There is no doubt that history does not have a provisional way of action. The history has always been, remains, and will always remain the way it is. At least two conclusions follow from this: first, falsifying history is of no use, because history will always dismiss all tales and will turn its true side to the descendants, and will duly punish the falsifiers. Sometimes it requires a lot of time, but this is important for an individual himself, whose life is a short moment in the stream of time. For history itself it does not matter because history understands that the truth is eternal. Tale can live as long as the people who want to sustain them and to believe in them live. We already have examples. For example, Russian history always was always written as a series of myths where defeats were presented as victories, where those who were not heroes were often presented as such, where the wrongs was presented as the rights, and where the life of a person was worth nothing. As a result, an accurate Russian history is yet to be written. The great people are … without their own state and history. Perhaps this is a heavy cross for the sin – a punishment from Clio for the millennium of the myths of “internationalism”? Secondly, although the history does not have a provisional way of action, latter events illuminate the significance of previous ones. It is unfortunate that sometimes this comes too late for particular persons, but for the history itself, that is, for future generations, this is an excellent opportunity to appreciate a real significance of history and modernity, even if indirectly – the importance not only of past events, but also those which are continuing… The 150th anniversary from the birth of the Great Thinker Ismail Gasprinskyi presents a great opportunity in this regard.If one takes a close look on everything that was written about him, all this scholarship can be divided in two groups. To the first group belong bad falsifications generated by the Communist intellectual barbarism, and we will dismiss them right away. All other scholarship belongs to the second group. These works interpret his life and actions, but deal only with the period of his life which ended in 1914. No study raises a question about what could come next, how does his writing relates to events which took place after his death? But this question is a very interesting one. If Ismail Gasprinskyi didn’t die in 1914 (if only Allah gave him such health!), that would his creative work been like in the subsequent time? It is easy to imagine that he would have taken part in the 1st Kurultay of 1917, and in the post-revolutionary events in Crimea. One would like to hope that he would not have met the fate of Chelebi Dzhikhan, although this is hard to believe because the Bolsheviks always first of all executed the best and the brightest. One can also suppose that the Great Hodzha (Teacher) would have welcomed the establishment of the Crimean ASSR in 1921 as the triumph of his ideas of the “Russian Islam” and “Russian-Eastern agreement.” However, it is impossible to suppose that he would have survived the purges of 1936-37. Simply because Bolshevism as a social-political phenomenon didn’t give such a chance to any progressive intellectual thinkers. But let us imagine that by some miracle Ismail Gasprinskyi survived this period. We make this assumption to raise the following question before our readers: what would have Ismail Gasprinskyi thought and written if he witnessed the “case on “Milli-Firka”, extermination of the Crimean Tatar intelligentsia, deportation of the peoples of Crimea and Caucasus in 1944, abolition of the Crimean ASSR and other Russian autonomies, all measure of the genocide of the Soviet regime against the Turks, including the Crimean Tatars, that developed later? What would Ismail Gasprinskyi write if he witnessed the new Chechen war? Could he have written “the Russian Islam” or “the Russian-Eastern agreement” not at the end of the 19th century, but in late 1940s or in latter 1990s? Would he write same things that he wrote in June 1881 and in March 1896? Would the history which he (fortunately or unfortunately) did not witness to the end have made Gasprinskyi to reevaluate his entire world outlook? And now tell me what would be the real truth in the work of the Great Hodzha (Teacher) –what he actually wrote last century, or what he could have written if he evaluated the theory and practice of the Bolshevik Russia, the theory and practice of Bolshevik and Soviet regime in general?It would be interesting to know what would Ismail Gasprinskyi say upon evaluating Bolshevism and Soviet regime as a phenomenon, because he didn’t experience them fully. And it is no less interesting to think what impression would national policy and practice in independent Ukraine make on him? Don’t rush to accuse me of subjectivism. Actually, it is rather surprising that, while celebrating the 150th anniversary of such a genius, we note his global and historical importance and his connection to history meaning only the period in which he lived. But is the influence and importance of a genius limited to his lifetime? Certainly not. Then why are we artificially confining ourselves, and don’t even want even to understand what Gasprinskyi would have said about us if he knew us the way we are; us that he didn’t know because of a limited lifetime. Perhaps an extrapolation of ideas and world-views of Ismail