexei Rytov. Successful actions against Rytov's detachment gave Kenesary confidence and contributed to the growth of his popularity among the nomads, whom he intimidated with the capture of the Kazakh nomad camps by the Russian authorities, sending them into soldiers, etc. All this destabilized the situation in Kazakhstan and forced P.D. Gorchekov to take the appropriate belts, trying to coordinate their actions with the Orenburg Governor-General V.A. Perovsky. This was necessary, since K.K. from the Siberian detachments pursuing him, he went to the territory of the Kazakhs of the Orenburg department. Kenesary, meanwhile, strengthened his position in the Steppe, attacked and robbed clans and auls of a pro-Russian orientation or simply did not want to participate in the uprising. For example, in February 1838, 1700 horses were stolen from the volost administrator Sapak Taibergenov by the people of Kenesary; earlier, in September 1837, in the villages of the Taminskaya and Konratovskaya volosts, the rebels captured 2225 horses, 363 camels, 227 units of cattle, 9099 sheep, killed 9 people. etc. In addition, the sultan, by threats and promises, persuaded the rulers and bais to migrate from the border districts, which he often succeeded in doing. The Omsk administration, in turn, sought to prevent migrations, acting through the sultans devoted to it and sending military detachments in the wake of the departed volosts to return them to their original place. P.D. Gorchakov sent appeals to the volosts where Kenesary appeared, addressing the sultans, foremen, bays. So, the nobility of the Karacha-Dzhaulubaevskaya volost, on behalf of the Governor-General, was thanked for the fact that this volost, unlike others, did not undertake a migration in response to the calls of Kenesary, and it was proposed to detain "suspicious" people in their volost. The actions of Kenesary posed a serious danger to Russia's trade with the Central Asian states. In this regard, measures were taken to protect merchant caravans by detachments of Cossacks. In the summer of 1838, by order of P.D. Gorchakov, orders were sent to parties of Cossacks of 50 people. pickets and patrols were strengthened in places of the most probable appearance of Kenesary, between Kokchetav, Uch-Bulak, Akmola orders. Despite this, the caravans were constantly attacked. To persecute the supporters of Kenesary and return to the places of residence of the migrated auls in June 1838 on the river. Mokur-Turgay was sent a detachment of the military foreman Karbyshev and a detachment of Colonel Shcherbachev from Akmola, although the latter was forced to turn to Aktau. Passivity and sometimes replaying the Orenburg administration with Kenesary often brought all the efforts of the “Siberians” to naught. In the struggle for the khan's power and unity of command, Kenesary adhered to the most cruel methods, carrying out repressions against his opponents. He restored the court of biys, which dealt with cases according to Sharia norms. With his tax foreign policy, Kenesary consolidated the norms of Muslim law: for pastoral areas he retained the zyaket (a tax levied on pastoralists in favor of the khan), for agricultural areas - ushur (a tax levied on the settled population). The despotism of Khan Kenesary, who considered the Kazakh zhuzes his hereditary property, caused indignation among the people. In 1844, the brother of Kenesary, Sultan Nauryzbai, came to the auls of the Zhappas clan with a detachment of Yesauls and began to exact zyaket, take away property and food. The Zhappas took up arms against Nauryzbai. Kenesary pursued the policy of his grandfather Ablai, who believed that only cruelty could make the khan's power strong. He maintained his power through strict discipline, sometimes bordering on terror. On the occupied lands Kenesary established a dynastic regime. At the end of 1846, driven out by the Russian tsarist troops and military formations of the Kazakh sultans-rulers from the territory of the Younger and Middle Zhuzes, it occupied a hard-to-reach peninsula at the mouth of the Ili River, from where it raided the Kyrgyz lands. Strongly weakened the position of Kenesary in Semirechye, who always stood up for the separation of Kazakhstan from Russia, the adoption in 1846 by the Kazakhs of the Middle Zhuz of Russian citizenship. At the end of 1846, under the onslaught of the tsarist troops, he left the Middle Zhuz and moved to the territory of the Senior Zhuz near the borders of the Kyrgyz tribes. Deprived of any significant social support in the new lands, he decided to improve his position by aggressive campaigns in Kyrgyzstan, which caused a rebuff from the Kirghiz. In 1847, near Lake Issyk-Kul, he was captured and executed by the sarbaz of the Kyrgyz manap Kalygul. The leaders of the Kyrgyz tribes, as a sign of devotion, handed over the chopped head of Kenesary to the Russian emperor. The head was sent to Omsk. According to many eyewitnesses, official letters and the media, until 1987 it was exhibited by the Hermitage.

Key dates associated with Kenesary Kasymov

• 1802- Birth of Kenesary.
• 1823 - Adoption of the "Charter on the Siberian Kirghiz".
• 1824 - Adoption of the "highest approved opinion on the Orenburg Kirghiz".
• 1824 - Together with his father Kasym and brother Sarzhan, he actively opposes the new Russian administrative management in the Kokchetav and Karkaraly districts established this year.
• 1836 - At the hands of the Kokand people, who had previously supported him, the leading organizer of the unrest in Saryarka, the elder brother of Kenesary, Sarzhan Kasimov, dies.
• 1837, spring - Kenesary, together with the army from Kokand, pumps to the banks of the Turgai River, and from there makes raids on orders. Sultan Pirala Gabbasov, a supporter of the senior sultan Gabaydulla Valikhanov, was among those captured. Kenesary decides to execute Gabbasov along with his family for his connection with the Russians. Valikhanov reports to Omsk about the difficult situation in the steppe. Kasymov captures G. Valikhanov himself with his family and associates. At this critical moment for Valikhanov's life, the Russians turn on the forces of the Horde to save the Sultan, and under the onslaught of numerous requests, Kasymov releases the prisoner. The Omsk leadership finds Kasimov's complicity in Valikhanov's behavior and arrests him along with his son Bulat. Gabaidulla was released only in 1948. after serving his sentence, when the rebellion of Kenesary was suppressed.
• 1837, November - With a detachment of 800 people, Kenesary Kasymov successfully robs a trade caravan, consisting of 1,500 camels, accompanied by a convoy of 55 Cossacks, led by cornet Alexei Rytov, and going from Petropavlovsk to Tashkent, thanks to which Kasymov gains fame.
• 1837, September - in the villages of Taminsky and Konratovskaya volosts, the rebels captured 2225 horses, 363 camels, 227 units of cattle, 9099 sheep, killed 9 people.
• 1838, summer - Measures are taken to protect merchant caravans by detachments of Cossacks. By order of P.D. Gorchakov, orders were sent to parties of Cossacks of 50 people. pickets and patrols were strengthened in places of the most probable appearance of Kenesary, between Kokchetav, Uch-Bulak, Akmola orders.
• 1838, May 26-June 2 - Unsuccessful siege of the Akmola order.
• 1838, June - To persecute the supporters of Kenesary and return to the places of stay of the migrated auls on the river. Mokur-Turgay was sent a detachment of the military foreman Karbyshev and a detachment of Colonel Shcherbachev from Akmola, although the latter was forced to turn to Aktau.
• 1838, November 22 - Report of the West Siberian Governor-General P.D. Gorchakov to the Minister of War A.I. Chernyshev from which it is clear that Kenesary, using "family ties, frivolity and the desire of the Kirghiz (Kazakhs) to plunder, spread empty rumors about recruiting, about the intention of the Russians to take possession of their lands."
• 1838, January 22 - Siberian Governor Prince P.D. Gorchakov, in his letter to the Minister of the Interior, who demanded that measures be taken to prosecute the rebels, explains who Kenesary is, and proposes that with the beginning of spring, organize an expedition to exterminate or disperse the rebels, but for now limit ourselves to setting up a chain of Cossack pickets and organizing the traffic safety of merchant caravans.
• 1838, February - 1700 horses were stolen from the volost administrator Sapak Taibergenov by the people of Kenesary.
• 1840 - Kenesary Kasym's father was captured and killed in Tashkent.
• 1840- P.D. Gorchakov continued the policy of sending military detachments to the steppe to protect trade caravans. Detachments of centurions of Volkov, Rebrov and others act against the rebels. Some of the adherents and Kenesary himself hid from the persecution of the Siberian detachments within the limits of the Orenburg department in the Alchinov family. Kenesary decided to go for reconciliation, but P.D. Gorchakov considered his step forced, dictated by necessity, and left his petition unanswered.
• 1840, spring - Receives an amnesty from the Russian Emperor Nicholas I at the request of the Orenburg governor V.A., loyal to him. Perovsky
• May 29, 1840 - By order of the Minister of War dated May 1, 1841, P.D. was also notified. Gorchakov. Nicholas I believes that the amnesty to Kasymov will provide an opportunity to restore calm in the Steppe. Gorchakov, on the other hand, was ordered to release the captured relatives of Kenesary.
• 1840 - Governor-General Pyotr Dmitrievich Gorchakov asked the akhun of the Omsk mosque to reassure the population that supported the actions of Kenesary Kasymov. In the Kara-Agach tract not far from Akmolinsk, Akhun Mohammed met with the local nobility, who accepted him as befitted a dignity. He largely predicted the outcome of the unrest and asked everyone to return to the places of their former wanderings. Those who obeyed the akhun migrated closer to the border line.
• 1841, September - Secretly from the Russian authorities, he proclaims himself the khan of all three zhuzes in Kazakhstan.
• 1842, the beginning of March - Kenesary's nephew Yerzhan Sarzhanov attacked the Kazakhs of the Temeshevskaya volost, the Siberian department and beat off their cattle. Gorchakov asks Perovsky to keep Kenesary from such actions and agree to the occupation of the Ulu-tau and Kshi-tau mountains by Siberian detachments. The Orenburg governor refused these requests.
• 1842, summer - V.A. Obruchev replaces V.A. Perovsky as governor of Orenburg.
• 1842, August - Kasymov's Tyulenguts steal horses and camels from the party of the topographer Yanovsky and attack a patrol of 50 Cossacks.
• 1843- P.D. Gorchakov managed to find a common language with Obruchev and open joint actions against Kenesary.
• 1843 - Only for one raid in July 1843 on the possessions of their political opponents (the senior sultan of the Akmola district Kudaimendin, the sultans - the rulers of the Younger Zhuz, the Dzhantyurin brothers, Sultan Aichuvakov) “17 people were killed, 15 girls and women were taken prisoner; 5,500 horses, 3,500 camels, 970 cows and 7,000 sheep were stolen. Kenesary Kasymov repeatedly robs their possessions.
• 1844- Sultan Nauryzbai, brother of Kenesary, came to the villages of the Zhappas clan with a detachment of Yesauls and began to exact zyaket, take away property and products. The Zhappas took up arms against Nauryzbai.
• 1845, spring - The last attempt to peacefully persuade Kenesary to stop the armed struggle, in response to Kasymov's request, his wife Kunymzhan and relatives were returned to him.
• 1845 - Ural and Orenburg fortifications were founded on the Irgiz and Turgai rivers. With the construction of these fortifications, Kenesary was forced to withdraw to the south.
