Intellectuality and the National Intellectual

Mustafa Shokaiuly’s active public service coincided with the first half of the 20th century—a historical period when the peoples of Turkestan rose up in the struggle for their state independence against the colonial policy of the Russian Empire, and were ultimately defeated. Therefore, his stance and conclusions regarding intellectuality and the national intellectual can only be accurately understood and evaluated within the context of the public processes of this historical period. Additionally, it should be noted that M. Shokai approached this topic from the perspective of the leader of the Turkestan national liberation movement in exile, meaning he considered the issue of the intelligentsia from the standpoint of the practical and strategic tasks of the national liberation movement. M. Shokai continually returned to this topic in his works. Nevertheless, to accurately understand M. Shokai’s position on this issue, it is worth highlighting the theoretical and methodological significance of his works such as “The National Intellectual,” “On the National Intellectual,” “Yusuf Akchura” /3/, and “From the Memoirs of 1917” /4/.

In his works, M. Shokai frequently uses the words “ziyaly,” and “ziyalylar” as the Kazakh equivalents of the Russian word “intelligentsia.” The word “ziyaly” is Arabic /5/. It means an educated, knowledgeable citizen. In terms of meaning, it is close to the Russian word “intelligent” (intellectual). However, the Russian word “intelligentsia” carries a social burden. It primarily refers to a social force recognized through its place and stance in public life. The European origin of this word acquired an independent content and character in the Russian reality of the 19th and 20th centuries. According to Russian researchers, the actual activity of the Russian intelligentsia as a social force occurred between the 1860s and the 1920s /6/. During this historical period, it went through stages of growth, differentiation, and crisis, and was marginalized from its former active public service under the socialist society. At the peak of its active service, it was recognized as the “triad” (people – power – intelligentsia) in society. In M. Shokai’s conclusions regarding intellectuality, whose worldview was shaped by the Russian reality, it is impossible, of course, to overlook the influence of the positions and opinions within Russian society. At the same time, it is undeniable that the analysis of the intelligentsia’s activity is based on the Turkestani life of that historical period.

In M. Shokai’s understanding, “intellectuality” is a specific historical phenomenon. In other words, the activity of the national intellectual gains significance only when it is in alignment and harmony with the interests of its country in the historical period it lives in. Similarly, “the unity of the political, social populace that has become a nation without the intelligentsia has never existed” /3, p. 176/. That is, nation and intelligentsia are organically connected social phenomena that cannot exist without each other. Here, the following point should be taken into account: M. Shokai was the only researcher who freely analysed the path taken by the intelligentsia and their experience after the historical changes of 1917 in the Russian Empire and the radical Soviet reform measures carried out in the 1920s and 30s that followed. It should also be emphasized that he performed this task with a high degree of fidelity and integrity.

In his article titled “The National Intellectual,” M. Shokai provides the following definition for the concept of “ziyaly” (intellectual/intelligentsia): “Who do we call the national intellectual? Although it seems easy at first glance, it is not easy to answer this question correctly in reality. If we think that every educated, well-brought-up person can be called an intellectual and be included in the ranks of the ‘national intellectual’ of the nation they belong to, we are undoubtedly mistaken. In our view, only scholars who pursue specific ideals and goals, and who are gathered around those specific ideals and goals, can be called intellectuals. Only individuals who can selflessly serve the political, economic, and social development of their own people can enter the ranks of the national intelligentsia” /3, pp. 174-175/.

As is clear from the definition given by M. Shokai, the level of education or upbringing of a person who might be classified into this social group cannot be the main criterion or manifestation of intellectuality. In M. Shokai’s understanding, the main criterion of intellectuality is that their activity should correspond to the fundamental needs of the nation’s life and proceed in harmony with them.

In this article, M. Shokai dwells on the difference between the concepts of “people” and “nation,” expressing the idea that “people are masses who cannot govern one another or themselves, but are only under the governance of others,” whereas “a nation is a collection of peoples who are not dependent on others, possess their own institutions, and have a unified interest. As philosophy concludes, people are the object, the nation is the subject” /3, p. 176/. It is at this juncture that a huge task falls to the intelligentsia: the transition from the quality of ‘people’ to the quality of ‘nation’. He points out, “The raising of the people to the level of a nation, that is, uniting the masses whose land, water, treasures, language, and religion are the same, and bringing their consciousness to a unified political, social, and national consciousness—a significant part of this great historical task falls upon the intelligentsia” /3, pp. 175-176/.

