Vol 20, No 1 (2021): History of relations with the center and national regions of Russia

The Russian government’s three principal institutions to regulate the empire’s diverse religions from the 18th to the early 20th century are examined. Its author describes the evolution of these bodies, their features and purpose, as well as defining the concept of religious security by analyzing its specific historical content. The author also discusses the relationship between the institutions of the official Russian Church, religious tolerance for “foreign confessions,” and discrimination against the Old Believers through the prism of “friend - alien - foe” relations. This approach helps us understand the hierarchical nature of the relations and contradictions that existed between the institutions, whose activities regulated the religious life of the Russian Empire’s subjects until 1905. The article goes on to analyze the relationship between the official legal status of the Russian Church, imperial tolerance, and religious discrimination. It concludes that the formation of the three state-religious institutions that began in the 18th century ended during the reign of Emperor Nicholas I. That time saw the beginning of the gradual evolution of “friend - alien - foe” inter-institutional relations, which peaked under Emperor Nicholas in 1904-1906. The author also considers the changes in the government’s policy towards the Russian “schism” of the 17th century, which ultimately removed the “friend-or-foe” opposition in the relations between the Russian state, the Russian Church and the “schismatic” Old Believers. In accordance with the modernized legislation on religious tolerance, lawful Old Believers and sectarians moved from the category of religious and political “foes” to that of “aliens”, to which “foreign confessions” traditionally belonged. Under the new legal and political conditions, intolerance and religious discrimination against the “schism” ceased to be an instrument of state policy.

The author identifies the amount of Crimean Tatars who served as officials in Taurida Governorate in the first half of the 20th century. The article is based on archival data, address-calendars and mesyatseslovs of the Russian Empire. Russian politics in the region after the Crimean annexation was characterized by an active interaction with the local population. The imperial authorities gave the Crimean Tatars broad rights and involved them in civil and military service. Tatar murzas and beys who entered service closely interacted with Russian officials and thus got acquainted with the Russian language and culture as well as with the new legal system. While the largest number of Crimean Tatars were in service during the reign of Catherine II, their number began to decline under her successors. The author argues that the Russian authorities’ interaction with the Crimean Tatar nobility was based on mutually beneficial conditions. The state received the loyalty of local leaders, which provided stability and allowed for communication with the ordinary population. In turn, the murzas and beys received titles and ranks, which allowed them to increase their property and keep their social status. However, the number of Crimean Tatars in local government functions during the first half of the 19th century was low. They served in the governing bodies only by election from the nobility. This was a result of central policy but also of the low level of training among Tatar officials. Many of them were not familiar with legal procedures laws and could not read and write in Russian. Consequently, they preferred service in military formations, which was more prestigious and did not require special training.

Based on an analysis of archival documents and periodical press materials, the present paper studies the impact of the liberal reforms of Alexander II on the policies of the imperial authorities for the nomadic peoples of the steppe of Ciscaucasia: the Kalmyks, Nogais and Turkmens. The liberal reforms of the 1860s and 1870s had a direct impact on the formation of the national intelligentsia, which during the revolutionary events of the early 20th century led to the rise of the national movement in the empire’s peripheries and to the struggle for self-determination of the non-Russian populations during the Russian Revolution of 1917. The article reconstructs individual facts and events from the life of the nomadic population under specific socio-economic and political-legal conditions. Using the historical-genetic method, the influence of liberal reforms on the vital activity of the nomadic peoples of the Stavropol province is revealed. The authors focus on the activities of regional authorities during the period under review, which were liberal in nature and carried out in the context of the reforms of Alexander II. The authors conclude that the pre-Caucasus steppe, the territory of the nomadic Kalmyks, Nogais and Turkmens, being the national edge of the Russian Empire and falling under a special system of governance related to the ethnic and religious characteristics of the populations, was not drawn into the orbit of liberal reforms. Meanwhile, a number of measures were approved by the regional executive authorities on the ground, of course, first of all, aimed at satisfying the needs of the imperial policy for incorporating the region into the common imperial space, but at the same time improving the lives of the nomadic peoples of the Stavropol province, in particular in the field of education and legal procedures.

Under discussion the question if Peter the Great’s reforms were truly revolutionary. The author focuses on two aspects: the extent to which his innovations altered the patrimonial system that had dominated Muscovy over the previous three centuries, and the role arbitrariness, bribery, embezzlement and other kinds of corruption played during his reign. She examines the first Russian emperor’s changes that most affected Russia’s various estates, including the introduction of a poll tax, the conversion of peasants on state lands into state serfs, as well as the intensification of the nobility’s service obligations and the reduction of its privileges. The author concludes that Peter not only did not destroy Muscovy’s traditional patrimonial system, but intensified it and even used it to impose his reforms on a reluctant population. Meanwhile, although the emperor’s initiatives in the sciences, arts and secular education were important, they only affected the upper class. In other respects, Peter’s efforts to westernize his realm were only superficial. The author also considers how Russians regarded the notion of “freedom.” She argues that there is a connection between seemingly opposite phenomena - the popular desire for freedom and arbitrariness of the service nobility. The author pays particular attention to corruption, which she considers to have had a major impact on the government’s relationship with the elite, and was tolerated both to maintain the latter’s loyalty but also to manipulate it.

The authors of this contribution analyze the circumstances and the history of a popular play that was staged in the Soviet Union in 1927-1928. Titled ‘Jumah Masjid’, this play was devoted to the anti-colonial movement in India. A manuscript of the play, not indicating its title and the name of its author, was found in the St. Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences among the papers related to A.M. and L.A. Meerwarth, members of the First Russian Expedition to Ceylon and India (1914-1918). Later on, two copies of this play under the title ‘The Jumah Masjid’ were found in the Russian Archive of Literature and Art and in the Museum of the Tovstonogov Grand Drama Theatre. The authors of this article use archival and published sources to analyze the reasons for writing and staging the play. They consider the image of India as portrayed by a Soviet playwright in conjunction with Indologists that served as consultants, and as seen by theater critics and by the audience (according to what the press reflected). Arguably, the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the October Revolution in Russia in 1927 and the VI Congress of the Communist International (Comintern) in 1928 encouraged writing and staging the play. The detailed picture of the anti-colonial struggle in India that the play offered suggests that professional Indologists were consulted. At the same time the play is critical of the non-violent opposition encouraged by Mahatma Gandhi as well as the Indian National Congress and its political wing known as the Swaraj Party. The research demonstrates that the author of the play was G.S. Venetsianov, and his Indologist consultants were Alexander and Liudmila Meerwarth.

This article examines the development of social control in the Soviet Union under Leonid Brezhnev, who was General Secretary of the Communist Party from 1964 to 1982. Historians have largely neglected this question, especially with regard to its evolution and efficiency. Research is based on sources in the Russian State Archive of Modern History (RGANI), the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPI) and the Moscow Central State Archive (TSGAM). During Brezhnev’s rule, Soviet propaganda reached the peak of its development. However, despite the fact that authorities tried to improve it, the system was ritualistic, unconvincing, unwieldy, and favored quantity over quality. The same was true for political education, which did little more than inspire sullen passivity in its students. Although officials recognized these failings, their response was ineffective, and over time Soviet propaganda increasingly lost its potency. At the same time, there were new trends in the system of social control. Authorities tried to have a foot in both camps - to strengthen censorship, and at the same time to get feedback from the public. However, many were afraid to express any criticism openly. In turn, the government used data on peoples’ sentiments only to try to control their thoughts. As a result, it did not respond to matters that concerned the public. These problems only increased during the “era of stagnation” and contributed to the decline and subsequent collapse of the Soviet system.

-