Gasprinskyi on our later history is a game, but it is not a fancy, and it is not a primitive and a vain pursuit. This way we can take a look at ourselves through the eyes of a person from a different period. We can compare today’s real with what should have been, with an ideal, with the Dreams of the Great Thinker. This will allow us to understand what kind of things should not have been in our present, and – the main thing – to understand what is necessary to prevent in the future … In Soviet period everybody liked to compare everything with Lenin’s ideas. It was necessary in that period. However, we know now that instead of a real Lenin, the Communist propaganda palmed off on us a myth about Lenin being a thoughtful, wise, kind grandfather figure. In reality Lenin was cruel and unjust, he unleashed the Civil War, a bloody carnage that resulted in millions of death. The truth of the matter is, we were sorely deceived.With regard to Gasprinskyi we were more fortunate. The regime just tried to suppress the fact of his existence. As a result his image was only partly falsified, and now we have an image of a real person, alive and thinking, the image that arises first of all from his own scholarship. Gasprinskyi’s ideas are superior to those of Lenin because throughout all his life Gasprinskiy propagated the unity of people and peace.He didn’t demand fusillades, or the extermination of somebody as a “class.”Even his understanding of a socialism, though it was romantic as well, was more realistic. He didn’t favor liquidation of private property, which means he did not favor either collectivization or hegemony of the proletariat. In the ideology of Gasprinskyi there was no place for class struggle. Lenin could not have written neither “The Sun City”, nor they journey of Mullah Abbas, but this is not a merit, but a problem of Lenin. It would have been better if Lenin wrote a utopia rather than “April’s Thesis”. Gasprinkyi is a figure not of Lenin’s scale, but of the scale of such thinkers as Tolstoy, Pushkin, Shevchenko, Lesia Ukrainka, Ivan Franko, Mykhailo Hrushevskyi, Volodymyr Vinnichenko. Bolshevik politicians, even the most prominent of them, do not measure up to Gasprinskiy because he was first and foremost a humanist, while it was during the Bolshevik era when politics lost all humanity (and has not recovered it in a necessary measure up till now). In my opinion, Lenin and Gasprinskyi regard each as the Great Killer and the Great Humanist respectively. Therefore, it is actually very useful to take a look and to analyze what could have been if…if Gasprinskiy were to evaluate all of our history from his world views. But first let’s take a look at how the world itself evaluates the Great Thinker 150 years after his birth. 150th Anniversary of Ismail Gasprinskyi, the world and Crimea 150th Anniversary of Ismail Gasprinskyi was celebrated, without exaggeration, all over the world – in the CIS countries, the USA, Turkey, Germany, Romania, and the Baltic states. It is of little surprise that this great anniversary was celebrated differently in different places. For example, in Tashkent anniversary meeting organized by the Cultural Center of Crimean Tatars “Avdet” in Tashken took place in the meeting hall of the Republican International Cultural Center. A writer and a deputy editor of “Soglom avlos uchun” magazine Safter Nagayev, professor of National University by Mirzo Ulugbek, head of the department of the national renaissance literature Regali Kasimov, senior lecturer of Nizami Abdullah Balich State Pedagogical University addressed the meeting. Dilyara Avdzhi, granddaughter of Ismail Gasprinskyi who know lives in Tashkent, addressed the participants with words of thanks. The concert of Uzbek State Academic Greater Theatre took place.State officials, ambassadors, cultural, intellectual, and literary figures attended the meeting. At the same time, the center of anniversary celebrations was undoubtedly Crimea, the place where the Thinker was born and was laid to rest forever. On 21 March 2001 celebrations took place in Bakhchisaray dedicated to 150th anniversary of Ismail Gasprinskyi, well-known Crimean Tatar educator. The President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma, Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine Mykola Zhulynskyi, Permanent Representative of the President of Ukraine in the ARC Anatoliy Korniychuk, Head of the Crimean Government Serhiy Kunitsyn, People’s Deputy of Ukraine, Head of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people Mustafa Dzhemilev, other representatives of Mejlis and of the Bakhchisaray Regional Administration participated and paid tribute to the memory of the Great Educator. Addressing the participants, Mykola Zhulynskyi stated that he considers it possible to introduce a special course in the curriculum of Ukrainian schools which would familiarize pupils with the culture and traditions of the Crimean Tatars, including the works of Ismail Gasprinskyi.Participants visited Zindhyrly-madrasah cultural-historical complex and a burial place of Ismail Gasprinskyi, where solemn meeting was held. Those who spoke at this meeting noted an invaluable contribution of the Crimean Tatar educator to the cultural life not only of Turkic, but also of Slavic peoples. In the words of Serhiy Kunitsyn, the life and works of Ismail Gasprinskyi “have to become an example of establishing relationship between peoples of different