To my grandfather (1933-2016)
A BIPOLAR SOCIETY: FORMATION OF NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS AMONG THE TURKISH MINORITY IN BULGARIA (1918-1944)
The Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences of
İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University
by
ARDA AKINCI
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN HISTORY
THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
İHSAN DOĞRAMACI BİLKENT UNIVERSITY ANKARA
ABSTRACT
A BIPOLAR SOCIETY: FORMATION OF NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS AMONG THE TURKISH MINORITY IN BULGARIA (1918-1944) Akıncı, Arda MA., Department of HistorySupervisor: Vis. Asst. Prof. Dr. Evgeni Radushev January 2017 This thesis is written in order to examine one of the most crucial periods in the history of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria. The years after the end of the World War I, until the establishment of the communist regime, became an important turning point for the Turkish community both regarding their citizenship in Bulgaria and for the formation of their Turkish national consciousness. Collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the emergence of a secular and modern Republic presented two paths for the community to follow. The society socio-politically polarized as the question of applying the reforms of the Republican Turkey in their daily lives or not became more pressing day by day. The unsteady relations between the Ottoman/Turkish and Bulgarian governments also characterized the period. Their perception and attitudes toward the Turkish minority had a massive effect on the formation of national consciousness. The involvement of the Turkish and Bulgarian governments as well as the Office of Grand Mufti in Sofia in the fragmentation of the community made the problem more complicated and harder to solve. At the end, the ordinary people in Bulgaria
were subjected to the policies of such state and non-state actors, which were trying to control and influence the Turkish community. Keywords: Bulgaria, Formation of National Consciousness, Office of Grand Mufti in Sofia, Republic of Turkey, Turkish Minority in Bulgaria.
ÖZET
A BIPOLAR SOCIETY: FORMATION OF NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS AMONG THE TURKISH MINORITY IN BULGARIA (1918-1944) Akıncı, Arda Yüksek Lisans, Tarih BölümüTez Yöneticisi: Vis. Asst. Prof. Dr. Evgeni Radushev Ocak 2017 Bu tez, Bulgaristan’daki Türk azınlığı tarihindeki en önemli dönemlerden bir tanesini incelemek üzere yazılmıştır. I. Dünya Savaşı’nın sonundan itibaren, Bulgaristan’da komünist rejimin kurulduğu tarihe kadar geçen süreç içerisinde Türk azınlığı yalnızca Bulgar vatandaşlığına dair problemler yaşamamış, aynı zamanda kendi milli bilinçleri de şekillenmeye başlamıştır. Bu açıdan Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun yıkılması ve yerine seküler ve modern bir Cumhuriyet’in kurulması Türk toplumunda önemli bir ayrışmaya neden oldu. Cumhuriyet’in gerçekleştirdiği reformları hayatlarına uygulayıp uygulamayacakları konusu bu ayrışmanın daha da derinleşmesine yol açtı. Toplumda yaşanan sosyo-politik fikir ayrılıklarının yanı sıra Osmanlı/Türkiye ve Bulgaristan hükumetlerinin değişken ilişkileri de bu dönemin şekillenmesinde önemli bir rol oynadı. Türkiye ve Bulgaristan’ın Türk azınlığını algılayış biçimi ve onlara yönelik tutumları da milli bilincin oluşmasında etkili oldu. Bir yandan Cumhuriyet’in diğer bir yandan da Bulgaristan ve Sofya’da bulunan Başmüftülüğün toplum içerisindeki bu ayrışmaya müdahil olmaları, halihazırda var olan sorunu daha karmaşık ve
çözülmesi güç bir hale getirdi. Sonuç olarak, Türk azınlığı üzerinde hakimiyet ve nüfuz alanı kurmak isteyen hükumetlerin ve hükumet dışı aktörlerin politikaları, topluluğun hayatına direkt olarak etki etti. Anahtar Kelimeler: Bulgaristan, Bulgaristan’daki Türk Azınlığı, Milli Bilincin Oluşumu, Sofya Başmüftlüğü, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Even though this thesis seems like written by me, it would not be possible to complete my research without the helps of some important people, which I have to thank in advance. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude for my supervisor Prof. Evgeni R. Radushev for everything he has done for me since the first day I met him at his office. He was not only a mentor and a supervisor for me, but also a guiding light, helped me through the every step of my research. He always approached me as a father, insistently explaining every detail over and over again without getting tired. It was an honor for me, and was my biggest chance to work with him during my research. I also would like to thank the professors at our History Department, Prof. Özer Ergenç, and Asst. Prof. Oktay Özel. Their informative and comprehensive courses on the History of the Ottoman Empire have helped me to understand the main points, and evaluate the developments of the 18th and 19th centuries. Thanks to Prof. Ergenç’s courses on Ottoman Diplomatics and Paleography, I am now able to make an understanding of the Ottoman archive documents.I would like to thank Dr. Orlin Sabev, Milena Petkova-Encheva, the staff of the Oriental Department at St. St. Cyril and Methodius National Library in Sofia, and the staff of Yüksek İslam Enstitüsü for their helps during my brief one-month
