|
Kyrgyzstan: Statehood
Anniversary Raises Questions About History, Motives
Charles Carlson
Prague, 23 January 2003 (RFE/RL) -- Responding to a
request by Kyrgyzstan's President Askar Akaev, the UN
General Assembly recently adopted a resolution
designating 2003 as the 2,200th anniversary of Kyrgyz
statehood.
The evidence behind Akaev's statehood claim is based
on early Chinese chronicles cited by Kyrgyz historians,
which posit the existence of a Kyrgyz state as early
as the third century B.C. In his book "Kyrgyz
Statehood and the Popular Epic 'Manas'," Akaev wrote
that in 201 B.C., a Hunnic governor in China
subjugated and added to his state the Sovereign Kyrgyz.
This means, writes Akaev, that ancient Kyrgyz had a
system that was capable of resisting external threats,
"a system that corresponds to a state system."
The fact that Chinese reports of the Kyrgyz date to
the middle of the first century B.C. "shows that the
Kyrgyz people gained independence and had created
their own state by that time," Akaev writes.
Professor Jengishbek Junushaliev, director of the
History Institute of the Kyrgyz National Academy of
Sciences, basically supports Akaev's argument. "The
2,200th anniversary is a historically divined issue.
There is not a case to question it. The ancient
Chinese manuscripts were written on the [ancient
Kyrgyz state] 2,200 years ago. Ssuma Tsian is a man
who lived in the second century B.C. At that time,
mention was made of the existence of Kyrgyz statehood."
Ssuma Tsian, the author of the ancient Chinese
chronicle, was the first historian to mention the
Kyrgyz.
Zakir Eraliev is a professor of history at Kyrgyz
National University. While basically supporting the
notion of such a long period of Kyrgyz statehood, he
attributed the precise claim of 2,200 years of
statehood mainly to Akaev himself. "This information
was first mentioned in 201 B.C. There is a mention of
Kyrgyz statehood, a Kyrgyz state and a Kyrgyz kingdom
in ancient Chinese sources. That is why scholars have
put aside their debates and made this conclusion [on
the anniversary of Kyrgyz statehood]. For the time
being, of course, it is [President] Askar Akaev who
has supported the idea of an independent [ancient]
Kyrgyz state, and he has made worldwide awareness of
that. That is why it is not an untruth if we say that
the idea [of the 2,200 anniversary of Kyrgyz statehood]
belongs to the president," he said.
While supporting the notion, Topchubek Turgunaliev,
leader of the Erkindik (Freedom) Party, questions the
costs. "This [celebration] has a huge negative impact
on the state because, instead of using such money for
the economy and the prosperity of the people, hundreds
of millions of soms are being wasted for celebrations
and for keeping the public mind on the festivities,
even without proper investigation of the [historical]
data," he said. ($1 equals 46 soms.)
In his book "Inner Asia: A Syllabus," historian Denis
Sinor questions the existence of a Kyrgyz state at
such an early period. He writes that the first mention
of the Kyrgyz in Western sources is from 568, and that
this is only a brief mention. It was not until 840
when the Uighur empire of Mongolia was overthrown by a
forest-dwelling Turkic people living in the upper
reaches of the Yenesei, known as the Kyrgyz, that they
first entered the historical arena as a power.
However, there are historians who question whether the
Yenesei Kyrgyz were the immediate ancestors of the
modern Kyrgyz. The modern Kyrgyz, those historians say,
are the descendants of the Altaic mountain Kyrgyz who
migrated to the area of present-day Kyrgyzstan and
formed a Kyrgyz state only in the 15th and early 16th
centuries.
But Akaev cites Chinese sources in 201 B.C. that claim
the Kyrgyz people existed almost 10 centuries before
the time they conquered the Uighurs. On 18 January,
Akaev said the Chinese government has promised to
finance research into chronicles that could provide
further evidence on the ethnogenesis of the Kyrgyz
people.
Denis Twitchett is a noted British professor of
Chinese studies and a former professor of Chinese at
Princeton University. Twitchett is skeptical about the
existence of a Kyrgyz state at such an early period.
"I think to call it a state probably would be an
exaggeration. To call it a state brings to the modern
mind an image of a centralized power with regular
institutions and a solid social base, none of which we
can verify from the sources, which are very, very thin,"
Twitchett said.
Twitchett also questioned the identity of the people
who were later called Kyrgyz in the seventh century. "The
claim for such an old antiquity for the Kyrgyz state
is based on the fact that the first well-recorded
contacts between the Kyrgyz and the Chinese court
occurred already during the Tang Dynasty, that is, in
the seventh century A.D. And contacts were made by
representatives of people who were later to be
identified as Kyrgyz. It is by no means clear that
this identity is, in fact, well-based. There is no
archaeological evidence to my knowledge which would
support such a claim," he said.
However, Twitchett does recognize the Kyrgyz as having
formed a kind of state in the ninth century after the
dissipation of the Uighur state. "From 840 to about
850, the Kyrgyz remained an important player in the
politics of the northern steppe."
It was only in the 1990s, after Kyrgyzstan gained its
independence, that historians were able to conduct
research on the history of their statehood, free from
all ideological constraints. It is understandable they
would want to trace their statehood as far back as
possible to satisfy their quest for national identity.
The director of RFE/RL's Kyrgyz Service, Tynchtykbek
Tchoroev, who is also a historian, believes more
research needs to be done before one can firmly
establish Kyrgyz statehood. "I think Kyrgyz historians
support the idea of deepening scientific research into
their nation's history. However, they are divided into
groups, challenging each other, and in defining many
aspects of their ancient past. They don't have a
common view on the places where the Kyrgyz lived
during the Hunnic period, on the dates of their
migration to Siberia and back, and on the stages of
their ethnic development from tribal system to a
modern nation. However, it is good that Bishkek
authorities are not preventing historians from
studying their ancient past, the way the Soviet regime
did," Tchoroev said.
Akaev's motives for scheduling the celebration of
2,200 years of statehood now can only be guessed at.
Is he engaging in historical one-upmanship by trying
to demonstrate that the Kyrgyz can trace their
statehood back further than most of their fellow
former Soviet republics? Or does he regard such
celebrations, including those in 1995 to mark the
1,000th anniversary of the composition of the epic
poem "Manas," as an opportunity to promote an
international image of the Kyrgyz as an ancient and
cultured people? Or is he seeking to demonstrate to
the domestic political opposition the influence he
wields with international organizations?
Certainly other Central Asian leaders have used such
anniversaries to make specific political points.
Writing in "Nezavisimaya gazeta" in August 1999, on
the eve of celebrations to mark the 1,100th
anniversary of the Samanid state, Tajikistan's
President Imomali Rakhmonov expressed the hope that
the celebrations would serve to foster a sense of
national unity that would help overcome the bitter
legacy of the 1992-97 civil war.
At the same time, he also spoke of the threat posed by
alien values to the Tajik nation, criticizing the
Tajik Islamic opposition -- although he did not name
them -- for trying to impose on the Tajik people "an
alien form of statehood [an Islamic state] that is
unacceptable to the majority of the population of
Tajikistan."
What Akaev's message to the Kyrgyz people will be
during this anniversary year remains to be seen.
© 1995-2003 Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Inc.
|
