M. Shokai’s Thoughts on the Socio-Historical Situation in Turkestan at the Beginning of the 20th Century and State Structure According to Civil Society in Future Turkestan

We have stated that the Alash leaders welcomed the February Revolution in Russia with great hope that it would bring freedom to the indigenous nations, including the people of Turkestan. This was because the revolution abolished tsarist rule and the monarchy. Russian democratic parties – Kadets, right-wing and left-wing socialists, etc. – envisioned the future of Russia in the form of a federal democratic republic. That is, they thought that Russians and other peoples within the Russian Empire could form their own republics and be equal members of the federation. Russian democrats, true to their name, were positive about the idea of equality of peoples. This was especially emphasized in the speeches of political figures like A. F. Kerensky and P. N. Milyukov from the Duma platforms.

It was not without reason that the democrats who came to power as a result of the February Revolution called the government they formed temporary. From their perspective, the power did not come with the will of the overwhelming majority of the people; it was only the result of the upheaval in the capital. Therefore, since the established government could not express the will of the entire nation, its task was considered to be the preparation and holding of elections for the Constituent Assembly (Parliament), which could be the only legitimate form of power. Only the elected deputies of the Constituent Assembly could be the true authority representing the will of the people, and only they would elect the executive body – the government. This first parliament in Russian history, elected democratically under conditions of general equality, was forcibly dissolved by the Bolshevik leader Lenin, who seized power in October. Prior to that, the idea of the Constituent Assembly had been supported by Lenin himself, that is, by the Bolsheviks. But the Bolsheviks failed to secure a majority of the elected deputies in the Constituent Assembly. In other words, the legally elected body of the Russian people was forcibly dissolved by the Bolsheviks, who had come to power only through the armed uprising of a small group of the population – factory workers. Among the deputies elected to this Constituent Assembly were representatives of the Turkestan peoples. Mustafa Shokai was one of them. This was the most striking fact that clearly showed, even to those unfamiliar with their theoretical principles, that the Bolsheviks were an anti-democratic force.

In terms of his overall worldview and fundamental political ideals, M. Shokai was, of course, close to the leaders of the Alash movement. This was especially consistent with the socio-political stance of A. Bukeikhanov. Nevertheless, their views diverged on one major issue. First and foremost, M. Shokai regarded the Turkic peoples inhabiting Central Asia, and even beyond, not as different peoples, but as different parts of one people, i.e., individual ethnonyms belonging to one nation. Therefore, he considered it right that the entire Turkestan, inhabited by the Turkic people, should be one autonomy. In his view, this, of course, included the Kazakhs. Only when all Turkic ethnonyms inhabiting Central Asia – Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz, Turkmen, etc. – were united could they form a powerful state. Their cultural, spiritual, and other roots are one. “In the history of the Turkestan national movement, the first division of the movement was allowed between Mustafa Shokai and his Alashorda friends. M. Shokai not only laid the theoretical foundation of the national movement but also determined the place of emigration in the national movement,” writes B. Sadykova /14/.

But the majority of Alash leaders, led by A. Bukeikhanov, were against this idea. Their arguments also seemed to be well-founded. This is a topic that requires sober analysis on its own. According to A. Bukeikhanov, if we – the Kazakhs – are so short of educated, enlightened citizens, i.e., necessary personnel, in Uzbekistan, for example, there are ten times fewer compared to us. Moreover, the broad masses there are under the influence of religious figures. Therefore, according to his reasoning, where would such a union lead us? This dispute, however, did not break their relationship. M. Shokai was also involved in the affairs of establishing the Kazakh autonomy amidst the complex activities aimed at establishing the Turkestan Autonomy. “We have no information as to which side Shokai supported in the heated discussions regarding the timing of the autonomy declaration. But judging by the fact that he acted as a mediator between the two sides, we can say that he maintained a neutral position,” says Abduvakap Kara.

The Turkestan Autonomy is a part of Alash. It is wrong to view it separately. Because it was Alikhan Bukeikhan who sent Mustafa Shokai to Turkestan. The first leader of the Turkestan Autonomy, Mukhamedzhan Tynyshbayuly, was an Alash activist, and the second and last president, Mustafa Shokai, was an Alash activist. In general, at that time, the Kazakhs of Syr Darya within the Turkestan Autonomy constituted more than half of the total Kazakh population. The Alash leaders could not remain indifferent to their fate. Turkestan and Alashtorda were independent governments from each other. They did not emerge simultaneously in connection with each other. They arose independently, unaware of each other. But both were the two arms of Alash. Ultimately, they were two separate branches of the Alash movement. Later, after the Bolsheviks overthrew both, Mustafa Shokai from the Turkestan Autonomy, Ghubaidolla Kozha, Zaki Validi Togan from the Bashkurt government, and Alikhan Bukeikhan, Akhmet Baitursynuly, Mirzhakyp Dulatuly from the Alashtorda government met in Orenburg and formed a new union. It was called the “Union of Autonomous Muslim Regions of Southeast Russia.”