stay in Sofia, looking for archival material. Without their supports, I would not be able to find such valuable materials. Another important person behind my accomplishment is Dr. Polat Safi, who is now like an older brother to me. He always shared his valuable experiences and knowledge on the subject, answered my endless questions with patience and found time to share his ideas with me at times when he was quite busy. My fellow friends from the Department of History, Dr. İbrahim Mert Öztürk, and Fatih Pamuk who have always supported me through thick and thin. During the times I experienced breakdowns, they were the ones who motivated me to continue working. I also have to thank Dr. Ayşegül Avcı for her patience and help in the final stage of my thesis. Moreover, I have to thank each and every person I met at the Department of History since day one. I am very grateful of being a part of this wonderful community, which I will remember as long as I live. Finally, I have to thank to those who bore with me from beginning till the end of this study. I cannot find adequate words to describe the support of Ayşin, who encouraged me at the times I thought of quitting. She was always there for me, and gave me strength to finish this thesis. Lastly, I cannot underestimate the support of my beloved family. My grandmother, my brothers, my uncle and aunt, and my cousin were always supportive and patient even when I could not find time to spend with them. I also express my gratitude for my mother and father, who have supported me in every case and every way they could do. I want to thank them for not giving up on me, and for believing in me. They are the best parents one can ask for. And my grandfather, who I have lost during my studies..
He was my biggest supporter, my idol and role model. I wish he could have been with me to see my accomplishments, which he was always sure.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ... iii ÖZET ... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ... x CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ... 1 1.1. Objectives ... 4 1.2. Primary Sources ... 6 1.3. Secondary Sources and Literature Review ... 9 CHAPTER II: CONTEXT AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 15 CHAPTER III: BULGARIA AND ITS TURKISH MINORITY, 1918-1944 ... 28 3.1. Political and Social Environment, 1918-1944 ... 31 3.2. Turkish Minority in the Socio-Political Structure of Bulgaria ... 42 3.3. Political Polarization within the Turkish Minority ... 53 CHAPTER IV: BULGARIAN KINGDOM AND THE REPUBLICAN TURKEY ... 64 4.1. Debates ... 66 4.1.1. Debates on the Introduction of the Latin Alphabet ... 70 4.1.2. Complicated Environment of Turkish Education in Bulgaria ... 75 4.1.3. Immigration of Turks in Bulgaria to Turkey ... 82 4.2. Bulgarian Kingdom Against the Kemalist Republican Ideology ... 89 CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ... 105 REFERENCES ... 110 APPENDICES ... 115 Sultan Abdulaziz’s Edict on the Formation of Bulgarian Excharhate ... 115 Last Page of Neuilly Treaty ... 116 First Issue of Medeniyet ... 117 An Article Published in Medeniyet Entitled “Harf Meselesi” ... 118 First Issue of Turan ... 119 First Issue of Yenilik ... 120
First Issue of Yarın ... 121 The Letter of “Hacı Emin Kerimesi Halide” to Ismet Inonu ... 122 Republic’s Financial Aid to Newspapers Published in Bulgaria ... 123 Decree of the Council of Ministers on the Banning of Distribution of Medeniyet in Turkey ... 125 First Page of the Letter of Ömer Nalbontov, the Head of Turan Cemiyeti ... 126 List of Kemalist School Teachers ... 127 Picture of the Members of Turan Cemiyeti in the Town of Vratza, Bulgaria ... 129
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Balkan Peninsula was one of the key regions for the imperial administration of the Ottoman Empire. It was a source of manpower for the army, a source of important amount of tax revenues and even much more. For so many centuries, to be exact until the 19th century, the Balkans and its people had a special importance for the Empire. Yet, spread of nationalism and nationalist revolutionary movements in the region marked the end of the Ottoman Empire. One of the most important parts of the Empire turned out to be a source of constant insurgencies and a place of continuous warfare – both physical and ideological. The unrest in the Balkans started in the early 19th century and has lasted until the end of World War I. One