Paul
Goble
Staunton, August 13 – A year ago, a
group of scholars visited Kazan and was given access to archives containing
materials about Mirsaid Sultan-Galiyev, the first senior Bolshevik Stalin had
expelled from the party and later had imprisoned and shot and someone who if he
is remembered at all is recalled as a Muslim national communist.
That Sultan-Galiyev wanted to bring
Islam and communism together and hoped to promote the spread of communism
through the Muslim world both within what was then the Soviet Union and more
broadly is certainly true. But he played a bigger role than that, and his words
on issues like federalism and the survivability of the USSR are being remembered.
Using materials from the Kazan
archives, Buirkitbay Ayagan, the deputy director of Kazakhstan’s Institute of the
History of the State, argues that Stalin’s animus toward Sultan-Galiyev
reflected in the first instance the latter’s call for a more liberal and
open-ended USSR (e-history.kz/ru/news/show/31881/).
The details Aygan provides add to
our knowledge of Sultan-Galiyev and the early years of Soviet nationality
policy, but his article is important for another reason: as Putin closes down
investigations into alternatives to Stalin’s thinking lest they undermine his
single stream view of Russian history, scholars from former union republics are
likely to provide the breakthroughs.
All too often, the research that
scholars in the former Soviet republics do on the Stalin period is ignored
because both Russian and Western investigators focus on Moscow archives rather
than considering the holdings in other archives including in the non-Russian
republics of the Russian Federation like Tatarstan. Aygan’s work shows why this
is a major mistake.
In his article, the Kazakh scholar
says that he and his colleagues found several key documents which have not been
published anywhere else, including Sultan-Galiyev’s memoirs, his speeches at
closed party meetings, and his correspondence with non-Russian and Russian
communists.
“As is clear from the materials of
the archives,” Aygan says, “Sultan-Galiyev was at the center of events when the
national republics were being established, when the delimitation of borders was
occurring, and when local organs of administration were being formed.
Naturally, he became an active participant and witness of the establishment of the
RSFSR and also the USSR.”
His independent-mindedness often put
him at odds with Stalin. Speaking at a closed section of the 12th party
congress, Sultan-Galiyev said pointedly that if the country followed the model
of state construction favored by Stalin, the USSR won’t resolve the nationality
question and would be put on the way toward disintegration.
“In contrast to Stalin’s entourage,”
Aygan continues, “Sultan-Galiyev stood for a model of equal and voluntary
inclusion and unification of republics within the USSR;” and he insisted that
each republic have the full panoply of rights and not just a limited number set
by Moscow and its agents in place.
In other documents in the archives,
Sultan-Galiyiev talked about “the possible disintegration of the USSR” because
the Stalin system could not solve social or nationality problems effectively.
Only serious decentralization and a liberal approach to social issues could
prevent disaster.
Not surprisingly, Stalin couldn’t
tolerate that and arrested him soon after, but the party leader also could not directly attack
Sultan-Galiyev on those grounds. Instead, he presented Sultan-Galiyev as someone
who was conspiring against the USSR by making alliances with Muslims and Turkic
radicals, charges that were not true but continue to affect how Sultan-Galiyev
is viewed.
Ayagan concludes with the following
words: “Mirsaid Sultan-Galiyev was able to do a great deal for the
establishment of the autonomies of oppressed peoples. In union with many
leaders of the national borderlands, M. Sultan-Galiyev and those who shared his
views sought the formation of a more liberal model of the USSR, as a union of
republics with equal rights.”
No comments:
Post a Comment