ОЦЕНКИ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ ТУРКЕСТАНСКОГО ГЕНЕРАЛ-ГУБЕРНАТОРА К. П. ФОН КАУФМАНА СРЕДНЕАЗИАТСКИМИ СОВРЕМЕННИКАМИ

Abstract

The life and activities of the first Turkestan Governor-General Konstantin von Kaufman were reflected in a wide scope of notes of Russian contemporaries – from the supreme Russian imperial authorities to his own subordinates. These notes are the basic sources on his personality and politics. At the same time, his contemporaries from the Central Asia also left information on this statesman which could be found in the court historiography of the Emirate of Bukhara, Khanate of Khiva and Khanate of Khoqand, personal diaries and memoirs of local elites, as well as in popular memory. In particular, we can find such information in the works of famous Central Asian statesmen, historians and thinkers – Ahmad Donish, Ab dal’Azim Sami, Sadriddin Ayni, Sadr-i Ziya, Mukhammad Yusuf Bayani, Mirza Salimbek, etc. Substantial part of information is related to the conquest of the Central Asia by Kaufman in the late 1860s – mid-1870s, and most authors critically evaluate his activities, blaming the Governor-General in colonial aspirations, sometimes in cruelty and even perfidy. On the contrary, the Central Asian monarchs are represented in these sources as peaceful rulers who intended to support friendly relations with the Russian Empire. The state activities of von Kaufman during the first period of the Russian protectorate over khanates of the Central Asia are also negatively evaluated by the representatives of Bukharan, Khivan and Khoqand ruling elites: they described him as a ruler who went beyond his commission and abused his power over vassal khans. Nevertheless, as the Russian power in the Central Asia strengthened, the rhetoric of local authors changed: they stated that he eliminated “thiefs and lies”, did not oppress Moslems, allowed local people get Russian education, etc. Already at the end of 19th century, Central Asian contemporaries evaluated Kaufman’s rule in Turkestan as a “golden age” and criticized not him, but his successors. The author states that Kaufman’s appraisal given by his Central Asian contemporaries could be an important addition to his evaluation given by Russian ones.