of the main reasons behind the insurgencies in the Balkans was the 1848 Revolution in Europe. The 1848 movement caused the spread of anti-imperial sentiments throughout the continent. On the other hand, the involvement of the European powers, especially the Russian Empire, in the Balkan Peninsula, resulted in the spread of national liberation movements from the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire, mainly due to the increasing insurgencies in the Balkans, turned out to be the most pressing problems thathad to be solved: the Eastern Question. The Eastern Question had many different aspects and the national movements in the Balkans were only one of those. The revolts against the Ottoman hegemony, like the Bosnian, Serbian or Greek rebellions, also became a central problem for the imperial administration. Even though, some twenty years followed by the end of the Crimean War were relatively peaceful, starting again from the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78, the Russian policies on the Balkans resulted in a new wave of anti-Ottoman movements. Bulgarians, on the other hand, were also subjected to the Russian pan-Slavism, which eventually lead to the national awakening. Bulgaria in 1878, after the infamous 1877-1878 Russo-Turkish War, became an autonomous princedom. The war, not only caused huge territorial losses to the Ottoman Empire, but it also led to massive immigration of the Muslims and Turks to what was left of the Ottoman lands. The loss of the war was also a direct strike to the Ottoman prestige and position amongst the European powers. Within three decades, thanks to the administrative, military and political instability of the Ottoman Empire, Bulgarians were able to gain their independence, in 1908, just months before the establishment of the Second Constitutional Era. After 1878, what designated and shaped the relations of the Ottomans – or the Republic after 1923 – with the Bulgarian Kingdom was the conditions of the Turkish minority in that country. The Ottoman Empire, as a result of the nationalist movements, did not only lose its most precious territories in the Balkans, but also lost a huge part of its Muslim/Turkish population. The consequences of the Ottoman retreat from the Balkans, thus, had quite important impacts on the future of the emerging nations.
Among those impacts, remaining Muslim/Turkish population in the areas that were once controlled by the Ottoman Empire, and after by different nation states, emerges as a significant topic. Amongst the nation states established in the region, Bulgaria stands out as an exceptional case, in terms of the number of Muslim/Turkish population it had inherited from its Ottoman past. The Muslims and Turks mostly inhabited towns and regions like Dobruca, Deliorman, Eastern Rodop Mountains and Upper Thrace, which fell under the Bulgarian sovereignty after 1878. No other Balkan country inherited such a crowded population. In that sense, the Turkish minority played a significant role in the relations of the two countries. What made the Turkish minority fragile was also directly related with the demographic facts and their backgrounds. Turkish minority, neither in Bulgaria nor in the Balkans was the only ethnic minority. However, first, they were one of the biggest – in terms of population. Hundreds of thousand Turkish people were living in the Bulgarian territories. On the other hand, Turkish community was not only an ethnic minority. They were also a religious minority amongst the prevailed Bulgarian Orthodox population. Lastly, and probably most important of all, Republic of Turkey, which was established in 1923 was the only republic both in the Balkans and in the Middle East. The Republic was based on the secular and modern principles of nation building, which none of the emerging nation states in the peninsula were able to pursue. In that sense, the Turkish community in Bulgaria was more than just a group who had different ethnic and religious background, but they were also a part – maybe even a diaspora – of the one and only secular republic throughout the region. When all the three aspects
were combined, it is even more clear and easy to understand why Turkish existence in Bulgarian Kingdom was so unique and significant. These problems attracted the attention of many historians and researchers from different fields and backgrounds. They have studied the conditions, social and political development and the transformation of the Turkish community in Bulgaria, from different perspectives. Starting from the end of Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78, the Turkish minority became one of the central debates between Turkey and Bulgaria, and sometimes even the international actors were involved. The question of Turks in Bulgaria did not end until early 1990s, which made the problem even more interesting for the researches.