nationalities.” Leonid Kuchma and representatives of the Crimean government laid flowers to the burial place of the Crimean Tatar educator. Afterwards a ceremonial opening of the house-museum of Ismail Gasprinskyi took place, and the “round-table” in which representatives of the society took part. The celebrations dedicated to 150th anniversary of Ismail Gasprinskyi continued in Kyiv. In Kyiv, a gala night in the of memory of Ismail Gasprinskyi was held. It included “round-table” with the participation of the public, as well as an exhibition devoted to the life and work of the Crimean Tatar educator. At the same time, informational agencies, in particular Crimean Informational Agency (CIA), noted on March 16, 2001: “Are the authorities indifferent to the memory of Gasprinskyi?” Representatives of the Crimean Tatars submitted a letter to Serhiy Kunitsyn, the Head of the Council of Ministers of the ARC, in which they expressed concern over “the indifference to memory of the Great Gasprinksyi from the government of the ARC.” The authors of the letter note with regret that in spite of many appeals of the Crimean Tatars both Crimean and Ukrainian governments with proposals to conduct anniversary events, the decree of the government of the ARC “On conducting of celebrations dedicated to 150th anniversary from the birthday of Ismail Gasprinksyi” was adopted “with unjustifiable delays” only on February 27, 2001. “This decree was not published anywhere, and the organization committee which was approved by the decree did not meet even once. As a result, the program of the celebrations and expenses was not discussed,” the letter further said. At the end of letter, the authors which included staff of the Crimean Tatar cultural institutions, representatives of NGOs, Mass Media, and the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people stated that they have an intention to conduct anniversary celebrations according to their own means, and to inform the world community “about the disrespect to the name of the Great educator, to the Crimean Tatar people and all of the Turkic-speaking world”. Another news report said that “on 16 March 2001 first deputy head of the Council of Ministers of the ARC Serhiy Velizhanskyi made a working trip to Bakhchisaray, where he was familiarized with course of preparatory works for the celebration of the 150th anniversary from the birth of prominent Crimean Tatar educator Ismail Gasprinskyi. He was accompanied by the heads of ministers and other state institutions of the autonomous republic, representatives of the Bakhchisaray Regional State Administration, and members of the organization committee of the celebration. The delegation reviewed the memorial complex “Zindzhyrly-madrasah” and the burial place of Ismail Gasprinkyi, his house-museum, and the exposition in the Museum of Crimean Tatar History and Culture dedicated to the great educator. Later the participants went to the Bakhchisaray Regional State Administration where they discussed the program of celebrations with the participation of People’s Deputy of Ukraine, Head of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people Mustafa Dzhemilev and representatives of Crimean Tatar intelligentsia. Mustafa Dzhemilev noted, that the state of affairs with the preparations for the celebration of Ismail Gasprinskyi’s anniversary “arouses a heavy feeling”. In particular, the Head of the Mejlis drew attention to the fact that there is still not a single poster in Simferopol dedicated to this event. Serhiy Velizhankyi said that he was on the whole satisfied with the pace of preparations for the celebrations. Deputy Prime Minister of Crimea said: “I have no particular doubts that all work will be finished in time”. He noted good work of the Bakhchisaray Regional State Administration and the Ministry on Education of the ARC. At the same time, Serhiy Velizhanskyi criticized a leadership of the Republican Committee on the Protection and Exploitation of Historical and Cultural Monuments and the Ministry on Culture of the ARC which still didn’t allot funds for the celebration. He called the answers by the Minister of Culture of the ARC Mykhailo Holubev “quit incomprehensible”. “I simply have to note that these leaders failed in task of preparing for celebration of the 150th anniversary of Ismail Gasprinskyi”, Serhiy Velizhanskyi said. Bakhchisaray, 16.03.01.CIA. One can continue to recall how the anniversary of the Great Thinker was celebrated around the world, but against this background is worth to note two particularly important moments. First, the Ukrainian authorities have finally managed to get rid of the communist impudence displaued by the old regime to the memory of the Crimean Tatar people and memory of their great sons and daughters. The government finally moved the psychiatric hospital which was located on the territory of the mediaeval university Zindzhyrly-madrasah near Bakhchisaray and the Crimean Tatar necropolis (the place where Gasprinskyi, among others, was buried).The psychiatric facility was established at this location as Bolshevik’s revenge on the memory of the deported Crimean Tatar people. The relocation of the hospital has to be regarded as a great achievement, because even now, at the beginning of the XXI century, in Crimea there were some chauvinistic protests in this regard. The relocation of mentally ill people to another place was termed an act of vandalism and inhumanity towards