Khoja in Southern Kazakhstan: History and Identity

Slavic Review

2019

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Centre for Anthropological Studies on Central Asia: Framing the Research, Initial Projects, 2013

Abstract: The paper deals with the processes of overcoming Russian 'colonial' impediments to the creation of symbolic spaces for the emergence of a new national self-consciousness in Kazakhstan. The paper highlights the importance of Nazarbaev’s decision to transfer to and construct a new capital Astana in fostering the ideas of national identity and ethnic belonging. Therefore, an attempt has been made to observe the phenomena of urbanization and reformulation of state symbols in explaining both ethnic and civic mechanisms of influences on people’s consciousness. Additionally, the works of various Kazakh intellectuals and cultural figures have been taken into consideration to examine the notion of Kazakhness and its’ contribution to the development of the Kazakh national identity. Content analysis of architectural design of Astana and state symbols is essential to understand the vision of Kazakhstan’s imagined future.

Nationalities Papers , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , July 2022 , pp. 704 - 721, 2022

This article focuses on the project Sacred Geography of Kazakhstan, launched in 2017 in Kazakhstan as part of the nationwide program Ruqani Zhangyru (Modernization of Spirituality). The officially stated goal of the project is to cultivate a sense of patriotism in the country’s residents related to places and geographic sites that are important for the historical memory of independent Kazakhstan. The authors assume that the real goal of the project is national territorialization, or recoding of the semantics of space, by selecting, codifying, and articulating some symbols and practices, while leveling and “forgetting” others. The analysis, which is based on expert interviews and official documents, shows that this postcolonial process fits into the tendency toward ethnonationalization of Kazakhstan, in which discourse on the civil nation continues to be reproduced at the official level, while real activity is more focused on reinforcing the idea of Kazakhstan as the state of the Kazakh nation. The institutionalization of organizing and recoding the sacred landscape involves a wide variety of groups and actors. These factors may explain the success of the project in comparison to other projects being implemented under the Ruqani Zhangyru program.

Journal for The Study of Religions and Ideologies, 2019

In the article of Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev, «The course towards future: spiritual renewal», six projects have been presented that lead the social mentality to the modern level. The fourth one is the “geography of the sacred places of Kazakhstan unc project. The aim of realizing this project is to increase the values of national identity and to prevent the spread of harmful ideologies. Today, scientific researches in Kazakhstan are carried out on archaeological, ethnographic and historical studies related to the sacred places of Kazakhstan. However, the shrines and sacred sites in Kazakhstan have not been systematically classified so far. In other words, the issues related to the concept of national value and holiness have not been studied in detail. In addition, the importance of sacred places and places to visit in the preservation of national identity has not been paid attention. In this research, we will present the sacred sites and places of visit of Kazakhstan,...

Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 2015

Among the republics of Central Asia, Kazakhstan represents a distinct geographical, geopolitical, cultural, and historical entity. 1 In the west and north, Kazakhstan constitutes a borderland belt (poias prigranich´ia) with Russia and its territories of the lower Volga, southern Urals, and Siberia. In the east, the region borders on China, while the southern and southeastern portions can be considered part of Central Asia. As a territory inhabited historically by nomads, Kazakhstan has seen its historical and cultural significance rise and fall, periodically becoming either the center or the periphery of ethnopolitical and ethno-cultural processes in the region. This history raises a series of questions: What place does Kazakhstan occupy in Central Asia? Has Central Asia existed as a single and coherent region? What role has the study of Central Asia and Kazakhstan played in attempts to understand the state organization, history, and culture of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union? In my view, exploration of these questions should broaden academic interest in the history of Central Asia-a history that occupies a critical place in any effort to make sense of historical processes in neighboring countries such as China, Russia, Iran, and Afghanistan. A Complex Nomenclature Any attempt to answer these questions must begin with nomenclature, which proves to be especially complicated in the case of Kazakhstan and Central Asia. Indeed, considering the history of the term "Central Asia" allows us not only to see that there have been various names for the region and disagreement concerning the definition of its borders and to understand the significance