This issue, which started with Alikhan Bukeikhanov and was later continued by M. Shokai in exile, became a subject for comprehensive, specialized research a long time ago. Due to various reasons, we seem to be continually postponing it. The matter concerns the mutual ideological struggle between the Russian and Kazakh societies. The Russian authorities, having mastered various Western methods of colonization, had already begun the process of governing Kazakh society through various ideological tools in the 19th century. The national ruling elite, especially the first Kazakh educated individuals who received Russian education, fell into this grinding process first. The colonial administration not only demanded unwavering loyalty to the Russian authorities from the nascent group of Kazakh intellectuals and officials, but also required them to confirm this loyalty with their daily actions. Kazakh intellectuals who did not meet this demand were immediately limited in their service or deprived of the opportunity to advance in their careers. Shokan Valikhanov was one of the first to experience such a fate. He intended to use his European education to improve the living conditions and way of life of his compatriots. He ran for the position of senior Sultan of the Atbasar district but failed to be elected, having received insufficient support from both sides (the Russian administration and Kazakh voters).

In a letter to his friend F.M. Dostoevsky, written after this event, he expressed his mood with the following words: “Imagine our situation (I am talking about Kazakhs educated in Russia). Our countrymen consider us misguided infidels, because, as you would agree, it is difficult to praise Allah five times a day merely for policy reasons when there is no inner conviction, and the generals dislike us because we lack Eastern obsequiousness. Devil take it, after this, one wants to wander off into the wilderness” /7/. This letter was written in 1862 by twenty-seven-year-old Shokan, who was yet to face an even greater test. In 1864, the General Staff of the Russian army included Shokan Valikhanov as an officer whose duty was to “soften” the relations with the local population in the detachment of Colonel Chernyaev, who was tasked with finally completing the incorporation of Central Asia into Russia. Shokan, who was faithfully executing his assigned duty, requested Colonel Chernyaev to take the city of Aulie-Ata peacefully and demanded a halt to the shelling of the city. Insulted by the Colonel’s rude response, Shokan left the detachment, reached the village of Tezek Tore in Altyn Emel (Zhetysu), and passed away there in 1865. Thus, the great intellect Shokan, towards the end of his life, saw with his own eyes and felt with his soul that his homeland was about to bear the heavy yoke of colonialism /8/.

In connection with our topic, what deserves attention here is the situation of the intellectual Shokan between the colonizing Russian administration and the Kazakh society, which was fearful of falling under its control. Sh. Valikhanov, at the initial stage of this newly emerging relationship between the two societies, showed a fully natural and justified activism, desiring that his people gain a larger share from this relationship, and diligently worked toward this goal. In this regard, Shokan can be seen as the embodiment of the Kazakh people’s aspiration and trust in democratic Russian culture. At the same time, the Shokan phenomenon was not only the first fruit of this untainted aspiration but also the first painful lesson, meaning his clear realization that this process would have diseased, severe consequences.

In the aforementioned article “The National Intellectual,” M. Shokai referred to Shokan’s experience, writing: “Shokan sought the possibility of making his people happy with the spirit of the Russian (Western) people. It was only after the bitter lessons and tragic events he experienced that Shokan felt he was becoming estranged from his own people” /3, p. 177/. M. Shokai’s reflections on the figure of Shokan were underpinned by the principle of historicism, meaning he did not disregard the interconnectedness and differences between the historical period Shokan lived in and his own time. In this regard, M. Shokai returned to the figure of Shokan in his article “Russian Missionary Work,” relying on G. Potanin’s memoirs, stating that the atrocities committed by the Russian army against the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz, the local population, during the capture of Pishpek and Aulie-Ata drove Shokan to deep distress and spiritual crisis. He then said, “Shokan Valikhanov was truly a missionary of Russian culture and Russian power. But when he saw the brutality of the Russians toward his own people, he had the courage to oppose them. Only we have the right to criticize Shokan Valikhanov. Those who are missionaries of Russian Bolshevism and Russian dictatorship have no such right” /3, p. 186/, thereby criticizing the Kazakh party and Soviet officials who were forced to compromise with the Bolsheviks’ national policy.