1.1. Objectives
In this context, this thesis is written to research one of the most critical periods of Turkish community in Bulgaria – during the interwar period, in the years between 1920 and 1940. This particular twenty years is significant because of several different reasons. First and foremost, Turkish minority was the subjected to two distinct nationalisms – Bulgarian and Turkish. These nationalisms had a direct impact on the transformation and even evolution of the community both in political and social terms. This era, in that sense, witnessed the peak years of either nationalism. Secondly, the end of the World War I, had presented a different political and legal environment for the minority rights at the international level. The Neuilly Treaty signed between Bulgaria and the Allied Powers in 1919, in its specific articlespostulated the legal status and the rights of the minorities in that country and the responsibilities of its government concerning such communities. Third, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, which was followed by the Turkish War of Independence and the establishment of the Republic, had a direct impact on the Turkish minority in Bulgaria. Even though they were not in the national boundaries of the Republic, they were affected by the socio-cultural and political Kemalist reforms just like the citizens of the new Republic. In that sense, the massive political and social developments that changed Anatolia and European Turkey echoed throughout the Turkish minority groups living in the neighboring countries. Accordingly, the formation of a distinct Turkish nationalism based on the Republic and its secular ideals had a direct impact on the Turkish communities living outside the national borders. The biggest impact of these socio-cultural and political reforms was on the Turks living in Bulgaria. As a result, the condition of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria, along with their social and political transformation, deserves a special attention. The distinctiveness of this matter was the first and foremost reason that motivated me to write this thesis. In that sense, my objective in this thesis is to reveal how the developments took place in the Balkans – starting with the rise of nationalism and nation states – and correspondingly in Turkey, had transformed the way that the Muslim/Turkish subjects of the Ottoman Empire identify themselves. While doing so, I also will try to reveal the roles played by the actors in this process: Republic of Turkey, the Bulgarian Kingdom and its governments. The Office of Grand Mufti and the Grand Mufti himself, needs special attention as another
actor who had the greatest impact on the matter. Without determining the motivations of these actors, it would be impossible to understand how the Turkish minority in Bulgaria had gone through this process. After all, the existing division within the Turkish minority on the implementation of the Kemalist reforms in their daily lives became in the relations between Bulgaria and Turkey.
1.2. Primary Sources
The conditions of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria cannot be understood without delving into the archives. The political and social fragmentation of the Turks was also directly related with the involvement of Bulgarian and Turkish governments. For that particular reason, I had utilized different archival sources as well. First and foremost, I have found valuable archival documents at the Archive State Agency of the Republic of Bulgaria (from later on ASA). The documents were mostly consisted of the reports written by either the Bulgarian police inspectors or Turkish muftis, to the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the social and political activities of the Kemalists. They have also reported the list of Kemalist teachers working at the Turkish schools, the songs that carry Kemalist sentiments, and the influential people both in the center and in the periphery who were engaged in Kemalist propaganda. These documents on the Kemalist activities written and kept by the Bulgarian government and their collaborators reveal how the supporters of Ankara and Turkish nationalism were actually perceived as a significant threat. Even more, I was lucky enough to discover unknown and thus, unutilized archival documents in ASA.Similarly, Turkish archives, especially the General Directorate of State Archives of the Prime Ministry of the Republic of Turkey (BCA), helped me to uncover how the Republic perceived the Turkish minority in Bulgaria as their own citizens and a part of the Turkish nation. The documents I have found in the BCA revealed the close, yet secret, ties between the Turkish minority in Bulgaria and the Ankara government. Members of the Grand National Assembly from the Republican People’s Party, funded the Kemalist newspapers, and supplied them with new, Latin letters when they were in need. Another good way to comprehend, how the members of a society and the world around them, is by simply looking at the newspapers they published. The provincial newspapers offer a great insight on how the communities – in the case of this thesis: the Turkish minority in Bulgaria – observe what is going on in the center. As Gavin D. Brockett, one of the leading historians who advocates that researchers should focus more on the social history of Turkey claims: There is much to be gained from using provincial newspapers to consider how Turks participated in their own history and ultimately negotiated the meaning they were to attach to the nation that Mustafa Kemal and the political elite sought to shape once they had succeeded at establishing the new state in 1923.1 “SS Cyril and Methodius National Library” in Sofia presents the biggest archives of Turkish Press in Bulgaria. Most of the newspapers and journals published by the Turkish community in various parts of Bulgaria since 1870s are being preserved under the Oriental Department. 1 Gavin D. Brockett. “Social History and the Historiography of Modern Turkey.” In Towards a Social History of Modern Turkey: Essays in Theory and Practice, ed. Gavin D. Brockett. (İstanbul: Libra Kitap, 2011), 33.
