-
“Forty Years of Black Days”? The Russian Administration of Kars, Ardahan, and Batum, 1878–1918 - Candan Badem
- University of Wisconsin Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
221 “Forty Years of Black Days”? The Rus sian Ad min is tra tion of Kars, Ar da han, and Batum, 1878–1918 Can dan Badem This chap ter ex am ines the basic ten ets of the Rus sian “MilitaryCustomary Ad min is tra tion” (Voenno-narodnoe up rav le nie) and the Rus sian re set tle ment (col o ni za tion) pol icy in Kars, Ar da han, and Batum from the Rus sian an nex a tion in 1878 until the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918.1 While there is a siz able lit er a ture on the Rus sian ad min is tra tion in the Cau ca sus in gen eral, very few stud ies in Rus sian, En glish, Ar me nian, or Turk ish have been de voted to the Rus sian ad min is tra tion of this area.2 Whereas con tem po rary Rus sian his to rians have al most for got ten about these ter ri to ries, works by Turk ish, Kurd ish, Geor gian, and Ar me nian his to rians are gen er ally marked by na tion al ist inter pre ta tions, with few ex cep tions. There fore, one of my goals is to dis pel na tion al ist myths. An other goal is to ex am ine the out-migration of Mus lims from the re gion fol low ing the Treaty of Con stan tin o ple (1879). In the three years fol low ing the Treaty of Con stan tin o ple between Rus sia and the Ot to man Em pire, a treaty that gen er ally af firmed the Trea ties of San Ste fano (1878) and Ber lin (1878), more than 110,000 Mus lims from Kars and Ar da han and more than 30,000 Mus lims (with a few Ar me ni ans) from 222 Candan Badem Batum and Art vin aban doned their na tive lands and mi grated to the Ot to man Em pire. Turk ish na tion al ist historiog ra phy until now has de picted the years under Rus sian rule (1878–1918) as “forty years of black days” (kırk yıllık kara günler) and has con sid ered the Mus lim ex o dus from 1879 to 1882 as forced by the Rus sian govern ment.3 I argue that the Rus sian ad min is tra tion was not as “black” or bad as claimed by na tion al ist his to rians, and that the Rus sian ad min is tra tion did not force the local Mus lim pop u la tion to em i grate, al though it en cour aged out-migration by some in di rect in cen tives. The out-migration of Mus lims from these ter ri to ries after the an nex a tion was largely due to the un will ing ness of the Mus lim elites and the masses led by them to live as Rus sian sub jects and to some Ot to man in cen tives to em i grate. These Mus lim elites (not ables, clergy, of fi cials, and mer chants deal ing mainly with the state) feared loss of their priv i leged status under the new Rus sian ad min is tra tion. Some eco nomic rea sons also played a role for at least some of the em i grants. Sec ond, I argue that nearly half of the Mus lim em i grants from the re gion re turned to Rus sia le gally or il le gally, a fact that is hardly men tioned in Turk ish historiog ra phy. Fur ther, I as sert that the Rus sian pol icy in these ter ri to ries was com plex and in con sis tent, and the Rus sian ad min is tra tion in the end was un suc cess ful in col o niz ing the re gion with Rus sian peas ants or even with Chris tians in gen eral to a sig nifi cant de gree. Fi nally, al though this chap ter fo cuses on the re la tion ship between Rus sian pol icy and the Mus lim mi gra tion from the Cau ca sus, it is worth high light ing the role played by the many Russian-Ottoman wars and...