Turkestan in the Russian Empire (The second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century)

The Russian rulers seeker to establish the military-political supremacy of the Russian Empire in Turkestan and begun the mass migration of orthodox population who could be the reliable support to the Russian army in the area. The immigrants were settled in privileged conditions that served as the good basis for the establishment of colonial rules of governing. The have envisaged the plan of transforming the territory of Turkestan to the comfortable militarystrategik base.


INTRODUCTION
The study of social and political editions of the Russian Empire devoted to the migration of Turkestan to the Turkestan, or partially reviewed, indicates that the authors, who wrote the works on this subject in 1865-1917, were mainly officials of the metropolitan administration and governors of Turkestan, Orenburg, Western Siberia. The works of the Soviet period on this subject were mainly created by Russian researchers. Only a handful of works belong to local authors.
It is connected with the fact that Russia's socio-economic crisis has escalated and the rights of the post-Soviet people have gone deeper and the region has become increasingly vulnerable to the Russian leadership. Therefore, for the sake of political and ideological purposes, the Russian military and political circles have deliberately exaggerated the issue in order to "justify" the magnificent actions of Turkestan in the first instance, as an example of documentary collections and reports.
The first group of literature reviewed is the work of authors, mostly colonialists, who are directly involved in Russian politics and practical measures in Central Asia. From the end of the 19th century, official historiography began to emerge as an attempt to analyze the relocation of people from Russia. At the beginning of the 20th century, during the "agrarian resettlement" of Russia in the course of the agrarian reforms, the number of works related to resettlement policy increased, especially. 1

LITERATURE REVIEW
L. Kostenko, I.. Geyer, A.. I. Vasilchikov's works describe the need for the introduction of Russian legislation on civilization, civil and land ownership in the country to colonize Turkestan. N. S. Lykoshin, A. I. Komarov, V. P. Voshchin, A.. A. Isaev, E. Yashnin and several other authors have pointed out the shortcomings in practice in support of the policy of resettlement from Russia to Turkestan, in particular the number of arbitrary immigrants, even those with economically disadvantaged migrants. Almost all authors who have covered these issues, policies and practices in the field of economics, public education, have never cared about the rights and interests of Turkic peoples. Only A. Middendorf and W. Nalivkin noted at the time that the Ferghana Valley had a high literacy rate, a large number of schools and madrassas, and religious education was also taught in a number of secular subjects. F K. Girs, Count N. P. Ignatev, academic A. F Special commission of Middendorf (who first investigated Fergana region shortly after the termination of the Kokand khanate in 1878), K. K. This is the essence of the proposals outlined in the reports of Palen and other high-ranking officials of the empire, as well as the commissions of the governor-general of Turkestan. None of their proposals had anything to do with the growing population in the central provinces of Russia. Moreover, the revised Statute on the Turkestan Regulation of June 12, 1886, and numerous documents on relocating such people to Turkestan, primarily aimed at strengthening Russia's military-political and economic dominance, especially in economic matters. There is a need to further increase the number of Russian avalanches in terms of strength.
In the meantime, the Russian Empire's aggression policy in Turkestan and later the resettlement policy was aimed at the establishment of the Cossack colonies in the Caspian Sea, especially in the metropolitan areas of Syrdarya, Samarkand and Ferghana provinces. For this reason, A. I. Vasilchikov made colonization in Turkestan similar to the one set up in the United States. Yuzhakov offered to build a railroad from the metropolis to relocate the population more quickly and quickly. It should be noted that investigators of the situation in the country, in particular K. K. In their reports, Palen pointed out that Russian officials, who were involved in the resettlement of the population to Turkestan, were poorly organized, involved in bribery and theft. However, the colonial authorities continued to allow injustice and humiliation to the indigenous population. It is worth noting that even though the colonial oppression of indigenous people was unbearably cruel, the government was unable to accommodate internally displaced persons and create conditions for their livelihoods. Officials were concerned that the Russians were much smaller than the indigenous population (this was repeatedly emphasized in the works of Gavrilov, AA Kaufman and others).