The Turkish Press in the period of interest clearly reflects the fragmentation of the Turkish society as a result of the Kemalist reforms. In order to see where the conservatives and Kemalists stand on the matter of socio-cultural reforms, I have examined several different newspapers. One of the most useful newspapers to my research is Açık Söz, a clear opponent of the Kemalist reforms and their impacts among the Turks of Bulgaria. Another newspaper critical of the reforms was Medeniyet, which was published by the Din-i İslam Müdafiileri Cemiyeti an extension of the Office of Grand Mufti.2 On the other hand, there were also newspapers that supported the Kemalist reforms and their adaptation by Turkish minority in Bulgaria. Among those newspapers, Turan published by the Turan Society has a distinct importance. It was not only a newspaper, but also the official media organ of the society that was the strongest supporter of the Ankara government, their reforms and Mustafa Kemal in Bulgaria. There were also other proponents of the Kemalist reforms, which carried their ideas into their newspapers. One of them was Yenilik, a newspaper published just to spread the Latin alphabet, even before the official introduction of it in the Turkish Grand National Parliament. I have also used many other newspapers to guide me through this thesis, in order to understand the political and ideological division within the Turkish society in Bulgaria. These newspapers are mainly, Dostluk, Havadis, Koca Balkan, Sada-i İslam and Yarın. As I have stated above, the newspapers have helped me 2 All of the issues of Medeniyet were not available at the Oriental Department at National Library during my studies at Sofia. I woud like to thank Yüksek İslam Enstitüsü in Sofia for sharing their archives with me.
to reveal the discussion that the society had on different socio-cultural matters, like the introduction of the Latin alphabet, education or migration. Overall, I have used three different archives – the ones listed above – in order to fulfill the aim of this thesis. Each primary source – Turkish press in Bulgaria, ASA and BCA – served different purposes and were utilized in different parts of the thesis.
1.3. Secondary Sources and Literature Review
The Turkish minority in Bulgaria has been the subject of many valuable studies from different fields like international relations, political science, history and sociology. Yet, even though different branches of social sciences have focused on the condition of the Turkish minority, there are still countless subjects and documents in the field waiting to be studied. However, I have to acknowledge that the studies conducted on the field so far, helped me to grasp the gist of the period. What led me to study the Turkish society in the first place was the invaluable work of Gavin D. Brockett entitled Towards a Social History of Modern Turkey. The study emphasizes the lack of social history works done on Turkish history and suggests the studying of different primary sources like the provincial newspapers, school minutes and etc. The book consists of different articles on the early Republican period, each bringing a new perspective and suggests new sources that can be employed.3 Eventually, the book encouraged me to work 3 Brockett, “Social History,”with provincial newspapers in order to understand the societies living in the provinces, far from the center. On the other hand, I have made use scholarly works specifically focusing on the conditions of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria. One of the most important studies conducted on the field belongs to Bilal N. Şimşir. His book Bulgaristan Türkleri4 is one of the key sources in the field. Starting from the period that Bulgaria gained autonomy, till the end of the communist regime he tries to describe how the Turkish minority in the country was evolved. Particularly, Chapter III of the book focuses on the period between 1908 and 1944, which is the main focus of this thesis as well. In this chapter, Şimşir examines various topics including but not limited to the Agrarian government and its relations with Turkish minority, education, and sharia courts. In that sense, Bulgaristan Türkleri, which was also published in English, is one of the essential sources for this thesis. Another important secondary source was written by İsmail Cambazov, wo in fact is a Bulgarian Turk and witnessed some of the events mentioned in this thesis, on the history of the Office of Grand Mufti. Since one of the main focuses of this thesis is the role played by the Office of Grand Mufti in the fragmentation of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria, his book stands out as a crucial source. Two-volume book is particularly important for making sense of how the Office of Grand Mufti as the religious leadership of Muslims involved in the conflict. The first volume of his book starts with the establishment of the institution after an autonomous Bulgaria was emerged in 1878 and continues until the 4 Bilal N. Şimşir. Bulgaristan Türkleri: 1878-1985 (Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi, 2012)
