I
|
* State Committee on Defense (SCD) - exclusive body of power in period of war, which concentrated all power in own hands. |
On 17th May at 5 p.m. the chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Crimean ASSR, A. Menbariyev, and the chairman of the Soviet People Committee, I. Seyfulayev were called to the office of the first secretary of the Crimean Regional Committee. I. Seyfulayev recalled many years latter: “They recognized Kobulov to speak and he quoted the Decree of the State Committee on Defense of USSR from 11 May 1944 <...>. He demanded that the leadership of the republic, and party activists lead themselves with dignity and show an example of organization and discipline"2.
In the night of 17 to 18 May the “operation” was begun. Lorries full of people arrived at freight stations and they were loaded into boxcars. The deportation to places of settlement lasted about a month and was accompanied by mass death of the deportees. In the middle of June 1944, the echelons with the main body of the special settlers arrived in Uzbekistan. Many settlers were sent to work on construction of the Farkhad Hydro-Electric power station in Bekabad, to mines “Koytash” in Samarkand oblast “Tashkent-Stalinugol”, to collective farms and sovkhozes of Tashkent, Andijan, Samarkand oblasts, Shakhrizab, Kitab regions of Kashkadarya oblast. Most of them were settled in wooden barracks, which were not suitable for living, and at the mine “Koytash” they were in the open air 3.
According to information of the Department on Special settlements of the NKVD, in November 1944 in places of deportation there were 193,865 Crimean Tatars, of them - in Uzbekistan - 151,136, in Mariyskaya ASSR - 8,597, in Kazakhstan SSR - 4,286, the rest of them were sent for “using on works” in Molotov (10,555), Kemerovo (6,743), Gorkiy (5,095), Sverdlovsk (3,594), Ivanovo (2,800), Yaroslav (1,059) regions of RSFSR 4.
Creation of new life in Crimea without the Crimean Tatars and Greeks, Armenians and Bulgarians 5 - who were deported in the end of June 1945 it was required to repopulate the region with new workers. By a decision of 14 August 1944 in order to “ rapidly open up of the fertile lands, gardens and vineyards” the State Committee on Defense recognized the necessity to resettle in Crimea from different regions of RSFSR and Ukrainian SSR “conscientious and hard-working members of collective farms” - total 51,000 persons in 17,000 Crimean collective farms 6. The lands of former Tatar, Bulgarian and other collective farms, from which were made “special moving in 1944, with sowings and plantings” were handed to new organized collective farms of settlers from regions of Russia and Ukraine and assigned for collective farms in “possession in perpetuity” 7. Already by 1 December 1944, 64,000 settlers arrived in Crimea, including 30,444 able-bodied persons 8. (Previously, in July 1944, the cattle, sheep and goats, were “received from special settlers in Crimea”9).
On 25th of June 1946, the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR adopted the Law, which approved a reorganization of the Crimean ASSR into the Crimean oblast 10. In emigrants’ publications appeared a thesis on the end of the history of the Crimean Tatars11. A similar theme already had appeared in historiography in the 60s of the XIX century after the huge emigration of Crimean Tatars in 1854-1862s, which was a result of the policy of displacement of Tatars from Crimea, in particular, during and after Crimean War 12. It was no accident that many researchers (L. Alexeeva, A. Kappeler, E. Kyrymal, V. Kolarzh, R. Conquest, P. Potychnyj, V. Stenli Vardis, S. Chervonaya and others) consider deportation in 1944 as logical the end of a process of “forcing” Tatars from Crimea, which was begun from the period of its annexation by Russia in 1783.
Wiping of traces of Tatars off the face of Crimea was practically started at once after the deportation. In 1944-1948s, thousands of localities, mountains and rivers of peninsula, which had names of Crimean Tatar origin, were replaced by Russian names. In September 1948 at a Scientific session of history on Crimea a campaign on revision of the history of Crimea was begun, and after decisions of a United session of the department on history and philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of USSR on history of Crimea in 1952, a purposeful re-writing of the history of the Crimean Tatars was started. B.A.Rybakov in article “On study of history of Crimea”, which was published in the same year, noted that “Crimean organizations of local lore, history, and economy in the 1920-30's paid excessive attention to study and admiring of medieval Tatar culture and insufficiently critically studied the history of Crimean Khanate” 13.
The deportation became a national tragedy of the Crimean Tatars and other peoples, who were exiled from the peninsula, who did not conform to Stalin’s conception of national security and who were “pro-fascist and politically undesirable element” (People’s Commissar of State Security of Crimea, V. Sergiyenko, in September of 1944 defined new tasks of his department: “We have a task to make of Crimea a new Crimea with its Russian character”14). As a result of deportation the Crimean as a meta-ethnical phenomena was destroyed. Up to then there existed in Crimea a unique society in which lived peacefully existing, but actually not assimilating, representatives of different ethnical and religious groups - Moslems-Sunnis Crimean Tatars, Crimean Jews Karaite, Crimean Jews Krimchaks, Christians-Russians, Ukrainians, Greeks, Armenians, Germans, - a community, in which every member though he belonged to certain ethno-confessional groups, but at the same time, felt himself as part of a larger formation, within which he identified himself with definition “Crimean”.
The position of the newly arrived Crimean Tatar “special settlers” was so disastrous, that already on July 8, 1944 it became a subject of debate at a session of the bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan. In a resolution of the Central People’s Committee of Uzbekistan and the Central Committee of Communist Party of Uzbekistan the Regional Committees of Party were charged to take urgent measures for resettlement and “improvement of life” of the special settlers. The People’s Land Committee was to take measures for “improvement of medical service in places of outbreaks of epidemic (sovkhoz Narpay, mine “Tashkent-Stalinugol” and others)”15.
At the same time, as in now deserted 16, destroyed Crimea they created all “necessary conditions” for resettlement of settlers from Russia and Ukraine. Deputy People’s Committee of Internal Affairs V. Chernishov in a letter in the name of L. Beria (August of 1944) proposed “to oblige the Central Committee of Communist Party (b) of Uzbekistan and the Central People’s Committee of Uzbek SSR to attract more attention to issues of work and economical settlement of Crimean special settlers, to provide for creation of conditions for them, which promote to fastening of their permanent living in Uzbekistan” 17. Nevertheless the life of deportees was hard, fatalities were high 18, work conditions were difficult. There was discrimination (choice of work was excluded, and it was difficult to obtain leading posts and intelligentsia professions), though formally the special settlers kept their citizens’ rights. They had a right to take part in elections*. The Communists among them entered in local party organizations.
* O. Solzhenitsin “Arhipelag GULAG” ironically wrote: “This time is high, light – of some candidates to cross out all except own chosen one, - was treasured” – Author. |
All special settlers were registered and were obliged to register at local commandant’s offices. Namely, a commandant was the main power in each locality - under expression of writer Sh.Alyadin “king and God”. Many families during deportation were divided, that significantly complicated the first years of life in new places. It is truth, it was still possible to move around within Uzbekistan in 1944. However, the Resolution of the Council of Ministers dated 21 November 1947 and the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet dated 26 November 1948 reduced the position of the special settlers up to limit: a) moving in other, even neighbor region could be allowed only in presence of “call” of near relations; b) for non-sanctioned leaving from a permitted place of settling, for the first time, an arrest for 5 days was threatened, and the next such violation was considered as an escape from place of exile and was punished by 20 years of hard labour.
On 19 February 1954, in year the of the 300th Anniversary of the reunion of Ukraine with Russia, by Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR the Crimean oblast was transferred from the composition of Russia to the composition of Ukraine, “taking into account a community of economy, territorial closeness and closed economical and cultural ties between Crimean oblast and UkSSR” 19. It is difficult to say, if this “present” was really “tsar’s” (as it is accepted to think now) of one Slavic brother to other. After many years, A. Adzhubey remembered his trip to Crimea with N. Khruschev in October of 1953 “<...> Everything yet breathed by terrible war. There were empty settlements, Tatar auls <...>. I try to remember, did I think in that period on Tatar genocide, and must openly confess - I didn’t think about it”. Most of all, A. Adzhubey remembered thee crowd of settlers, crying to N. Khruschev: “We were brought ... Potatoes don’t grow here, and cabbage fades”. In the opinion of A. Adzhubey, namely after that trip over tumbledown Crimea, Khruschev decided to transfer Crimea to Ukraine 20. The official position was stated by the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, K. Voroshilov, “Crimea is a strategic important region and its transfer to Ukraine shows a trust of Russia towards Ukrainian partner” 21.
Did they take into account the Crimean Tatar problem during adoption of such decision - it is unknown.