“The idea of Turkism must have come into existence from the goal of the Turkic tribes jointly protecting their common national interests during the cold war with external enemies. This process, as the evidence shows, was already underway during the Xiongnu, Wusun, and Kangly periods. But its formation as a comprehensive concept and worldview, according to experts, coincides with the period of the VI-VIII centuries, the establishment of the first Turkic state, which arose on the basis of general Turkic interests” /15/.

According to Bolshevik theory, classes and the state were to disappear in the future. Even nations, and consequently national languages, which appear more stable than these, would also disappear. It is probable that only one people, or one nation, and one language would remain in the whole world. And so it will be. The one and only enemy of the established or forming proletariat class of every people and nation is the bourgeoisie, the dominant class, of its own nation. That is, the unity of the people itself is composed of enemy classes that cannot exist without each other. The proletariat would also destroy itself as a class by achieving a classless society.

But all these ideas were subject to changes in content and form depending on the changing circumstances in every period. In other words, as circumstances proved the falsehood of those ideas, the Bolshevik leaders were constantly patching them up in an effort to save their positions. For example, it is known that the idea of a worldwide proletarian revolution was in such a state. Marx and Engels claimed that the proletarian, socialist revolution would begin in countries with the most highly developed industry, but Lenin claimed that it could succeed even in the weakest link of imperialism. And that weak link was Russia, where capitalist industry was just emerging, and the proletariat had not yet fully formed. It was known from the beginning that the dictatorship of the proletariat in a country where the overwhelming majority of the population were peasants could only be established and maintained by armed force. The totalitarian nature of the Bolsheviks in theory became even more evident in their actions after coming to power.

M. Shokai aimed to expose the anti-democratic essence of the Bolsheviks’ actions, primarily their totalitarian oppression, in his articles in “Yash Turkistan” and other publications. The Bolsheviks, for example, not only directly contributed to the organization of communist and left-wing forces in many countries but also directly managed those affairs, inciting internal unrest and striving to weaken their internal unity. It is also known that they financed communist and left-wing parties abroad. The Bolsheviks did not abandon the goal of a world revolution, which was to lead to the domination of left-wing forces constituting a small part of the population in many countries, until their final collapse /16/.

Moreover, M. Shokai understood the totalitarian, and even extremist, meaning of Bolshevism earlier than others. He closely monitored how the overall conceptual stances of the Bolshevik leaders, especially their principles concerning the national question, changed and fluctuated. In the understanding of the Bolshevik leaders, the striving for national autonomy was dangerous for the unity of the proletariat of all peoples, i.e., it was contradictory and weakened the proletarian struggle. Therefore, national autonomy or self-determination was something that could only be used as a temporary slogan, depending on the circumstances in the proletariat’s struggle for victory. From the perspective of the ultimate goals of the proletariat, the existence of nations as separate independent states was unnecessary, even harmful.

When M. Shokai met with N. Chkheidze, who was the chairman of the Petersburg Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, in the summer of 1917 and asked him how he viewed Turkestan becoming an autonomy, Chkheidze warned him that it would be better not to raise such an issue. He wrote that the violence committed against the local Turkestan population by the Tashkent Soviet of Railway Workers and Soldiers, which had seized power even before the upheaval in Petersburg, completely eclipsed the atrocities of the tsarist era. He wrote that at the III Congress of Turkestan Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies in Tashkent in 1917, the Bolsheviks, who had already seized power in the region, passed a resolution not to allow Turkestanis to participate in the governing bodies. This meant their own acknowledgment that establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat in a country without a single proletariat was tantamount to denying the sovereign rights of the people of that country.

At a certain point, the Bolsheviks who led the Tashkent Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies invited M. Shokai to their organization and even offered him to lead the Soviet. But M. Shokai, who was well aware of the Bolsheviks’ attitude towards the people of Turkestan, refused and devoted all his energy to establishing the Turkestan Autonomy. “Within a short time, thanks to M. Shokai’s persistence and organizational ability, the overwhelming majority of the Turkestan people rallied around the idea of autonomy and rose to defend their national interests” /17/. That is, the uncompromising struggle against the Bolsheviks began from the period when M. Shokai established the Turkestan Autonomy in Kokand. And this conflict was not limited only to political issues; in many cases, it also encompassed ideological, philosophical, cultural, and spiritual foundations. And these issues revolved around freedom, democracy, civil rights of people, the right of peoples and nations to self-determination, equality, and justice, etc. These were the most critical topics of the “Yash Turkistan” journal (1929-39) he edited.

The theme of national independence is the ultimate goal that all his discussed conclusions inevitably lead to. And the core of his thought is, conversely, that the force which unites the nation internally is the unity of spiritual intelligence inherent in all groups and individual members of the nation. But what kind of unity is that? He constantly stresses when discussing this topic that neither economic nor political unity can lead to long-lasting historical cohesion unless they draw nourishment from spiritual integrity. He also notes that since his articles are dedicated to defining certain specific political and practical issues, he cannot dwell on revealing their philosophical and scientific meaning. The fact that such a meaning exists and that he relies on it is also beyond doubt. What could that meaning be, in our opinion?

