Uyghur history is a victim of politicization, here’s how.
Conflicting historiography has taken center-stage when it comes to the Uyghurs because of a severe contest between polarizing nationalist scholarship
This is a series of articles aiming to contextualize the history and the ethnopolitical context of the tensions that exist between the Chinese government and the Uyghurs and most importantly the region of Xinjiang.
For the purpose of this series, I will be using the official name — the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) for the sake of convenience and it does not mean that I endorse the name or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in any way whatsoever.
The Uyghur Muslims, a Turkic minority situated in Xinjiang, have been in the spotlight after the leaks of the China Cables, also known as the Xinjiang Papers. The issue was internationalized after reports emerged that China was detaining around a million Uyghur Muslims in internment camps in 2017, where the Chinese authorities commit various human rights abuses including torture, rape, illegal organ harvesting, forced praises of the Chinese Communist Party and of the Chinese president, Xi Jinping. China justifies the internment camps as “re-education” camps and that it will help remove the “three evils” which are “separatism, extremism and terrorism” from the Uyghurs and make them integrated into the mainstream Han Chinese society.
However, the Uyghurs have been historically been subjected to oppression and suppression both before and after the founding of China’s republic. At different times, the narrative on Uyghurs has changed based on different circumstances by the Chinese government, which in turn created a new problem: politicized history. Due to the manipulation of Uyghur history by the Chinese, Uyghur nationalist intellectuals’ constructed a history for themselves, which deepened the zeal for nationalism among Uyghurs.
This article aims to analyze the politicized historical narratives of both Uyghur and Chinese nationalist historians as well as the reasons behind the politicized narratives.
The history of the Uyghurs has been politicized on various fronts which include the origin, ethnicity, name as well as the geographical area that the Turkic minority are settled in, commonly known as Xinjiang among many other aspects. This article focuses on how conflicting historical narratives led to a political contestation between Uyghur and Chinese historians.
Why is it politicized in the first place?
The reason lies in the annexation of what is known today as Xinjiang. The Qing Empire annexed the region after exterminating the Zhungars (or Dzungars), who were of Mongol origin, which will be discussed later in this series.
Disputed Narratives
Origin of the Uyghurs
Uyghur nationalist historians have contended that Uyghurs have thousands of years of history. Uyghur historian Turgun Almas contended that Uyghurs have more than 6,400 years of history based on his findings from the excavation of mummies from the Tarim Basin. In addition, they also perceive the Huns (a tribe in China) were their ancestors. Chinese historians challenge this viewpoint as they consider the Huns to be an ancient Chinese group.
Chinese historiography on the Uyghurs concludes that the Turkic group are the descendants of the Dingling tribe and that the Dinglings were the first ancestors of the present-day Uyghurs, according to a number of scholars.
Duan Lianqin, one of the Chinese historians went on to conclude that the Uyghurs’ ethnic origins lay in a number of ancient ethnic groups which include Guyfang, Dili, Dingling, Gaoche, Tiele, Huihe, Huihu among many other ethnic groups. Moreover, he goes on to argue that the Uyghurs have history dating back to the 17th century BC.
Conflicting Narratives
The name “Xinjiang”
The term Xinjiang is itself a bone of contention. The term means “new boundaries” or “new dominions”. Uyghur nationalists see this as a Chinese imposition and rather prefer the term “East Turkestan or Uyghurstan”, which were forbidden under the Chinese government.
However, Chinese nationalist historians posit that the term Xiyu or Western Regions was the historical term, which later became to be known as present-day Xinjiang.
The term was officially used in 1955 when China annexed the region and renamed it the “Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region”
On Uyghurs as the Original Inhabitants of Xinjiang
Uyghur nationalist historians, such as Muhemmed Imin Bughra and Turghun Almas, the region of Xinjiang has always been the “Uyghur homeland” and that the original inhabitants of that specific region were Turkic tribes (or Uyghur-Turkic tribes).