them, as if the destruction of the monument of the entire people and the desecration of the graves of their prominent geniuses was not the act of Communist vandalism. Secondly, unfortunately, virtually nobody made an attempt to analyze of works of Ismail Gasprinskyi by extrapolating his teaching to modernity. Yet, this is exactly what our long-suffering post-Bolshevik society needs most of all. A characteristic feature of the 150th anniversary of Gasprinskyi is that during the last decade the voices that accuse his of pan-Islamism and pan-Turkism are becoming quieter. This year, unlike during Gasprinskyi’s 140th and 145th anniversary, these themes were practically absent from the open press. Although certain Crimean organizations again distributed among journalists doubtful copies of some works that they claimed to be fragments of the newspaper “Terdzhiman” which ostensibly propagandized superiority of Islam and the Turks. However, they did not dare to publish them openly… A lot is written already about Ismail Gasprinskyi’s alleged pan-Turkism and pan-Islamism. This is an old subject and one does not particularly want to touch upon on it in detail. At the same time, there should be a time to put an end to this. It should be noted that a lot has been written already on Gasprinskyi’s world outlook, and a lot of it is true, but this idea again and again is dragged to the top. However, it became clear precisely now that this debate on Gasprinskyi’s pan-Islamism and pan-Turkism was imposed on us by chauvinists and communists, and that this debate is senseless precisely because there is no subject of analysis. It is clear for two reasons. First, Communists falsify Gasprinskyi’s ideas to make at least someone view Gasprinskyi negatively.In this connection it is convenient for them to accuse him of pan-Turkism or pan-Islamism. Did the Communists ever bother to support their claims with evidence, and in particular on national questions? Second, the Communist ideology twisted the very notions of pan-Turkism and pan-Islamism.First of all, Gasprinskyi’s pan-Turkism (if we manage to find evidence of it – and perhaps this is how we are supposed to interpret his endeavor to create the World Moslem Congress?) is a feature of the person who did so much for the Slavo-Turkic unity that it becomes rather indecent to characterize Gasprinskiy this way. Perhaps he is accused of Pan-Turkism because he maintained that the land on which people has to be their land? But from this follows that not only Turks, but also Slavs have their own land. But the Communists wanted that the Turks had no land of their own… Secondly, who was Gasprinskyi - a Turk and a Moslem by birth – was supposed to be if not a patriot of the Turks and a devoted Moslem? To think otherwise would be as inappropriate as to expect a Russian to betray the interests of his nation and his religion. The fact is that neither Turkic patriotism of Gasprinskyi nor his adherence to Islam have any negative features. In substance these are positive features of the person, and they also have to characterize every Slav and Christian. No Slav made so much (or anything at all!) for the Slav-Turkic unity as Gasprinskyi did. Read his concern about the welfare of Russia makes you think that he was rather a pan-Slavist that a pan-Turkist… I think it is quite clear that Communists theories on national questions simply didn’t pass the test of time and now, in the XXI century, have to be rejected simply for being outdated. Deep indifference, or even a theoretical immaturity of Communism on nationality issues is based on their myth on internationalism and statements such as “the proletariat does not have a Motherland”!. Guided by this myth the Communists equally negatively characterized realities that have widely different meaning. It is of little surprise that Communism gives equally negative definition of “nationalist,” that is, a patriot of his nation – objectively a deeply positive notion! – and “chauvinist” which means someone who is an enemy to other (not his own!) nations – objectively a deeply negative notion! Our communists fabricated a meaningless and senseless notion of “internationalism” – that is, a person who does not have a nationality, which is impossible! – as a cover-up for themselves. It is of little surprise that in reality our communists are actually nationalists – only Russian nationalists. This is where the key is concealed: by this the Communists recognize that a Russian nationalist and a Russian chauvinist are virtually synonyms (exceptions occur very rarely!). Secondly, this is acceptable in particular for communists because our communists are Russian in their world views, and because for them other nationalism and chauvinism is always hostile – simply because it is not Russian! – and therefore it is equally negative for the communists. This is why communists absoluticize their attitude to non-Russian nationalism and non-Russian chauvinism. They do not even distinguish their different substance but rather transmit their negative attitude to these notions as such. For Moscow there is indeed no greater enemy than a nationalist – Georgian, Azerbaijan, Tatar or Ukrainian – it does not matter! – as well as a chauvinist, because for a Russian and for a Communists these notions are identical… Another characteristic feature of this anniversary of the Great Thinker was also new attempts to twist his ideas and conclusions. For example, leader of