УДК 94

History of the rural administration body in Kyrgyzstan: the second half of the XIX – the beginning of the XX century

Кубанычбек уулу Нурсултан – Ошский государственный университет.

Абдрахманов Бакытбек Мамашарипович – Ошский технологический университет.

Abstract: Since the second half of the XIX century, the territory of Central Asia, including Kyrgyzstan, has been turned to Russia. As a result, there have been significant changes in the socio-political, socio-economic life of the local population. Instead of the already established system of management of the indigenous population, a new management system was introduced to implement the policy of the kingdom. The management system introduced by the Russian Empire on the territory of Turkestan was called ”military-people's management".

Аннотация: Со второй половины XIX века территория Средней Азии, в том числе Кыргызстан, была обращена к России. В результате произошли значительные изменения в общественно-политической, социально-экономической жизни местного населения. Вместо уже сложившейся системы управления коренным населением была введена новая система управления для реализации политики королевства. Их вожди избирались из числа местного населения. В статье представлена история органа частного управления Российской Империи, осуществлявшего свою деятельность в Кыргызстане с середины XIX века до начала XX века.

Keywords: Russian Empire, Turkestan governor-general, system of local self-government, rural administration, regulations on management.

Ключевые слова: Российская империя, Туркестанское генерал-губернаторство,система местного самоуправления, деловое администрирование, положения об управлении.

From the middle of the XIX century to the beginning of the XX century, Kyrgyzstan was part of the Russian Empire, this period in the historiography of Kyrgyzstan is called the colonial era. The Russian Empire created the Turkestan Governor-General on this territory and introduced a management system for its management, known as the “military-people's administration". Its lower instance, known as the ”people's", was formed by local authorities, which, in turn, consisted of levels of household and rural administration. Consequently, rural administration was at the lowest level of local self-government. The regulations of the Russian Empire on the administration of Turkestan specified a management system according to which parts were divided into rural administrative districts, known in Russian sources as “rural society” (among sedentary peoples) or “aul society” (among nomads). These concepts in the historical literature in the Kyrgyz language are called “ayyl zhamaaty”, “ayyl somu”, etc.B. is provided in the headings. In our study, we used the term “rural community".

Administrative structure of a rural settlement. The rural community consisted of one or more small villages, hamlets, hamlets, borders and mounds located close to each other, which had common features in the use of land and irrigation ditches. [1, 325-326] for example, the Kyrgyz-Ata rural community of the Nookat district of Osh province consisted of 9 villages: Ymam-ata, Kirghiz-ata, Ak-Bulak, Tokmok-Bulak, Kutma, Borko, Bargi-baryn and Kashkaldak. [2, 143] another example -in 1909, in rural settlement No. 1 of Uzgen county, belonging to Andijan County, Akzhar, Kulduk, and the Left Bank of Yassy (the left bank of Yassy) were built, consisting of villages. [2, 18] consequently, at the lowest level of government, several villages, winter quarters, settlements were merged into a rural community, which became known as the village administration. With today's administrative-territorial structure, it is correct to present the aiyl aimak (aiyl okmotu).

According to the regulations on the administration of the Turkestan Region, rural communities had to have from 100 to 200 Smokes. [1, 326]. In his work “the results of the 27th anniversary of the Administration of the Turkestan region” Yuzhakov wrote that villages Consisting of 70 to 250 Smokes. [3, 24] consequently, rural administrative units were also measured by the amount of smoke in them. The amount of smoke in rural communities was often more, and in some cases less, than specified in the rules. We have also illustrated this phenomenon with the unit of being. However, we have not been able to get an explanation from sources, literature about what is allowed on the basis of. For example, in official documents it can be seen that in the Arym village community No. 1, belonging to the Nanai section of the Namangan village district, there are only 391 smokes, in the Karavan village community of the Bagysh village district-457 Smokes, in the Va-Buka village community of the Bayasan village district-412 Smokes. [2, 104-106] it is obvious that the amount of smoke is more than twice the 200 Smokes established by the rule.

The names of each village were named back in colonial times, mainly based on the historical place names of this region. And the names of rural communities, mainly rural communities in nomadic parts, were numbered (numbering). So, at the beginning of the XX century, each of the rural communities of Nookensky, Maily-Saysky, Karakol-seresuu, Kenkol-Karagyrsky, Kugartsky, Changetsky, Uzgen (except Uzgen village council) and Jazinsky (except Russian settlement) districts of Andijan county was assigned a special number. For example, spring presence №1, №2, №3, №4, №5 there were rural communities. [2, 20] This method was also widely used in other regions of Turkestan. For example, in one of the articles devoted to the study of Kazakh life, he gave information on the numbering of rural communities, in which he wrote that the name of his rural community by number is not used among the local population, that numbering has no meaning except in office work [4, 79].

The legal signs determining the affiliation of residents to a particular administrative unit were not specified in the initial provisions. Usually taxpayers in villages independently put up their lists before the elections. Only the lists created for the registration of these taxpayers have a conditionally defined affiliation to an administrative unit. Only in the subsequent provisions was some order introduced by compiling lists of households in parts and assigning responsibilities for monitoring the movement of the population by comings and goings to households.[5, 86]

The transfer or annexation of rural communities from one part to another was carried out with the permission of the military governor of the region. And when transferring small villages from one rural community to another, the permission was given by the county chief with the consent of the rural community.[1, 326]

The body of rural administration. Rural communities were headed by village elders (village elders), elected for a term of 3 years. All persons over the age of 25 who, according to the law, were not subject to prosecution could be elected to the above positions.[1, 326-328]

The village administration body, headed by the foreman, was made up of Pentecostals, foremen, who were candidates for foremen, assistant foremen and responsible for the smoke subordinate to them. The village headman did not have his own secretary. They temporarily used the services of a presence secretary only when necessary, mainly during the tax collection period.