“Our century,” he wrote, “is completely different from Shokan’s era. Shokan was alone then. And the task of raising his people to the level of a nation was not before him. We did not invent this issue. History and the needs of life, the conscious perceptions of an awakened people, have brought this important task before us” /3, p. 178/.

Thus, as clearly evident from M. Shokai’s conclusion, the main task facing the intelligentsia in the new era is “raising the people to the level of a nation.” In this regard, the initial task before them is, of course, “to save their country from the oppression of alien rule and turn it into an independent entity with its own institutions,” and to achieve this ideal, “there must be a shared consciousness between the national intelligentsia and the populace to which they belong.” The activity of the intelligentsia engaged in the formation of their nation is to define the nationwide goals and objectives in accordance with the demands of the time, “to correctly and clearly formulate the people’s wishes, and to create a program of action and deeds to achieve the stated goal.”

As we can see, the idea of nationalism underlies M. Shokai’s analyses and conclusions regarding intellectuality and their activity. The Kazakh and Turkestan nationalism that emerged at the beginning of the 20th century was a powerful phenomenon rooted and interconnected with the ideology of nationalism observed in Eastern countries during that historical period—a phenomenon that was fully natural and had a vital basis /9/.

The Karkaraly Petition (1905), which was a concise expression of Kazakh nationalism, put forward the following demands: cessation of mass resettlement from inner Russian provinces to Kazakh lands, recognition of the lands occupied by the local population as their lawful property, removal of restrictions that contradict the interests of the people in religious practice and the education system, elimination of obstacles to opening Kazakh schools at the necessary scale and level, and permission to publish uncensored newspapers and open printing houses—tools that would enable the free discussion of the Kazakh people’s needs…

Kazakh nationalism was not aggressive nationalism, defending the interests of a non-existent Kazakh “bourgeoisie,” as later propagated by Soviet ideologists. The core thread, the central idea of Kazakh nationalism, was not a slogan claiming “my nation is somehow special or superior to others.” It was a decision by educated Kazakh citizens who loved their country to be ready to serve the cause of liberating their people from the clutches of ignorance and colonial oppression and making them equal to others, and a call to struggle for this purpose.

Alikhan Bukeikhanov played a leading role in shaping Kazakh nationalism at a conceptual level and within the framework of universal human values, elevating it to the status of a belief and a weapon of struggle for the national intelligentsia. Even his opponents acknowledged his service. One such opponent, Bakhytzhan Karataev, wrote to Bukeikhanov in a letter dated September 3, 1910: “In my opinion, only you are worthy of the people’s favour. Only you have the right to say that you served your people” /10/.

At the same time, in order to avoid bias on this issue, it might be beneficial to add a small clarification to B. Karataev’s opinion. The significance of the following three books, published in 1909 and gaining great authority and influence, in the transformation of Kazakh nationalism into the belief of the general Kazakh intelligentsia and its elevation to the level of a real force, should be noted separately. They were Abay’s collection of poems published in St. Petersburg, Akhmet Baitursynuly’s “Forty Fables” (a translation of Krylov’s works), and Mirzhakyp Dulatuly’s “Awake, Kazakh!” published in Ufa. It is impossible to overestimate the influence of these books on the formation of the new content of Kazakh public thought. Following them, the “Aikap” journal (1911-1914) and the “Kazakh” newspaper (1913-1918), which were born and immediately rose to a nationwide level, ensured the final formation of Kazakh nationalism as a viewpoint and stance.

In conclusion, at the beginning of the 20th century, that is, when M. Shokai became involved in active public service and took up the position of secretary of the Muslim faction attached to the Russian State Duma (1914), Kazakh nationalism had already been definitively formed as a viewpoint and stance among the Kazakh intelligentsia. Mirzhakyp Dulatuly’s words in 1921 are characteristic of this period: “To be honest, weren’t all of us nationalists until very recently? Wasn’t the very first group of Kazakh educated people nationalists? … The fairy tales of those who say, ‘I was a communist from time immemorial… I was in the party since 1905…’ do not register with us. A horse’s secret is known to its owner. There is no secret of the Kazakh that we do not know! And how many nationalists did we have? There were few genuine nationalists. Most of the non-nationalists were selfish, power-hungry, corrupt, slanderous, and oppressive” /11/. Mukhamedzhan Tynyshbayuly also confirmed that this opinion of M. Dulatuly was consistent with the general Turkestani reality. In his response to the OGPU investigators in 1932, regarding the early years of Soviet power, he stated the idea that “Turkestan communists were not communists to the extent implied by that word; at that time, there was very little difference between the communists and us (i.e., the nationalists, author), and their ideology was not very different from ours” /12/.