• 1846 - Without the support of the people and pursued by the tsarist troops, he went south, within the limits of the Senior Zhuz.
• 1876, autumn - Displaced by the Russian tsarist troops and military formations of the Kazakh sultans-rulers from the territory of the Younger and Middle Zhuzes, he migrated to the mouth of the river. Or, where he entrenched himself on the hard-to-reach Kamal Peninsula and from where he raids the Kyrgyz lands. After taking the oath of allegiance to Russia, most of the nobility of the Senior Zhuz Kasymov lost the opportunity to create a support among its representatives. In response to the transfer of part of the sultans under the protection of Russia, biys made a raid on the auls of Sultan Galiy Adilev, who after that, together with Syuk Ablaykhanov, joined the detachment of Yesaul Nyukhalov, sent to dislodge Kenesary from the Kamal peninsula. When the detachment approached, Kasymov migrated to the river. Chu, slaughtering and capturing up to 400 Yeginsh (farmers) from the Kirghiz.
• 1874, April - The last robbery campaign against the Kirghiz. Near Lake Issyk-Kul, he was captured and executed by the sarbaz of the Kirghiz manap Kalygul.

Facts related to Kenesary Kasymov

• Contrary to the widespread legend in Kazakh fiction, Kenesary Khan did not burn the serf order Akmolinsk (now the capital of Kazakhstan, Astana)
• Kenesary, waging a bloody war (against Russia?) for the restoration of the khan's power, died ... not from Russian weapons.
• Valikhanov, Chokan Chingisovich, a famous Chingizid, a Kazakh researcher, historian, scientist and educator, in a number of his works considered the institution of the khanate in its development. He came to the conclusion that "that the khan's power has already become an obstacle in the development of Kazakh society" ., and supported measures aimed at eliminating the khan's power. The fact is that by the beginning of the XIX century. the struggle for the redistribution of wealth and power intensifies, some of the sultans began to economically surpass the impoverished khans, as a result, there is an increase in the number of internecine conflicts tearing the steppe apart. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the main reason for the uprising is: 1) the struggle for power among the steppe aristocracy; 2) open robbery and redistribution of power and property under the plausible pretext of fighting "minions of the Russian state."
• The assertion of modern Kazakh historiography about the nationwide national liberation nature of the movement, which was defeated only due to the quantitative and qualitative superiority of the Russian army and the parts of the Kazakh nobility and ordinary nomads supporting them, does not stand up to criticism. This statement can also be easily challenged by analyzing the documents on this issue. In fairness, it should be noted that Kenesary Kasymov managed to unite part of the Kazakh clans under his banner. Sometimes the number of his troops reached 10 thousand people. (for comparison: the population of the Middle Zhuz was 1 million 60 thousand people, the Younger - 1 million 100 thousand people, the Senior - 500-600 thousand people, which is about 3 million people in total) .. Based on the foregoing, and also taking into account the fact that the quantitative increase in followers was often carried out by violent means, one cannot speak of the general character of the uprising. There was also no unity in the Kenesary camp itself. So, after his transfer to Zhetysu (Semerechye) - (Senior Zhuz), the descendants of Ablai Khan Ali and Suyuk took an irreconcilable position against the rebels, i.e. relatives of Kenesary himself. And the initial position in relation to the merchants (when he robbed caravans) did not bring him much popularity among this category of Kazakhs. An ill-conceived, hasty policy towards part of the nomads who were forcibly forced to engage in agriculture, and all because it was beneficial to the leader of the uprising (given independence in the food supply of the detachments). This once again emphasizes the purpose of the uprising - the struggle for power, and not for the sake of the mythical idea of ​​Kazakhstan's independence. It’s just that one part of the aristocracy fought for power, relying on the help of the Russian state, the other - on part of the local nobility and “neighbors - opponents of Russia in this region - the Khiva and Bukhara khanates”
• The point of view of Ch.Valikhanov is confirmed in numerous reports addressed to Emperor Nicholas I by Orenburg governors V.A. Perovsky, V.A. Obruchev, Siberian governor Prince P.D. Gorchakov, Chairman of the Orenburg Border Commission N.F. Gensom and others, from which it is clear that in order to economically weaken and undermine the political influence of his opponents (the senior sultan of the Akmola district Kudaimendin, the sultans - the rulers of the Younger Zhuz, the Dzhantyurin brothers, Sultan Aichuvakov) Kenesary Kasymov repeatedly robs their possessions. In just one raid in July 1843, “17 people were killed, 15 girls and women were taken prisoner; 5,500 horses, 3,500 camels, 970 cows and 7,000 rams were stolen. It should be emphasized that such raids were made more than once. Along the way, Kenesary solved another problem: by defeating the recalcitrant clans, to force the Kazakhs to support him. Kenesary Kasymov's claims to power are also evidenced by the fact that in September 1841 he proclaims himself Khan (there is no question of any election according to "tradition"). His relationship with the Siberian administration cannot be called constructive; it looks more like trading in his loyalty, maneuvering tactics. As soon as the conditions proposed by the administration to stop the struggle (to roam in a certain territory, to give up the rank of khan), he is not satisfied, he resumes hostilities, using the truce to free "his" people from Russian captivity and replenish food supplies.
• It should be noted the mistakes of the Siberian administration, which led to an increase in the number of dissatisfied people who joined the ranks of the movement of K. Kasymov. But the administration cannot be accused of a one-sided approach to solving this problem by force alone. Based on the available documents, two directions for solving this problem can be distinguished. Supporters of the first direction, who advocated peaceful resolution of conflicts, were headed by the Orenburg governor V.A. Perovsky. Siberian Governor Prince P.D. Gorchakov, who headed the 2nd direction, offered a military solution to the issue. Followers of V.A. Perovsky explained their position as follows: from an economic point of view, “financial costs are too high: from 5 to 8 thousand rubles were required for only one expedition. silver. This is the payment of salaries, and the provision of horses, and the maintenance of artillery pieces in combat readiness, etc. From a strategic position, they assessed the armed method of struggle as unpromising, due to the impossibility of endlessly pursuing the enemy in such a vast area. An external factor played an important role in determining their position - the inexpediency of the conflict with the Bukhara and Khiva khanates, which was possible with the loyalty and in some cases direct support of K. Kasymov by the rulers of these territories. Supporters of P.D. Gorchakov justified their position by the fact that Kenesary Kasymov was only playing for time, further connivance in the fight against him would only lead to the rooting of the spirit of "permissiveness", the temptation of easy money and, accordingly, increase the number of "fans" of Kenesary, which means continued confrontation and increased state spending. At the same time, one must act “cautiously” and not let emotions take over a sober mind: 1) do not touch the population that supported the rebels for one reason or another; 2) attract the Kazakh population to the side of Russia; 3) increase the contingent of troops to fight Kenesary. Kenesary, taking advantage of the inconsistency in the actions of the Orenburg and Siberian administrations, maneuvered between them, which delayed the final resolution of the confrontation in the Steppe.
• After the attack on the detachment of the cornet Rytov, the Siberian governor, Prince P.D. Gorchakov, in his letter dated January 22, 1838, to the Minister of Internal Affairs, who demanded that measures be taken to prosecute the rebels, explained who Kenesary was, and suggested organizing an expedition with the beginning of spring to exterminate or disperse the rebels, but for now limit ourselves to setting up a chain of Cossack pickets and organizing traffic safety of merchant caravans.
• P.D. Gorchakov, in reports to the government, emphasized that it was impossible to calm the Kazakhs of Akmola and other Siberian districts, "until the neighboring violent tribes wandering within the Orenburg department are arranged, between which the Siberian Kirghiz always find refuge and assistance" . Kenesary himself explained the unrest that took place in the Akmola district by the construction of the Aktau fortification, built to cover the order from the steppe. In their letters, the Kasymovs and, in particular, Kenesary, constantly appealed to the order that existed in relations with Russia under Ablai Khan, demanded the elimination of sofas (orders), built, as they believed, on Kazakh lands, with the arrangement of which the Kasymovs lost influence and authority .
• P.D. Gorchakov, from the very beginning of the Kasymov uprising, took a tough stance, hoping with the help of military detachments to suppress a movement that posed a threat to the order approved by the charter of 1822 and trade with the Central Asian khanates and China. The unsuccessful actions of the troops in the steppe showed the impossibility of destroying or capturing Kenesary, without creating strongholds in the places of wanderings of the Sultan, about which in his note addressed to P.D. Gorchakov was pointed out by Colonel Gorsky, recommending the construction of fortifications in the Ulu-Tau mountains. Despite the failures, in 1840 P.D. Gorchakov continued the policy of sending military detachments to the steppe to protect trade caravans. Detachments of the centurions of Volkov, Rebrov and others acted against the rebels. Some of the adherents and the Sultan himself took refuge from the persecution of the Siberian detachments within the limits of the Orenburg department in the Alchinov family. Unsuccessfully in 1840, things were going on for Kenesary within the limits of Tashkent, where his father Kasym was captured and killed. In such a situation, Kenesary decided to go for reconciliation, but P.D. Gorchakov considered his step forced, dictated by necessity, and left his petition unanswered. In a report on the actions of military detachments, he noted that, “appearing with unconditional obedience, they (the rebels. - A.A.) can only expect mercy” offering them to extradite the main culprit of their disasters. At the same time, P.D. Gorchakov again asked V.A. Perovsky to take action to capture the Sultan who had taken refuge in the territory of the Orenburg Territory, or at least provide support to the Siberian detachments. V.A. Perovsky informed the West Siberian governor that with the beginning of the spring of 1841, a detachment would be sent from Orenburg, which would have to push back Kenesary to Ulu-tau.