establishment of communist regime.5 Along with quite crucial information about the Office of Grand Mufti, İsmail Cambazov also provides details about the history of Bulgaria, as well as the history of Muslim/Turkish people in the region. One of the most important sources about the Turkish-Bulgarian relations in the period that this thesis focus on was published by the General Directorate of State Archives in Turkey. The book is titled Belgelerle Mustafa Kemal Atatürk ve Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri (1913-1938)6 and consists of Bulgarian archival materials. The documents published in the book were quite helpful to my research, as they revealed correspondences between officials from Turkey and Bulgaria. It gave me a chance to shed some light on the Turkish-Bulgarian relations during the Atatürk era, which was utilized as an introduction to the main part of the thesis. Another important source for this thesis is the memoirs of Nikolay Pavlovich Ignatyev, who was a Russian diplomat.7 The book is compilation of his diaries and notes. It also postulates significant knowledge on his different political contacts, the developments in the Balkans in the years between 1853 and 1878. The notes and the diary also provide invaluable information about the Russian imperial policies regarding the Balkans. Besides these four sources, there were other books and articles that were used throughout this thesis. It is quite possible those secondary sources under three different groups according to their subjects. First group among the three groups 5 İsmail Cambazov. vol. 1 of Bulgaristan'da Bașmüftülük Tarihi (Bulgaria: Başmüftülüğü Yayınları, 2013) 6 Yusuf Sarınay, ed. Belgelerle Mustafa Kemal Atatürk ve Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri (1913-1938) (Ankara: T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 2002). 7 Nikolay Pavlovich Ignatiev. Zapiski [Notes], (Sofia: Otechestren Front, 1986).
is theoretical and sociological studies on the origins of nationalism and its definition. This thesis could not be able to fulfill its objective without properly identifying what nationalism means, how it emerged and its impacts on the Balkans. There are countless scholarly studies conducted on the field, which in fact, makes it even harder to find a definition of nationalism that would serve the ultimate purpose of this thesis. Also, it was equally important to understand how did the phenomena of nationalism entered and spread within the Balkan Peninsula. These sources were utilized in order to set this thesis to a meaningful context.8 The second set of sources used were again the academic works on the history of the Balkans, and Bulgaria in particular. Those were utilized mostly to create a basic understanding of the region’s history. It would be a huge mistake and a flow to conduct this research without acknowledging the fundamentals and the internal political and social dynamics of the region. After all, those dynamics and politics led to the national independence movements in the 19th century in the Balkans. It had also a direct impact on the shattering of the Ottoman Empire. 9 8 Theoretical and sociological works utilized are mainly: Ernest Gellner. Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), Ernest Gellner. Nationalism (London: Guernsey Press, 1998), Benedict Anderson. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 2006), and James G. Kellas. The Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998). 9 Main sources employed in this thesis for the history of the Balkans and Bulgaria are: Halil İnalcık. Devlet-i ‘Aliyye Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Üzerine Araştırmalar-IV: Âyânlar, Tanzimat, Meşrutiyet (İstanbul: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2016), Leften Stavros Stavrianos. The Balkans, 1815-1914 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), M. Hakan Yavuz and Isa Blumi, ed. War and Nationalism: the Balkan Wars, 1912-1913, and their Socio-Political Implications (Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, 2013), Dennis P. Hupchick. The Balkans: From Constantinople to Communism (New York, NY: Palgrave, 2002), Stefan K. Pavlowitch. A History of the Balkans, 1804-1945 (London: Longman, 1999), and Charles and Barbara Jelavich. The Establishment of the Balkan National States, 1840-1920, ed. Peter F. Sugar and Donald W. Treagold (USA: The University of Washington Press, 1986).