Central Asian Affairs

Thirty years after its independence by-fait-accompli, Kazakhstan, both as a polity and as a society, is still trying to manage the formation of its national and civic identity. Kazakhstan and the Central Asian region in general have somehow always been subject to clichés involving a 'hotbed of ethnic tensions.' During the period between 1985-1995, it was often assumed that the ethnic hyper-diversity that characterized the Kazakh Soviet republic and the deep societal crises caused by the decline and demise of the Soviet Union would inevitably result in open ethnic conflict, if not in the breakup of the country. Despite a series of local incidents, such a scenario did not materialize. This suggests the existence of a viable level of both state legitimacy and societal cohesion. The tragic events in Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, and Tajikistan in the 1990s might also have dissuaded Kazakhstan from large-scale unrest. To this day, however, the definition and practice of an identity-offered by the state and state-affiliated civil society-which all citizens, regardless of their ethnicity, are able to identify with is crucial, not only for the country's aspired international reputation, but also for internal cohesion and stability. The official statements about the success thus far of the multi-ethnic civic model of Kazakhstan, developed under its first president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, are open for interpretation. However, the contributions in this article cluster suggest that the majority of the population somehow assesses this development as positive, or at least agrees that things could have been worse. There is no doubt that society and the state have become ethnically 'more Kazakh' in the years since independence. This is demonstrated by the composition of its population and the share of the titular Kazakh population, going from 40% in 1989 (a minority in their own titular republic) to 68.5% in 2020. This shift is also noticeable at the local level. Kazakhs now form majorities in cities and provinces that had clear non-Kazakh majorities or ethnically diverse populations dating back to 1989, the year of the last Soviet census. For example, if ethnic Kazakhs formed less than one-quarter of Almaty's population in 1989 (when it was still Alma-Ata, the capital of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic), their share is now likely closer to two-thirds. In Atyrau on

After initiation of the glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) policies in the USSR by Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union started to crumble, and old, forgotten, suppressed problems especially regarding territorial claims between Azerbaijanis and Armenians reemerged. Although Mountainous (Nagorno) Karabakh is officially part of Azerbaijan Republic, after fierce and bloody clashes between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, the entire Nagorno Karabakh region and seven additional surrounding districts of Lachin, Kelbajar, Agdam, Jabrail, Fizuli, Khubadly and Zengilan, it means over 20 per cent of Azerbaijan, were occupied by Armenians, and because of serious war situations, many Azerbaijanis living in these areas had to migrate from their homeland to Azerbaijan and they have been living under miserable conditions since the early 1990s. Mihail Gorbaçov tarafından başlatılan glasnost (açıklık) ve perestroyka (yeniden inşa) politikalarından sonra Sovyetler Birliği parçalanma sürecine girdi ve birlik coğrafyasındaki unutulmuş ve bastırılmış olan eski problemler, özellikle Azerbaycan Türkleri ve Ermeniler arasındaki sınır sorunları yeniden gün yüzüne çıktı. Bu bağlamda, hukuken Azerbaycan devletinin bir parçası olan Dağlık Karabağ bölgesi ve çevresindeki Laçin, Kelbecer, Cebrail, Agdam, Fizuli, Zengilan ve Kubatlı gibi yedi semt, yani yaklaşık olarak Azerbaycan‟ın yüzde yirmiye yakın toprağı, her iki toplum arasındaki şiddetli ve kanlı çarpışmalardan sonra Ermeniler tarafından işgal edildi. Ayrıca, olumsuz savaş şartları nedeniyle, binlerce Azerbaycan Türkü yaşadıkları topraklardan Azerbaycan‟a göç etmek zorunda kaldı ve söz konusu göçmenler hala çok kötü şartlar altında yaşamlarını sürdürmektedirler.