II
“Thaw”: origin and first raising of Crimean Tatar movement for return to Crimea
Already, beginning from 1946 among Crimean Tatars there were cases of well-considered political protests, for which they were imprisoned. In the end of 40's these first appeared, but were not yet organized appearances, when young people made secretly and pasted leaflets with appeal for the return of the Crimean Tatar people to Crimea. In some cases, these were appeals to authorities, in others - to the Tatar people with appeal to stop enduring the maltreatment 22.
During the first years cases became public of escape of Crimean Tatars from places of special settling, and these can be considered as a so-called form of protest. According to information of the Department on Special Settlings of the People’s Committee on Internal Affairs (NKVD), the Department of Special Settlements of Department of Ministry of Internal Affairs of Crimea received, during the period from 1944 to 15 December 1948, 1738 demands to search for Crimean Tatars 23.
After Stalin’s death, in 1953-1954's, the leadership of the country initiated the issue about lifting of limitations and some categories of special settlers, in this connection, the heads of republics where the special settlers were settled were interrogated. The First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan, Niyazov, very strongly insisted that the “Crimea Tatars, who were deported in 1944, stay in special settlements, in connection, that among these special settlers are many manifestations of hostile moods and are committed many criminal offences” 24. The First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan, P. Ponomarenko, recommended that the regime of special settling not be removed not only from young, but also from “aged special settlers - Chechenians, Ingushes, Balkarians, “ounovets”, basmaches, Crimean Tatars and Belorussian kulaks”, justifying it that “a majority of them are bearers of most reactionary and hostile moods, who organize different religious and nationalistic groups, cultivating backward customs among youth and hinder youths and girls from school and social life” 25. The First Secretary of the Sverdlovsk Regional Committee of the CPSS paid attention to “stable political mood” of mobilized and local Germans and a part of settlers from Crimea 26, but noted, “settlers from Baltic states and Crimean Tatars are significantly less stable and have disposition to anti-Soviet manifestations” 27.
The question remains, on what real facts were similar claims based, were they show the stereotypical ideas of party leaders about those, who constituted unreliable categories of the population, or did they nevertheless reflect a real state of affairs. It is clear only that a deportation of peoples, and a humiliating regime didn’t encourage the “punished” peoples to submit to their fate, and delay them from laying their claims to the right to live in their Motherland and to have their own statehood.
In a report of N. Khruschev at the XX Congress (25.02.1956) of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for the first time in many years something was said about the injustice, that had been committed towards deported peoples. And soon there appeared the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR dated 28 April 1956 “On removal of restrictions on special settling from Crimean Tatars, Balkarians, Turkish-citizens of USSR, Kurds, Khemshils and members of their families, who were deported during the Great Patriotic War”, which removed a regime of special settlings for the mentioned peoples and liberated them from administrative supervision. The removal of restrictions, however, didn’t mean “return of property, which was confiscated during deportation”, including return to places from which they were deported 28.
From this period, the representatives of national elite of deported peoples began to make active attempts to gain access to the leadership of the country and achieve a return to their Motherland. One of the first letters - the letter of five Crimean Tatar communists 29 (September 1956; the authors indicated that first letter was sent in April 1956), - was addressed to members of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and M. Suslov, and raised the question about the return of Crimean Tatars to their Motherland, and restoration of Crimean autonomy within the composition of the UkSSR, including a return or compensation for property, which they left during their deportation.
There is an official answer in a letter in information of the deputy head of the department on party bodies of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union of Union Republics, P. Pigalev, and the deputy of the branch of the Department on local party bodies of Union Republics, V. Makarov, in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (26th October 1956). They informed about the “good level” of life of Crimean Tatars, and that leading workers - “there are a lot of them among Crimean Tatars” - are encouraged and are promoted to the party and leading work and that “in the adopted Decree of the Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan dated 5 September 1956 it was planned to take measures on development of national culture of Crimean Tatars and expansion of mass political work among them” 30. Becoming familiar with work conditions and life of Crimean Tatars, “numerous conversations with them show that overwhelming majority of workers and members of collective farms work conscientiously at factories, they have a good mood. Workers and members of collective farms don’t raise questions about their return to their previous place of residence in Crimea” 31. The question on restoration of Crimean autonomy in the composition of Ukrainian SSR “is raised not by ordinary people, but former leading workers and a part of the intelligentsia <...>”. This group of “workers”, it noted further, at the present time, they prepare a letter to “The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, in which the question on restoration of national autonomy of Crimean Tatars is raised and they make attempts to collect signatures under letter on behalf of workers and members of collective farms” 32.
In connection with the letter written by the five Crimean Tatar communists, the Department on party bodies of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union gave instructions to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan “to conduct additional work among Crimean Tatars, that a removal of regime of special settling from them doesn’t give them a right for return to regions of previous place of residence and their confiscated property”, and also “to give necessary explanations” for “former leading workers of Crimea” to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan 33.
Already at the end of 1956, the Decree of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union dated 24 November 1956 (it was removed from secret list in 1994) said about the return of a number of deported peoples to their Motherland - basing on that “in presence of large territorial diversity are not making necessary conditions for the further development of these nations <...> appear a danger of fading of culture” 34.
The question about that why were not Crimean Tatars to be returned to their Motherland, as were the Chechenians, Ingushes, Balkarians, Kalmiks, Karachanians, as before was keep secret and didn’t receive scientific solution up to now, though there are a lot of versions and conjectures. Refusal of the right to return to their Motherland for Crimean Tatars was formulated in item 6 of the Decree: “Recognize as pointless to grant national autonomy for Crimean Tatars, who before lived in Crimea, thinking of that former Crimean ASSR was an autonomy not only for Tatars, and was multinational republic, in which the Tatar population constituted less 1/5 part of the total population, and that there is Tatar National autonomy in the composition of Russia, and also at present time, Crimea is an oblast of Ukraine and populated. At the same time, taking into account the aspiration of a part of Crimean Tatars, who before lived in Crimea, for a national association, explain, that everybody, who wants, has a right to settle in the Tatar ASSR” 35.
The document was not published, but its content was discussed at a meeting on January 5, 1957, in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan with a group of Crimean Tatar Communists composed of 50 persons. According to information of R. Melnikov, which he submitted to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union after the meeting: “In their reports, the Communists stated that they will implement the Decree of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union dated 24 November 1956 and explain this decision to Crimean Tatars, who live in Uzbekistan. However, they consider the Crimean Tatar issue as unsolved, in this connection <....>they will continue to apply to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union” 36. “The right” to settle in Tatarstan was commented on at a meeting by the Crimean Tatar Communist, Izmaylov: “Not one Crimean Tatar goes to the Tatar ASSR. The language, life and culture of Crimean Tatars is quite different” 37.
Crimean Tatar communists, as they promised, began to make most persistent attempts to meet with the highest party leadership of the country. In July of 1957, they wrote a letter by name to the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, N. Khruschev requesting to meet, which was signed by 26 Crimean Tatars 38. The attempt to meet with him failed, but active petition work of Tatars was noted by the Department on party bodies under the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union: “<....> Only in June and August the Department received 17 collective statements, which were signed by about 989 Crimean Tatars” 39.
The mode of information from the Uzbekistan Central Committee to Moscow becomes colder and irate. On 26th August 1957, in an information, which was submitted to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, R. Melnikov writes with open anger: “Among special settlers from Crimea, in particular, after removal of restrictions from them, the noise about their illegal deportation has intensified. The main role in these questions is played by former leading workers of the Crimean Party-Soviet bodies, including the representatives of the intelligentsia. <...> In 1956, the initiative group was established, to which entered Murtazayev Veliulla 40 < ...>, Mustafayev Refat <...>, Selimov Mustafa <...>, Alyadinov Shamil <...>, Bolat Yusuf 41 <...> and others. This group didn’t stop its activity after conversation in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan. They held some unofficial consultations, which were dedicated to consideration of decisions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The content of these consultations boiled down that it is necessary “to disagree with such decision, and act, and be not afraid, to address actively and prove the justice of the demands of the Crimean Tatar people. I think that it would be advisable to invite to Moscow members of CC CPSU of Crimean Tatars in composition of: Murtazayev V., Mustafayev R., Selimov M., Alyadinov Sh., Bolata Yu., to warn them about stopping any activity directed toward stimulation and kindling of autonomist moods among settlers from Crimea and demand they go strictly by the decisions of the CC CPSU dated 24 November 1956. We ask to give the instructions of the CC CPSU” 42.
According to information of the deputy head of the Department on party bodies of the CC CPSU, I. Shikin dated 6 September 1957, such conversation was held. The participants of the conversation “were once more explained that the adopted decisions of the CC CPSU and government exhaust all questions that are raised in statements, which in these latter days come to the CC CPSU. On that Crimean Tatars stated that they would apply further to the CC CPSU with requests and statements on the return of Crimean Tatars to Crimea and restoration of autonomy” 43. In this connection, “the Department calls the local party bodies of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan to pay regard to the necessity of intensification of mass-political work among all groups of settlers-Crimean Tatars and removal existing defects” 44.
