Turkism and Tatarism

First of all, we should express the concepts of Turkism and the Turkish world. Miscellaneous nations extending from the borders of China up to the Adriatic Sea has born the sense of the Turkish identity with the names of their own tribes and dynasty in both the history and today. Even Ottomans knew that they were Turks in respect of their tribes. We can clearly observe this definite knowledge from Aşık Paşazade, one of the Ottoman historians in the period of Fatih. While he was mentioning about the conquest and victories in Roumelia (Ottoman Balkans), he told that "Turk was supported" when he once got enthusiastic. The name of Turk is frequently cited in his work; the identity of Turkmen is stated as the origin of the Ottoman family. When the Turkmen States founded in the Eastern Anatolia since the period of Fatih turned into a great threat for the Ottoman domination in Anatolia, the Ottomans abstained from the usage of the names of Turk and Turkmen. They found a bureaucratic name even for the Turkmens in their own regions and they called them with the name of Yoruk. The Eastern Anatolia was known as a Turkmen homeland since the 11th century. Marco Polo who passed by this region in 1270s used the term of Turkmenia for these regions. These Turkmens maintain their religious traditions of Middle East in both the Eastern Anatolia and in the other parts of the Ottoman State and they were members of heterodox sects. Afterwards, when Shah Ismail became the political and religious leader of these people, the Ottoman State started to follow a severe policy for extermination and assimilation of the Turkmens. As a result of this incident, the names of Etrak and Turkmen gained a despising meaning in the Ottoman bureaus.

Nevertheless, even in the 16th century, some of these bureaucrats were interested in writing poems with pure Turkish under the name of Türki-I Basit (Simple Turkish). In the middle of the 17th century, Evliya Çelebi emphasised the Ottomans was the relatives with Turks and Mongols in respect of their origin. The work of Ebu'l-Gazi Bahadır Khan titled as Şecere-i Terakime and Ziyaüddin Barani in Delhi Sultanate, the authors of Divanü Lügat-it Türk and Kutadgu Bilig in the 11th century clearly expressed the sense and conscience of the identity of Turkism. Another significant event was as follows: When the Hungarians invaded the Panonya Savanna together with the tribes of Turkish roots, the Byzantine reference books had called this region as Turquia.

Where this general Turkish identity and sense comes from? Why are we Turks and why do we call our homeland as Turkey? Why do various nations in the Middle East and the Eastern Europe know themselves as Turks? We connect all the answers to these questions to this incident. The first nation that had declared itself as Turk is Kok-Turks and they had clearly declared it in the monuments that they constructed on the banks of Orhun River in the years of 732 and 735. The Empires established in steppes were considered as to have been established with a törü (tradition) or law declared by khan in the period of formation. The ruler dynasty and all the families that live within their tents were considered to be in union under this tradition or law within this federation. The process of the integration and the foundation of a state was explained with the expression of "törüyü düzme" (determination of tradition) in Orhun Monuments.

Kok-Turk Empire had united all the borders of Eurasia extending from the Crimea up to China. It represented a great political power that allied with the Byzantine Empire against Iran. The tribes within its boundaries and particularly the communities that speak Turkish and accept Turkish gained the Turkish identity since they were included within this political union. The political union should create an identity for the state. The political union beyond the differences of language and ethnical structures has formed a fundamental identity. We can see an example to this situation in the outcome of the French nation in the European history. Beginning from the 15th century, the national states and national identities have outcome as a result of such a political union. The common Turkist sense and Turkish identity over various languages and ethnical minorities comes from this long historical common life.

Cenghiz Khan founded a great khanate that dominated the region of Eurasia after Kok-Turks. His Empire was dissolved pursuant to the foundation of independent Khanates extending fron the Eastern Europe up to China at the end of the 13th century and the dynasties from the ancestry of Cenghiz and the Mongol law shaped the new identities in Eurasia. Altin-Ordu Ulug Khanate (The Great Golden Army Khanate) that had established an independent empire in the Eastern Europe provided a new name and a new identity to the Turkish nations and all these communities were known under the name of Tatar which was a Mongolian tribe. In fact, all communities dwelling in the Eastern Europe and the 40-40 thousands of independent Mongolian tribes that spoke Mongolic language adopted the Turkish language and they became Turks. Upon this development, the law of Cenghiz Khan was maintained as a source of identity dominant in the khanates founded in this region. The Crimean Khanate was founded by the ancestry of Dogay Timur from the grandchildren of Cenghiz Khan in Altin-Ordu Ulug Khanate. The Crimean Khans i did their best and struggled to invade the homeland of Altin-Ordu Ulug Khans in the lower parts od Idyll River and to revive the Golden Army Empire until the middle of the 16th century. Due to the fact that Cenghiz Khan was their ancestor, the identity of Tatars would always be given great importance.

The people that we know as Crimean Tatars have started to adopt their own Turkish identity only since the beginning of the 20th century. The great Turkish nationalist, Gaspıralı İsmail Bey can be stated as the first among the intellectual leaders of this movement of awakening. He started to publish his newspaper titled as Tercüman (Interpreter) in 1883. Then, he became one of the greatest pioneers of the Turkism movement with his slogan of "union in language, opinion and work" much before than the intellectuals in the Ottoman state. The polemic about the identity of Turk and Tatar is still debated among the Crimean Turks nowadays. In fact, the Crimean people are not Mongolian people. The Turkish tribes that could not live in steppes took shelter in the Crimea and they constituted the Turkish people there.

These are composed of the Hun Turks, Khazars, and mostly the Kipchak Turks. The name of Tatar is a new identity gained under the power of the state pursuant to the foundation of the Altin-Ordu Mongolian State. The logic of the advocates that defend the thesis of Tatar identity is as follows: If we adopt the identity of Turks, we will be assimilated by Turkey or among Turkish people, we will lose our Crimean identity and we cannot stick to our allegations and claims for an independent state in Crimea. Nevertheless, the nationalist leaders of the Crimea following Gaspıralı Ismail Bey had determined the Turkish identity and they had emphasised that the Crimea could only stay alive with the support of the Turkish world.

to be continued