• V.A. Perovsky underestimated the scope and anti-Russian nature of the movement in the Steppe and essentially patronized Kasymov, which was noted even by the first researchers of the Kenesary movement. For example, N. Sereda noted that V.A. Perovsky criticized P.D. Gorchakov and asked K.V. Nesselrode to inspire him not to interfere in the affairs of the Orenburg department and the Siberian detachments not to enter their territory. A.I. Maksheev in his work “Historical Review of Turkestan and the Russian Offensive Movement in It” noted that the Orenburg governor took Kenesary under his protection, as a result of which a sharp controversy ensued between the two governors. Perovsky hoped to tame Kenesary more by peaceful means, since at that time peasant unrest was taking place in the Orenburg department, expeditions to the steppe required huge expenses. Kenesary, in turn, sent letters to Orenburg, where he complained about the actions of the Siberian detachments and the slander allegedly erected against him by some sultans. Perovsky even petitioned the Minister of War for mercy and forgiveness for the Sultan from the emperor. He convinced Gorchakov of the sincerity of Kenesary's intentions to stop the fight. In an answer on April 21, 1841, Gorchakov argued that after the attack on military detachments, caravans, transports, Kasymov and his people took refuge on the territory of the Orenburg department, where “Siberians” were forbidden to appear. Meanwhile, at the request of Perovsky, in the spring of 1841, an amnesty was announced in Kenesary, and P.D. Gorchakov. Nicholas I believed that an amnesty to Kasymov would provide an opportunity to restore calm in the Steppe. Gorchakov, on the other hand, was ordered to release the captured relatives of Kenesary. P.D. Gorchakov nevertheless decided to leave a detachment in Ulu-tau until late autumn to monitor and protect trade caravans and transports. Emperor Nicholas I pointed out the need for a unified policy of Omsk and Orenburg in the steppe, which would allow maintaining calm in the Kazakh pastures without the use of strict measures. Despite this indication, the contradictions between Gorchakov and Perovsky did not weaken, as can be seen from the letter of the West Siberian governor to A.I. Chernyshev dated September 1, 1841, Gorchakov was indignant at the fact that Perovsky accepted the version of Kenesary and incorrectly informed the emperor about his actions, exposed the actions of the Siberian detachments as a robbery, and constantly refused to assist the Siberian authorities in the fight against the Sultan. Gorchakov expressed reasonable doubts about the obedience of Kenesary, the main goal of whose struggle was the overthrow of the existing system in the Steppe and the acquisition of khan dignity. The inaction of the Orenburg detachments gave Gorchakov a reason to ridicule the Orenburg leadership, calling it "an imaginary boss." Perovsky explained his attitude towards Kenesary by the fact that the military searches for the Siberian detachments were not successful, but only increased the hatred against Russia in the Kazakhs, so he considered it possible to ask for Kasymov's pardon, enlisting the support of Vice-Chancellor K.V. Nesselrode, who entered with this request to Nicholas I.
• In November 1837, a caravan of 1,500 camels set off from Petropavlovsk for Tashkent, accompanied by a convoy of 55 Cossacks led by cornet Alexei Rytov. How the matter ended, we learn from the document (SAOO, f. 366, op. 1., d. 171, ll. 1-3): "To the Minister of War, Mr. Adjutant General and Cavalier Count Chernyshev, Commander of the Separate Siberian Corps, Major General Gladyshev Report Correcting the position of the Aktau commandant, Army foreman Simanov, with a report dated December 19 last, 1837, No. 166 and January 4 this year, No. 7 informs me that from a detachment of 48 Cossacks sent on November 27 from the Aktau fortress with 6 officers under the command of cornet Rytov to escort the caravan , passing from Petropavlovsk to Tashkenia on December 19, two Cossacks appeared with the announcement that 200 versts from the fortress, the party of Sultan Kenisara Kasimov (the spelling of the document is preserved) in the number of 800 people, having attacked the detachment in its reverse movement from Aktau, surrounded from all sides and kept him under siege for three days. his cornet Rytov was killed and with him 4 constables, 22 Cossacks and 1 paramedic. Having received this report, Army foreman Simanov went out on the same number to the besieged Cossacks with a detachment of 3 officers, 20 officers and 120 Cossacks with two horse artillery guns, but upon his arrival at the scene, he did not find Sultan Kenesary Kasymov against them, who, having recognized about the approach of the Army foreman Simanov, retreated to the Saidalinsky volost, to the auls of Sultan Abulkhir Ishimkhanov. According to the testimony of the rescued Cossacks, the matter proceeded as follows: the cornet Rytov, escorting the caravan, departed from the Aktau fortress, contrary to the instruction given to him, for 250 versts and here, leaving on December 4 19 Cossacks with 2 officers and 1 paramedic, a total of 22 people with provisions and fodder, with the rest of the people went to see off the caravan for another 50 miles. At this time, the party of Kenesary Kasymov attacked the Cossacks left by Rytov and put them all in place. Four large graves of the killed Kirghiz, found by Voiskov, foreman Simanov, prove that the Cossacks bravely defended themselves and that only the superiority of the enemy force did not allow them to win. Of the found corpses of the Cossacks, all were almost disfigured, and some were even burned. (Note in the margin by Katanaev's hand: "According to Ivinkin, all the Cossacks had their genitals and ears cut off, the latter hung on a string like trophies").
• In early March 1842, Kenesary's nephew Yerzhan Sarzhanov attacked the Kazakhs of the Temeshevskaya volost, the Siberian department, and took away their cattle. Gorchakov asked Perovsky to keep Kenesary from such actions and agree to the occupation of the Ulu-tau and Kshi-tau mountains by Siberian detachments. The Orenburg governor refused these requests, referring to the fact that the sultan had received forgiveness and the lack of evidence about his robberies from the Kazakhs of the Siberian department. But the West Siberian governor continued to insist that Perovsky, and after his change in the summer of 1842, V.A. Obruchev, took measures to tame Kenesary, especially since in August his seals again drove horses and camels from the party of the topographer Yanovsky and attacked a patrol of 50 Cossacks.
• Appointment to Orenburg of a new governor V.A. Obruchev influenced the further policy towards Kenesary. P.D. Gorchakov managed to find a common language with Obruchev and, starting from 1843, opened joint actions against Kenesary, whose imaginary obedience became more and more obvious after a series of attacks and cattle drive away from the Kazakhs of the Siberian Department. Assessing the policy of V.A. Perovsky, one can say that he managed to maintain relative calm in the Kazakh nomad camps subordinate to Orenburg, but at the cost of ruining the Kazakh auls subordinate to the Siberian administration. It must be taken into account, however, that Perovsky sought to “appease” Kenesary based on a number of local circumstances: peasant unrest in the Orenburg department, the costs of the Khiva campaign, which ended unsuccessfully, besides, the experience of persecuting the Sultan’s supporters by Siberian detachments showed how high the costs of this. The Orenburg governor also believed that Kazakhs who were not involved in Kasymov's actions often fell under the blows of Russian troops, which embittered the Kazakhs and set them against the Russian administration. Still, the lack of a unified, coordinated policy both locally and in St. Petersburg on this issue gave Kasymov the opportunity to operate with virtually impunity within the Siberian borders, hiding on the territory of the Orenburg department and even gaining the patronage of Perovsky.
• In 1731, after a long consideration, the request of the Khan of the Younger Zhuz Abulkhair to accept his people into Russian citizenship was granted. The powerful Dzungar Khanate waged wars at that time simultaneously with China and the Kirghiz (Kazakhs) (Kyrgyz-Kaisaks - Kirghiz-Cossacks, the name of the Kazakhs common in pre-revolutionary literature) Omi herself. The Kirghiz reckoned with this opinion, and before the appearance of Russian military auls along the Irtysh there were no. In the same year, the clans of the Middle Zhuz were accepted into Russian citizenship, and three years later the Elder Zhuz, where Khan Ablai was the most influential. As Yu.G. writes in the book Siberian Cossack Army. Nedbay, Russia did not seek to Central Asia, it was Central Asia that drew Russia into its affairs. So, at the request of Abulkhair, in 1735 the Orsk fortress was founded. And when the Dzungars in 1738-1741. perpetrated the largest massacre in history to the Kirghiz of the Middle Zhuz, they fled under the walls of this particular fortress. Only the intervention of the Russian military saved them from complete extermination. However, like the remnants of the Dzungars-Kalmyks, they fled to Russia after the Chinese defeated them in 1755 and began to massacre everyone down to babies. What was the gratitude of the new loyal subjects? They continued to raid Russian villages and attack Russian teams, which is recorded in the documents of the Siberian Provincial Chancellery. And after the fall of the Dzungar Khanate, the number of raids and cattle theft increased greatly. At the same time, Khan Ablai began to flirt with the Chinese, blackmailed the Russian government, threatening to be transferred to Chinese citizenship, and demanded royal favors as the Abulkhair surname, while he did not bind himself with any obligations to Russia. In 1822, the "Charter on the Siberian Kirghiz" was introduced, which shook the position of the Kirghiz (Kazakh) nobility. According to this provision, nomad camps and auls were divided into volosts, for the convenience of managing the volosts were united into districts, and the Senior Sultan of the district was elected by the heads of the volosts and he was awarded the rank of major of the Russian service. This was the main reason that the grandchildren of Ablai Khan Sarzhan and Kenesary Kasymovs (Kasimovs) embarked on the warpath. Khiva and Kokand joined the game, and Russia's stubborn struggle for influence in Kyrgyz society began. Sarzhan Kasymov was stabbed to death by the Tashkent Khan Kushbek in 1736, and the fight against the rebellious Kenesary Kasymov dragged on for two decades. Kasymov attacked not only the Russians, but also the loyal subjects of Russia. In his letters to the tsar and the governor-generals of Western Siberia and the Orenburg region, Kenesary never demanded independence and liberation from Russia (he could not single-handedly decide this for all Kazakhs), but only asked for a change in the existing situation. According to the "Charter on the Siberian Kirghiz", Kasymov could become only a major in the Russian army. There are plenty of archival materials on this issue of the relationship between the Siberian Cossacks and the Kirghiz, as the Kazakhs were then called. They are stored in the State Archive of the Omsk Region in the personal fund of G.E. Katanaev.
• In the early 1920s, the issue of building a mosque in Omsk was raised. This issue has political implications. In January 1824, the Governor-General of Western Siberia P. M. Kaptsevich entered the Siberian Committee with a proposal for permission to build a mosque in Omsk. In November, the issue was resolved positively and subsidies were promised for three years, starting in 1826. In the monograph by V. I. Kochedamov, Bulygin and Makovetsky are erroneously named as the author of the mosque project. But S. A. Bulygin only revised the project of 1811 for Petropavlovsk. We receive reliable information from the case “On the construction of Mohammedan mosques in the Peter and Paul fortress in the city of Omsk”. The monumental building in the style of classicism with elements of Muslim architecture was built according to the project of the architect A. M. Skorodumov. In January 1824, Stepan Anikievich Bulygin, according to the plan of the architect A. M. Skorodumov, drew up an estimate for the construction of a mosque in the amount of 594,439 rubles. The Siberian Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs approved the request of the Governor-General of Western Siberia P. M. Kaptsevich in the construction of a mosque in Omsk and concluded: faith, for his part, he considers the construction of a mosque to be useful and not burdensome for the treasury in the case when the release of the required amount is not made in one year all of a sudden, but will be spread over two or even three years. The mosque was built by the commander of the Siberian Engineering District, engineer-colonel (since 1827, major general) Stepan Anikievich Bulygin (1770–1830). It was erected with slight deviations from the project, from 1827 to 1829. In 1827, an amount of 56,000 rubles was allocated for the implementation of the project. The Muslims of Omsk made donations for the construction of the mosque, a large amount of 3384 rubles, made by Governor-General P. M. Kaptsevich. During the construction process, two problems arose: the location and personnel of workers. A plot for construction was allocated in Novaya Sloboda next to the post office. Soldiers were sent to work. To open the mosque in 1829, a priest was invited - akhun Muhammad Sharif Abdrakhmanov. In the 1840s, unrest in the steppe became more and more fierce. When the measures of administrative influence were exhausted, Governor-General Pyotr Dmitrievich Gorchakov asked the akhun of the Omsk mosque to calm down the population that supported the uprising of Kenesary Kasymov. In the Kara-Agach tract not far from Akmolinsk, Akhun Mohammed met with the local nobility, who accepted him as befitted a dignity. He largely predicted the outcome of the unrest and asked everyone to return to the places of their former wanderings. Those who obeyed the akhun migrated closer to the border line. The mosque has become a guarantee for many parents that their children, studying in Omsk educational institutions, will not change their faith. A large wooden house was built next to the mosque for the ancestors and ambassadors coming from the steppe. A salary was allocated from the treasury: for the imam - 300 rubles, for the muezzin - 200, for the overseer - 180, for three watchmen - 210; for heating and lighting - 400, total 1280 rubles. in year .