However, the history recorded by Chinese historians has been politically motivated. According to Chinese historiography, the ethnic origins of the Uyghurs are separated from the region of Xinjiang. Instead, Chinese historians have attempted to connect them to Mongolia and have tried to affirm that Uyghur tribes became a major socio-political force only after the ninth century. In addition, this group of scholars claims that the Han Chinese, which is the ethnic majority in China, were the original inhabitants and that Uyghurs migrated to the region of what is now known as Xinjiang after the mid-ninth century.
Furthermore, this is supported by the Chinese government which released a white paper on Xinjiang. It asserts the following:
“The Xiongnu entered Xinjiang mainly around 176 B.C. The Han was one of the earliest peoples to settle in Xinjiang. In 101 B.C., the Han empire began to station garrison troops to open up wasteland for cultivation of farm crops in Luntai (Bugur), Quli and some other places. Later, it sent troops to all other parts of Xinjiang for the same purpose. All the garrison reclamation points became the early settlements of the Han people after they entered Xinjiang. Since the Western Regions Frontier Command was established in 60 B.C., the inflow of the Han people into Xinjiang, including officials, soldiers, and merchants, had never stopped”
This government-based narrative has been widely propagated among China’s public circles. Although most Chinese scholars followed the government’s take on Uyghur history, some Chinese scholars disputed it. For instance, Gu Bao, a historian in the 1980s, drew a conclusion that the early ancestors’ of the Uyghurs (the Dinglings), have lived in Xinjiang “even before the common era”. He went on to say that the “bulk of the Uyghur population already lived in Xinjiang before the arrival of Uyghur tribes”.
There were also some, which initially supported the government-sponsored propaganda such as Ge Jianxiong but later rejected it.
On Xinjiang being a part of China since Ancient Times
This is yet another issue that has been politicized by Chinese historiographers, which in turn led to a nationalist historical narrative by the Uyghurs.
According to Uyghur scholars, they were the “dominant players in Xinjiang’s political, economic and cultural life” and that Chinese control over Uyghur politics only came after 1759 and 1884,
However, Chinese scholars contest that they were the “important actors in Xinjiang” way before the 18th-century and after the Qing dynasty exerted control over the region. Besides, Chinese scholars also claim that the exerted cultural and not just political control over the region of Xinjiang.
This narrative changed drastically after former Soviet states such as Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and other Central Asian gained nationhood in the early 90s, also the same period where Uyghur self-determination movement was growing within the Uyghurs. Thus, the Chinese government and state-sponsored scholars changed the strategy of their propaganda to stress this point: that Xinjiang is an inseparable part of China since ancient times (Xinjiang zigu yilai jiushi Zhongguo bu ke fengede yibufen). This, in turn, led to a propaganda campaign that gave politicians “free license” to misinterpret and misrepresent Uyghur history.
The state-sponsored view, was yet again, echoed by the then-president of China, Jiang Zemin when he visited Xinjiang in 1998. This is what he said regarding the history of Xinjiang:
‘Xinjiang has been a part of our homeland since ancient times. In ancient times, Xinjiang and its surrounding regions were together known as the Western regions. As far back as 101 B.C.E., the Western Han set up local officials in the Western Regions and administered military-agricultural colonies. In 60 B.C.E., the Western Han set up the Western Regions Frontier Command and provided a unified administration of the Western Regions’ military and political affairs. This indicates that Xinjiang was already an official part of our country from that time.
Since the Han Dynasty, and during the Tang, Song, Yang, Ming, and Qing dynasties in particular, [all dynasties] have attached extreme importance to and carried out the administration of the Western Regions. After the Opium War, the imperialist powers engaged in widespread occupation of our land and plundered our territory, and English and Russian powers seized the opportunity to invade the Xinjiang region.
After resisting the outside forces and recovering Xinjiang, the Qing Dynasty government established Xinjiang Province in 1884.”
Post this speech, Chinese scholars adopted this narrative and posited that that “separatists” have distorted history in order to reinforce their own claims over Xinjiang and that they are planning to split the region from China.