The last group of scholarly works were conducted by relatively recently on the Balkans, and Bulgaria and the Turkish minority in that country. As being the main focus of my thesis, such sources form the backbone of my research. These books and articles guided me through my study and provided valuable information on the emergence of Bulgarian and Turkish nationalism, as well as a basic knowledge on the socio-cultural and political history of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria. Mostly these studies were comprehensive, covered different aspects and sides of the subjects they focus on.10 Before everything, the strength of my thesis comes from the primary sources I have employed throughout the thesis. Those materials encouraged me to work on the field, as I figured out that most of the documents I came across at ASA were not used before. The archive was opened to the researchers after the collapse of communist regime in Bulgaria, and as it can be seen from the folders only a few Bulgarian researches have the chance to access to those documents. I was fortunate enough to combine archival materials from ASA, with the ones I found in BCA, and with the newspapers collected from the Oriental Department of the SS Cyril and Methodius National Library. I believe that what differentiated my thesis from the previous works in the field was this combination. 10 The contemporary sources mentioned were: Mary Neuberger. The Orient Within: Muslim Minorities and the Negotiation of Nationhood in Modern Bulgaria (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004), Erik Jan Zürcher. The Young Turk Legacy and Nation Building: From Ottoman Empire to Atatürk’s Turkey (London: I.B. Tauris &Co Ltd, 2010), Richard J. Crampton. Bulgaria (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), Richard J. Crampton. A Concise History of Bulgaria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), Alexandre Popovic, Balkanlarda İslam (İstanbul: İnsan Yayınları, 1995), Ali Eminov. Turkish and Other Muslim Minorities in Bulgaria (London: Hurst & Company, 1997), Osman Keskioğlu. Bulgaristan'da Türkler: Tarih Ve Kültür (Ankara: Başbakanlık Basımevi), Hasan Taner Kerimoğlu. Osmanlı Kamuoyunda Balkan Meselesi, 1908-1914 (İstanbul: Libra Kitapçılık Ve Yayıncılık, 2015), H. Yıldırım Ağanoğlu. Osmanlı'dan Cumhuriyet'e Balkanlar'ın Makûs Talihi: Göç (İstanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 2013), Ömer Turan. Turkish Minority in Bulgaria (1878-1908) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1998), and Feroz Ahmad. Modern Türkiye’nin Oluşumu (İstanbul: Kaynak Yayınları, 2009)
Also, as I have stated at the beginning, the field contains many valuable scholarly works as well as memoirs of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria. All of these works were very helpful for my thesis, while I was trying to understand and explain the socio-political problematique of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria at the same time. Without the guidance of such important secondary sources, it would be almost impossible to initiate a research on this particular field. Together with the sources I have collected from various archives, I believe I have conducted an objective research, in which I was able to evaluate most of the different point of views.
CHAPTER II
CONTEXT AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Nationalism, without any doubt, became one of the most important phenomena, which had a direct impact on the course of world history, since the 18th century. The emergence of nationalism, national ideologies and movements has been a matter of debate for various scholars and researchers from different branches of the social sciences. Despite the number of scholars working on the subject, the question of what nationalism is still remains as one of the hardest and most complicated questions waiting to be answered. One of the leading scholars of the field, Benedict Anderson in his prominent book Imagined Communities argues on the difficulty of providing a proper definition by claiming that, “Nation, nationality, nationalism – all have proved notoriously difficult to define, let alone to analyse. In contrast to the immense influence that nationalism has exerted on the modern world, plausible theory about it is conspicuously meager.”11 Emergence of the Turks in Bulgaria as a national minority, together with the establishment of an independent Bulgarian state and the Republic of Turkey, after all, are directly related to the spread of nationalism in the Balkans. In that 11 Anderson, Imagined Communities, 3.sense, it would be almost impossible to understand the formation of national identity among the Turks of Bulgaria without knowing, or at least by identifying what nationalism means in this case. Even though the meaning of nationalism and nationalist movements in the second half of the 20th century had negative connotations, the purpose in this particular chapter, by trying to make a clear definition of it, is more of a scientific and academic effort. Rather than assuming nationalism as a form of ethnocentrism and most importantly as a gateway to racism, my primary
concern is to interpret how the mindset of the 19th and early 20th century people were shaped around nationalism and how the ideology itself motivated the governments to act in accordance with it. First of all, in order to comprehend the case of Turkish minority in Bulgaria, it is quite important to explain the different answers given by some influential scholars on the question of what nationalism is. Ernest Gellner, one of the most well known scholars working on nationalism argues: Nationalism is a political principle, which maintains that similarity of culture is the basic social bond. ... In its extreme version, similarity of culture becomes both necessary and the sufficient condition of legitimate membership: only members of the appropriate culture may join the unit in question, and all of them must do so.12 As it can be understood from Gellner’s definition of nationalism, nations are based on shared values and culture. In other words, people who share the same culture come together in order to form a nation. On the other hand, he also underlines the fact that “The existence of a centralized state is an important part 12 Gellner. Nationalism, 3-4.