• From "MATERIALS ON THE PRE-REVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF THE STATIONS OF THE KOKCHETAV DISTRICT OF THE AKMOLA REGION": Sultans Sartai Yuchin, Dosan Khanbabin and some others who did not enter the borders of the Kokchetav order, but who noticed a clear advantage of the steppe dwellers who entered the district, in 1830. appeal to the governor of Western Siberia, I.A. Vilyaminov, with a request to open the outer districts in the places of their nomad camps, namely Ak-molla, Bayanaul, Amankaragai and others. Which was followed by immediate permission. In 1832 Ablai Gabbasov caught a bad cold and came down with a fever, and died in mid-May. The election of a new senior sultan followed. Several sultans put forward their candidacies, among them it is allowed this time to participate in the elections and Gabaydulla Valikhanov, and he is elected to this position. The feast lasted for three weeks in the tract of Char, where the newly elected sultan, at the expense of the state treasury, treated 250 people to his entourage, among them was Khansha Valiev. The hero of the occasion miscalculated and, in joy, overspending in the amount of 252 rubles, to which the Omsk leadership expressed acute dissatisfaction with what was happening, fortunately for Gabaidulla, they got away with impunity. On September 17, G.Valikhanov was sworn in and took an oath of allegiance to the service. Altybai Mordanov and Seiten Borambaev became his assistants. It should be noted that this time Gabaibulla from the first days began to regularly serve in the order, carried out work among the indigenous population, supported the Russian leadership in many undertakings and provided practical assistance. The authority of Valikhanov is growing before our eyes. In the spring of 1834 Gabaydulla goes to Tobols, where he asks Velyaminov to return his well-deserved awards (which he had not previously been given). The delayed awards were solemnly presented to G.Valikhanov and his son Bulat in Kokchetav. And this time it was not without a rich toy, to which all the sultans, bais, and foremen of the district, who arrived with rich gifts, were invited. Flattered by such attention from the Russian government, Valikhanov is even more diligently involved in the work of introducing the tsarist policy among the nomads. His son Bulat is of great help in this. But the rebels continue to fight for their liberation, Sarzhan Kasimov is nominated as the leading organizer of the unrest in Saryarka. He finds contacts with the people of Tashkent, finds support from Kushbek, and with 6,000 dashing riders first flies to Akmola, and then sweeps through the Kokchetav district like a whirlwind. He ruins, robs, spoils, and kills the recalcitrant Horde. Cossack detachments come out to fight them. G.Valikhanov supports the Russians. But fate was pleased that in 1836. Kasimov dies at the hands of the same Kokand people. And he is replaced by his younger brother Kenesary Kasimov. in 1837, a new border line was formed, pickets were laid from the Gorka line through Kokchetav to Akmola. In the spring of 1837 Kenesary, together with the army (whose number is already more than 10,000 horsemen), is pumped from Kokand to the banks of the Turgai River, and from there makes raids on orders. Residents are taken away, livestock is stolen. Sultan Pirala Gabbasov, a supporter of Gabaydulla, was among those captured. Kenesary decides to execute Gabbasov along with his family for his connection with the Russians. Valikhanov reports to Omsk about the difficult situation in the steppe. The Omsk leadership, believing in the power of the Cossacks, does not provide proper assistance. At this time, Kasimov diverts the attention of the Cossacks, and he, on the other hand, runs into the order and captures G. Valikhanov himself with his family and associates. At this critical moment for Valikhanov's life, the Russians turn on the huge forces of the Horde to save the Sultan, under the onslaught of numerous requests, Kasimov releases the prisoner. And the Omsk leadership finds complicity with Kasimov in Valikhanov's behavior at this difficult moment and arrests him, along with his son Bulat. And in 1839. sends him into exile in Berezov. The Valikhanovs are placed in prison, in which Prince Alexander Menshikov once languished. Outraged by this turn of affairs in Kenesary, he turns to Count Perovsky in Orenburg with a request to release Valikhanov, but is refused, Gabaidulla was released only in 1948. after serving his sentence, when the rebellion of Kenesary was suppressed. Bulat Valikhanov, takes his youngest son to study in the Siberian Cadet Corps, where the eldest also studied, when he arrived back, he began to spread rumors that his son, after graduation, would be appointed to the post of adviser to the border department, and allegedly promised to recommend the younger son as the senior sultan of the Kokchetav order . With all this, he won over the gullible illiterate steppe dwellers to his side. The steppe people write petitions to appoint two candidates G. Valikhanov and B. Gabaydullin to the post of senior sultan. But this proposal is rejected, and the Valikhanovs with their auls migrate to the Akmola district. At that time, elections of the Sultan were taking place in the Kokchetav district, and there was a struggle for power. The nominees bribed the people in every possible way, and finally on August 28, 1854. Tany Tortaev was chosen. With the help of the Cossacks, trade caravans, scientific expeditions were accompanied, robbers were pursued, it was a powerful military force in a collision with the Horde, Tashkent, Chinese and other foreigners. The Cossack detachment, located in Kokchetav, was one of those on whom the tsarist government pinned hopes to pacify the rebels, for the Cossacks it was, although a difficult, but a very honorable task, which not everyone was trusted to perform. Kenesary Kasimov, who came to power, furiously raised the Kyrgyz butavs to fight against the "Urus". He declared himself Khan of the Middle Horde. Arranged raids on the settlements of the Cossacks. He was particularly cruel to the Russians. The Kokchetav Cossack detachment could no longer cope with the pressing rebels on its own. Then help was sent to the steppe from the Gorkaya Line. In one of these strikes on February 27, 1844. one of the crushing blows was dealt to the Kenesary detachment between the Ishim and Turgay rivers. The auls of Kenesary were surrounded unexpectedly, when the appearance of the Cossacks, because of the severe cold, the Horde did not expect. Kasimovites from a sudden blow scattered across the steppe, and were defeated. Together with others, they captured the elder wife of Kenesary with their children. First, the family with other prisoners was sent to Tobolsk. The capture of his family most of all humiliated and grieved Kenesary, he turned to the governor with a request to return his family to him. Given his atrocities, which he showed to the Russian prisoners, the governor did not give him an answer. Then retreating behind the Turgay to rest, Kenesary rallied his strength and again with hurricane power with shouts of "Ablai!" Kenesary! began to rush through Russian villages, Kazakh villages, demolishing and burning everything in its path. He tried to take revenge on those Kazakhs who opposed him, helped the Cossacks. Among those active against Kenesary was Chingiz Valikhanov, the senior sultan of the Kushmurun district. Having extensive experience in combat operations, Kenesary chooses a different tactic. Instead of attacking with large forces, he now sends small groups on missions in one direction or the other. This caused confusion among the Cossacks. Particular ferocity, efficiency and fearlessness were shown by the detachment under the command of Bopay, the brave, but also ferocious sister of Kenesary. Almost always, her raiders returned victorious, sparing neither women nor children. Kenesary instructs her to destroy the rich Aygonym family estate. Bopay took advantage of the moment when the mistress was not in Syrymbet, swooped in and cleaned out everything that was on the estate, stole cattle, and then set fire to the estate. Then the house, mosque, school, outbuildings, erected by decree of the tsarist government, burned down. Aigonym, returning home, found a conflagration on the site of the estate. Of course, neither the Omsk nor the Kokchetav leadership could leave this unpunished, and the hunt for the Kenesary detachments began with renewed vigor. Often, instead of the death penalty, the Kasimovites used other methods of punishment, cut the heels, sewed horsehair into them, after the wound was healed, the prisoner was left in the steppe, he could not move, and became the prey of animals, or a few days later he died of hunger and thirst. In addition, eyewitnesses described that in the detachments of Kenesary it was not difficult and fearful to test the edge of a blade or arrow on someone before an offensive. They put 2-3 people of the same height side by side and with one stroke they demolished their heads, or pierced them with an arrow, shooting it through their ears. Kasimov's struggle continued until 1847. For a whole decade, the unrest in the steppe continued. During this time, he caused so much grief and suffering to both Russians and Kazakhs that it seemed that Allah himself rebelled against him. And he began to lose more and more often. Retreating to Issyk-Kul for the winter quarters, away from the Russian border, Kenesary hoped to rest there and rush out against the Kara-Kyrgyz with renewed vigor. But here he miscalculated. Under the guise of retreat, the Kara-Kirghiz lured the rebels into the gorge and destroyed them. Kasimov himself was taken prisoner. Information about his death is the most contradictory, in one of the denunciations: allegedly, he was first flayed alive. Then they put him alive in a cauldron of water and began to heat the water on the fire, when the Sultan was cooked, they chopped off his head, put him on a pike and drove him across the steppe, informing everyone that the steppe was now free.
• From the report of the West Siberian Governor-General P.D. Gorchakov to the Minister of War A.I. Chernyshev dated November 22, 1838, it is clear that Kenesary, using "family ties, frivolity and the desire of the Kirghiz (Kazakhs) to plunder, spread empty rumors about recruiting, about the intention of the Russians to take possession of their lands" . However, the senior sultans took a wait-and-see attitude, although they sent gifts to Kenesary and helped his emissaries. This was largely due to the fact that in the depths of the Steppe, Russia at that time did not have permanent fortifications that would contain the threat of attacks on the volosts of the sultans who were subjects of citizenship, and many were forced to maneuver between the tsarist administration and Kenesary.
• In April 1847, Kenesary again invaded the territory of the Kirghiz tribes. This proved to be the Sultan's last foray. Major General Vishnevsky established contacts with the Kyrgyz biys Baranbay Bekmuratov, Kochik Pirnazarov, manap Ormon Niyazbekov in the winter, promising them support, including military support. The actions of the Yesaul Nyukhalov and the centurion Abakumov were limited only by the presence to keep the Kazakhs, who were hostile to the Kirghiz, from joining Kenesary. The Kirghiz managed to defeat the advance detachment of the Kazakhs, led by Kenesary's nephew Khudaimendy. Kenesary himself with detachments was locked by them in the MaiTyube area, near the river. Chu. In this hopeless situation, Sultan Rustem and biy Supatai left him. During the battle, which lasted several days, and the persecution, the Kenesary detachment was completely defeated, many soldiers were captured. The sultan himself fell into the hands of the manaps and was executed by the Kirghiz, who refused a large ransom, although he offered a huge ransom for his freedom. Minister of War A.I. Chernyshev noted that the news of the defeat of Kenesary was perceived with a sense of relief in the Russian government.
