Kyrgyzstan in the 1920s. Introduction. Part - 3
Kyrgyzstan in the 1920s. Introduction. Part - 3
Among the works of predecessors that have directly and indirectly influenced the results of this historical research, it is important to highlight the writings of historians V. M. Ploskih, I. E. Semenov, Dzh. Dzhunushaliev, T. Ozhukeeva, A. Tuzov, and others, who have already dealt with the issues discussed in this book. The author disagrees with some of these researchers regarding the essence of how they unfold and interpret events, but does not diminish or ignore alternative opinions. It is clear that over the previous years, many difficult-to-resolve problems have accumulated.
Therefore, the path to their resolution will not be easy.
In studying the history of the country, the period, the people, or describing the life of a historical figure, the author has tried to adhere to two principles: to accurately present facts taking into account all, even seemingly insignificant moments; to present them in an easily accessible literary form. These principles have been consistently followed by ancient historians such as Herodotus, Thucydides, Sallust, and Tacitus, who became the first models for imitation. Even now, many prominent historians combine historically accurate presentation of facts with artistic form, which is especially important for the domestic history of Kyrgyzstan, which has become formalized and bureaucratized during the Soviet years. This is necessary also because history needs to be brought closer to the people, made accessible and understandable to the masses, as the tendency of academic presentation of its problems turns this science into an end in itself. The tendency to disregard artistic form has already led to the point where even historians themselves have stopped taking seriously those works written and being written by proponents of an artistic-literary style, regardless of the significance these works have for science and knowledge in general. Ultimately, scientific works on history should be constructed in such a way that they combine scientific argumentation, source analysis, and literary presentation.
The main character of this book is the national leader of the Kyrgyz people, Abdykerim Sydykov, who has been tirelessly portrayed by official historical-party science as the most odious and sinister "enemy of the people." In the course of studying and reflecting on many direct and indirect sources, a completely different picture has emerged before us, one that has nothing in common with traditional views and official versions about the personality of A. Sydykov, as presented in textbooks and scientific works from the Soviet era. And since the object of historical research becomes the personality of A. Sydykov, his thoughts and aspirations, his struggle for national equality and the sovereignty of the Kyrgyz people, for the construction of a humane and just society, etc., the style of presentation will inevitably be linked to the author's assessment of this personality. One could resort to a strictly scientific style of presentation if one considers A. Sydykov a simple, modest person who did not set grandiose tasks for himself. Conversely, if one sees in him a gifted personality, which has already been scientifically proven and substantiated, it is difficult to avoid an elevated style. For too long, he has not been given his due.
To avoid any claims from some fellow historians regarding both the essence of the problem and the style of presentation, it should be reiterated that our personal perception of A. Sydykov, as well as that of his like-minded individuals and opponents, is closely tied to the evaluation of primary sources. However, these same sources leave room for interpreting the personality of our hero as less politically significant than it actually was.
The main goal of the research is to characterize the historical era in which A. Sydykov was formed as a personality, politician, and scholar, to tell about his main life milestones, to provide a political portrait of his entourage and opponents, to show what principles and ideas guided him in his political activities, to explain what motives underlay his opposition to opponents and official authorities, what he sought to achieve through his struggle, and what ideas were put forward and implemented by his opponents.
The set goals have also predetermined some specific tasks — to investigate the nature of group struggle, the party's policy in national outskirts, to clarify what underpinned the project of creating the Kyrgyz Mountain Region, the opposition of the "thirty" platform, the trial over "hudaykulovshchina," to clarify the essence of concepts such as "sydykovshchina" and "hudaykulovshchina," etc.
The period of research mainly covers 1917-1927, as, firstly, this was the time of formally permitted existence of opposition in Kyrgyzstan. The local opposition, with the specific characteristics inherent to a patriarchal-tribal society, ceased to exist legally in Kyrgyzstan after the demonstrative trial over "hudaykulovshchina" as a "left deviation" in the party organization of Kyrgyzstan. After that, the time of protests by individuals like Yu. Abdrakhmanov ("abdrakhmanovshchina") and O. Tynayev ("tynayevshchina") began, which no longer had the social-political resonance that the struggle of the three political forces had: supporters of Sydykov on one side, activists of Hudaykulov on the other, and the leadership of the KirObkom party on the third.
Kyrgyzstan in the 1920s. Introduction. Part - 2