However, by autumn of 1957, the Movement developed a mass character - at enterprises, and in places of residence appeared a number of initiative groups of Crimean Tatars. At last, the activists achieved a meeting with a member of the Presidium of the CC CPSU, A. Mykoyan (17 March 1958), who assured them that the Crimean Tatar issue will be soon solved, and he personally will inform N.S.Khruschev. After the meeting five of the individual participants applied to A. Mykoyan with a letter, in which they expressed a hope on quick solution of the Crimean Tatar issue 45. The Inspector of the CC CPSU, I. Alatortsev, went to Uzbekistan in May 1958, in order personally “to explain” to the authors of the letter that the Crimean Tatar issue was solved by the Decree of the CC CPSU dated 26 November 1956, and another two authors - E. Seidametova and A. Muradasilov, who lived in Moscow, - were invited to the Department on Party bodies of the CC CPSU - “for explanation of issues, which were stated in letter” 46 .
Initiative groups of the end of 1950's provided an unprecedented mass petition campaign: to supreme bodies of government were sent the petitions that were signed by tens of thousands of persons, including a thousand individual letters. In 1959, the activists of movement sent a new appeal to the CC CPSU, which was signed by 10,000 persons, and in March 1961, the Presidium of CC CPSU received a petition, which was signed already by 18,000 persons 47. Initiative groups, which were established primarily to compile signatures under petitions, became unique in conditions of Soviet power as a form of social mobilization, which allowed them to achieve a legalization of wildcat social activity. (It is significant that the "Initiative Group on Protection of Human Rights in the USSR”, which was established by Moscow dissidents in 1969, received its name by analogy with initiative groups of Crimean Tatars).
The initiative groups acted openly but did not show the trappings of political organizations. This openness, and also its wide-spread nature was characteristic of the basic direction of a national movement, at the beginning, it prevented the authorities from paralyzing it by arrests and other forceful methods.
However first arrests soon followed also.
On October 10-11, 1961, the Tashkent regional court considered the case of Enver Seferov and Shevket Abduramanov. They were accused of committing crimes as provided by articles 60 p.1 and 64 CC Uzbek SSR (anti-Soviet propagation and propaganda and kindling inter-ethnic disagreement). The verdict of the court affirmed, that Seferov, "using national feelings of Tatars made, copied and <... > distributed the anti-Soviet documents, the contents of which were directed toward undermining and weakening of the Soviet power and against measures <... > party and government", and Abduramanov "distributed them among the inhabitants of Chirchik". What the specific nature of the anti-Soviet documents that were distributed and in what their anti-Soviet character was expressed, the verdict did not state. Nevertheless E. Seferov was sentenced to seven, and Sh. Abduramanov by five years of camps of a strict regime 48.
In 60's young people began to play an increasing role in the movement, who grew up in Central Asia, who had no experience at all of the Soviet career, but from childhood suffered from a lack of rights and arbitrariness of authorities. They were more radical, than the founders of Movement, who belonged up to 1944 to Crimean Tatar elite.
From December 1961 till April, 1962, in Tashkent there was a "Union of the Crimean Tatar youth". The young people, mostly, students and workers, read verses in Russian and Tatar languages, discussed problems of return to the Motherland, and the history of their own people. It was decided to create a youth organization with a program and by-laws and, when the organization would become mass, to receive a certification to its official existence. The prime task in the draft program put forward an explanatory work for a raising of national consciousness and political activity of Crimean Tatars. However, very soon, on April 8, 1962, four participants in the organization were arrested, two from them were released, and two - Marat Omerov and Seit-Amza Umerov - were condemned, under accusation of creation of the anti-Soviet organization and management of it, and also of anti-Soviet propaganda and propagation, by the Supreme Court of Uzbek SSR to 4 and 3 years of camps of a strict regime 49. Soon after discharge Marat died.
III
Activation of movement in the middle of 60's, new forms of resistance
New life for the movement was begun after the dismissal of N. Khruschev in 1964.
Since 1964 a permanent representation of Crimean Tatars acted in Moscow - being uninterruptedly a rotating delegation, which was engaged in systematization and sending of letters and appeals to governmental bodies, informing people including the representatives of Soviet community about the situation, and regularly issuing and distributing “Information”, in which was information on a number of given documents and conversations with officials 50.
The leaders of the movement, people, basically, mature public figures in Soviet Society, tried to give to the movement the loyal character to the Soviet power and ideology. This was reflected, for example, in its terminology, which they used with reference to the organizational forms of movement. A full name of initiative groups - “Initiative groups of assistance of a party and government in the solution of a national question of the Crimean Tatar people”. The lists of the members, elected by the people, IG - more than 5000 men - were offered to the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The active workers of initiative groups organized meetings and other measures of Crimean Tatars, and were engaged in delivery and distribution of "Information", in which was information on the activity of "the representatives of the people ". They were engaged in the collecting of remedies and donations for sending of delegations to Moscow, including assistance to families of the convicted participants of the movement, collecting of signatures under the petitions to government, and informing on forthcoming meetings 51 .The national representatives received the mandates - documents confirming their powers. There was even a practice of giving of reports by the national representatives on the work accomplished not only in initiative group, which elected them, but also in the CC CPSU. There was the Central Initiative group (CIG). In republican meetings "initiators" a national point of view on all urgent problems of life of the people was developed 52 .
On 4 August 1965, the second meeting of a group of Crimean Tatars with the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, A. Mikoyan, was held in the Kremlin. Eight men took part in the meeting, the majority of them were veterans of war and members of the CPSU. In the basic report by Riza Asanov, the demands of Crimean Tatars - "the organized returning and compact resettlement of the people in a historical native land, restoration of an autonomy, national schools, development of language, culture, education" were stated. Finally, it was stressed that any other solution of the question, "as-cultural-national autonomy", is denied. Summarizing meeting, A. Mikoyan promised to inform the Politburo about the meeting. R. Asanov recollects: in that time he had an opinion that A. Mikoyan "wanted to solve the Crimean Tatar problem". In his opinion, after the meeting in the Kremlin in 1965, Crimean Tatars were more often promoted", a number of students - Crimean Tatars in high schools - was increased, that was connected with desire of authorities "to bring down the National Movement" 53. The participants of the Movement tried to stimulate it.
In the summer 1965, the struggle for returning to Crimea reached a new quality - a petition campaign was added to street appearances. 27.08.1965 more thousand Crimean Tatars gathered at a building of city committee of communist party in Bekabad to ask the first secretary of Central Committee of Communist Party of Uzbekistan Sh. Rashidov, when the decision of CC CPSU on Crimean Tatar issue will be announced. The authorities used force to break up a demonstration. Some days latter, the three Bekabad activists of National Movement were arrested: Khatidzhe Khayretdinova, who took part in meeting with A. Mikoyan on August 4, 1965, Eskender Dzhemilev and Refat Seydametov - under accusation of violation of the art. 204 CC UzSSR (hooliganism). 11 September 1965, the court, which was held in Tashkent, convicted three of them as guilty of instigation of disturbances and sentenced Kh. Khayretdinova to 6 months, and E. Dzhemilev and R. Seydametov to 1 year of prison 54. At the same time, one of the participants of meeting with A. Mikoyan in 1965, an activist of Bekabad initiative group Arsen Alchikov, was excluded from the Party, with the stipulation "for nationalistic activity, instigation of mass disturbances and violation of party discipline".55
The facts, which were published in “Information” of Crimean Tatars, testified that the Movement had gained momentum.
On May 30-31, 1966, in a settlement, Yuzhniy Alamishik of the Andizhan region, a meeting of the candidate for the deputy of the Supreme Soviet USSR, Chairman of Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of UzSSR Ya. Nasretdinova was held with constituents. On the question, when at last will Crimean Tatars return to home, Nasretdinova answered: “Crimean Tatars will not be returned to Crimea, even if the Union bodies will adopt the appropriate decision" 56.
After conversation with Nasretdinova, the representatives of initiative groups of the Crimean Tatar Movement wrote a letter to the newspaper "Pravda" (Truth) about the "antiparty statements of the candidate for deputy". The editorial worker, Kovalev, named the statements of Nasrtetdinova "irresponsible and inconsiderate" and assured that he would acquaint the main editor with the letter. On the question, whether he is familiar personally with a national question of Crimean Tatars, he answered: "Your question stood on the agenda, but whether it is there today, I cannot say. Apparently, the members of Politburo do not have a single opinion on this question and it likely temporizes its solution" 57.