MAIN PART
Therefore, even though there was no official statement of excess land in the country in 1908, the Act of 1910 on withdrawal of surplus land from the indigenous population was described as a complete legal measure in articles and books by Russian officials.
The other side of the issue is noteworthy: Russian sources often point to the imperial administration's attempt to portray colonial Turkestan as "dependent" despite the increased exploitation of the local population. For example, in 1882, Senator F. K. Girsus wrote that the Russian Empire spent about 10 million rubles between 1868 and 1881 and that "most of this money was paid by the Russians (not by the Russians in the metropolis -Sh. G)," undoubtedly improved the welfare of the people of Turkestan.
However, none of the authors of these works voluntarily emigrated and the Cossacks seized the lands of local farmers and nomadic herders, as well as the official restriction and confiscation of foundations, social and economic 1  oppression by the Russian Empire, the colonial administration, and the displaced Russians. does not seriously condemn a number of other arguments. However, while some of the colonial officials do not criticize Central Asia's occupation of Russia and the empire's intentions in the region, the injustice of the indigenous population, the national and social discrimination, the seizure of local peasants, and nomadic populations are common. they have shown in their works such things as bribery. Such facts are from many of the works cited. A. Terentev's books should be noted especially because they were published 30 years later because of their critical nature.
The analysis of the aforementioned publications suggests that they are aimed at justifying and supporting all the actions of the Russian Empire and the colonial administration in Turkestan, including the practice of resettlement.
The results of the study show that in the Soviet-era works, which comprise the second group of publications, the methodological approach is more clearly manifested, ideologically, because of the dominance of greatness and classical ideology. Therefore, their text prevailed over the interpretation of the Russian Empire's policy of relocation to Turkestan. As a result, with the exception of some conflicts with the indigenous population, the increase in Russian resettlement in the region was a positive result of the region's annexation of the empire (not to mention the Soviet occupation of Central Asia by Russia in 1941). It is believed that Russia facilitated its integration with the revolutionary movement.
However, the eccentric and secularist guidelines differed somewhat in the early 20-30s, when they were still not prevalent in socio-political thinking and science.
N. Malakhowski cites many facts that indicate that the Turkestan was occupied by the Russian Empire before it was invaded by the Russian Empire, producing cotton, oil products, crafts, agriculture, and changes in the development of productive forces during the colonial period. At the same time, the author does not dwell on the catastrophic consequences of colonialism but seeks to portray the economic and social policies of the Russian Empire as well as resettlement practices as key factors in the rise of Turkestan's productive forces.
True, the author emphasizes that the use of natural resources and labor resources would yield even better results if not only the export of agricultural and industrial raw materials, but also the development of finished goods in the colony.

ANALYSES
At the same time, it should be noted that the process of politicizing history and falsifying history has gone through several stages. In this regard, the first phase, which covers the 1920s. The peculiarities of this period were the emergence of Soviet historiography at that time, the fact that the centralist and one-party sets had not yet dominated social and political thinking, so to some extent pluralism of the worldview, including the politics of the Russian Empire's resettlement and its implications. also in the issue 2 .
Issues of colonization of Turkestan, its socio-economic and national oppression of its indigenous population G. Galuzo (this did not prevent him from criticizing the works of F. Khodjaev, E. Fedorov or Jadids from a Bolshevik and stateist position), p. Muraveysky, G.. I. Safarov, T. Riskkulov, V. Lavrentev, especially M. In the above-mentioned works of Chokayev he was considered more openly. T. Riskkulov, F. Hodjaev, E. Fedorov, M. Chukayev covered events in political life in Turkestan. And Lavrentev will analyze economic issues. I. Safarov severely criticized the colonial administration, as well as most of the expatriates, for treating indigenous peoples with great respect. At the same time, the main causes and the essence of resettlement policy and experience of its implementation in Turkestan remained unknown. At the same time, it should be noted that P. Galuzo and T. Riskkulov assessed the situation of the authorities in the Volost, Rural and aoul sections, that is, authorities in the face of the Russian apparatus.
It is known that the Tsarist colonial administration managed to overcome the resentment and dissatisfaction of the indigenous population in settling the displaced persons from Russia and granting them preferential land.
In general, from the content of socio-political publications of the early 20-30s, the critical assessment of Turkistan's colonization and colonization of Turkestan by Russia, to some extent, even during the period when the politicians' approach of the authors was noticeable. G. I. Safarov, P. G. Galuzo, V. Lavrentev and, of course, M. Chukayev's conclusions are convincing. Since the 30s of the last century, the ideological attack on the "front of history" has intensified. Officials have declared that there is "a great need" for the struggle against the "Achilles' concepts" and for the "ideological perfection of local historiography." In particular, Safarov was charged with attempting to "confuse Leninism with Trotskyism." The investigator has been accused of denying the legitimacy of the October Revolution, "separating the issue of national colonies from the general issue of the proletariat dictatorship."

