Connexe: Exploring Post-Communist Spaces

This dossier is devoted to the historical region of Semirechye, which is nowadays divided between Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The articles presented here originated in the international conference entitled “Semirechye in an era of global changes (mid-19th – early 20th centuries),” organised in July 2024 in Bishkek by the French Institute for Central Asian Studies (IFEAC), the Institute of History and Area Studies of the Balasagyn Kyrgyz National University and the Zhamgerchinov Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnology of the National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic. This conference and dossier were prepared in collaboration with our late colleague Turatbek Syrdybaev, to whom this issue is dedicated. I would also like to thank Nazira Momosheva, Associate Professor in the Department of General History at the Kyrgyz National University, for her invaluable assistance.

This article examines the representation of Central Asia in the first Russian ethnographic exhibition of 1867 and consider the Paris World’s Fair held the same year. It focuses on the pivotal period of 1865-1867, just prior to the creation of the Turkestan General-Governorship, considering the relationship between Central Asian elites and regional tsarist administrations. The construction of a colonial vision of Central Asia was concomitant with the administrative restructuring of the region. The Russian ethnographic exhibition and the Paris World’s Fair conveyed an image of the region through artefacts collected mainly by Central Asian mediators, who were mostly Kazakhs, along with one Uzbeks and a Tatar from Tashkent. The Kazakhs belonged above all to the group of töre, descendants of khan, to whom the Tsarist authorities had granted political primacy until 1867-1868. The Uzbek and Tatar were merchants trading between Russia and Central Asia. The representations of the peoples of the Russian Empire were part of a global enterprise of modernisation based on knowledge, and the article discusses the forms of agency of Central Asians in this process. Although they were involved in preparing the exhibition, their role in selecting the objects and representing the populations was not fully recognised. They were considered merely as informants.

Exhibitions and fairs devoted to industry, agriculture, and the arts were a major phenomenon in European countries in the 19th century, and Russia was no exception. This article demonstrates the considerable human and financial resources that were mobilised to organise exhibitions in Turkestan and Russia from the 1870s onwards. The main motivation was to promote Turkestan’s potential in order to justify the investments necessary for its administration and modernisation. Semirechye was therefore primarily represented by its products, with Russian entrepreneurs always being highlighted. The image of the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz remained associated with the nomadic way of life, focusing on exotic themes such as mobility, horses, yurts, and eagle hunting. As Russian knowledge of Turkestan developed, Centrals Asians gradually became marginalised, and the colonial view of indigenous societies and cultures was reinforced. The authors examine how Central Asians attempted to make their voices heard and promote their interests at these exhibitions, which were also designed to introduce the Russian population to the newly conquered territories thereby strengthening the unity of the Empire. The resulting expansion of knowledge about Central Asia was intended to aid in the exploitation of natural resources and the good governance of populations. The necessary modernization could only imply the disappearance of an indigenous heritage deemed archaic. Scientific societies were keen to preserve this heritage, and most of the ethnographic objects on display were kept in museums.

The article reflects on the political activities of the local elites in the Semirechye at the beginning of the 20th century, using two important events as examples: the first Muslim Congress (1906) and the Uzun-Agach Congress (1910). It analyses the role and contribution of the Kyrgyz and Kazakh elites, and the Tatars in the political processes that took place in the region in the early 20th centuries, as well as their influence on the further development of the socio-political life of the population of the Semirechye. The main Kyrgyz and Kazakh actors in this emerging political movement were, on the one hand, the civil servants working for the regional administration, most often as interpreters, and on the other hand, the administrators of the volost, who represented the lineage elites. These two groups held the power within the population. The Tatars saw their direct political role progressively diminish, although they remained a crucial link due to the influence of the Tatar press, their connections with the Muslim in Russia, and their financial support. The development of political and national demands among Central Asians in a colonial context is described through the formation of networks and the organisation of congresses and informal gatherings between 1905 and 1912. The 1905 revolution allowed for the expression of political discourse and paved the way for the brief representation of Semirechye allogenous population in the new State Duma. Muslim reformism, known as Jadidism, played a pivotal role in the politicisation of Semirechye, significantly impacted by the All-Russian Muslim movement. The freedom of religion had many implications. The Kazakh and Kyrgyz elites mobilised alongside Tatars and Uyghurs in a transnational dynamic.

The article examines the cross-border migration of Russian subjects from the Semirechye region to China during the 1900s’-1910s’, as well as the administrative measures taken by the Russian Empire to legally exclude these individuals from its subjecthood. These movements were not merely a matter of economic migration or political escape but also represented a form of implicit political response to imperial policies. Faced with the inability to effectively control movement through its fragmented imperial bureaucracy, the Russian authorities attempted to institutionalize the exclusion of migrants through a legal apparatus of denaturalization and land redistribution. The novelty of this study lies in the use of little-studied Russian bureaucratic and official documentation related to the process of loss of subjecthood by migrants from the Semirechye region. The research utilizes materials from meetings of the Committee of Ministers, opinions of the Ministers of Internal Affairs and War, reports of the Turkestan Governor-General, official reports of military governors, and consular dispatches from Xinjiang.