In one issue of "Information" was published a telephone conversation of September 27, 1966, between representatives of the Movement with the responsible worker of the department of CC CPSU. In conversation he stated "A lot of people engage in Crimean Tatar question. This question is under consideration and solution in CC CPSU, and is one of main questions and will be solved in 1966..."58
From October 8 till October 18 1966, in honour of the 45th Anniversary of creation of Crimean ASSR in many cities of Uzbekistan - Tashkent, Andizhan, Bekabad, Fergana, Yangiyul, Angren - the meetings of Crimean Tatars were held. Despite their peaceful character, all of them were broken up by authorities and were accompanied by mass arrests of the participants. Thousands were severely beaten, hundreds were arrested for 15 days and 17 and many convicted on long terms - that was the result of celebratory measures 59.
The Uzbek authorities were anxious. Central Committee of Communist Party of Uzbekistan informed to Moscow: "The situation of special settlers from Crimea [and after ten years after a cancellation of commandant regime still “special settlers”! - author] especially was complicated and became dangerous by autumn of 1966. The leaders of "movement for returning of Tatars to Crimea" undertook attempts to organize new provocations, which were coincided with 45th Anniversary signing the Decree on establishment of Crimean ASSR. They held "meetings" of Crimean Tatars <... > in each of "meetings" participated from 100 up to 200 men, including schoolboys... The separate persons threaten in case of refusal to solve "Crimean Tatar issue" to take sharper forms of "struggle " - to appeal to UN and organize strikes and so on.” 60
According to information of MOOP UzSSR “the bodies of the public order of UzSSR in a number of cases, when they were faced with the facts of open disobedience, undertook not only measures of explanatory character directed on prevention of similar actions, but also used coercive measures. Thus, on October 10, 1966, in Bekabad the militia had to use rubber sticks" 61.
In 1966-1967s some more legal proceedings against the activists of the Crimean Tatar Movement in Fergana and Andizhan were held. In total, in 1966-1967s in Uzbekistan, according to information of the prosecutor's Office of USSR, were instituted criminal proceedings "for anti-public displays on national base against 59 persons of Crimean Tatars, of them: for hooliganism against - 55, for slander against - 3, for kindling of national dissension against - 1". To prevent a violation of public order 766 Crimean Tatars in 1966 and in January 1967, were forced to appear before bodies of militia for acquaintance with the criminal legislation" 62.
Despite of strengthening of movement and repeated promises to solve "Crimean Tatar issue", neither in 1966, nor in the beginning 1967, the Crimean Tatar problem was not solved.
The important feature in the period of middle 60's became the sharply increased interest of Crimean Tatars in the history and culture of the people, which testified to the raising of national self-consciousness. Historical researches for young Crimean Tatars, trying to comprehend the national destiny of their native land, in many respects were connected with a search for self-identification, and for the old men - with an attempt to get rid of the brand of "traitor" and "enemy".
In September 1965, the activists of the movement adopted a decision to collect materials on participation of Crimean Tatars in the second World War - including in the front lines, and in partisan and underground movement, including patriots, who were shot by the fascists. The information which was collected in settlements during deportation and exile, on losses of the Crimean Tatar people, were generalized and, according to "national" census constituted 46,2 % 63. In 1967 a collective letter was sent to the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR with the request to consider the request for giving the title of Hero of the Soviet Union to Crimean Tatar partisans Alime Abdennanova and Abdulla Dagdzhi 64. In the letter there was an information on Crimean Tatar - participants of partisan movement in Crimea, many of whom were shown on pages of the books by I. Vergasov, I. Kozlov, A. Perventsev as fascists’ abettors. So, one of the recognized leaders of the partisan movement in Crimea, Bekir Osmanov, in the book by I. Vergasov was presented as a traitor who was claimed to have been shot, though, actually, many years after war he lived in Fergana and was an activist of the National Movement. The answer in historical studies of his son, Yuriy Osmanov, in the field of study of the heritage of the Crimean Tatar educator of the 19th century I. Gasprinkyi and also in his letters to L. Brezhnev, in which he in a polemical manner described the conversation with the representative of CC of the CPSU on Crimean Tatar issue, was the arrest in 1967 and following condemnation 65.
If we to accept the point of view, that "the culture is collective intelligence and collective memory" (Yu. Lotman 66 ) it is possible to say, that in the middle of 60's, in self-consciousness of Crimean Tatars there was a rather qualitative increase, which designated new stage in development of the Crimean Tatar people as a cultural, self-aware community. The revival of national memory, with which the development of national movement is always connected, became a terrible symptom for the authorities.
At the same time, the initiative groups continued to submit petitions. The documents with historical materials and national appeal of the Crimean Tatar people to XXIII Congress, were signed by over 120,000 Crimean Tatars from all regions, which constituted 22 volumes. They were given to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on March 22, 1966 67. On the same day, Crimean Tatar representatives were received by thee Secretary of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USS, M. Georgadze.
According to the calculations of the Office of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, for 1965 - January 1967, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR, Council of Ministers and the Presidium of the USSR received about 53,000 letters and telegrams from Crimean Tatars, many of them had tens, hundred and even thousands of signatures 68 .
IV
Long-awaited decisions of authorities on Crimean Tatar problem: declaration and reality
At the beginning 1967, the activity of national movement forced the authorities to engage closely in Crimean Tatar problem and somehow to solve it - in order to prevent serious political excesses in year of the 50h Anniversary of October Revolution. It is clear, that it was a difficult question: in case of its solution, there were conflicting interests of the center and also, at least of two Union republics (Ukraine and Uzbekistan) and the deported people, who categorically were not reconciled with their destiny.
It is possible without exaggeration to say that by this period, the National Movement of Crimean Tatars represented a serious force: it was well organized and coordinated, rather a mass national movement with wide spread publications 69 and it was inspired by a national idea, which was formulated in the Movement’s major documents (returning to a historical native land, recovering of national statehood, political and moral rehabilitation). For Crimean Tatars, the idea of returning to Crimea became not simply one of the factors of national consciousness, but an integrating ideology, and their ethnic identity became to supercede all of others.
The inaccessibility of the documents of Supreme Party bodies does not allow us yet definitely to determinate, what was the arrangement of forces in the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR on the Crimean Tatar problem. However, the preparatory materials that we studied, which were collected in archive folders of departments of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, for the period January - June 1967 on the eve of adoptions of the Decree 70, allow us to make some preliminary conclusions about the attitude of authority to a complex of problems, which actually constituted Crimean Tatar question: repatriation and rehabilitation of Crimean Tatars, activity of national movement, restoration of the Crimean autonomy.
The key question for the Crimean Tatar Movement and, which apparently was most essential for authorities, namely the restoration of “Crimean Tatar” autonomy was recognized as ”pointless”. According to the opinion of the authorities, the Crimean ASSR, which was established in 1921, had never been the national autonomy of Crimean Tatars, “but as Tatars <... > by amount of the population took the second place after Russians and were the people, who was lagging behind in economic, cultural and social - political area, to their development was paid special attention” 71.
In background papers that were prepared for the Office of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, that were devoted to the Crimean Tatar Movement, its activity was considered as the intrigues of a small group of Crimean Tatar nationalists (“avtonomists”) at the head of which were leading workers and the representatives of the intelligencia of the abolished Crimean ASSR”, (in particular, names Mustafa Selimov, Bekir Osmanov, Dzheppar Akimov, Muarrem Martinov, Arsen Alchikov, Alim Murtazayev). The negative influence of the leaders of movement on youth was noted, who because of their propaganda “become angered easily”, and on the most part of the Crimean Tatar population, whom the false hope for returning to Crimea "is inspired" 72.
The thesis about participation of Crimean Tatars in the Great Patriotic War was directly connected with the problem of rehabilitation, and it actually repeated the provision of the Law of RSFSR from 25.06.1946 “On abolition of Checheno-Ingush ASSR and on transformation of Crimean ASSR into the Crimean oblast”: “During the Great Patriotic War many Crimean Tatars actively collaborated with Hitler invaders, and the basic part of the Tatar population did not oppose to the traitors”. The demands of Tatars for removal of such accusations were named as groundless, because “the facts of collaboration in the period of the Great Patriotic War were not rejected by anybody” 73. Let's notice, that the knotty history of war in Crimea (in particular, a history of collaboration and partisan actions, various aspects of the German occupying policy concerning the local population of Crimea etc.) was constantly looked at and was disputed as in the individual letters, and in the program documents of the Movement, that the leaders, who were mentioned in the information of the Crimean Tatar Movement (they also - the authors of its documents) had famous military pasts. It is a truth, the authors of the information preferred to pass over in silence on it.