Crimean communists Leonid Hrach writes in one of his collected works that in the “Russian-Eastern Agreement” Gasprinskyi uncovered the mechanism Europe’s activity against us: “Acting at times against Russia and at times against the Moslems, - Leonid Hrach cites Ismail Gasprinskyi, - Europeans benefit in each case and move ahead”. Still today, but already referring to Gasprinskyi, Hrach tries to persuade Crimeans and Ukrainians in the hostility of Europe and America. What is the matter here? Gasprinskyi really wrote that “for the West is profitably and it is satisfied if there are historical, geographical or theological motives for mutual antagonism and distrust …” but this is only the first half of the quotation where Hrach chose to end. Firstly, here Hrach ignores a very important factor: Gasprinskyi wrote about Russia, but today Hrach already lives NOT in Russia but in a different state. This clearly illuminates how Russocentism dominates in the minds and ideas of communists. It is impossible to unthinkingly transfer the Russian factors to different historical periods and different settings. Furthermore, there is a sequel of Gasprinskyi’s quotation. This is what it says: “But wouldn’t it be better to look for motives to mutuality and agreement in the same history and geography? In my opinion, this would be better, although for this the West can get very cross with both the Russians and the Moslems.” The essence of Gasprinskyi’s “Russian-Eastern agreement” stresses that, because Russia can no longer imagine itself without the Mediterranean shipping channels, he thinks it would only be natural, and better, if the Russians and the Moslems don’t fight with each other but came to an agreement. Gasprinskyi says that in any case, for the Russians and the East (Gasprinskyi means Turkey, but he consciously expands the frame of this state) it would be better to interact not by way of conquests, but by way of agreement. The genius of Gasprinskyi and the mistake of Hrach is that Gasprinskyi, already in his era, saw the coming of the new epoch, when contest and hostility is replaced by cooperation. Hrach, on the other hand, even today estimates everything from the position of antagonism and contest. Does Russia need the shipping channels? (By the way, what does Hrach with his works have to do with it? What do Ukraine and Crimea have to do with it?) If so, why doesn’t Russia regulate this issue peacefully. The East probably also needs something... “Let’s image that Russia befriends Turkey and Persia… The whole Moslem world would turn its trust and sympathy towards Russia. The shipping channels that lead to the South of Russia would be controlled not simply by the Turks, but by Russia’s friends…. Security of Russian southern borders in Europe and Asia by way of stable agreements with the neighboring Moslem states would be very beneficiary…. Such agreements are easier to achieve by agreements than by conquest of these states…”, writes Gasprinskyi. Yet we see that even a century later neither the USSR, nor Russia went this route. Currently, what Russia does now are its internal affairs. The questions and the problem for the Ukrainian political establishment is whether politicians of independent Ukraine, our numerous parties and mini-parties, learned Gasprinskyi’s lesson.Certain external forces push Ukraine on the same path with regard to Crimea which Russia took with regard to its Moslems. To go the same way – that is, to ignore the needs and cultural specifics of great many people! – would mean that Ukraine, with its own hands, will create in its “home” a source of tension. The only way is to find its own way and method. Yet, they have been talking about a program of Ukrainian policy towards Crimea for such a long time that it is even: why is this program still absent?… Ismail Gasprinskyi: modernity, Russia and Ukraine Feeling of split personality doesn’t part with the reader who familiarizes himself with “Russian Islam” and “Russian-Eastern agreement.” On the one hand Gasprinskyi sees a complete absence of any (except for territorial, of course!) Russian-Turkic (or Slavo-Turkic, if you would like) unity: “Closely observing the attitude of the Russian power to the subjugated Tatar tribes, we see that it is poorly familiar with the environment where it has to operate, it badly knows the Tatars, their life style. As far as I can tell, up until now the Russian domination over the Tatars boiled down to the following: I posses, you pay, and live as you want. It is very simply, but it is extremely meaningless” – he writes. And further: “A lack of precise, coherent policy, inspired by the noble idea to spread civilization among Russia’s Moslems is felt up to now. This brought a lot of bitter fruits both for us, Russian Moslems, and for our Motherland as well. For example, where it was possible, we left our hearths, our sacred places, our Motherland, and went God knows where (as was the case with the Crimeans, the Besarabians, and the Caucasians). When we couldn’t go and there was nowhere to go we retreated in our close world, we surrendered ourselves completely to it, we did not desire to know anything that did not concern our close world and its narrow interests (this was the case with the Moslems from inner provinces). Russian Moslems are not aware of, do not perceive the interests of the Russian Motherland; they mainly don’t know about its sorrow and happiness, they don’t understand Russian