DISCUSSIONS
However, in the 20-30s when the totalitarian system in the country was consolidated, the dominant ideology was able to forcibly classify the classical guidance not only in life but also in science. On May 23, 1934, the Central Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Central Asia (B) excluded from the Central Asian historiography the rules for the Russian occupation of the region, as well as any negative assessments of the Russian domination in Turkestan and the steppe, the empire of Bukhara and the Khiva Khanate. adopted a resolution providing for the absolute avoidance of such cases.
Although the concept of "conquering" has been replaced by Soviet historiography since the late 30s, the study of the Russian Empire's resettlement policy in Turkestan and throughout Central Asia began much earlier than the established direction. However, these studies are declining year by year. The literature of the late 30s and early 80s only focused on the relocation of some of the metropolitan population to Turkestan and Dasht.
It is worth noting that AP Fomchenko, who studied the migration policy implemented in Turkestan and the Emirate of Bukhara, tried to incorporate a lot of documents and facts highlighting the important aspects of the problem. This reveals the peculiarities of resettlement policy in the Bukhara Emirate.
The author notes that, unlike Turkestan, the settlers from Russia on the territory of the Bukhara Emirate were not engaged in farming, as Russian citizens could settle here only after the political agent's agreement with the emir's government. This is due to two reasons: 1) lack of irrigated land in the emirate; 2) the risk of further dissatisfaction of the indigenous population towards Russia. Nevertheless, in 1917 the number of emigrants from the metropolis was 50,000. In addition, there were more than 15,000 Russian troops in the Emirate.
A. P. Although Fomchenko clarified a lot of information about this problem, the ruling ideology did not allow him to deviate from official beliefs in showing the consequences of Russian domination over the emirate of Bukhara. A. P. Fomchenko in another study analyzes the reasons for the actions aimed at increasing the picture of Population migration from Metropolis to Turkistan and scaling kengaytirishga at the end of the XIX -beginning of the XX century. The reason for these events is explained by the military-strategic plans of Russia in the region, the issue of Ghulja and English-Russian competition. The author indicated that the transformation of the country into a colony began with the restoration of the first stanises of the Cossacks in 1847 year in the territory of Ettisuv. The Russian Empire has always attached great importance to the issue of moving the Cossacks to this land and other regions of Turkestan. In 1867, The Seven-Cossack troops were formed, which included 14 stanisas. At present, the colonial administration has tried to bring to Turkestan a large number of Russian crestices and urban residents. Due to this, the population of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus in the country in 1897 year reached 197.420 people.
On the basis of important historical evidence in the study, the Russian government, after the colonial administration moved the Russian population to the country, indicates that the indigenous population had withdrawn their lands, introduced new taxes and fees on the basis of theikik materials. Those such achievements are accompanied by A. P. It is worth noting that some laws related to the policy and practice of moving Fomchenko population, not taking into account the decrees, did not allow to fully describe the topic.
The author in his study was forced to adhere to the official beliefs that reigned at that time. He positively assesses the consequences of the relocation policy of the Russian Empire in Turkistan. P. G. In the analysis of agrarian relations in the seven regions of galuzo in the southern part of Uzbekistan and in the Kazalinsk, Perovsk, Avliya -Ata, Chimkent regions of the Sirdarya region in 1867-1914 years, the process of moving the population from Russia to the regions of the seven regions and the Sirdarya region between the Kazalinsk, Chimkent regions, unfortunately, the consequences Well, in Soviet periodicals, the policy of relocation is covered in a general way by an example of concrete historical facts within certain territorial boundaries, the causes and consequences of this policy are not analyzed by the object, but rather by an approach and, most likely, without prejudice. The policy of relocation is not analyzed in depth and in detail.