• The actions of the Siberian detachments in the steppe showed that without strong points in the places of wanderings of the auls of Kenesary, it was impossible to stop his raids, which was subsequently realized by V.A. Obruchev, on whose initiative in 1845 on the river. Irgiz and Turgay fortifications of Orenburg and Ural were erected. Moreover, this suggests that Kasymov’s actions not only did not slow down Russia’s advance into Kazakhstan and Central Asia, as modern Kazakh historians believe, but, on the contrary, as Russian historians believe, greatly accelerated Russia’s further advance to the south, as evidenced by the foundation of new fortifications, the study of the steppe during military searches, the development of a strategy of action against raids and ambushes on caravans, the escort of trade caravans by military guards, the accompanying topographic surveys, and the involvement of ever new Kazakh tribes and peoples in the orbit of their influence. It should be noted that Kasymov's actions not only created problems, but also opened up new prospects for the Russian authorities. The involvement of the Kyrgyz tribes in the conflict, the interest in resolving this problem of the Russian administration contributed to the establishment of close contacts with representatives of the Kyrgyz nobility, who sought to receive patronage from the powerful northern neighbor. Asking for this, the manaps emphasized their role in the fight against Kasymov, who made an unquestionably short-sighted and disastrous step for himself, having entered into a conflict with the Kyrgyz tribes in an unfavorable situation, in conditions of limited opportunities. This conflict sharply intensified the process of voluntary entry into Russia of the Kirghiz tribes, who sought to get rid of Kokand domination. Kenesary's raids on the Kirghiz tribes pushed influential manaps to contacts with the tsarist administration, which was also interested in strengthening Russia's position in Central Asia.

Historiography of Kenesary Kasymov's movement

• The uprising of Kenesary Kasymov 1837-1847 and the policy towards him of the Russian authorities attracted the attention of pre-revolutionary researchers. One of the first publications concerning the uprising was Baron Uslar's story "Four Months in the Kirghiz Steppe", which was published in the journal Otechestvennye Zapiski in 1848 (T. IX.). A great contribution to the study of the problem was made by representatives of the General Staff of the Russian Empire, who were not professional historians and were engaged in describing and researching the military-political advance of Russia into Kazakhstan and Central Asia, as well as collecting statistical and geographical materials. We are talking about such well-known authors as M. Venyukov, L. Meyer, M. Krasovsky and others. M. Venyukov, in his article “Notes on the steppe campaigns”, speaking of the Kasymov uprising, showed the tactics of military operations of both sides. Officers of the General Staff L. Meyer and M. Krasovsky, who participated in the preparation of "Materials for the Geography and Statistics of Russia", not only described the natural and climatic conditions of Kazakhstan, but also provided extensive statistical data on the population and territories of the Younger and Middle Zhuzes, information about the political the history of these ethno-political formations that were subordinate to the Orenburg and West Siberian authorities. The authors paid attention to the uprising of Kenesary Kasymov. L. Meyer critically assessed the performance of the Sultan, which, in his opinion, did not bring positive results to the Kazakhs. M. Krasovsky also briefly described the activities of Kenesary. Both authors emphasized an important circumstance - the loyalty to the Sultan of the chairman of the Orenburg Border Commission G.F. Gens, who played an important role in the events described. The works of military historians M.A. retain their scientific value. Terentiev and A.I. Maksheev, published later and devoted to the history and military policy of Russia on the territory of the Kazakh zhuzes and in Central Asia. The works of all the above-named authors were not specifically devoted to the policy of the authorities regarding the Sultan's uprising. It was considered by them in the context of the general political events taking place in the Kazakh Steppe. M.A. Terentiev and A.I. Maksheev noted the extraordinary personal qualities of the Sultan, his military talents and organizational talent. At the same time, Terentiev emphasized the low effectiveness of the military component of the policy of the Orenburg and West Siberian authorities in the steppe. Both researchers drew attention to the differences in approaches to the uprising of the two centers of power. Maksheev mentioned the disagreements between the West Siberian Governor-General P. D. Gorchakov and Orenburg V.A. Perovsky, who determined the policy towards the uprising of Kenesary. He assessed the performance of the Sultan as a rebellion of a representative of the Kazakh nobility, a descendant of Khan Ablai. The works of the authors were limited to a greater extent by describing the events of the uprising, but important features of the policy of the authorities in relation to this speech are also noted. When writing a section devoted to the political history of mainly the Younger Zhuz and the uprising of Kenesary, Maksheev widely used materials from the well-known pre-revolutionary researcher N. A. Sereda. Peru N.A. Sereda owns the most serious work in pre-revolutionary historiography dedicated to the uprising of Kenesary - "The Revolt of the Kyrgyz Sultan Kenesary Kasymov". The author attracted a large number of previously unused documents, significantly expanding the research base. He characterized the Kazakh sultan as a pragmatic politician who acted according to the circumstances and maneuvered between the two local centers of power. Sereda was the first to draw attention to the contradictions between Perovsky and Gorchakov, showing their influence on the policy towards the Sultan's uprising, as well as on the ambiguous line of behavior of Perovsky's successor - V.A. Obruchev. ON THE. Sereda tried to find out the reasons that forced Perovsky to act as the patron of the Sultan, and also to determine the position of St. Petersburg in the conflict between the two governors. He emphasized the scope of the uprising, in which, to one degree or another, many Kazakh clans were involved, the participation of Kenesary in the affairs of Kokand, Khiva, Bukhara. The work of N.A. Seredy was a definite step forward in the study of the policy of the authorities in relation to the Sultan's uprising. A notable event in the study of the history of the Kazakhs and Russian policy in Kazakhstan was the study of A.I. Dobrosmyslov “Turgai region. Historical essay”, in which the author also dwelled on the uprising of Kenesary. When writing the section on Kenesary, he used materials collected by Sereda, but Dobrosmyslov's work was already done at a higher scientific level. The author briefly outlined the events described by Sereda, but also drew on new data on military campaigns against the rebels and the policy of the Russian authorities in the Kazakh zhuzes, on the participation of Kenesary in Central Asian affairs. He emphasized the difference in the approaches of Omsk and Orenburg to the uprising of the Kazakh sultan, who successfully played on the contradictions of the governors. Dobrosmyslov raised the question of the inconsistency of Obruchev's policy regarding the uprising of Kenesary. Although this work was inferior in its informativeness to the publication of Sereda, it became a new stage in the study of the Kenesary uprising and the policy of the Russian authorities. Among the few pre-revolutionary publications about the activities of Kenesary, it is necessary to mention the essay "The Sultans of Kenesary and Syzdyk", written from the words of the son of K. Kasymov, Sultan Akhmet Kenesarin E.T. Smirnov, as well as an article by M.G. Chernyaev in the journal "Russian Messenger" with a review of this book. A. Kenesarin retells the biography and activities of his father, without giving any assessments or analysis of the movement. Nevertheless, this work is of some interest, allowing you to look at the uprising through the eyes of witnesses. In addition to these publications, references to Kenesary are contained in the publication of I. Kazantsev “Description of the Kirghiz-Kaisak” and in the memoirs of the traveler and geographer P.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky. The above works essentially exhaust the study of the problem in pre-revolutionary domestic historiography. The most meaningful and complete studies were the works of N. Sereda and A. Dobrosmyslov, who laid the foundation for further study of the problem by the next generations of researchers. The common point in the works of pre-revolutionary historians was that the Kenesary movement was considered exclusively in the context of the process of consolidating Russian military-political influence in Kazakhstan and Central Asia, and not as a separate phenomenon.