national aspirations and ideas. Not knowing Russian isolates the Russian Moslems from the Russian thought and literature, not to speak about complete their isolation from world culture. The Russian Islam is suffocating in the closed, backward area of its old notions and prejudices, as if separated from the rest of the mankind. Its only concern is for daily bread, its only ideal is the wishes of its stomach…” And in a way of a conclusion: “Isn’t it a shame that in reality the Russian domination doesn’t lead Moslems to progress and civilization. It is incapable of breathing a new life, idea and aspirations in the Russian-Tatar torpid body, not to mention material crimes. Furthermore, with a sore heart I have to state that during the Russian domination even those ways of intellectual development of Tatars which existed before, such as schools and literature, have disappeared. Only dilapidated, destroyed monuments of antiquity with inscriptions, and some old dust-covered books testify that at one time the Tatars were also able to write and speak eloquently, were able to contemplate issues which required thinking and ideas, understood the beauty of Gafiz, the humanness of Sheikh-Saadi, and daring political ideas of Ibn-Sina and other Arabic and Persian writers and philosophers”. But on the other hand, Gasprinskyi glorifies this very Slavo-Turkic unity about the absense of which he spoke just a few paragraphs above. For example: “observations and journeys persuaded me that no other people treat the subjugated tribes so humanely and sincerely as our elder brothers, the Russians.” Let’s bracket out for now the incompatibility of the notions “humanity” and “sub-indigenous,” “domination” and “brotherhood” that Gasprinskyi somehow didn’t see. He put a footnote at this place in his work, let’s read it. “The recent sad events, namely pogroms of the Jews in Southern Russia, is an event that had special, peculiar reasons, and therefore cannot shake our conviction”. From this is seems clear that other examples, if Gasprinskyi recalled them at that time – and even assaults of the Tatars - (and didn’t Gasprinskyi know the history of Shamil? Didn’t he study the history of the Crimean Khanate? Or the history on Russian-Turkish wars?) wouldn’t have shaken Gasprinskyi’s conviction; he would have found a “special” justification for each of them. This paradox, this duality of the works of Gasprinskyi remains a mystery till present day… Why did this paradox appear? It was not only because “500 years ago on the Kulikovo field destiny and history made an irreversible decision on the subjection of southern and eastern Islam, including Turkic-Tatar tribes, to the Russian tribe,” as Gasprinskiy opens his work. This is from a military point of view, but how about from a psychological, social, national, cultural point of view? Weren’t these problems not on the Kulikovo field, but in books, schools, families, mosques – through the education? The fact is that, on the one hand, Gasprinskyi sees the reality as it is, and on the other hand, he really wanted the Russian-Turkic to exist in reality. His dream was stronger than a reality which surrounds him. This unity was his ideal, his wish, and he was even ready to dissociate himself from reality for a certain period of time and to work, to work so that the Russian-Turkic unity could become a reality one day. As if Gasprinskiy is saying: “So what that it doesn’t exist now? We will think and will write that it exists, and one day it will appear.”Only such great people as Gasprinskyi could think so because they thought that life progresses, and that it progresses in one predetermined direction – towards a better society. Even generalizing the entire experience of the Russian-Turkic relations Gasprinskyi couldn’t even theoretically suppose that in the further the life can develop in the direction of barbarism that will lead to the deportations and to the Chechen war. In connection with these facts today one should think: is it at all possible to speak about on Slavo-Turkic unity (or, rather, a Russian-Turkic unity) after deportation of 1944, and especially after the Chechen war? Can one talk about the existence of such unity, or at least an agreement about it, in any sense (other than a territorial one!)? Certainly, the action of 1944 and of the end of the XXth century crossed out the whole epoch of Gasprinksyi, crossed out all theories about the possibility of the Slavo-Turkic affection for centuries to come …. V. Hankevich, for example, writes that Gasprinskyi, “while professing all the dogmas of Islam, was an idealist in his world outlook…. At the same time, paying tribute to his time, he objectively and consciously stood for the synthesis of Islamic teaching and achievements of modern science. Ismail Gasprinskyi was free from the extremes of pan-Islamism, free from intolerance towards other religious confessions, and even towards foreign for him the civil and political views. He was a typical representative of liberal bourgeois national intelligentsia of the Russian empire who believed in the great future of his state. At the same time, his views were pierced by humane ideas of education, and he often subordinated everything else to these ideas. Education, in his view, was supposed to be the main moving force of social progress. In an educated constitutional monarchy he looked for the opportunity to realize the idea of a humane union between Slavic and Turkic