Many letters of Crimean Tatars raised the question about the removal of works that tendentiously discussed the various periods of a history of Crimea and Crimean Tatars, and that put into public consciousness a negative ethno-stereotype of Crimean Tatar. In this regard, the information of Office of the Supreme Soviet contained the statement, that “the expert - historians can have various opinions on this question <... > however <... > the literature discrediting the people or a nation, in our country is not published, and the propagation of nationalism or racial hatred in USSR is forbidden by the law” 74.
It is easy to guess, that having such ideological dispatches, which were based basically on stereotype of post-war historiography of history of Crimea and myths, which had taken root in the mass consciousness through the popular literature, the conclusions about prospects of the solution of the main question - organized return of Tatars to Crimea - were rather unfavorable: Crimean Tatars took roots on the new places of residence, “on a new homeland was grown a new generation of the Soviet people of the Tatar nationality, who never lived in Crimea” 75, “currently, Crimea is completely populated. Return <...> is impossible. It would result to disorganization of production and normal life of the local population” 76.
It is difficult to say, whether the authors really believed their own pronouncements on “Crimean Tatar question” or did these conceptual grounds simply reflect the victory, conditionally speaking, of an anti-Tatar faction within the leadership. It is clear only that there was no unanimity of opinions. The general-major of KGB, F. Bobkov, affirms, that the Fifth department of KGB under the Council of Ministers of the USSR offered a variant for the solution of the problem, which was approved by Yu. Andropov, - returning of Tatars “by way of the gradual organized recruitment of labor”. However, with respect to the decision about the final solution the view prevailed, which was conducted by the Minister of Internal Affairs N. A. Schelokov (“not promise anything concrete”). At a meeting in the Kremlin on 21.07.1967 with the political leadership of the country the representatives of Crimean Tatars “were given general words, foggy promises and that was the end of it” 77.
Emanating from the meetings of August 27 and September 2, 1967, in Tashkent, at which the participants in the meeting in the Kremlin should tell about its results and which were accompanied by numerous arrests, Crimean Tatars did not know yet, that for many years their national question “was solved”: on 17.08.1967, the Decree of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was adopted, 78 in which the main principle of the attitude of authority to Crimean Tatar problem was defined - strengthening (“rooting”) of Crimean Tatars “in places of present residence” 79. The party decisions were publicized by the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of USSR from 5.09.1967 “On citizens of the Tatar nationality, who lived in Crimea”.
The decree, which was published in the local Mass Media and in the official publication "Vedomosti of the Supreme Soviet of USSR", rescinded the decisions of state bodies, which contained wholesale charges against “citizens of the Tatar nationality, living in Crimea”, but affirmed, that they “took roots in Uzbekistan and other Union republics”.
In the Decree of Presidium of the Supreme Soviet # 494, which followed directly on the Decree, - “On procedure of implementation of article 2 of the Decree of the Presidium of the USSR from April 28, 1956: - stated that “<...> citizens of the Tatar nationality <...> and members of their families have a right, as well as all citizens USSR to live in all territory in accordance with the relevant legislation pertaining to job placement and passport regime”80.
The way the Decree was formulated was crafty. At meetings of activists, to which were invited the Crimean Tatar members of the CPSU, they were informed about the promulgation of the Decree and that the decision was final, They were threatened that those, who would continue to struggle for the return to Crimea, would suffer reprisals as nationalists. Similar meetings were held at many enterprises and institutions 81.
Despite the unusual atmosphere of publication for the Decree on rehabilitation, and the suspicious thesis on “rooting” 82 and the strange formula of the ethnonym - “citizens of Tatar nationality, who used to live in Crimea” 83 , Crimean Tatars apprehended the Decree as a way to return home. Already, by the end of September 1967 about 2000 Tatars arrived in Crimea, however, practically, those who arrived were not registered.
The leading workers of the oblast so explained the position with respect to Tatars “Register one, tomorrow in his place will be 10... We - Union republic and are able ourselves to decide, who will be registered and from whence they can come. We will be against any attempts to put a question on the organized return of Crimean Tatars <... >” 84.
It was practically impossible for Crimean Tatars, who arrived in Crimea to register “on a general basis”. The refusals to register them followed ostensibly because of non-accordance with the sanitary housing standard, which was established in UkSSR (13,6 sq. meters per person). If in the passport of a registered person there was a mark showing registration of marriage and presence of children, he should find an accommodation for them also. In accordance with statements of the responsible workers of the Crimean Regional Committee and the Regional Executive Committee, the individual construction in cities and villages for immigrants was prohibited, and the rural areas were equated to cities according to the provisions of a registration and job placement. It was also prohibited for a man without Crimean registration to buy a house.
Besides, during many years the large-scale movement of the citizens from their previous home regions in Ukraine on favorable terms was continued. Each region of the Crimean oblast was connected to a certain Ukrainian oblast, from which persons were moved - (Simferopol - for Sumy, Belohorskiy - for Cherkassk etc.). So, a recruited person did not have any possibility to return home (to Ukraine) and was constrained to resettle in Crimea. Under some information, if the whole village moved, the previous location was completely destroyed by the bulldozer 85.
The leadership of Crimea hoped that “the people would yield and will understand that it is impossible to register, and will return home" 86. However, the flow of returning persons was not reduced. In March, 1968, in the Office of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR received a sharp increase of letters from Crimean Tatars after publication of the Decree. The majority of the letters contained the request to give instructions to the Crimean authorities to stop impeding registration 87. Actually, in the Decree itself and the following Resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR # 494 such limitations were implicitly formulated - it granted the right of residence of Crimean Tatars "in all territory of the Soviet Union according to the relevant legislation on job placement and passport regime". [italics mine - author.]
The question remains, what did the authorities expect by bringing into force such an ambiguous legislative act. Did the leadership of the country realize, what consequences the accepted legal document could have? Did the high echelons of authority really hope for success of a policy of "rooting"? Anyway, the Decree, which didn’t solve the main question of the Crimean Tatar problem - the mass return of Crimean Tatars to Crimea, gave a new impulse to the National Movement, whose activity during the next two years remained high.
V
New events and tendencies in development of Movement in 1968-1970. (rapprochement with Moscow dissidents, strengthening of repression and attempts of self-repatriation)
In the spring of 1968, a rather significant event in the history of the Crimean Tatar Movement took place - the beginning of cooperation with the human rights Movement in the USSR 88 .
The principal of openness, attempts for dialogue with authorities, and the appeal to Law - all brought together Crimean Tatar activists with Moscow human rights activists. There had already been contacts with Moscow dissidents, and a mutual influence 89. But the beginning of real cooperation of both voluntary organizations is now considered to have been a banquet, which was held by activists of the Crimean Tatar Movement in the restaurant “Altay” on March 17, 1968, and which was dedicated to the 72nd Anniversary of the writer A. Kosterin. His work “On small and forgotten” was dedicated to problems of deported peoples, as was his letter to his friend, a person who held the same view, S. Pisarev, for protection of Crimean Tatars. Crimean Tatars knew very well these works, and liked and respected their authors. Kosterin himself was not able to be present in the banquet because of illness, but asked his closest friend, general Petr Hrihorenko to be there. In a speech, which became very popular among Crimean Tatars, P.Hrihorenko said: “In <... > struggle do not become isolated in narrow national shell. Establish contacts to all progressive people of other nations <...>. Appeal for assistance to the world community and to the international organizations” 90.
At once after the banquet, recollected later P. Hrihorenko, "was decided to support <... > demands on return to Crimea, on revival of an autonomy by massive <... > demonstration <... >” 91. Such demonstration was held on April 21, 1968, in Chirchik of the Tashkent district to coincide with a national holiday of spring “Derviza” and the birthday of V. Lenin, under whose initiative in 1921, the Crimean Independent Republic was established. Peacefully walking people were attacked by soldiers and policemen, were beaten and doused by a fire-brigade. About three hundred persons were arrested, 10 appeared in court 92.
On the next day, a telegram about the Chirchik events was sent to P. Hrihorenko, with which he immediately made acquainted foreign correspondents at a press conference, which was organized by A. Kosterin in his flat 93. At the hearing the participants in the Chirchik slaughter, at the request P. Hrihorenko - the Crimean Tatars were defended for the first time by the Moscow lawyers Sofya Kallistratova, Leonid Popov, Yuriy Pozdeyev, Vladimir Romm 94 . The practice of involving of the Moscow lawyers in trials of Crimean Tatars was allowed to continue for some time, however, when it became obvious, that a pronouncement of sentence in such cases didn’t depend on the lawyer’s skill, and a honest position of the advocate promised for him serious troubles (up to disbarment from advocacy) many defendants - Crimean Tatars began to defend themselves.