The person approved by the candidate for foreman also had no authority. He was not involved in managerial affairs during the elder's tenure. Only when a senior for some reason was temporarily or permanently dismissed from his post (due to his death, at his own request or by the Russian administration), the candidate temporarily performed his duties until the organization of the next election in his place.

In addition, representatives of the local population-aryk-aksakal, Murap, fifty chiefs, ten chiefs, etc. - are provided services in the following structures of the management system.

Fifty chiefs were present at the same time and were responsible for fifty Smokes in the village, representing the elected people's courts. The ten chiefs were also not only the selectors of the village elder, but also responsible for the ten Smokes. They performed the (police) function of overseeing public order among the people they controlled. Census, tax collection, etc. B. helped in the affairs of the village headman. However, they were not entitled to a certain amount of salary, as it was established by special provisions for household or rural elders. Under customary law, they should own a larger share of the land, etc. whatever the benefits are. Because of this, F.Girs reports in its report that some of them demand from people, while others ask for the distribution of official salaries or exemption from public order supervision duties. He notes that there were even cases when Pentecostals applied to them with a request to grant them the right to collect state taxes, because they did not receive salaries, and also that Pentecostals and foremen were completely dependent on the stewards and village elders and became their servants Girsa.[6, 64]. The ten chiefs, as well as the fifty chiefs, were mostly from the upper class by social status.

In the Ferghana region, the official salaries of village elders existed in the first periods, namely before the adoption of a permanent regulation in 1886 on the basis of the draft Regulation of 1873. According to archival documents, the annual salary of the foreman was set at 150 rubles. For example, in 1877, in the report of the Andijan county chief to the military governor of the region, it was established that 130 village foremen and foremen in the county have a salary of 150 rubles per year with expenses of 19,500 rubles.[7] in a similar report, 26 village elders and elders of the Simbirsk district wrote about expenses from 150 to 3900 rubles.[8] the official salaries of village elders differed somewhat in accordance with the Regulations on the Administration of Turkestan in 1886. Thus, in accordance with article 91 of the said regulation, it is established that the official salaries of village elders amount to no more than 200 rubles per year. The specific amount of the official salary is determined by the village meeting.

The salary of village elders and their assistants was also determined by a village meeting in the amount of no more than 200 rubles per year, depending on the size of the village. In 1886, the annual salaries of assistants to village elders of Kutluk-Seyit district of Namangan district were as follows: 1) there were 13 villages in the Kok-Serek rural society, with a total population of 439 Dyms. Being one of the assistants to the foreman, he received a salary of 72 rubles a year; 2) there were 4 villages in the Ortho-Forest rural community, in which 253 people lived. He was an assistant foreman and received a salary of 48 rubles a year.; 3) in Sumsar rural community there were 3 villages and 256 Dyms lived. He was one of the assistants of the headman, received a salary of 48 rubles a year; 4) there were 8 villages in the Shakava rural community, 261 smoke lived. After becoming an assistant foreman, he received a salary of 48 rubles a year.[9] the work of the secretary (clerk) and other employees in the rural administration and the payment of their salaries are not provided for by the regulations. Therefore, in some cases, village elders were forced to use their salaries to meet these needs. Village elders usually hired a secretary only if taxes were collected during the harvest period in a rural community, spending from 50 to 80 rubles a year. Village elders used the services of district secretaries and paid them a small fee for this. According to the regulation adopted in 1886, the assistants of village foremen received almost the same salary as the foremen, but did not spend it on the above needs.[5, 105] the salaries of all heads of local administrations for their public positions, such as tax collection, supervision of public order and other expenses, were financed by local residents, and not from the treasury of the royal government.

The system of rural administration was the executive, managerial, as well as the police body of the entire population in the territory to which it belonged. He was directly subordinate to the presence, carried out the resolutions of the presence and the Russian administration. As can be seen from the sources cited above, they exercised repressive power over the people based on Russian legislation and their other levers.

References

1. Regulations on the administration of the Turkestan region, the Complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire. Sobr. 3-E. T. VI: 1886, Law No. 3814 - The most highly approved Regulation on the Administration of the Turkestan Region, pp. 325-326.
2. List of settlements of the Fergana region, Skobelev, 1909, p. 143.
3. Yuzhakov, N.D. The results of the 27-year management of our Turkestan region, – St. Petersburg, 1891, p. 24.
4. Turkestan collection, - St. Petersburg, 1908. – Vol. 450, p. 79.
5. Palen K.K. Report on the audit of the Turkestan region, made by the highest order of Senator Count K.K. Palen. Rural management: Russian and native. – St. Petersburg, Senatorial Printing House, 1910, p. 86.
6. Girs F.K. Report of the auditor, by the highest command, Turkestan region, Privy Councilor Girs. F.K. Girs. – St. Petersburg, 1883, p. 64.
7. Kaufman K.P. Draft of the most comprehensive report of Adjutant General K.P. von Kaufman 1st on civil administration and organization in the regions of the Turkestan Governor-General November 7, 1867 - March 25, 1885 – St. Petersburg, 1885, p. 66.
8. Statistical review of the Fergana region for 1904 – Novy Margelan, 1908, p. 9.
9. Address reference book of the Ferghana region, Skobelev, 1912, p. 42.