peoples”. These words of an analyst would be understandable if they written before 1944 – that is, if he hadn’t know about the complete social REGRESS in area of national policy. Today, when one cannot avoid these facts, the statement about belief in education are very naive. What is the matter here? Was Stalin’s regime (and latter Yeltsin-Putin regime) less educated? Is this why they completed the task of achieving Slavo-Turkic disunity and planted its seeds in Russia for centuries to come? Perhaps the rules of Ukraine are still not educated enough? Is this why they still did not comprehend that Ukraine is not only a Slavic and a Christian state, but also a Moslem and a Turkic state? Each step should be checked against this reality… The problem is, in my opinion, that Gasprinskyi was never completely understood (at least in our theoretical and practical social space) by his compatriots. As a matter of fact, he was almost never adequately understood at all! Everyone saw in him that he wanted to see. Some saw pan-Islamism and pan-Turkism, others saw simply nationalism, and other still – an affection to education. Actually, nobody saw (or didn’t want to see!) the pain and suffering of Gasprinskyi who on the one hand saw the sufferings of his people, but on the other didn’t want to see it. Instead, as geniuses do, he tried to sow around a belief in the future, belief in the force of education which is able to change the world. But the question is whether it will indeed be able to change the world. For some reason, all scholars are afraid to admit that since the time of Gasprinskyi, meaning during all of the XX century that recently ended, on one sixth of the world territory social development in the area of national relations, in particular in the area of Russian-Turkish relations, did not progress but on the contrary deteriorated. It was characterized not by progress forward, from worse to better, but by the reaction, movement backwards - from bad to worse! From the displacement of Crimean Tatars into emigration to their total deportation; from transition of the written language into Cyrillic alphabet to complete suppression of education; from the abolition of the autonomy to complete military annihilation of Chechnya. A partial reason for this is the domination of Communist humanity-hating ideology which was unable to develop an adequate theory of national development. However, it was mainly because of the mechanisms of imperial attitude of ones nations to others. Beauty can indeed save the world, but why does it take it so long to do it? The same is true about education and humanism. Especially about education in totalitarian regimes. The education can lead a totalitarian regime to realize lack of prospects, but why does it take so long? It is in Crimea where we see a clear proof that in the area which Gasprinski analyzed we see not progress, but regress. “Where the French or the German, — wrote Gasprinskyi, — would have organize many symbolic, demonstrative processions and would have uttered a lot of rational and irrational phrases, the Russian limit themselves to a strong cordial handshake, a prayer in the church, or simply take off the hat and cross themselves. For example, recently Russia and the Russians celebrated the 500th anniversary of Kulikovo battle – one of the most important days in Russian history. So what? No noise, no artificial decorations, no exalted demonstrations and speeches…” I seem to me that is would be good if Gasprinskyi, the author of these words, could see how pompous were recent celebrations in Crimea (the recently announced celebrations of the 218th anniversary!) of the “unification” (?) of Crimea with Russia” – demonstrations, marches, meetings, speeches, presentations, exhibitions, conferences, concerts, laying of flowers, fireworks, public gatherings and so forth! The communist newspaper “Krimskii izvestiya” announced 19 April — the day of signing of the Manifesto by Catherine II – as the day of “restoration of national traditions (meaning restoration of national traditions of conquests? - Author), preservation of historical memory (meaning about permanent wars in the Black Sea? - Author), education in the spirit of national consciousness (meaning consciousness of equality of peoples or of national superiority? - Author), and in the spirit of adhesion to the Manifesto of Catherine the Great who accepted peoples under her patronage granting them equal rights, thanks to (? – Author) which these peoples got stronger and matured in unity (may Europe knows how far behind Russia it has fallen! - Author), and in unity preserved their freedom and originality (preserved freedom and originality? - Author)…” Certainly, if Ismail Gasprinskyi lived to see 18 May 1944, he would have been deported too, despite all of his achievements. Let us assume that he would have survived the deportation and returned to Crimea in late 1990s, to find other inhabitants in his house. Let us imagine he would have saw this article in “Krymskie izvestia.” I wonder, would he then recall his passages about the celebration of the 500th anniversary of Kulikovo battle? Would he now “spare” even “a drop of ink for his notes” if he didn’t “believe”, but knew for certain about “bright future” of our motherland and its Islam? “Therefore, my dear Russian compatriots,” Gasprinskyi wrote in 1881, “we need knowledge and light. So get serious about it and give us light and knowledge, knowledge and light. Otherwise your rule, as rule for the sake of power, will became lower than Chinese rule, because it is known that among the Chinese the art of governance was perfected, and its mechanism moves confidently and rhythmically around the same point for a millenniums…” And now I ask everyone who has knowledge and light, light and knowledge today, at the dawn of the 3rd millennium, to raise your hand! Why there are so few of you?