• In Soviet historiography, the subject of national movements of the peoples of Russia in the 20-30s. XX century becomes one of the most popular. The uprisings were mostly viewed as liberation and anti-colonial, the national policy of tsarist Russia was assessed exclusively negatively, from the position of the concept of "absolute evil", put forward by M.N. Pokrovsky. The disadvantage of this approach was that national movements began to be considered one-sidedly, only from certain given positions, as liberation, while at the same time many features of such actions, their direction, specificity, and goals were obscured. However, even during this period there were studies of a certain scientific interest. Among such studies, the works of A.F. Ryazanov. His first work “Orenburg region. Historical essay ", was devoted to the history of the Orenburg region and the political history of the Younger Zhuz. The second - "At the junction of the struggle for the steppe" - the events of 1835-1845, after the creation of the Novolineiny district in the Orenburg department. Ryazanov put into circulation a large number of new documents stored in the archives of Orenburg. The uprising of Kenesary, in his opinion, was a response to the strengthening of Russia's colonial policy in Kazakhstan. He believed that the main goal of Kenesary was the creation of an independent Kazakh khanate within the former possessions of his ancestor Ablai. The main reason for the support of Kenesary by the Kazakhs, according to the author, was the loss of their steppe nomad camps, on which linear fortifications were erected, orders were built, part of the land was transferred to the use of linear residents. The events of the uprising are described by the author only until 1845, while he practically did not touch on the situation on the territory of the West Siberian department. The causes of the uprising, which lie primarily in the reforms of 1822-1824, are superficially revealed. in the Junior and Middle zhuzes. The author passed over in silence such important moments as the amnesty negotiations in 1841, caused by the fact that Kenesary found himself in a difficult situation at that time, and by the fact that he needed a truce with the Russian authorities in order to strike at Kokand. The author did not touch upon the issue of inconsistency between the policies of Perovsky and Gorchakov, which made it possible for Kenesary to maintain the potential of the movement. The positive side of the work is the thorough elaboration of the history of military operations of government units against the adherents of the Sultan. The uprising of Kenesary as a whole was assessed by Ryazanov as anti-colonial, aimed at delaying Russia's advance to the east. The rulers of the Khiva Khanate were interested in supporting the Sultan, who, in his opinion, saw Kenesary as a force capable of resisting Russian influence. Ryazanov's works marked the beginning of the second stage in the study of the uprising of K. Kasymov. Unfortunately, his manuscript "The Rebellion of Kenesary Kasymov 1837-1847" remained unpublished. In 1935, the History of Kazakhstan from Ancient Times was published for the first time, written by S.D. Asfendiarov. The uprising of K. Kasymov was viewed positively by the author as a national liberation struggle of the Kazakhs against the tsarist government. Due to the fact that the policy of the tsarist government towards the peoples inhabiting it was considered extremely negative by Soviet historians at that time, the uprisings of national leaders were generally assessed positively, as a struggle against the colonial policy of tsarism. The movement of K. Kasymov was also assessed in a similar light. A somewhat different assessment of this performance was given by A. Yakunin in the article "The Rebellion of Kenesary Kasymov", published on the pages of the magazine "Bolshevik of Kazakhstan" in 1939. Yakunin adhered to the dominant point of view about Russia's policy in Kazakhstan as a military-colonial one. In this, he saw the main reasons for the protest of the Kazakhs, dissatisfied with the establishment of orders, fortifications in the steppe. He deduced the main reason for the dissatisfaction of the Kasymov clan from the fact that the Russian authorities ignored them, did not put them in the positions of sultans-rulers. Yakunin noted that the policy of Kenesary was quite tough, it was based on methods of violence and terror. The researcher touched upon an important aspect concerning the negotiation processes of the Sultan with the Russian authorities. At the same time, the article did not cover the contradictions between the policies of Perovsky and Gorchakov, which are so important for understanding the reasons for the duration of the uprising. Yakunin's conclusions turned out to be contradictory. He believed that Kenesary, pursuing personal goals, primarily the restoration of the khan's power, could not put forward progressive, popular demands that would unite all Kazakhs, as a result, the Sultan's movement gradually broke away from the masses. Yakunin pointed to the lack of unity among the Kazakh nobility, some of which were in the service of the government. Yakunin assessed the uprising of Kenesary in two ways. He considered progressive in it only that which was aimed at fighting against the military-colonial policy of the Russian authorities in Kazakhstan, but according to the author, it is impossible to call the uprising entirely progressive and revolutionary, because. first of all, he pursued personal, monarchical goals of restoring the khan's power. Despite the fact that Yakunin remained generally still within the framework of the concept of "absolute evil", his merit was that he refused to consider the uprising unilaterally as unambiguously national liberation, trying to identify other features in it, primarily personal motives for the struggle of his leader. Yakunin's article did not go unnoticed by the scientific community. In 1940, the same journal published a response, far from indisputable, article “The struggle of the Kazakhs in 1837-1847. for their independence”, written by N. Timofeev and E. Fedorov. Yakunin was blamed for an incorrect assessment of the Kenesary uprising, as divorced from the masses, not putting forward popular demands and pursuing personal goals. Timofeev and Fedorov outlined their idea of ​​Russia's policy in Kazakhstan as a series of colonial conquests, robberies and violence against the local population of the tsarist authorities in alliance with the Kazakh elite. They presented the performance of the Kasymov clan as a protest against the conquest of Kazakhstan by tsarist Russia, the struggle for the independence of the Kazakh people. The authors also considered Yakunin's conclusion about the lack of mass support for Kenesary from ordinary nomads, who, in their opinion, were also obsessed with the ideas of independence of the Kazakh zhuzes from Russia, also considered incorrect. The proclamation of Kenesary as a khan was portrayed as a forced necessity, important for the unification of the Kazakhs in their attempts to create their own statehood, on the basis of which independence could be defended. Timofeev and Fedorov positively assessed the actions of Kenesary on the territory of the Kyrgyz manaps. The authors believed that the Kyrgyz prevented the unification of the Kazakhs of the Senior Zhuz. Historians generally attributed the death of the Sultan in the fight against the Kirghiz to the intrigues of the tsarist government. The conclusion of the authors was unequivocal: the events of 1837-1847. Timofeev and Fedorov called the war of the Kazakh people against annexation by the tsarist government, for the preservation of their independence. Kenesary became a spokesman for the national interests of the Kazakhs, leading an uprising that had progressive significance. Despite the odious conclusions of the article, in which Russia's policy was viewed extremely negatively, it became a harbinger of discussions in the 1940s and 1950s. about the concept of "absolute evil" and assessments of national movements.
• The development of historical science in the USSR, the publication of generalizing works on the history of the Union republics, including Kazakhstan, raised the study of the problem to a new level. In 1941, through the efforts of M.P. Vyatkin, “Essays on the History of the Kazakh SSR” were published. One of the chapters was entirely devoted to the uprising of Kenesary. Vyatkin took a comprehensive approach to the study of the Sultan's uprising, the origins of which he deduced from the speech of his older brother Sarzhan. He saw the reason for the dissatisfaction of the Kasymovs in their rejection of the reforms of 1822-1824, which limited their influence in the Middle Zhuz. Vyatkin balancedly assessed Russia's policy in Kazakhstan as pragmatic, aimed at observing the interests of the empire. He saw the reasons for the speeches of the Kazakhs not only in the policy of the government, but to a greater extent in the abuses of representatives of the Kazakh nobility who had transferred to the royal service. The author outlined the features of the policy of the Sultan, who, in a difficult situation, negotiated with the authorities, maneuvering between the two governors-general. Vyatkin pointed to the lack of unity during the uprising within the Kazakh society itself, because. Kenesary entered the struggle for the centralization of supreme power in the zhuzes, which caused discontent among some of the Kazakh nobility. He saw the reason for the invasion of Kyrgyzstan in the refusal of the Kyrgyz manaps to support Kenesary in the fight against Kokand. Vyatkin noted that the Kenesary uprising became the largest in Kazakhstan and was anti-colonial, national liberation in nature, aimed at creating its own statehood in the fight against Russia and the Central Asian khanates, but at the same time it did not aim to change the foundations of Kazakh society and alleviate the plight of the working masses. "Essays on the history of Kazakhstan" became an important milestone in the study of the problem. Vyatkin was one of the first to move away from considering Russia's policy in Kazakhstan from the position of the concept of "absolute evil". At this time, the accession of Kazakhstan to Russia and its policy began to be reassessed, the point of view gradually prevailed on the entry of the Kazakh zhuzes into the empire as the "lesser evil".
• The development of historical science in the country did not stop even in wartime. The study of the history of Kazakhstan and the uprising of K. Kasymov continued. In 1942, an article by M.I. Steblin-Kamenskaya "On the history of the uprising of Sultan Kenesary Kasymov". She saw its origins in the adoption in 1822 of the "Charter on the Siberian Kirghiz", which hit the power ambitions of individual sultans, transferring them to the category of officials. She considered the uprising of Kenesary to be a continuation of the movement of his brother Sarzhan, who relied on the support of Kokand. In this, in her opinion, lay the reasons for the lack of support for Sarzhan, because. the policy of the Kokand authorities did not arouse sympathy among the Kazakhs and was assessed by Steblin-Kamenskaya as tougher. The uprising of Kenesary, the author insisted, was directed against colonial oppression, taxation, withdrawal of land pastures, etc. It was emphasized that among the Kazakh clans there was no unanimous support for the Sultan, some clans were in constant conflict with him. The author pointed out that the Sultan used various political methods in relations with the Kazakhs, from persuasion, diplomacy, to threats and blackmail. Interesting were the conclusions that monarchical features were present in the Sultan's uprising, from which she deduced Kenesary's desire for autocracy. In general, the assessment of the goals of the uprising and its nature was different. An attempt to restore the khan's power, a view of the people and nomads as property, were regarded as signs of a monarchist movement. But the whole movement as a whole was characterized as a progressive, national liberation struggle of the Kazakhs against the tsarist government. The positive side of the article was that the author made an attempt to comprehensively cover the uprising of Kenesary, emphasizing its ambiguity. In 1943, a new edition of the History of the Kazakh SSR was published, edited by M. Abdykalykov and A.M. Pankratova. In a review published in the journal "Bolshevik of Kazakhstan", A. M. Pankratova dwelled on the assessments of the uprisings presented in the book. She considered the uprisings of I. Taimanov, K. Kasymov, I. Kotibarov and others to be the struggle of the Kazakhs for independence, against the colonial oppression of Russia and against Kokand domination, which justified the war of the Sultan with the Kyrgyz manaps. The uprising of K. Kasymov stood out especially as the culmination of the national liberation struggle of the Kazakh people. Pankratova characterized Russia's policy in Kazakhstan as aggressive, colonial, which was "absolute evil". The publication in 1943 of the "History of Kazakhstan" and the assessment of the national uprisings and all Russian policy in Kazakhstan caused controversy in academic circles. At the end of May - in July 1944, a meeting of historians was held at the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, where Pankratova raised the issue of covering the tsarist colonial policy. The discussion on this issue was opened by S.K. Bushuev, whose conclusions boiled down to the fact that it is impossible to represent the entire policy of tsarist Russia only in black colors. He spoke negatively about the published "History of the Kazakh SSR", where, in his opinion, national uprisings against Russia are idealized. The essence of the problem was formulated by S.V. Bakhrushin, who stated that in the conditions of the Great Patriotic War the role of the Russian people increased, and from the recognition of their high role the idealization of our entire past began to flow. The academician noted on the example of the voluntary entry into Russia of Ukraine and Georgia that it is impossible to consider all accessions as a “lesser evil”. Another academician I.I. Mintz identified two trends: the first is the idealization of the national liberation struggle, which can also be traced in the History of the Kazakh SSR, the second is the denigration of the past of these peoples. Professor S.P. Tolstoy, highly appreciated the work of Kazakh scientists, but the image of Kenesary, the scientist insisted, was excessively idealized, like the feudal war of conquest portrayed as national liberation. The question raised about how to evaluate the process of joining Russia and the national uprisings caused much controversy. On August 14, 1945, the Central Committee of the Communist Party (b) of Kazakhstan decided to prepare a revised edition of the "History of the Kazakh SSR", because. the previous one was recognized as published with serious ideological errors in covering the history of the Kazakh people. K. Kasimov's speech was officially regarded as feudal-reactionary. The authors were