This article presents an analysis of a pivotal historical document: a letter from Kenesary Kasymov, the last khan of the Kazakh Steppe, to Russian Emperor Nicholas I in December 1837.
Housed in the archives of the St.-Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, this document functions as a political manifesto that elucidates the causes of the largest 19th-century national liberation movement in Kazakhstan. An examination of this letter allows for a departure from generalized textbook formulations to engage directly with the rationale of a figure who has become a symbol of the struggle for independence. This analysis objectively situates the document within its historical context and assesses its significance for the modern understanding of Kazakhstan's history.
Appeal to the “Golden Age”: The Precedent of Khan Abylai
Kenesary Khan's letter commences with a reference to the past, specifically to the era of his grandfather, the renowned Abylai Khan. He writes, “...there existed among the people tranquility and peace, violated by none; both realms engaged in mutual trade, without the least disturbance of peace...”.
This opening is not mere nostalgia but a potent political and legal argument. Kenesary reminds the emperor of a previously existing model of bilateral relations. In the 18th century, Abylai Khan, a distinguished diplomat, skillfully navigated between the Russian and Qing empires, thereby preserving and strengthening Kazakh statehood. From Kenesary's perspective, relations with Russia were founded on the principles of sovereign partnership rather than subordination. The phrase “both realms” underscores the parity of the two parties, while trade is described as "mutual" and peace as “reciprocal”.
Thus, from the outset, Kenesary establishes the legal framework for his appeal. He presents himself not as a petitioner from the “wild steppe” but as a descendant of a legitimate ruler appealing against a violated treaty. He invokes a time when Kazakh khans were recognized as partners and their lands as sovereign territory.
The Core of the Conflict: “Having Violated the Former Peace Treaty...”
Subsequently, Kenesary articulates the substance of his claims with considerable precision. He identifies two principal factors that dismantled the previous order: the imposition of taxes (the yasak) and administrative reforms.
“...they began to collect the Yasak from our people and inflict various oppressions upon them”, he states. The yasak was more than a mere tax; within the system of imperial administration, it was a symbol of subjugation. Whereas the Kazakhs might have previously offered tribute or gifts as part of diplomatic rituals, the systematic and compulsory collection of the yasak signified a transition from the status of “neighbors” to that of “subjects”.
Even more detrimental to Kazakh statehood was the establishment of “eight divans” (administrative boards). Kenesary asserts: “...the junior chiefs, your subjects, falsely claimed that the entire Kazakh people had entered into Russian allegiance, through which, on the lands belonging to my late grandfather Abylai, 8 divans were established”.
This passage refers to the notable reforms of the 1820s, particularly the “Statute on the Siberian Kirghiz” of 1822. This statute effectively liquidated the traditional khan's authority in the Middle Zhuz and introduced a new administrative-territorial system of district-level boards (okruzhnye prikazy), which are the “divans” mentioned by the khan. The lands were divided into districts (okrugs), cantons (volosts), and villages (auls), headed by sultan-rulers and elders loyal to the tsarist administration. This constituted a direct and systematic dismantling of the Kazakh political structure.
Kenesary directly accuses the tsarist officials of falsehood, arguing that the entry into Russian allegiance was fabricated. He contests the very legitimacy of the Russian presence, positing that it was based on deceit rather than the voluntary will of the people.
Kenesary's Program: “To Leave It in Its Original State”
In the final section of his letter, Kenesary formulates his demands, which are both simple and radical: “...I request to leave it in its original state, to abolish the 8 district divans, and other establishments in our steppe”.
The term “original state” (pervobytnoe sostoyanie), in his understanding, does not signify a return to primitivism but a restoration of the status quo ante that existed during the time of Abylai Khan. This demand encompasses:
Political Sovereignty: The abolition of the district boards would entail the restoration of the khan's authority and traditional institutions of governance.
Territorial Integrity: The cessation of the construction of fortresses and other “establishments” on ancestral Kazakh lands.
Economic Independence: The cancellation of the yasak and other levies he deemed unjust.
This constitutes a maximalist program aimed at the complete restoration of an independent Kazakh Khanate. The letter demonstrates that the actions of Kenesary Khan (1837-1847) were not a spontaneous rebellion but a deliberate political struggle with a clear agenda, articulated in writing to the highest imperial authority. Kenesary utilized all available means: the diplomat's pen and the warrior's sword.
As the letter indicates, Kenesary Khan attempted to restore peaceful relations based on the agreements reached between the two states during his grandfather's reign. He also insisted on returning to the previously established border demarcation. However, as his legitimate demands were ignored and the nation's territorial integrity and sovereignty were threatened, Kenesary Khan was compelled to initiate a liberation struggle.
Historiographical Re-evaluation and Contemporary Significance
Soviet historiography long depicted Kenesary Kasymov as a reactionary feudal lord who impeded the “progressive” annexation of Kazakhstan by Russia, often labeling his movement as “banditry”. Following Kazakhstan's independence, however, a fundamental reassessment of his personality and actions has occurred. Today, Kenesary Khan is perceived as a national hero, a freedom fighter, and a symbol of unified Kazakh statehood. Documents such as this letter play a pivotal role in this reinterpretation.
The contemporary importance of this document is threefold:
Documentary Evidence: The letter serves as a primary source that refutes Soviet-era narratives. It shows that Kenesary Khan was guided not by a personal lust for power, but by the idea of preserving his people's sovereignty, appealing to law and historical justice.
The Roots of Independence: It demonstrates that the aspiration for independence is not a late 20th-century phenomenon but a process deeply rooted in history. Kenesary's struggle represents a culmination of resistance against colonial expansion.
A Lesson in Objectivity: An analysis of the letter promotes an objective view of history. It compels an acknowledgment that the incorporation into the empire was a complex and painful process, involving not only cultural exchange but also suppression, the violation of treaties, and armed resistance. While Kenesary Khan remains a complex figure whose methods could be harsh, the objectives outlined in his letter were aimed at defending what he considered the inalienable right of his people.
Kenesary Khan's letter is more than an artifact; it is a voice that has traversed time to serve as a reminder of enduring values: freedom, dignity, and the right of a people to determine their own destiny on their own land. The study of such documents is essential for understanding not only the past but also the foundations upon which present-day independent Kazakhstan is built.