… Gasprinskyi viewed negatively Russian assimilation policy. He writes it would be better to chose more progressive ways of life and coexistence with national minorities. He knows these ways and names them: “if we turn to other political system, the one which follows from the respect to nationalities and from the comprehensive equality of national groups that live in the state, we note that such a policy which perfectly serves state unity, at the same time promotes education, progress, creation of better ways of work and life. This is the system behind which stand truth and justice. This system is more attractive and is in place in most civilized states”. It is indeed so, but where is this dream of Gasprinskyi today? Where is this better political system? Why wasn’t it put in place even 120 years after the publication of his article? The following lines by Gasprinskyi are topical for Ukraine today: “Why do you want a person with shut eyes to recognize other person and, not being acquainted with him, to sympathize and become close to him? If Russian literary language failed as a mean of primary education for Russians even in Little Russia, obviously it will be even less effective with regard to the Tatars … If primary education in Russian schools was switched to German instead of native Russian, could we expect practical results and fast education of Russian peasants?If not, than you can be certain that Russian language has even less significance in foreign Moslem schools”.I would very much like for Gasprinskyi to read articles in the “Krimskoye Vremia” newspaper which now, on the eve of the 21st century (when in Crimea out of more than 500 schools only 10 teach in Crimean Tatar and 5 in Ukrainian), argue with all seriousness that Ukrainian language schools have no right to exist because the level of their language is very poor. The just question arises: did the Russian-Moslem agreement exist at all as a phenomenon of spiritual and social life and not only as a dream of Gasprinskyi and, apparently, of some other talents and geniuses of that period close to him? Even if it existed, it existed only for intellectuals and humanists. What about politicians? What about the military? The question itself is almost senseless because we have to ask ourselves again: didn’t Gasprinskyi know the history of Shamil? Where did he look, what did he think about when he was learning the history of the Crimean Khanate? In other words, is it right that Gasprinskyi sees Christian Russia and Islamic Russia as the same state, as the same subject of history, not divided in two? The fact is that Gasprinskyi, although an idealist, in Hankevich’s opinion, is not an idealist because he wrote the “Russian Islam” and the “Russian-Eastern agreement” (though these works are also idealistic).Perhaps he’s an idealist because he was able to write about Mullah Abbas (and who of the idealists didn’t write their own “Sun City”?). The “Russian Islam” is a dream of Gasprinskyi, but a real dream, which however was not fated to be realized, at least during the two centuries already! Moreover, it was not realized not because of Gasprinskyi’s fault or mistake, but because even his genius was not able to predict the development of history backwards and not forward, the development organized by Communists and Bolsheviks. He writes, for example, that “for unity of Russian Moslems and Russians, for their moral russification, if one can say so, it is necessary to bravely and actively use their own educational ways and their own language”. Will you now find a lot of officials (and not only in Russia) who are proficient in Turkic languages?But what about a Turk who doesn’t know Russian? May be this is pan-Russianism after all? Recently a lot of new theories have appeared, created mainly to look more attractive and to replace old conceptions of imperialism and assimilation which already went out of fashion. The theory of existence of the so-called “Russian world” is one of these conceptions. The conception creators place Turks, including the Crimean Tatars, in this “world.” We will not dwell into the details of this artificially created conception which, in our opinion, cannot claim to be true. We will only make one comment. Mustafa Dzhemilev likes to repeat that there is only one way to test the validity and justice of a social conception is to swap around its component parts. If the conception continues to work and conflicts do not emerged, then this conception is fair and viable. Recognizing the fact that for a long time already the Russian and Turkic worlds live in condition of fusion, with mutual infiltration from north to south and from east to west of Europe, Asia and even Africa, let’s declare some theoretical “Turkic world” on the same territorial rights on which the “Russian world” is announced. Would Russians admit that they live in the Turkic world? And what if we swap their societal roles and situation in the last 500 years? Would they protest? If not – then everything is fair and normal… |