blamed for the idealization and one-sided coverage of the Kenesary uprising, they were required to distinguish between genuine national liberation movements and the internecine struggle of the Kazakh elite. The main conclusion was the need to show not only the colonial policy of tsarism, but also the positive influence of Russia on the economic and cultural development of Kazakhstan, to move away from the idealization of the then existing patriarchal orders, national uprisings, exalting the role of sultans and khans. In March 1945, an article by M. Morozov was published in the Bolshevik magazine. He raised the issue of the nature of the national movements, criticizing the authors of the History of the Kazakh SSR for the fact that they put all armed uprisings in the category of national liberation, declaring their leaders as national heroes. The compilers were blamed for the incorrect assessment of the Kenesary war against the Kirghiz manaps, considering it as a continuation of the war for the liberation of the Kazakhs of the Senior Zhuz. The question of the nature of the uprising of Kenesary Kasymov was not unambiguously resolved, and soon after the publication in 1947 of the monograph by E.B. Bekmakhanov “Kazakhstan in 20-40s. 19th century." put back on the agenda. Bekmakhanov's research has become the most complete on the history of Kazakhstan's political development and national uprisings in that period. The main attention was paid to the uprising of Kenesary Kasymov in 1837-1847. Bekmakhanov introduced new archival materials into scientific circulation and tried to highlight the whole range of problems associated with the speech of Kenesary Kasymov, starting from the origins of its occurrence in the 1920s. 19th century He traced the study of this issue in pre-revolutionary and Soviet historiography. The uprising of Kenesary, according to Bekmakhanov, was of a massive, anti-colonial nature, played a progressive role in the history of Kazakhstan, postponing its colonial enslavement. It was considered by him as an attempt to create Kenesary's own, independent state. The view of accession was twofold. Bekmakhanov considered the entry of Kazakhstan into Russia as a progressive process that led to the emergence of new economic forms of development, but considered his methods unacceptable. In February 1948, in Moscow, at the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences, a discussion of the monograph by E.B. Bekmakhanov, with the participation of such reputable scientists as B.D. Grekov, N.M. Druzhinin, SV. Bakhrushin, M.P. Vyatkin and others. The question of the nature of K. Kasymov's uprising turned out to be at the center of the discussion. How to evaluate it? As a national liberation or considered the struggle of the feudal lords for their privileges? Researchers' opinions are divided. H.G. Aidarova, T. Shoinbaev spoke extremely negatively about the work of Bekmakhanov, recognizing it as idealizing Kenesary. These historians have attributed it to the category of monarchist performances. S.V. Bakhrushin, N.M. Druzhinin quite balancedly assessed the work of Bekmakhanov, noting in it many controversial issues about the goals and nature of the uprising, but in general they positively assessed the work of the author. M.P. Vyatkin, A.F. Yakunin, M.P. Rozhkova also reacted positively to the work of Bekmakhanov, although they noted the author's idealization of the uprising of Kenesary, but assessed it as a progressive, national liberation struggle. Bekmakhanov's monograph caused a lot of controversy and discussion, in June and July 1948 two more discussions took place at the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR and at the Institute of History, Archeology and Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR. Opinions about Bekmakhanov's work were again divided: from recognizing it as politically harmful, distorting historical reality, to positive assessments. The discussion around the question of the nature of the uprising continued. On the pages of the journals "Questions of History" and "Bolshevik of Kazakhstan" in 1949, articles by K. Sharipov about Bekmakhanov's book were published. Sharipov insisted that the movement of the Kazakh sultan cannot be considered unequivocally, as progressive, anti-colonial, national liberation, and exclusively anti-people, reactionary, feudal-monarchical. Until 1846, Sharipov believed, it was an anti-colonial, liberation struggle of the Kazakhs against foreign invaders - Tsarist Russia, Kokand, although, in his opinion, there were negative features in it: the Sultan's desire for autocracy, the incompatibility of the Sultan's goals with the needs of ordinary Kazakhs and etc. The war in Kyrgyzstan was seen as a rebirth of the Kenesary liberation struggle. Bekmakhanov, in his article "Fair Criticism", acknowledged some of Sharipov's remarks regarding the internal contradictions in the uprising of K. Kasymov between the interests and goals of the Sultan and the ordinary mass of nomads. He combined the struggle of the Kazakhs with the struggle of the Russian people against serfdom (which looks naive and erroneous), therefore he considered it progressive, mass, and of a liberating character. The question of the nature of the uprising began to be considered in the plane of the progressiveness of the annexation of Kazakhstan to Russia. The recognition of the uprising as exclusively anti-colonial, national liberation, thus denied the progressiveness of the annexation. Proceeding from this, Bekmakhanov proposed to consider the uprising of Kenesary not as a struggle against joining Russia, but as a resistance to tsarism. Release in 1949 of the second edition of the History of the Kazakh SSR, edited by I.O. Omarova and A.M. Pankratova again provoked a heated discussion. Bekmakhanov defended in it the previous assessments of the Kenesary uprising. The answer to his position was a sharp article by T. Shoinbaev, Kh. Aidarova and A. Yakunin, published on December 26, 1950 in the Pravda newspaper, entitled "For Marxist-Leninist coverage of issues of the history of Kazakhstan" . The authors attacked Bekmakhanov with devastating criticism. They assessed the uprising as reactionary, monarchist, aimed at restoring the khan's power and preserving the medieval order, as well as at separating the Kazakh zhuzes from Russia. A few months later, Bekmakhanov's work was severely criticized on the pages of the Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR. The author's theory was recognized as distorting historical reality, bourgeois-nationalist, exalting the monarchical performance of Kenesary, sticking out only the negative aspects of Kazakhstan's accession to Russia, etc. Under the pressure of criticism, Bekmakhanov was forced to admit the mistakes attributed to him. In October 1951, he was undeservedly deprived of his academic degrees and titles and fired from the Academy of Sciences. In September 1952, E.B. Bekmakhanov was arrested, but a year later he was released, the case against him was closed, the scientist was reinstated in his work and in his ranks. The debate around Bekmakhanov's concept showed how acute and politicized the question of the nature of national uprisings was.
• A discussion on the question of the progressiveness of joining the national outskirts of Russia unfolded on the pages of Voprosy istorii in the early 1950s. It was about how the formula "lesser evil" corresponds to the consequences of the entry of non-Russian peoples into Russia. It was recognized that assessments of joining Russia based on this concept do not fully reflect the complexity of this process, and it cannot be applied mechanically, universally to the entire history of Russia. An example was the voluntary entry into Russia of the Ukrainian, Belarusian, Georgian peoples. Many national movements began to be characterized from new positions, some began to be classified as feudal-monarchical, others as progressive. In the 50-80s. 20th century assessments of the uprising of K. Kasymov as a reactionary-monarchist did not change. The topic has become unpopular. No special work has been published. The problems of the Kenesary uprising were touched upon only in general works devoted to the history of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The “History of the Kazakh SSR”, published in 1957, was again republished; the uprising of Kenesary was considered in it as feudal-monarchical. In the same year, a monograph by E.B. Bekmakhanov "Accession of Kazakhstan to Russia". The fourth chapter of the book was devoted to the national movements in Kazakhstan and was called "The reactionary essence of the feudal-monarchist movements in Kazakhstan." The author saw the reasons for the uprising in the introduction of the reforms of 1822 and 1824, which undermined the positions of the Kazakh nobility and abolished the khan's power, as well as in the construction of military lines, fortifications, in the loss of pastures by the Kazakhs, in the arbitrariness of the administration. The speeches of the Kasymov clan were assessed as an anti-people struggle of representatives of the Kazakh nobility for lost positions. It was emphasized that the activities of the Sultan interfered with the unity of the Kazakh and Russian people. The "History of Kyrgyzstan" contains similar assessments. In the works of the Kyrgyz scientist B.D. Dzhamgerchinov, a significant place was given to the final stage of the Kenesary uprising, which degenerated into a war on the territory of Kyrgyzstan. These were, perhaps, the only studies that supplemented the picture of the Sultan's movement at the final stage with new interesting facts. This stage of the uprising was called the predatory war of Kenesary, who sought to profit from the ruin of the Kyrgyz people.
• In the second half of the 70s. A five-volume edition of the History of the Kazakh SSR appeared. The 3rd volume of the publication (1979) gives the former, exclusively negative assessments of the Kenesary uprising. It was characterized as monarchical, aimed at restoring the khan's power. The sultan's regime was seen as despotic, it was emphasized that joining the rebellion of the broad masses often took place through blackmail and threats. All the works of this period spoke of Khiva's interest in supporting the Sultan's speech, which they wanted to direct against Russia. Similar assessments are contained in the book by T.Zh. Shoinbaev "Voluntary entry of Kazakh lands into Russia" .
• From the end of the 80s. in the scientific circles of Kazakhstan, the topic of national movements is becoming relevant. A.M. spoke about them again on the pages of the journal Questions of History (1988, No. 11). Pankratov, where she covered the discussion of the 40s. about the progressiveness of the accession of the national outskirts to Russia.
• In July 1990, an all-Union scientific conference was held in Kazakhstan called "National Movements in the Conditions of Colonialism". In the opening speech of M.K. Kozybaev expressed an opinion about the incorrect characterization of the uprising of K. Kasymov as feudal-monarchical. In the speeches of Kazakh scientists, the idea of ​​the need to reassess national movements and revise the process of Kazakhstan's accession to Russia was traced. The conference became a harbinger of a new stage in the interpretation of the Kenesary uprising. In the early 90s. materials began to appear, articles devoted to the uprising of the Sultan, in which other assessments were already sounded.

Analysis of the evaluation of the movement of Kenesary Kasymov in modern Kazakhstani historiography

The collapse of the USSR and the formation of new independent states in its place had a huge impact on historical science in Russia and in the former Soviet republics, including the Republic of Kazakhstan. In Kazakh historiography, there was a sharp change in the historical paradigm, new approaches began to form in covering the entire history of the Kazakh people and their relations with Russia. The emergence of Kazakhstan on the world political stage as an independent subject of international relations put on the agenda the issue of creating its own history, proclaiming official national heroes. Unfortunately, despite the centuries-old ties between the Russian and Kazakh peoples, a negative assessment of the role of Russia in the fate of Kazakhstan has prevailed in modern Kazakh historical science. Russia is portrayed as the enslaver of the Kazakhs, and the Russians as colonizers who destroyed the traditional way of the nomadic society, etc. Such an interpretation of Russian-Kazakh relations by Kazakh historians does not contribute to the creation of an objective picture of the past, giving rise to mutual hostility between peoples. In modern Kazakh historiography, a course has been taken for the all-round exaltation and praise of the activities of the Sultan, important moments of the uprising are omitted and hushed up, incl. relations between Kenesary and the Russian authorities. The modern stage is a reassessment of the uprising by Kazakh historiography based on a new concept of the history of Kazakhstan. In modern Kazakh historiography, the assessments of the uprising of Kenesary Kasymov, as well as the entire period of Russian-Kazakh relations in the 18th-19th centuries, have changed dramatically. This is explained by the nationalist policy pursued by the ruling regime in relation to non-titular peoples, and the service of this policy by modern Kazakh historical science. Now we are talking only about the forcible conquest of Kazakhstan by Russia, without sufficient grounds the objectively positive aspects of Russia's interaction with the Kazakh zhuzes are being ignored. One of the strange features of modern Kazakh historiography is that the focus is not on further in-depth study of the problems of the uprising, but on its reassessment.

• A characteristic illustration of new approaches to the study of national movements was the article by A.K. Bisenbaeva "To the question of the study of national liberation movements of the XIX-XX centuries." , which completely distorts the history of relations between Kazakhstan and Russia. The author puts Russia's policy on a par with the activities of Kokand, Khiva, depicting it as a ruthless predator, pitting Kazakhs against neighboring peoples. He claims that the uprising was caused by the threat of losing the state and territorial integrity of Kazakhstan. What kind of integrity we are talking about, however, is not entirely clear. Bisenbaev considers the abolition of the khan's power to be the collapse of the foundations of the Kazakh world outlook. The author insists that Kenesary stood up to protect the interests of the people, in whose eyes the khan's power was associated with the idea of ​​a national state. Many of the assessments of this article do not stand up to elementary criticism, but they find their ardent supporters in Kazakhstan. The popular science work of K. Daniyarov “Kazakh states of the XV-XX centuries” can be attributed to the same category, which generally looks absurd in terms of the facts and conclusions presented, the author makes many mistakes, confuses and falsifies facts.