Nevertheless, it is known that the influence of nationalist ideology significantly diminished after the Soviet regime was fully established. As the experience of socialist construction in Kazakhstan and other Turkestan republics showed, the Soviet regime, from its very first days, completely marginalized the national intelligentsia from the task of “raising the people to the level of a nation.”

A question may arise as to whether M. Shokai, who wrote his works on the national intelligentsia in the 1930s, was aware of such a situation in his homeland. M. Shokai was, of course, aware of the repressive measures being taken against the local national intelligentsia in Soviet Turkestan, and he immediately expressed his boundless disapproval of such a policy. In 1931, he published his article “White-Red” in the 15th issue of the “Yash Turkistan” journal, which he edited in Berlin. In it, he concluded that “the Bolsheviks have begun a second era of Russian domination in Turkestan,” and that from now on, “our mother tongue will serve only as a technical tool for disseminating the spiritual culture of Great Russia.”

In this article, M. Shokai criticized the Soviet regime’s policy in the field of culture in several directions and touched upon the situation of the major figures of local culture—the intelligentsia. In this regard, the fundamental principle of socialist culture—”national in form, proletarian in content”—was M. Shokai’s first target for criticism. He assessed this principle as a “new formula” of trickery and cunning used in the Russification of non-Russian peoples. “In essence,” he wrote, “the spiritual world (culture) of a people is a whole. It cannot be divided into ‘content’ and ‘form’. Any spiritual culture is defined by its content. The Bolsheviks not only worship the ‘great Russian language’ created by Pushkin, Turgenev, and Tolstoy, but they also urge all peoples of the empire to bow to it.” He then continued, “Pushkin belonged to the nobility. Turgenev also belonged to the upper class with considerable property. And Tolstoy was an immensely wealthy ‘count’. The great literature created by these named Russian poets and writers was national both internally and externally. There is no smell of the proletariat in it…” /3, pp. 152-153/.

As time has shown, M. Shokai’s criticism was like a shot fired straight into the heart of the Soviet regime’s cultural policy. In this article, he revealed the main contradiction of the Soviet national policy, which no one before or after him could explore in depth. “Lenin once wrote,” he recalled, “comparing some communists to radishes, ‘red only on the outside, white on the inside.’ Now, the Leninist system itself has become like a radish in solving the national question. It looks ‘revolutionary’ and ‘internationalist’ on the outside, but completely white on the inside. We all remember that the Russian Tsar was once compared to a white Tsar. The ‘whiteness’ of the Russian Tsar was wrapped in his black policy. And the ‘whiteness’ of today’s Bolshevik Russians is painted with red paint… That is the only difference” /3, pp. 154-155/.

M. Shokai’s criticism was fully justified and fair. As soon as the new government was established in Soviet Turkestan and Kazakhstan, the intelligentsia who adhered to the national liberation ideology were not only marginalized from the political space, but their free creative activity was also restricted. From the moment F.I. Goloshchekin came to power in Kazakhstan, the Alash intelligentsia began to be openly politically persecuted. Well aware of this political situation, M. Shokai continuously exposed this policy of the Soviet regime through “Yash Turkistan,” publishing his articles without interruption. In this regard, M. Shokai’s voice was the only voice in that historical period that openly advocated for justice.