This paper presents newly discovered biographical information about the Kazakh educator Khafiz Sarsekeev (1886-1929), the co-author with Eshenaaly Arabaev (1882-1933) of the Kyrgyz and Kazakh children’s abecedary ABC for high-speed learning to read [Алип-бээ жаки төтө окуу]. Published in Ufa by Shark Publishing in 1911, the abecedary was the very first book ever printed in Kyrgyz. As the inaugural publication in a native language, it holds undeniable historical significance. Eshenaaly Arabaev, one of the authors of the aforementioned abecedary, as well as a well-known educator and author of textbooks, head of the Kyrgyz Scientific Commission and political figure in Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia, is familiar to historians and the general population. However, until recently, practically nothing but his name was known about Khafiz Sarsekeyev (1882/83-1926/27), the co-author of the primer. This paper presents information on his education and teaching activities in Jadid medreses, as well as his social and political activities. This newly discovered information is the result of researching articles written by Sarsekeev and other authors in Kazakh-language newspapers and magazines published between 1913 and 1924. A few previously unpublished documents and photographs from the Sarsekeev family archive supplement the information found in the newspapers. The findings presented in this article provide a portrait of the Jadid educator who became also a public and political figure. We can trace similarities in the fates of the Kyrgyz and Kazakh educators of the early twentieth century.

In order to consolidate colonial power at the beginning of the 20th century, the Turkestan Governor-General’s Office undertook the creation of coats of arms for regions and district towns, which was explained by an attempt to identify the region as a state entity of the Russian Empire. At the same time, when creating the coats of arms, attention was focused on the distinctive features of the region, taking into account the traditions and other ethnic characteristics of the local population. A city coat of arms is not just an element of culture, but above all a sign reflecting its legal status. It concentrated legal rights and privileges; secondly, the features of the coats of arms reveal the strategic role of the city within the Russian Empire, as well as its degree of importance in the overall hierarchy of cities. The decision to adopt a similar coat of arms for the Semirechye oblast and the city of Vernyi indicates at the first sight the central position of Vernyi. The six coats of arms analysed show recurring themes, with three representations of the maral deer, four references to beekeeping and two allusions to the subjugation of Muslims. The central theme is that of Russian domination over the region, extolling military conquest, economic development brought about by the Russians and scientific exploration. However, the predominant way of life in the Semirechye oblast was nomadic pastoralism, but no reference is made to this. Conversely, several elements recall agriculture, such as ploughs, wheat and vine leaves. The coats of arms adopted for the cities of the Semirechye oblast express a colonial vision of Turkestan and serve to mark Russian power in the region.

This article examines Ukraine’s participation in the 2024 Eurovision Song Contest as an instrument of ordinary cultural diplomacy, in a context of protracted war with Russia, and declining media visibility, further exacerbated by other conflicts, particularly Israel’s war with Hamas. The study focuses on the performance by alyona alyona and Jerry Heil, selected to represent Ukraine with their song Teresa & Maria. Through an analysis of the Vidbir (national selection), the interplay between aesthetic and political registers in the lyrics and staging, and the communication strategies employed by Ukrainian institutions around the contest –in close coordination with the artists– the article demonstrates how Eurovision, despite its officially apolitical stance, is mobilised by the Ukrainian state to serve its foreign policy objectives by addressing not decision-makers, but audiences distant from traditional diplomatic channels. This study aims to shed light on a contest often dismissed as mere entertainment, and to contribute to research on the contemporary uses of cultural diplomacy by introducing the concept of “ordinary diplomacy” as a framework for better understanding these dynamics.

This article explores the identity narratives developed by Russian ethnonationalist intellectuals on the eve of and during the war in Ukraine, which effectively began in 2014 and was resumed by the Kremlin in 2022. Drawing on literatures in nationalism studies and critical security studies, the article shifts the focus from state-centric approaches to the examination of a marginalised group of non-state actors pursuing the goal of a “Russia for ethnic Russians” [Россия для русских]. These actors are considered ideological entrepreneurs, whose writings have contributed to transforming “Russianness” [русскость], including its meaning and boundaries, into a field of symbolic struggle. Ethnonationalists’ identity narratives, marked by a pronounced sense of victimhood, did not allow for the establishment of a stable national self-identity prior to Russia’s war against Ukraine. The war has deeply affected these narratives, but its effects have proved to be quite different. Unlike the 2014 Ukraine crisis and the Donbas war, which reinforced feelings of identity uncertainty, the full-scale invasion of Ukraine has become a source of ontological security in the ethnonationalist imaginary. Since 2022, the ethnonationalism that seeks to build a homogeneous nation has largely merged with Putinism. However, doubts over the outcome of the war in Ukraine and persistent ethnic tensions within Russian society could trigger renewed identity insecurity among Russian ethnonationalists and cause them to break with the Kremlin’s line once again.

The military engagement and disengagement trajectories of combatants are now the subject of a significant body of literature in political science. However, the amount of work dedicated to the frontline experience remains limited. Based on a qualitative survey with Ukrainian volunteer combatants, this article provides an analysis of the frontline experience that focuses on combatants’ practices. First, this approach allows to move away from an evaluative approach to violence and place individuals’ experiences at the heart of the analysis. Second, it shows how the frontline experience is in continuity with the engagement trajectory and, more broadly, is integrated into individuals’ life trajectories.