“…Mustafa Shokai’s activity was not limited to waging an ideological struggle with the Soviets. He was not only an active political figure but also a scholar who conducted scientific research related to the history of Turkestan” /18/. As mentioned earlier, M. Shokai was well acquainted with classical German philosophy, especially the writings of I. Kant on the people and the nation. The basis for concluding this is M. Shokai’s reference to the thoughts of I. Kant and Fichte on this matter. And in those references, he treats Kant’s and Fichte’s definition, which showed the difference between the people and the nation, as a clear, undisputed principle. Although he does not provide an analysis in that definition, his subsequent thoughts in the analysis of the concept of the “national intellectual” are based on this definition. Because for the national intelligentsia to raise the people to the level of a nation, they must also possess the common consciousness inherent in their nation, or in the case of Turkestanis, the “Eastern mind,” the “Eastern spirit.” Without it, they remain alien to their own people. In his opinion, the tragedy of becoming alienated in this way occurred in the life of Shokan Valikhanov. At the same time, he says, “the political and social masses that have become a nation without their own intellectuals have never existed” /18, p. 176/.

The basis behind this spiritual alienation from one’s own people, this having a common spirit and consciousness, which he refers to, is what Kant called the idea of the good (idea blaga) that brings the various aspects of every person’s inner world into a single whole. That idea of the good is also inherent in the people. Regardless of how each person and the people understand that good, or where they see it, that idea, independently, can be the nucleus that unites the entire spiritual world of people into a whole. F. Nietzsche later called this cosmological values. These words indicate that M. Shokai was well acquainted with the works of F. Nietzsche.

Of course, Shokai, who spent his life fighting for the freedom and independence of his people, could not agree with Nietzsche’s stance, which regarded the people as a mob, a collection of the degenerate, the wretched, and the defeated, and assessed humanity as merely a means, not an end. Therefore, he contrasted Farabi’s view, which held humanity as an end, with Nietzsche’s idea of the “superman” (übermensch). At the same time, M. Shokai’s entire life path and its values do not align with the principle that elevates the constant striving for power, superiority, domination—in short, the will to power (in Nietzsche’s terminology)—to the level of the fundamental law of the universe.

From this perspective, M. Shokai’s ultimate life value, its fundamental essence, can be said to be freedom, or more precisely, national freedom. And the practical organizational form of national freedom is an independent national state.

Of course, the inequalities of nations are undoubtedly reflected in interstate relations. But the equality and inequality in the relations between nations that have separated into states are much clearer than in the interethnic relations within a single state, because their territorial, economic, cultural, and especially political boundaries are clearly demarcated. In this latter case, nations should interact as international individuals, i.e., as complete entities with other such entities.

M. Shokai’s attitude towards humanity and the people is clearly visible in what he said regarding Al-Farabi’s view on the genesis of society. “Farabi’s thoughts on the origin of human society were recounted many centuries later in J. J. Rousseau’s work “Contrat social”… Baron Carra de Vaux wrote, ‘In the ‘City Model’, there are thoughts that bear a surprising resemblance to some of Nietzsche’s recent concepts, namely regarding the role of force and power in society.’ But,” writes M. Shokai, “Farabi’s attitude towards force and violence and his assessment of their role in society are different, even opposite, to the German philosopher’s view. If for Nietzsche, good is what ensures the dominance of the upper caste over the lower, of the ‘superman’ over ordinary people, for Farabi, violence and force are the disease of evil in human philosophy, and the author of the ‘Perfect City’ spoke about this in the chapter about ‘Imperfect Cities'” /19/.

The idea of national independence is discussed not only in its state-political sense but also in its general metaphysical and philosophical content. This aspect of the idea often appears as the underlying fundamental meaning when discussing specific political and social issues. But on one occasion, he spoke directly about this. The striving for national independence and freedom, he says, is something that will inevitably happen, like a law of nature, when favourable conditions arise. That is, even if it is suppressed and crushed, that striving is a phenomenon that will never be extinguished. In connection with this, his thoughts on freedom, democracy, and independence are clearly consonant with the views of Rousseau, Kant, and Fichte. The evidence for this is his references to the sayings of these thinkers. He showed that his position was opposed to Nietzsche’s concept of the people, which justified and rationalized the dominance of the “Superman” over them.

It was impossible for M. Shokai to hold a different view. His thoughts in this direction, and all his past experience, led him to the conclusion that the path of autonomy was a false path, especially for the Turkestan national liberation movement. Because autonomy within a state like Russia merely solidifies the false illusion of national autonomy and weakens the nation’s ardent desire for independence. Therefore, for a dependent nation, the only true path from the beginning is the struggle to establish an independent national state.