some aspects of Ottoman policy in eastern Anatolia, 1878-1908

391 Pages·2006·9.4 MB·English

by  Duguid, Stephen

CENTRALIZATION AND LOCALISPI ASPECTS OF OTTOMAN
POLICY I N EASTERN AN ATOLIA 1878-1908
Stephen Ralph Duguid
B.A. University of Illinois, 1966
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PMTIAL FULFILLRENT OF
ThE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
NASTER OF A8TS
i n the Department
@ STEPHEN RALPH DUGUID 1970
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
APRIL, 1970
-
Allan Cunninghas
Senior Supervisor
~ d i l l i a mC tovoland
f xamining Committee
A.H. SO@&@
Examining Committern
.
am.: Stephen Ralph Duquid .
eqree~ maater of Arts
I
'I~t k i t l d o f Thesist CmtraliZation and L @Bar Aspects of Ottoman
e;
a Policy i n Eastern A ia 1078-1908
* .
iii
ABSTRACT
The primary rationale behind t h i s t h e s i s is t h a t t h e greatest
need i n the study of the Ottoman Empire is for detailed analyses
of specific areas and aspects of t h a t Empire, The trend of latm
i n Ottoman historiography is a general testing of generalizations
made i n t h e past about t h e Empire i n t h e l i g h t of more thorough
research and, indeed, a c a l l i n g i n t o question of whether any
generalization about such a multi-national, multi-religious, and
complicated state is practicable or possible,
Both t h e area and t h e period of t h i s study were chosen
bacause of the lack of i n t e r e s t shown i n them by most other
historians and because they contain examples of many of t h e
crucial problems faced by the Ottomans i n the nineteenth century,
One must avoid t h e conclusion, hewever, t h a t eastern Anatolia is
meant t o be a model for Ottoman policy i n other parts of t h e
Empire where t h e problems, t h e local forces, and t h e policy were
i n many cases quite different.
The t h e s i s is primarily concerned with examining t h e p o l i t i c a l
and social groups, both traditional and 'modernf, within eastern I
;I
Anatolia; t h e relationships between these groups (such a s nomads
- -- - - .- -- -- -- II II
and villagers, Muslims and Armenians, notables and Kurds, and s o
- - -
.-- - -.---- -.
on) and t h e i r reaction t o t h e policies of the central government.
The complex nature of society i n t h e region, how it was affected 11
I j
by t h e growing influence of t h e government i n Constantinople
and by European i n t e r e s t i n t h e area, and hou~i t reacted t o
these outside pressures are a l l emphasized,
The second major aspact of t h e t h e s i s is the policy and
character of the c e n t r a l government during t h e tiamidian period.
The introductory chapter traces c e r t a i n s t r a i n s of reform i n t h e
Ottoman Empire i n t h e nineteenth century, demonstrating t h e
'radical*, f o r the Ottomans, nature o f many of t h e changes and
t h e imbalance t h e y created between t h e government and t h e mass
of t h e Muslim population. The ~ a m i d i a np eriod is portrayed as
a 'breathing spell' f o r t h e Ottomans; a time t o relax from t h e
overt ptessure of mass adoption of western type reforms. The
label 'period a f reaction*, which is commonly given t h e Hamidian
regime is dismissed as most probably inaccurate since i n fact
most of t h e reforms did continua and t h e government was actually
more representative of t h e wishes and feelings of t h e population
than those more ' l i b e r a l ' governments of earlier decades. The
Hamidian government's policy of basing t h e s t a t e more firmly on
t h e Muslim elements of t h e population had a crucial impact on
eastern Anatolia since it led t o a favoring of t h e Kurds a t t h e
expense of t h e Armenians and many other Muslims. This policy
also blunted t h e governments attempts a t centralization, since
it could not afford t o a l i e n a t e t h e very elements of t h e popula-
t i o n it was r e l y i n g on through too much central control.
The Armenian question and t o a lesser extent t h e r o l e of
t h e British i n the ragion are important sub-topics of t h e thesis.
The latter is i m p l i c i t throughout t h e study due t o the, reliance
on t h e British consuls for most of tho information about t h e
region. The Armenians a r e dealt with both a s an aspect of t h e
local struggles i n t h e region and a s victims of t h e Hamidian
governments Islamic policy, Concerning t h e whole Armenian question,
about which so much has been written, an attempt is made t o
provide a more r e a l i s t i c analysis of the problem than is found
i n most studies.