In the opinion of P. Hrihorenko, namely from the Chirchik events the “Crimean Tatar National Movement <... > became known to all world” 95 . Henceforth, “the most outstanding representatives of the human rights movement became simultaneously as activists of the Crimean Tatar Movement <... > Their hospitable flats were always open for our delegates, coming to Moscow. Simultaneously, and the Movement of Crimean Tatars supported the general democratic Movement, and other national and religious movements in struggle against the common enemy - the totalitarian regime”. (M. Dzhemilev) 96 . In the collective document of Moscow human rights activists (one of the first addressed to West) - a letter to the Budapest counsel of Communist Party (February, 1968) among most brutal violations of the civil rights in USSR was listed the prohibition of Crimean Tatars to return home 97, and in the second issue of the human rights bulletin “Chronicle of ñurrent events” (June, 1968.) was published “The appeal of the Crimean people to the world community” - and a sketch of the history and struggle of Crimean Tatars for the national rights in the post deportation period was published. Mustafa Dzhemilev signed the first letter of the “Initiative group on protection of human rights in USSR” (20.05.1969), and thus joined the movement.
At the next anniversary of deportation of activists of Movement it was decided to conduct on May 17, 1968, a mass demonstration of Crimean Tatars in Moscow, definitively establishing the position of authorities as regard to the Crimean Tatar problem. On 16 May in the telegram to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR and the Supreme Soviet of the USSR it was written that: “This time people do not ask any office for any promises. It demands <... > actual urgent organized <... > return to Crimea <... >”. For participation in the demonstration in the capital about 800 representatives of Crimean Tatars from all regions arrived. The majority of the participants, including the women and elderly veterans of war, were seized and beaten by policemen and employees of KGB, were taken into departments of militia, detoxification centers, and latter under an escort were put on trains and sent to their places of residence. Despite of the punishment, made by authorities, on 18 May in all places of residence of Crimean Tatars the mourning processions and meetings were held 98.
The events in the spring of 1968, in many respects defined the new attitude of Crimean Tatars to authority, and dispelled the last illusions of a fast and peaceful solution of the national problem. The moment of sudden change in national consciousness was precisely defined by P. Hrihorenko: “The authorities sustained here a strong defeat. The people, though few, but united <... > moved from authority, and went into opposition” 99. Those few Crimean Tatars, who agreed to cooperate with authorities, were exposed to moral condemnation by the majority of their compatriots. The organized campaign of counter-petitions by bodies of the KGB, in which “successes” of Crimean Tatars living for years in Middle Asia were given and the activity of the National Movement was condemned, actually failed because of the unwillingness of the majority of Crimean Tatars to sign the similar appeals 100 .
Thus, the Decree of 1967 brought a defined clearness in the relations between the authority and Crimean Tatars. The authorities considered “the Crimean Tatar issue” as solved, those, who did not agree with such situation of affairs, received a label of “autonomists”, “nationalists” etc. In view of the fact that such persons were in the majority, files were made for thousands of Crimean Tatars by the KGB. In the process of accumulation of sufficient materials for “cases”, new arrests were made. Any Crimean Tatar, especially, a participant in the national movement, henceforth was not guaranteed against ungrounded arrest and trial, which found him guilty of committing what ever crime, the authorities might consider it necessary to think up for the purposes of the operative needs of the militia and KGB 101 .
Especially, “fruitful” at trials in the period 1968-1970s., when in response to the failure to suppress the movement, there were the indictments of those, who criticized openly and sharply the Decree of 1967 and the actions of the authorities in the period of the Chirchik and Moscow events, and acted against persecutions in Crimea and the falsifications of Crimean Tatar history. All of them were convicted and sentenced to various prison terms for "distribution of false fabrications discrediting Soviet state and the social system” (see article 190-1 of CC of RSFSR) and “violation of national and racial equality” (see article 74 of CC of RSFSR) 102. Human rights activists underwent repression as well, including those who gave versatile assistance and moral support to the Crimean Tatar Movement (Petr Hrihorenko, Ilya Gabay).
In that period, a campaign of deportations and trials on accusation of violation of the passport regime - art. 196 CC of UkrSSR continued in Crimea - the interpretation of the Soviet justice for Crimean Tatars got a really viscious character 103.
In total in 1968-1969's in Crimea about 900 Crimean Tatar families were settled, of them about 250 under organized recruitment of a labor, which the authorities had to use in the spring 1968, somehow to reduce the non-authorized flow of repatriates. The organized recruitment was actually finished by the end of 1969. About 600 families managed to register, by arriving independently, some of them suffered one or several deportations 104.
In the opinion of P. Hrihorenko, in spite of the fact that by the end of the first post-decree year it looked like a defeat for the development of the National Movement it was rather important: Crimean Tatars “were strengthened in understanding of the right <... > learned to resort to the international help <... > settled on new territories, received a wider base for support in the future of the right affair by other peoples” 105. In a similar way, activists of the Crimean Tatar Movement valued the results of 1968 in the New Year's “Information” (01.01.1969): “Civil consciousness of our people < has risen >the National Movement of the Crimean Tatar people <... > passed in a new phase <... > Now we are not alone <... > the 1969 should be a year of the even greater political activity” 106.
At the beginning of May 1969, in Tashkent, an indictment of over ten activists of the Crimean Tatar Movement was prepared. About 3 thousand Crimean Tatars applied to P. Hrihorenko with the request that he be their public defender for this trial. On 7 May, after his arrival in Tashkent, Hrihorenko was arrested, and on 19 May, in Moscow, another participant of human rights Movement, Ilya Gabay, was arrested.. In September 1969, to the CC CPSU the protest was signed by 2000 Crimean Tatars concerning the arrest of P. Hrihorenko, in which was written: “We see in his arrest a desire of punitive bodies to isolate Crimean Tatar people from the Soviet community <... > and to facilitate thus a suppression of our National Movement” 107. In September 1969, in Gulistan M. Dzhemilev was arrested. Along with I. Gabay, in January, 1970 he was sentenced to three years, and in February 1970, P. Hrihorenko was placed in a special mental hospital 108.
The largest trial over Crimean Tatars (so called “Trial of ten”), took place on 01.07. - 05.08.1969. In Tashkent, of ten accused, six of them were the leaders of the National Movement - Rollan Kadiyev, Izzet Khairov, Ayder Bariyev, Reshat Bayramov, Ismail Yazidzhiyev, Ridvan Gafarov 109. The accused in their own statements at the trial tried to attract attention to Crimean Tatar problem not only of the world, but also of the Soviet community, which, as a matter of fact, knew nothing about the true situation of this question.
The final verdict of guilty declared that the accused “joined to the energetic activity under the decision of so-called Crimean Tatar question <... > were engaged in making and distribution of a various sort of the documents containing false fabrications, which discredited the Soviet state and social system, and collecting of signatures under these documents, conducting of illegal meetings <... > and duplicating slanderous documents”. While the accused agreed to almost all the facts which took place, in informative letters which they wrote to establishments and individuals, the accused categorically denied that these documents had a slanderous character, considering that they stated in them only truth.
The Supreme Court of the UzSSR found all of the accused guilty, and sentenced them to from 1 to 3 years in prison 110.
The “Trial of ten” and the trial of Mustafa Dzhemilev and Ilya Gabay in January 1970, became the culminating events of the active 60's, enabled the Crimean Tatars to discredit the Decree of 1967 and opened “a narrow road” to home. At the same time, the Decree caused for many years a lot of problems as much for the authorities, as for the Crimean Tatars. The hopes of 60's on return to home didn’t come true. During the 70's in the development of the Movement already other tendencies were noted.
Notes
1 Quotation from: Guboglo M.N., Chervonnaya S.M. Krimskotatarskoye natsionalnoye dvizheniye (Crimean Tatar National Movement). Volume 2. Documents. Materials. Chronicle. - M., 1992, p. 44.
2 Seyfulayev I. Viseleniye krimskotatarskogo naroda na osnove ogulnih obvineniy (Deportation of the Crimean Tatar people on base of wholesale accusations). - Golos Krima (The Voice of Crimea). 1999. - #32 (299). - 6 August. - p. 5.
3 Russian State Archive of Social-political history (further RSASPH), f.17, op.44, r.758, p.36 ob.
4 State archive of Russian Federation (further SARF), f.9479, op.1, r.187, p.1.
5 In August 1941, about 40,000 Germans were deported from Crimea.
6 RSASPH, f.17, op.44, r.762, p.147.
7 RSASPH, f.17, op.44, r.762, p.148 ob.
8 Crimea in the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945/ Authors. V. Garagulya., I.P.Kondranov, L.P.Kravtsova. - Simferopol, 1994.- p.134.