Focusing on the fact that the Soviet regime had unreservedly set about establishing the values of Russian culture in Turkestan’s spiritual and cultural sphere, and that the only force capable of resisting this policy was the local national intelligentsia, he stated: “But in our Turkestan, the hands and feet of our poets and writers capable of enriching and developing our national language have been tied, and their mouths have been silenced. They were treated this way because they did not agree with Moscow’s formula, ‘national in form, proletarian in content.’ For example, Akhmet Baitursyn and Cholpan* are the best figures of our national literature. In their works, we see the immortal, inextinguishable vitality of our language and culture, which were oppressed under the Russian yoke,” he concluded, going on to ask, “Where are Akhmet and Cholpan now? Why were they persecuted? Everything concerning Russian literature and spiritual culture is published with Pushkin, Turgenev, and Tolstoy. Why can’t our people read their Baitursyn and Cholpan?” He then gave his own answer: “The reasons lie in the demands of Moscow’s ‘socialism and Soviet internationalism’” /3, p. 154/.

* Cholpan, full name Abdulhamid Suleimenuly (1897-1937), great poet of the Uzbek people, author of the anthem of the Turkestan (Kokand) Autonomous State.

In this instance, too, M. Shokai exaggerated nothing. The heritage of the Turkestani intelligentsia who resisted Russian colonialism and adhered to the national liberation ideology was not made available to their people until the Soviet regime finally departed from the stage of history. The difference between the school curriculum in local national languages in Turkestan and the Russian-language school curriculum was also noticeable here. While the great Russian classics mentioned above were studied freely and in depth in Russian-language schools, the works of A. Baitursynuly, Cholpan, and other nationalist poets and writers were not mentioned at all in Kazakh, Uzbek, and other local national language schools. If they were mentioned, it was only in a negative context. The “radish-coloured,” “red on the outside, white on the inside” Soviet regime attempted to pave the way for the Russification policy of the Kazakh and other Turkestan peoples in this manner.

It is understandable that M. Shokai did not call on the national intelligentsia to perform “blind feats of courage” under the Soviet regime, which pursued the Russification of non-Russian nations. Towards the end of his life, he was well aware that the Soviet regime would not soon leave the battlefield. Therefore, he continually urged his compatriots to be prepared for a difficult and prolonged struggle for independence and linked the achievement of this goal with educating the younger generation in the necessary content.

It is worth noting an issue mentioned in M. Shokai’s works at that time. In his article “The National Intellectual,” he highlighted the growing ranks of the intelligentsia and the fact that the training of intellectuals was taking place in three environments, linking the nation’s future to the convergence of the stances of young people being trained in these different environments around a common national interest.

What were these environments?

1. The homeland (Atameken). M. Shokai noted that the priority in educational work here was given to “class” and “international” viewpoints, rather than “national spirit.” Nevertheless, in his opinion, there were also many intellectuals in the homeland who attached great importance to educating the youth in the national spirit. Therefore, it was necessary to consciously and purposefully support the work of intellectuals adhering to this stance.

2. Turkey. M. Shokai linked the success of Mustafa Kemal’s reforms to the successful combination of “Western knowledge” with “Eastern spirit.” Therefore, M. Shokai urged the future Turkestani intellectuals being trained in Turkey to consider ways to harmoniously apply this experience in their own country.

3. Western countries, one of them being Germany (Almania). In M. Shokai’s opinion, not all young people studying in Western countries had become Russified; the majority were capable youths imbued with the national spirit. They were on the path of serving the national ideal. Therefore, conducting purposeful work with young people adhering to this stance, and thus putting their Western knowledge into the service of national interests, should become the order of the day.

In M. Shokai’s view, “all” young people studying in these three environments “are fully worthy of the category of ‘national intelligentsia’.” The nation should pin its hopes on them, and the nation itself must first deeply feel and understand the significance of that hope, otherwise, “the meaning of our life and service would be lost,” he wrote.

Thus, the topic of “intellectuality” or the “national intellectual” holds a special place in Mustafa Shokai’s legacy. The activist’s conclusion that the main task of the intelligentsia is “raising the people to the level of a nation” has not lost its relevance even today. How should we understand this conclusion, made in the 1930s, today?

In the 20th century, we suffered not one but several defeats in the ideological struggle with great power forces. There is no need to hide this. The biggest of those defeats was, of course, our failure to provide the necessary support to the Alash intelligentsia in their struggle for the national state called the Alash Autonomy in December 1917. M. Shokai’s conclusion that the intelligentsia’s task is “raising the people to the level of a nation” has not lost its force in the context of the ideological struggle that has taken on a new character in the time of state independence. Supporting the forces that advocate for state independence and work to strengthen it remains the main task for the national intelligentsia.