This narrative was echoed by a Chinese scholar, Wang Zhilai who said:
“Some people keep harping on about Pan-Turkism…going around saying that they want to establish an independent ‘East Turkistan.’ Isn’t a suitable territory needed to establish an independent country? Where is this territory? Is it in Xinjiang? But isn’t Xinjiang China’s? Xinjiang has belonged to China for more than two thousand years”
In addition, other scholars also supported this perspective. The government-sanction book on Xinjiang, the Research on the Policy of the Historical Chinese Central Dynasties toward Xinjiang (Zhongguo Lidai Zhongyang Wangchao Zhili Xinjiang Zhengce Yanjiu) argued that Chinese rulers controlled Xinjiang while asserting that the region has 2,000 years of history under Chinese rule.
On Uyghurs having independent states
Uyghur historians such as Turghun Almas argued that the Uyghurs had a long tradition of nation-building and that they established independent states. Furthermore, he argued that the states founded by them established diplomatic and commercial relations with other nations, including China. He, therefore argues that the Uyghurs made an “enormous contribution to the development of humanity and world civilization”.
The Chinese government was uncomfortable with a perceived nationalist movement among the Uyghurs in the 1980s, and so it launched a campaign against Turghun Almas, “casting a heavily politicized shadow” over the studies of Uyghur historiography. Moreover, the communist state also used this approach to suppress a perceived rising nationalist wave among the Uyghurs.
Meanwhile, Chinese historians have adamantly contended that the Uyghurs never established independent states. Cheng Suluo, a historian, argued that the Uyghurs “never established long-term dynasties in history”. Further, Chinese historians have said that the Uyghurs only administered local entities and were under the control of central dynasties. Thus, they concluded that the Uyghurs were not fully independent.
The above-mentioned viewpoint is commonly agreed upon by Chinese historiographers as it serves China’s claims that the region of Xinjiang was under “an unbroken chain of direct control” under Chinese dynasties.
Uyghur historians published new works in the 1980s and 1990s and they continued with the narrative of the Uyghurs being an independent nation and have supported their claims by utilizing historical materials in Turkish, Chinese, Rusian and Central Asian Turkic languages.
On the relationship between the Uyghurs and the Chinese
Uyghur historians have asserted that Uyghur states were independent of the Chinese in terms of ruling powers. Turghun Almas, an Uyghur historian argued that the “Orkhon Uyghur State (646–845) forced the Tang Dynasty to sign agreements to protect the best interest of the Uyghurs”. Almas also stressed that the Uyghur Kingdom was a “sovereign nation and did not belong to the Tang Dynasty politically or economically”.
Conversely, he contends, that the Tang Dynasty had to pay tribute and have the emperor’s daughters marry Uyghur Khans in return for protection of their political need. Almas also describes the relationship between various Uyghur empires* as a “normal and equal political and economic relationship” between sovereign nations.
However, Chinese scholars have vehemently contested this claim and claimed that the Uyghurs, as well as other non-Han ethnic groups, had connections with the Central Dynasties (Zhongyang Wangchao) on the Central Plains (Zhongyuan) and sent envoys to “express their submission as well as pay tribute to the Chinese Emperor”.
Chinese scholars put forward the claim that rulers in China’s inner areas, established “various local administrative units” where non-Han ethnic groups reside. In addition, they supplement their claim saying that the Han Chinese had close economic ties with the Uyghurs and that the Uyghurs were influenced by Han culture. They also go on to say that the local dynasties such as the Karakhan and Gaochang Uyghur dynasties “acknowledged that they[the Hans] were the local governments under the jurisdiction of the Song dynasty and part of China”.
This was yet another strategy of the Chinese government to validate and to authorize its control over Xinjiang, in order to serve state interests.
Despite hordes of state propaganda by the Chinese government, Turghun Almas’s writings still remained popular and were widely read among Uyghurs.
These contesting historiographies have blurred the unbiased historical narrative of the Uyghurs. However, what this does show is that the political contestation of these histories are severe due to the interests of the Chinese state.
In my next article, I will try to provide a non-nationalist narrative to Uyghur history by assessing some of the claims (due to lack of unbiased historical materials) and verifying them.
Sources:
Tursun, Nabijan. “The Formation of Modern Uyghur Historiography and Competing Perspectives toward Uyghur History.” The China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, vol. 6, Aug. 2008, pp. 92–99.
BOVINGDON, GARDNER. UYGHURS: Strangers in Their Own Land. COLUMBIA UNIV PRESS, 2020.