9 RSASPH, f.17, op.44-r.762, p.25.
10 SARF, f.7523, op.101, r.640, p.20.
11 See. authors: Dubrovskiy V. Krimskaya Avtonomnaya Respublika (Crimean Autonomous Republic). Nekrolog (Obituary) // Chornomorksyi zbirnik, 1947, T.X, p.27-29; Alexandrov G. Istrebleniye krimskih tatar (Execution of Crimean Tatars) // Sotsialisticheskiy vestnik.(Paris) 1950, March. p.51.
12 Khartakhay F. Istoricheskaya sudba krimskih tatar (Historical destiny of Crimean Tatars) //Vestnik Yevropi. 1866. June. p.182-236; 1867. June. p.140-174
13 State Archive of the ARC, f. p-3814, op.1, c.224, l.6-7
14 RSASPH, f.17, op.44, c.759, l.103.
15 RSASPH, f.17, op.44, c.1545, l.112.
16 In accordance with letter to CC CPSU of responsible organizer of CC VKP(b) in Crimean oblast (3 August 1944), “before occupation there were 1126826 men, after liberation - 632.695 <…>. “Population was reduced on 493.891. They deported 187.859 Tatars. Currently, there are 445.076 men. Besides, about 45000 men are to be deported from Crimea.” [Information, apparently, means June of 1944., last 45000 men, who are to be deported, - apparently, Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians, including representatives of other “unreliable” peoples, living in Crimea - Author] (RSASPH, f.17, op.88, c.309, l.17).
17 SARF, f.9479, op.1s, r.160, l.148.
18 Under information of Department on Special settlements of NKVD, for period from 01.07.44 to 01.07.1945. in Uzbekistan were died 22.355 special settlers-Crimean Tatars, that constituted 15% of total number of arrived persons. (SARF, f.9479, op.1, r.246, p. 45).
19 SARF, f.7523, op.101, r.640, p.20.
20 Adzhubey A. Kak Khruschev Krim otdal Ukraine (As Khruschev gave Crimea to Ukraine) // Novoye vremya (New time). - 1992. - #6. - p.21.
21 Potychnyj P. The Struggle of the Crimean Tatars. - Canadian Slavonic Papers, 1975. – Vol. XVII, #2-3. – P.308.
22 Svidetelstvo A. Shemi-zade // A. Shemi-zade was interviewed by G. Bekirova 22.06.2000.- Archive of Scientific Informational Enlightenement Center of "Memorial" (Moscow), f.155, p.2.
23 SARF, f.9479, op.1, r.404, p.49.
24 SARF, f.7523, op.85, r. 85, p.191.
25 SARF, f.7523, op.85, p.195.
26 In Sverdlovsk region, in addition to the Crimean Tatars, there were in special settlements Greeks, Bulgarians and Armenians, who were deported from Crimea.
27 SARF, f.7523, op.85, p.216.
28 The Decrees of the Presidium of Supreme Soviet of USSR lifted restrictions: dated 13 December 1955. - from Germans, dated 17 March 1956. - from Kalmiks, dated 26 March 1956. - from Greeks, Armenians and Bulgarians, dated 16 July 1956. - from Chechens, Ingushs, Karachai.
29 Letter were signed by: Refat Mustafayev (before war former third secretary of Crimean Regional Committee of Party, in period of war a commissar of Eastern formation), Shamil Alyadinov - former chairman of SP Crimean ASSR, Mustafa Selimov (before war a secretary of Yalta Regional Committee of Party, in period of war - commissar of Southern formation of partisan groups of Crimea), Amet-Uspi Penergi (before war, a chairman of Sudak Regional Executive Committee), Izmail Khayrullayev (before war - Chairman of Alushta Regional Executive Committee, in period of war - commissar of the 4th brigade of Southern formation of partisan groups of Crimea). (RSANH, f.5, op.31, r.56, p.151).
30 RSANH, f.5, op.31, c.56, p.152.
31 There was fermentation among Crimean Tatar youth. However, the youth, apparently, was not considered as serious force (especially on background of “stupid” Crimean Tatar communists, who constituted, as a matter of fact, internal opposition in party bodies of Uzbekistan and other republics of Middle Asia), or tried not notice it. Apparently, the first half-legal organization, which set itself to impel to active actions, was the Organization of Tashkent Students, which Program and Statute were adopted on November 17, 1956. Originally, it was named as Crimean Tatar Youth Friendly Society of Persons coming from same district, and already by spring of 1957, extended its activity on whole Tashkent region, was renamed into Crimean Tatar National Movement. Activists of Movement collected signatures under letters, which they wrote, among Crimean Tatar population in Tashkent, Yangiyul, Chirchik, Angren and Almalik, and arranged contacts with other regions of Uzbekistan - Samarkand, Fergana and their districts. Already, in spring of 1957 a number of signatures was 3000 (“Aydin Shemi-Zade: “That things, which communists named as “mistakes towards Crimean Tatars”, we named racism and genocide”) // Golos Krima (The Voice of Crimea) - 1999. - #19.- p.4; Interview with A. Shemi-zade, was made by G. Bekirova 22.06.2000.- Archive of Scientific Informational Enlightenement Center of "Memorial" (Moscow), f.155, p.8.
32 RSANH, f.5, op.31, r.56, p.153.
33 Ibidem, p.154
34 RSANH, f.89, list 61, r.13, p.8.
35 Ibidem.
36 Ibidem, p.160.
37 RSANH, f.5, op.31, r.56, p.147.
38 Ibidem, p.160. There is inscription on letter: "Informed at secretariat of CC of CPSU 02.08.57". It is interesting that near each second name - there was an information on person, who signed the letter (where he live, work, which was apparently made by worker of secretariat). First signature - “Esma Seitdametova - mother of two died sons, mother-heroine”, second one - “Ahmet-Khan Sultan - member of CPSU, twice awarded by Hero of Soviet Union”, among persons, who signed he letter there were - Zelikha Niyazova, Midat Selimov, Basir Gafarov and so on.
39 RSANH, f.5, op.31, r.56, p.211.
40 Before deportation - former secretary of Bakhchisaray Regional Committee of Party.
41 Writer, former secretary of magazine “Sovet Edebiyati”.
42 RSANH, f.5, op.31., r.56, p.179.
43 Ibidem, p. 212.
44 Ibidem, p. 212.
45 RSANH, f.5, op.31, r.56, p.179.
46 Ibidem.
47 Guboglo N., Chervonnaya S. Krimskotatarskoye natsionalnoye dvizheniye (Crimean Tatar National Movement). - M., 1991. V.1, p.100.
48 Tashkentskiy protsess (Tashkent trial), p.57.
49 Hrihorenko A. A kogda mi vernemsya (When we will come back). - New-York, 1977. - p.12-23.
50 Tashkentskyi protsess (Tashkent trial), p.54.
51 Seitmuratova A. Natsionalnoye dvizheniye krimskih tatar (National Movement of Crimean Tatars). Events, facts, documents. - Simferopol, 1997.- p .9.
52 Appeal "To stop arbitrariness and repression"to Central Committee of Communist Party of Soviet Union, Supreme Soviet of USSR, Council of Ministers of USSR, Soviet community, 1969 / In book Tashkent trial, p.54.
53 Asanov R. Krimskiye tatari na priyeme u Predsedatelya Presidiuma Verhovnogo Soveta SSSR A. Mikoyana (Crimean Tatars at reception of Chairman of Presidium of Supreme Soviet of USSR A. Mikoyan) // Golos Krima. - 1999. - #32 (299). - 6 August. - p.4.
54 Tashkentskiy protsess (Tashkent trial), p.60-61.
55 SARF, f.7523, op.101, r.1980, p.640.
56 SARF, f.7523, op.101, r.402, p.86-87.
57 SARF, f.7523, op.101, r.402, p.96.
58 Ibidem.
59 Tashkentskiy protsess (Tashkent trial), - p. 69-73.
60 SARF, f.7523, op.101, r.640, p.7.
61 Ibidem.
62 Ibidem.
63 Asanov R. Krimskiye tatari na priyeme u Predsedatelya Presidiuma Verhovnogo Soveta SSSR A. Mikoyana (Crimean Tatars at reception of Chairman of Presidium of Supreme Soviet of USSR A. Mikoyan) // Golos Krima. - 1999. - # 32 (299). - 6 August. - p.4.
64 SARF, f.7523, op.1, c. 2836, p.1-12.
65 SARF, f.7523, op. 101, c. 407, p. 23-32.
66 Lotman Yu. Pamyat v kulturologicheskom osveschenii// Selected articles. v.1, p.200.
67 Asanov R. Krimskiye tatari na priyeme u Predsedatelya Presidiuma Verhovnogo Soveta SSSR A. Mikoyana (Crimean Tatars at reception of Chairman of Presidum of Supreme Soviet of USSR A. Mikoyan) // Golos Krima. - 1999. - #32 (299). - 6 August. - p.4.