While no attempt is made t o diagnose t h e factors leading
t o the Young Turk Revolution i n 1908, and i n fact very l i t t l e
evidence OF Young Turk a c t i v i t y or influence i n t h e region is
found, there is a d e f i n i t e s h i f t i n t h e governments a t t i t u d e
toward t h e region a f t e r about 1903, Dissatisfaction with t h e
Hamidian regime originated primarily with the more conservative
elements of t h e society, such a s t h e urban notables and several
Kurdish leaders and t h e influence of t h e central government is
shown t o decline rapidly r e l a t i v e t o local forces a f t e r 1906.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.......................................
INTRODUCTION 1
.............
CHAPTER ONE 2 The Historical Background 12
...
CHAPTER TWO! A.n Introduction t o Eastern Anatolia 63
.........
CHAPTER THREE Government and the Notables 95
................
CHAPTER FOUR: The Aftermath o f War 132
.
CHAPTER FIVE: Hamidian Reform. the F i r s t Attempts 165
CHAPTER S I X t The Centr.a.l .G..o.ve.r.n.m.e.n.t. .a.n.d. .E.a.s.t.e.r.n. ....
Anatolia 205
CHAPTEA SEVEN: The Dsvelopmcnt o f the Armenian ..
Revolutionary Movement. 1880-1893 229
..........................
CHAPTER EIGHT : Stability. Tranquility. and Disaster
1884-1694 259
........
Cti APTEii NINE 8 Eeaction and Reform. 1895-97 284
...............
CHAPTER TEN: The Army and the Kurds 324
......o...................................
GCOSSAAY 368
........................o.....o.......
BIOLIOGRAPHY 374
INTRODUCTI ON
The study of t h e Ottoman Empiro has for long suffered
from excessive generalization on t h e part of western historians.
In t h e nineteenth and early twentieth centuries t h e primary
reason f o r t h i s f a i l u r e t o produce basic research was lack of
sufficient source materials and the concomitant problem, t h e
lack of training i n oriental languages among European and
American historians. This lack of basic research was a l s o the
r e s u l t of a feeling among western historians, especially i n
the nineteenth century, t h a t t h e study of a decadent and still
declining culture would be of little value. This generalized
approach to Ottoman history included t h e study of t h e nineteenth
Century, when sources were more available, as well as t h e
e a r l i e r period.
The lack of a firm foundation of monographic, biographic,
and s t a t i s t i c a l works concerning t h e Empire became c r i t i c a l
a f t e r 1945, when western i n t e r e s t i n areas such as t h e middle
East increased dramatically. As more universities began t o
include t h e Middle East i n t h e i r curriculums, a demand for
reading material was created which had t o be s a t i s f i e d within
a short period of time. The works which were written during
t h i s period, while generally of high quality, were forced t o
depend t o a large degree on the insufficiently researched and
generalized accounts of t h e previous e r a of h i s t o r i c a l writing.
T h i s situation has led t o several theories or concepts being
accepted by contemporary scholars without sufficient analysis,
perhaps the most well known being the Lybyer-Gibb and Bowen
t h e s i s of the Ottoman 'Ruling Institution and ~ u s l i mI nstitu-
tion'.' The works of Bernard Lewis, Niyazi Berkes, and others
a r e examples of t h e excellent general studies of Ottoman history
which cover extensive chronological periods and themes, but which
2
have had a limited number of detailed studies upon which t o draw.
In addition t o these there a r e several works on specific topics
or periods i n nineteenth century Ottoman history, which while
not general, can by no means be a complete examination of t h e
subject.3 Besides these, there are works by p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s
and sociologists t h a t deal with the problems of traditional
s o c i e t i e s and modernization which claim t o be applicable t o
t h e Ottoman ~ r n ~ i r Teh.e~se too suffer from a lack of prepara-
t o r y research and t h e i r theories must therefore remain
scholarly speculation u n t i l tested. The trend i n Ottoman history
I ~ l b e r tK . Lybyer, The Government of the Ottoman Empire
i n the Time of Suleiman t h e Maqnificent (Cambridge, rrlass., 1913),
and H.A.R, Gibb and Harold 8owen, Islamic Society and the West,
o on dona
Val. I Oxford Univ. Press, 1950). For an explanation
of the t h e s i s and a criticism of it, see Nr Itzkowitz,"Lighteenth
Century Ottoman Realities", Studia Islamica, Vol. 16, 1962.
a
L ~ e r n a r dL ewis, The Emergence of rrlodern Turkey (New Yorkt
Oxford Univ. Press, ? m ] , Niyazi Berkes, The Development of
Turk1-s h Secularism ( ~ o n t r e at l McGill Univ. Press, 1964)
'R. Davison, Reform i n t h e Ottoman Empire; 1856-1876
--
(princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1963), heri if iflardin, The
Genesis of Y O U ~Ot~to man Thought (princetons Princeton Univ.