RESULTS
Many studies have been published that relate to the subject at this or that level under study at a new historical stage, which lasted until the end of the 80-ies. Among them, first of all, it is necessary to distinguish fundamental academic works and dissertations. In these studies, the most important issues of the history of the colonization of Turkestan and in general Central Asia by the government of the Russian Empire from the point of view of Marxist methodologies were analyzed. However, it was revealed in part by the various sides of the movement to move the population from the metropolis to Turkistan and the desert region, as well as from the point of view of the "progressive consequences"of the "annexation" of the Central Asian region to Russia. Since the 50-ies of the XX century, in Soviet historiography, the tendency of the Russian Empire to suppress the invasion movements of Central Asia appeared and became increasingly stronger. Even the term" pressing "was replaced by the concept of" adding". Under the watchful ideological supervision and compression of the center and party organizations, researchers were forced to suppress the brutality of the regime of the Russian Empire, to strike down the importance of the struggle of the peoples of the region for freedom and independence, artificially only under the patronage of the Russian Empire, to artificially base the concerted conclusion that they "have achieved As a result of this, the nature of the colonial policy of the Russian Empire was not objectively revealed, the role of the settlers in the transformation of the country into a colony was not shown.
Sharp changes in the character and methodology of scientific research in Uzbekistan came to the field after the country gained its independence. After the declaration of State independence, artificial obstacles created in the way of studying the history of Vatan were removed. As a result, a powerful process of purification of historical thought, enlightenment of the true state of the colonial past began.
In H. Sh. In avezova's treatise on the activities of commercial banks, there is a significant amount of information about the fact that the colonial administration granted preferential loans to residents who moved from Russia, ssuds through such banks.
N in the study of the history of the formation of capitalist production relations. Some aspects and periods of the practice of moving from Metropolis to Turkistan were considered in great detail by Musaev. The author tried to periodize the resettlement practice of the Russian Empire and the colonial administration. However, in this study, the main criteria for relocation of part of the population of the metropolis to Turkistan in the periodization of the history of the relocation movement, as well as the frequently modified rules, were not sufficiently taken into account.
A. I. Ginsburg's book contains numerous official documents on resettlement, as well as interesting facts about the settlement and life of the Russian population in Turkestan, as well as examples of colonial oppression applied to indigenous peoples. In general, the works devoted to the policy and practice of the Russian Empire's migration from metropolitan to Turkestan were A.K. Ginsburg's book gives a more positive impression. However, this topic is A. I. The book was written in an inadequate spirit as Ginzburg investigated the order of the Mikluh-Maclay Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR at a time when genuine scientific methodological principles had not yet been restored. Therefore, the great-state-chauvinistic nature of the Russian Empire's resettlement policy in Turkestan is not fully understood. G. A. Akhmedjonov's significant thesis describes the emergence and development of Central Asia in the Russian Empire and the emergence and development of modern historiography in Central Asia on the issue of colonization of Turkestan. In his dissertation he was creatively re-imagined and compared the various approaches and approaches to the occupation of the country and the establishment of colonial rule of the Russian Empire. G. A. As a logical continuation of Akhmedjonov's research D. H. Ziyoyeva's works, which for the first time in the history of our country, analyze the history of the emergence and expansion of the Turkic peoples' struggle against colonial oppression at the beginning of the 20th century, and the debates and less studied aspects of the issue in domestic and foreign literature.
H. Ziyayev's extensive work describes the tragic pages of the empire empire over Central Asian khanates using Central Asian and Russian sources, as well as the national liberation movement of Turkestan peoples up to 1916. N. The monographs of Abdurahimova and G.Rustamova describe the nature, elements and peculiarities of the colonial power system in the Turkestan governor general. F B. Isaacov illustrated the negative impact of the Russian policy of the Russian Empire on the lives of the underprivileged peoples of Turkestan as an example of its manifestation -the migration policy. G. A. Khidoyatov revealed the long-term consequences of this policy and its continued pursuit by the Soviet regime.
The first volume of the three-volume "New History of Uzbekistan" in the expansion of scientific knowledge about the colonial past of our country and "Turkestan at the beginning of the 20th century: the history of the national independence" and "History and lessons: the development of national wealth of Uzbekistan during the Russian Empire and Soviet colonialism". The generalized monographs were a significant contribution.
Expanding An analysis of the literature published during the years of independence shows that it reflects only a few cases related to the Russian Empire's resettlement policy and its impact on the socio-economic status of the indigenous population.

CONCLUSION
Thus, the analysis of scientific studies related to the relocation of Turkistan to some extent shows that representatives of different historiographies have studied this issue from different methodological points of view at different times. At the same time, it is worth noting the subtle aspect of the problem. It is known that in recent years, strategic partnership between Uzbekistan and the Russian Federation has been established and relations between the two countries have reached a new level. This proximity between our countries and peoples and cooperation in various fields is a product of new historical conditions and political conditions in the early 21st century. Therefore, the subject of the Russian Empire's masturbation policy, which has been covered by the theme, is typical of the historical period under study, and today a completely different geopolitical process is taking place.