68 SARF, f.7523, op. 101, r.640, p.43.
69 It means an information was prepared by manuscript and typescript way, which was made from summer of 1965 in form of reports on activity of initiative groups. This information was sent to high bodies of government, different establishments, and was distributed among Crimean Tatar population.
70 SARF, f.7523, op.101, r.640. Decrees of the Presidium of Supreme Soviet of USSR on citizens of Tatar nationality, who lived in Crimea and procedure of implementation of art. 2 of the Decree of Presidium of Supreme Soviet of USSR dated 28 April 1956, including materials to Decree; SARF, f.7523, op.101, c.402 Reports and information of generalized character to Chairman of Presidium of Supreme Soviet of USSR on private reception and letters of citizens (Crimean Tatars, Turks-Meskhi, settlers from Georgia and Germans of Volga) and so on.
71 SARF, f.7523, op.101, r.640, p.27-28
72 SARF, f.7523, op.101, r.640, p.117.
73 SARF, f.7523, op.101, r.640, p.24.
74 SARF, f.7523, op.101, r.640, p.25.
75 SARF, f.7523, op.101, r.640, p.22.
76 SARF, f.7523, op.101, r.640, p.29.
77 F. Bobkov. KGB and power. - M., 1995. p.301.
78 The Resolution of CC of CP UzSSR also quotes the Resolution of CC of CPSU, here it was named: “On citizens of Tatar nationality”. (RSASPH, f.17, op.103, r.1831, p.71). In book by Guboglo M. And Chervonnaya S. (Krimskotatarskoye natsionalnoye dvizheniye, v.1, p.291) was mentioned the Resolution of Politburo of CC CPSU dated 17 August 1967 “On further development of culture of Crimean Tatars in places of special settlements”. Apparently, it means the same text. While one couldn’t find an original.
79 13.09.1967 at session of burro of CC of CP UzSSR the Resolution of CC of CPSU dated 17 August was taken into account and implementation. The Party bodies at all levels were charged to intensify an ideological-political work among Crimean Tatar population <...> paid special attention to educational work among youth. (RSASPH, f.17, op.103, c.1831, l.71). A month latter CC of CP UzSSR approved the proposals directed to assignment of Crimean Tatars in places of present residence - organization in 1968-1969 school year education of children of Tatar nationality in native language under their wish, opening in Tashkent Pedagogical Institute the Department on Tatar language for training teachers, increase of quality of published books in Tatar and extending their size and so on. (RSASPH, f.17, op.103, r.1831, p.162-163).
80 SARF, f.7523, op.101, c.640, p.1-3.
81 In Appeal, which was adopted at Republican session of initiative groups of Crimean Tatar Movement, and sent in the end of September 1967 to CC of CPSU and Presidium of Supreme Soviet, the Decree of 1967 was compared with Law of 1946, which legalized an abolition of Crimean ASSR, and its basic goal was named to immortalize occupation of national motherland and equality of rights of Crimean Tatars. (SARF. f.7523. op.101. r.402, p.69, 76.)
82 SARF, f.7523, op.101, r.402, p.88.
83 Definition "citizens of Tatar nationality, who used to live in Crimea" was used in Resolution of CC of CPSU dated 24.11.1956, but because of the Resolution was not published, and of official documents, literature and colloquial language, it was supplanted only from the end 50s, and for Crimean Tatars such definition became unpleasant revelation.
84 SARF, f.7523, op.101, r.443, p.134.
85 SARF, f.7523, op.101, r.402, p.134-135.
86 SARF, f.7523, op.101, r.402, p.136.
87 SARF, f.7523, op.101, r.443, p.15.
88 It promoted to break of so-called isolation, in which existed National Movement by this time – researches by G.Kuzovkin (See. Kuzovkin G. The role of A. Kosterin in Crimean Tatar Movement for return to Crimea / In book “Repressive generation of Crimean Tatar social-political activists, persons utterly devoted to learning and culture – Simferopol, 2001. – p.277.
89 It is known a claim of N. Gorbanevskaya that newsletters, which was published by Crimean Tatars were some initial form for future Chronicle of current events //Quotation by Guboglo, Chervonnaya, v.1, p.56.
90 Hrihorenko P. V podpolye mozhno vstretit tolko kris (In underground one can meet only rats). - M., 1997, p. 471.
91 Ibidem
92 30 May, 2 and 5 June in Tashkent regional court the trials over the accused in period of Chirchik events Refat Izmaylov, Reshat Alimov and Sadi Abkhairov were held. They were convicted to 3, 2,5 and 2 years of prison. The case of another 7 accused was considered by Tashkent regional court 18-26 July 1968. They were accused in organization of meetings of Crimean Tatars in Chirchik on March 24, April 7 and peoples walking 21.04.1968, were renamed by court in “assemblage of Crimean Tatars”. Due to high skilled defense, the accused were convicted to small terms (from 2,5 to 1 year), and 3 of the accused received suspended sentence, that in that period was considered as unbelievable success // Zhivoy fakel. Samosozheniye Musi Mamuta. Coll. of documents - New-York, 1986.
93 Hrihorenko P. V podpolye mozhno vstretit tolko kris (In underground one can meet only rats). – M., 1997 - p.472.
94 Zastupnitsa. Advocate S.V.Kallistratova. - M., 1997. p. 42.
95 Hrihorenko P. V podpolye mozhno vstretit tolko kris (In underground one can meet only rats). – M., 1997. - p.472.
96 The report of M. Dzhemilev at Kurultay of the Crimean Tatar people. The Basic phases of the Crimean Tatar National Movement 26.06.1991. // In book: Guboglo M.N., Chervonnaya S.M. Krimskotatarskoye natsionalnoye dvizheniye, v.2. p.262
97 Under claim of L. Alexeeva, the first materials of the Crimean Tatar Movement became to get on the West in 1967 through Moscow human rights activists, basing her opinion she referred to lack of any documents of Movement for 1954-1966 in Archive of Samizdat of broadcasting station Svoboda and in the West. (L. Alexeeva. Istoriya inakomysliya v SSSR (The history of heterodoxy in USSR). - Moscow-Vilnius, 1991, p.100).
98 Hrihorenko P. V podpolye mozhno vstretit tolko kris (In underground one can meet only rats). – M., 1997, p.475.
99 Ibidem.
100 One of the some similar conceptions, in which hardly there were 17 signatures, met angry protest of compatriots, at once after its publication, in high bodies of government was sent an appeal The rebuke to 17 nationals-betrayals with 6947 signatures. (SARF. f.7523. op.101, r.443, p.43-49.)
101 Tashkentskyi protsess (Tashkent trial), p.113
102 In January 19, 1968 was convicted Akhmed Kerimov, in June 1968 - Yuri Osmanov, Sabri Osmanov, Enver Memetov, Seidamet Memetov, in the end of October 1968, was held a trial over activists of National Movement - Idris Kasimov, Shevket Seitablayev, Luman Umarov, Lennara Guseynova and Yusuf Rasinov, and in April 1969 - over Gomer Bayev and others.
103 Moscow advocate Nikolay Safonov being a defender at such trials - on case of Eldar Shabanov and Dzhafer Asanov, who had to leave the legal profession after participation in some trials over Crimean Tatars, noted: This was a real political trial, though formally persons were accused in violation passport regime. In defense speech he noted that in criminal case on Shabanov “On conscious violation of passport regime”, which was used often against dangerous criminals, who escaped from official bodies, it was very strange, because his client many times applied to bodies of militia, in passport department, was at reception in regional executive committee with single request - to register his family in Crimea. (Safonov N. Notes of advocate: Crimean Tatars - M. 1992, p.12)
104 Chronicle of current events, issue.31, p.10.
105 Hrihorenko P. V podpolye mozhno vstretit tolko kris (In underground one can meet only rats). - p.486.
106 Meeting #82 (“New Year”) of representatives of the Crimean Tatar people in Moscow. 1 January 1969. - Archive of Scientific Informational Enlightenement Center of "Memorial" (Moscow). f.101, c. "A.Lavut".
107 Tashkentskyi protsess (Tashkent trial), p. 811
108 Shest dney (Six days). Belaya kniga (White book). Trial over Ilya Gabay and Mustafa Dzhemilev, - New-York, 1980. p.10.
109 The rest of the accused - Ruslan Eminov, Svetlana Ametova, Munire Khalilova, Ridvan Umerov.
110 R.Eminov was convicted to 6 months of corrective works, against R. Umerov the court considered as possible to use suspended sentence, taking into account that he before was not convicted, and his wife was a participant of partisan movement. Convicted to 10 months of prison S. Ametova and M. Khalilova were liberated as persons, who served their sentence during preliminary investigation// Tashkentskiy protsess (Tashkent trial), p. 680-682..