Press, 1962). and Charles Issawi, The Economic i is tory o f the
Middle Enst (chicagog Univ. of Chicago Press, 1968).
4 ~ .W ard and D. Rustow, Political Modernization i n Japan
and Turkey (princetons Princeton Univ, Prass, 1902), a s well a s
-
v i r t u a l l y any other work on modernization and social change. .
and i n a l l of Middle Eastern studiss, now seems t o be t o begin
t h e testing of these original theories and generalizations
through detailed studies of particular areas, themes, and time
periodsO5 This t h e s i s w i l l attempt t o contribute t o t h i s
process.
The subject of t h i s t h e s i s is t h e t h i r t y year period i n
Ottoman history from 1878 t o 1908, usually labelled a period
of reaction by historians. I n t h i s study it s h a l l be called the
Hamidian period a f t e r its chief personality, Sultan Abdulhamid 11,
even though t h i s opens t h e door t o speculation (unnecessary i n
t h i s case) on t h e author's bias toward the 'Great Man' interpre-
t a t i o n of history. The Hamidian period i n its entirety is much
too broad for a study of t h i s nature and therefore w i l l be
approached through a detailed examination of one area of t h e
Ottoman Empire, eastern Anatolia or ~ u r d i s t a n .T~h rough t h i s
Study of one part of t h e Empire some aspects of Ottoman policy
toward t h e provinces and government policy and thinking about
t h e Empire a s a whole should become more clear. No attempt w i l l
be made, however, t o apply conclusions reached for eastern
Anatolia t o the Balkans, t h e Arab lands, or western Anatolia.
The Hamidian period was chosen for t h i s study for two
basic reasons. The f i r s t is t h a t most Ottoman historians have
-
S~xarnpleso f t h i s type of research are books by William
Polk, The 0 eninq o f South Lebanon (cambridge: Harvard Univ.
~ress,79d~d--man Reform i n Syria and
-
Palestine 1840-1861 (~ondonr0 YPord Univ. Press, 'l%B).
6 ~ h ev ilayets of eastern Anatolia were o f f i c i a l l y
referred t o a s Kurdistan by t h e British Government prior t o
t h e despatching of military consuls t o Asiatic Turkey i n 1878.
. -
passed lightly over these t h i r t y years i n t h e i r examination
of Ottoman history. They either dismiss them a s a period of
reaction, simply a reversion t o past practices, or view them
s t r i c t l y a s a preparatory period for future political activity,
and concentrate on those preparations. Thus Bernard Lewis i n
The Emerqence of Modern Turkey has a relatively short chapter
on t h e subject, half of which is given over t o t h e development
of t h e Young Turk opposition.'l Other works on t h e period
concentrate on t h e origins of Arab, Armenian, or Balkan
nationalisms and examine t h e Hamidian regime only as it is
relevant t o these developments. In recent years most of t h e
prominent western Ottoman scholars (Bernard Lewis, Kemal Karpat,
Stanford Shaw, and especially Niyazi 0erkes) have been emphasi-
zing the importance of understanding t h e ~ a m i d i a np eriod, but
have a s yet gone i n t o it i n very l i t t l e detail, the Tanzimat,
Young Ottoman, and Young Turk periods being more a t t r a c t i v e and
workable f i e l d s of h i s t o r i c a l research. They recognize t h a t t h e
Hamidian period represents t h e culmination of almost a hundred
- -- - - - - - -- - -
Years of Ottoman reform and was essential preparation for the
- - -
emergence of t h e Turkish state i n t h e twentieth century. I t was
not simply a period of rest, an abberation i n t h e march of
history, or a sterile and f u t i l e reversion t o t h e past.
The second reason t h i s period was chosen was t h e belief on
t h e author's part t h a t it was t h e crucial stage i n a momentus
mo hat
t h i s a t t i t u d e among western historians is changing
is evidenced by R. Davison's treatment of t h e ~ a m i d i a np eriod
i n a much shorter and less all-inclusive book on Ottoman history
published i n 1968. R. Davison, Turkey (Englewood Cliffs, N. J. r
Prentice-tiall, 1968). pp. 91-108.