• In 1992, the 200th anniversary of the birth of K. Kasymov was widely celebrated in Kazakhstan. By this date, the publication of a number of articles in periodicals devoted to the biography and activities of the Sultan in the newspapers Stepnoy Mayak, Turgayskaya Nov, Kazakhstanskaya Pravda, Horizont was timed to coincide. For example, in the article by N. Kenzhebaev and A. Bisenbaev "Khan Kene", the authors emphasize the nationwide, liberation nature of the Sultan's uprising, calling it a war against the colonialists, which restored Kazakh statehood. Similar content and article by K. Yelemesov "Knight of Freedom". He explains the invasion of Kenesary into the nomad camps of the Kyrgyz by the good intentions of the Sultan to fight against the Kokand domination, and the conflict with the Kyrgyz was allegedly provoked by the Kyrgyz manaps at the suggestion of the tsarist authorities. The publication of N. Baiksheev, T. Zholbaskanov "Knight of Freedom of the Kazakh Steppe" analyzes the driving forces of the uprising, the goals of the Sultan, emphasizes, as in most other articles, the direction of the struggle against tsarism, and not against the relationship between the Russian and Kazakh peoples. At the same time, the analysis of the reasons and the purpose of Kenesary's coming to the lands of the Kirghiz is kept silent and is not given.
• The interpretation of the uprising of Kenesary Kasymov in the collective work of Kazakh scientists “History of Kazakhstan”, published in 1993, looks odious, in which this movement is presented as “a nationwide, anti-colonial struggle of the Kazakh people”, and the leader of the uprising, Kenesary Kasymov, as a national hero. The authors of the “History of Kazakhstan” prefer to see in him not a despot who seeks to preserve the khan’s power by any means, up to the destruction of individual Kazakh rulers who are rebellious to him, calling these acts only “outbursts of anger”, but a “clever, peculiar politician” who advocates “restoring the integrity territorial limits of Kazakhstan in the time of Ablai.
• N. Zharmagambetov's article "The Last Khan" is distinguished by some objectivity. He analyzes the policy of the Sultan, the reasons for the defeat of the uprising, deriving them from Kenesary's lack of understanding of the changes that have taken place in relations between the Kazakh zhuzes and Russia since the time of Ablai. He considers the attacks on peaceful villages to be a major political miscalculation of Kenesary, for refusing to join the uprising. Comparing him with Ablai, he believes that the Sultan was more of a commander than a politician, whose emotions often took precedence over reason. Dozens more articles on Kenesary can be cited, where mainly politicized official assessments are repeated. In addition to numerous popular science articles, many Kazakh researchers began to show interest in the problems of the Kenesary uprising. But no general work on this issue until the end of the 90s. was not released. Everything was limited to fragmentary articles in periodicals, sections in books and textbooks devoted to national movements. M.J. Abdirov studied the military tactics of Kenesary, the actions of the Cossack troops, but at the same time he relied on facts already known to everyone, only the conclusions about the uprising were new. The author, under the pseudonym K. Stepnyak, in his article presented one of the versions of the death of Kenesary in Kyrgyzstan. The topic of the Sultan's speech is touched upon by other authors in articles, textbooks, etc.
• In the third volume of the newest edition of the “History of Kazakhstan (from ancient times to the present day)”, in the chapter entitled “National liberation struggle of the Kazakhs against the establishment of Russian colonial domination in the 20-40s of the XX century”, written by Zh.K. Kasymbaev, highlights the performance of Kenesary. The uprising is presented as a struggle of the Kazakh people against the colonial policy of Russia. In addition to factual shortcomings, as the dating of the beginning of the speech (the author begins it from 1838, and not from 1837), many fundamental moments of the uprising are omitted and hushed up. Nothing is said about the correspondence of Kenesary with the Orenburg governor Perovsky, G.F. Gens and about his numerous requests, about “applying” for a pardon for him, about his maneuvering between V.A. Perovsky and Siberian governor P.D. Gorchakov. The conclusion of the author that Kenesary allegedly created a certain traditional state, a sign of which he saw in tax collection, does not correspond to historical facts, but, however, it was not systematic and orderly, but collected from case to case. The fact that Kenesary “battled” with a detachment of military foreman Lebedev on August 7, 1843 is generally puzzling. In fact, and this is a well-known fact, Lebedev never clashed with Kenesary, limiting himself to negotiations.
• The works of such authors as V.Z. Galiev and A.Kh. Kasymzhanov. Galiev takes a deeper and more detailed approach to the study of the Kenesary uprising. In his article, he highlights the special attitude of the Russian authorities towards the personality of the Sultan, who saw in him not just a robber, but a person pursuing political goals. He recognized the Sultan's mistake as attacks on the villages that refused to join him, as well as conflicts with the Nazarovs, Shektins, Yapassians, and Kipchaks. Although V.Z. Galiev believes that the sultan did not see any other means for himself in those conditions. Galiyev noted that during the uprising, the actions of Kenesary increasingly diverged from his slogans, because. the sultan sought to strengthen his personal power. OH. Kasymzhanov in the book “Portraits. Strokes to the history of the Steppe” tried to explore the personality of the Sultan from different angles. He emphasized the rigidity and despotism of the policy of Kenesary, who considered the Kazakh zhuzes to be his hereditary heritage. In this he sees the reason for the speeches of some Kazakh clans against him. Both authors share the thesis about the national liberation nature of the uprising, recognizing it as a just protest against the colonial expansion of Russia, Kokand and Khiva and aimed at recreating the Kazakh statehood.
• Trud N.A. Kenesarina "On the activities of Kenesary Khan", differs from others in that her work is an analysis of documents published in the collection "National Liberation Struggle of the Kazakh people led by Kenesary Kasymov." The author often unreasonably gives negative assessments of the activities of the authorities and those held by them in the service of the Kazakh sultans, biys. At the same time, he strongly emphasizes the merits of Kenesary in the fight against the "Russian colonizers". It can be said that all of the above authors limited themselves to repeating long-known facts, focusing all their attention on the national liberation nature of the uprising and on the distortion of politics Russia in Kazakhstan From the point of view of the scientific development of the problem of the Kasymov uprising, it did not expand, all the main attention was paid only to reassessing Russia's policy in Kazakhstan and the nature of the Kenesary uprising.
• The works of Kh.A. are devoted to the uprising of Kenesary. Aubakirova and Zh.D. Kusainova. HA. Aubakirova in her dissertation "The participation of the Siberian Cossacks in the suppression of the national liberation movement of the Kazakh people under the leadership of the sultans Sarzhan and Kenesary Kasymov 1824-1847" in the chapter on the uprising of Kenesary, emphasizes its anti-colonial, liberation character. The author believes that "material allowance, stolen by the Cossacks from peaceful villages, gave rise to well-fed allowance in the Cossack environment, overshadowed the main goal - the elimination of the leader of the national liberation movement" . Thus, according to Aubakirova, all the actions of the Cossack troops are reduced to a banal robbery. The author idealizes the actions of K. Kasymov in Kyrgyzstan, where he distinguished himself with particular cruelty towards the local population. She sees the reason for his death in the "treacherous betrayal of Asian neighbors." Summing up, Aubakirova insists that the Kenesary uprising became an obstacle to Russia's advance into Central Asia.
• In 2002, the dissertation of Zh.D. Kusainova "Historiography of the national liberation movement led by Kenesary Kasymov (1837-1847)". This is an attempt to summarize the study of the uprising in pre-revolutionary, Soviet, modern Kazakh and foreign historiography. However, the author's assessments are in line with modern politicized official interpretations. The main enemy of the Kazakhs, she believes, was tsarism, which sought to colonize Kazakhstan.
• In foreign historical science, little attention was paid to the uprising of Kenesary only within the framework of studying the imperial policy of Russia. The most famous is the work of the German researcher E. Sarkisyants "History of the Eastern peoples of Russia until 1917". It was not specifically devoted to the performance of Kenesary, but only emphasized the colonial orientation of Russia's policy towards the peoples inhabiting it. An analysis of foreign works on these issues has already been carried out in the works of historiographers K.L. Esmagambetova, M.T. Laumulina, Zh.D. Kusainova, so there is no need to repeat it.

Kenesary in art

• The Kazakh writer Ilyas Esenberlin in 1969 wrote the novel "Khan Kene" about him (the third part of the trilogy "Nomads").
• In 2001, an equestrian monument to Kenesary Khan by Shot-Aman Valikhanov was erected in Astana on the banks of the Ishim River.
• In 2008, Kazpost issued a postage stamp with a face value of 25 tenge "Portrait of Kenesary" by the artist Abylkhan Kasteev.
• In the book of the historian A.F. Dubitsky "Let's walk through the streets of Tselinograd" (the book was based on the information he collected over many years of research work and already partially published on the pages of the newspaper "Tselinogradskaya Pravda" for 1987-1989 under the general title "Walk through the streets Tselinograd ... ") describes the six-day siege of the Akmola garrison by thousands of armed horsemen, led by Kenesara Kasymov, which ended in failure, which refutes the fiction of fiction books about the capture and burning of the Akmola order (for example, I. Esenberlin's novel "Khan Kene" (Soviet writer, 1971 .), in which the Akmola "fortress" and the finale of the attack are presented to the reader in a "colorful" form, the garrison itself is described: "Five fathoms of the height of its wall (count ten and a half meters) ... And behind the walls of a cannon, a gun, a half-thousand garrison. .) "These fabrications have nothing in common with what actually happened. Of course, when creating a work of art, the writer has the right to use the author's conjecture, but not to the same extent. Especially when it comes to specific events, places and people. The focus of the appeal to the facts lies in the fact that Akmolinsk was neither burned nor destroyed at all by the Khan of Kenesary. He wasn't even captured by him. Moreover, none of its defenders were injured during the assault. In this case, it is necessary to say at least the following. Firstly, at that moment there was no fortress as such (and even with walls more than ten meters high!) On Karautkul, there were only scattered, unprotected barracks. Secondly, despite the very large preponderance, as archival documents irrefutably testify, the Kenesaryn people could not take the Akmola order, they did not destroy or burn the buildings defended by the Cossacks, except for Slobodka, which stood at a distance of five houses. This is confirmed by the recently demolished barracks on Krasnoarmeyskaya Street, which has been preserved in its original form to this day. Thirdly, the construction of the fortress here began only in the following year, 1839. To begin with, the order was surrounded by a werk (shaft), and in 1840 the rest of the fortification work was completed. And no walls. It was a typical closed field fortification, consisting of an earthen rampart and a sloping ditch. The garrison of the order consisted of 80 combatant Cossacks, not counting military and civil officials. ... on the seventh day, having not achieved success, Kenesary was forced to retreat. During the retreat, he captured all the cattle grazing in the steppe from the Akmola people, simultaneously ruining the nearest Kazakh villages, which for some reason did not want to support him. About 12,000 horses were stolen from the senior sultan Konurkuldzhi Khudameydin and his relatives alone. During the hostilities, Slobodka burned down - a civilian settlement of five wooden houses, which stood on the outskirts and was actually not protected by anyone. With the advent of danger, the inhabitants of Slobodka managed to run across to the barracks under the cover of a Cossack detachment.