of the background of the nationalist vision of the world.”13 According to his definition, the sine qua non for nations is common values, institutionalized around a State. On the other hand, there were also some other definitions of nationalism provided by scholars that conflict with Gellner’s one. One of the most important debates on the matter is that whether nationalism is natural or a concept. James G. Kellas after claiming “most writers on nationalism see the nation as a concept rather than as something natural”14 discusses other scholars’ identification of it. Anthony Smith has come to conclusion, after much study of nationalism, that nations have 'ethnic origins'. This means that we should not believe that nations have been produced only by modern developments, such as capitalism and industrialization as Gellner suggests. Rather, they have origins in the ethnic groups of the earliest periods in history.15 As a result, it is possible to argue that James G. Kellas’ ideas on what nationalism is and its roots are based on refuting Gellner’s definition. As opposed to Gellner, he basically defends the idea, in which nations are more ‘natural’ and have ‘ethnic origins’ rather than being constructed throughout the history. Despite Benedict Anderson admitted that defining nationalism is a quite hard task, he also tries to provide an acceptable explanation of it. He suggests, “It would, … make things easier if one treated it [nationalism] as it if belonged with ‘kinship’ and ‘religion’, rather than ‘liberalism’ or ‘fascism’.”16 In other words, it 13 Gellner. Nationalism, 5. 14 Kellas, Nationalism and Ethnicity, 27 15 Anthony D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986) and Gellner. Nations
and Nationalism as seen in Kellas, Nationalism and Ethnicity, 30.
would be easier to understand nationalism by giving reference to kinship and religion, rather than trying to perceive it as an ideology. Anderson also tries to provide a simple, anthropological description of nations: “… it is an imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign.”17 Amongst these definitions and all others that I could not include in this brief chapter, the most suitable one I could employ in this thesis belongs to Benedict Anderson. His views on and explanation of nations, nationalism and nationality fulfills the main objective of my thesis, the best. By arguing the nations basically are imagined communities, he emphasizes the unnatural nature of the modern nationalisms and nations. Once the historical progress, starting from the second half of the 19th century, of the region is considered, one can clearly understand why Anderson’s theory explains the case of Bulgaria and the Turks living there. Ultimately, after living under the Ottoman rule, Bulgarians through the Russian policies of pan-Slavism initiated a nationalist movement, which created new borders that did not exist in the Balkans for long centuries. It eventually led to the emergence of an autonomous Bulgaria from the Ottoman Empire with artificial national boundaries created, shaped and changed many times after 1878. At some point in history some towns and cities where Muslim and Turkish population inhabited mostly went under Bulgarian sovereignty creating an obstacle in front of the ultimate goal of a nation state by simply disrupting the homogenous demographics. In that sense, nations and nation states are no other than imagined communities with imagined borders. 17 Anderson, Imagined Communities, 5-6.
Providing a plausible and a widely accepted definition for nationalism, nation and nationality is almost impossible, yet, explanations of distinct nationalisms are also highly depended on the origins and nature of each nation. Despite the fact, it is an easier task to trace the origins of the modern nationalism and its spread throughout the world starting from the late 18th century. Even though the idea of a nation was first mentioned earlier in Western Europe in the 13th century as a term to describe the noblemen instead of the whole population.18 Yet, a turning point for the European political order was the French Revolution, which brought some ideas into sunlight like liberté, égalité, fraternité.19 These notions, furthermore, introduced the modern idea of nationalism and nations, which changed the course of both politics and societies. James G. Kellas explains the impact of the French Revolution with these words: After the French Revolution nationalism became a revolutionary ideology, and the idea of the nation was for a time unsettling for most of the governments. The revolutionary aspect arose because the claim that the people were sovereign could not be accepted by the monarchs, aristocrats and merchants who ruled in nearly every state. … It denied the legitimacy of a system of rule by the social classes and status groups whose interests were not necessarily those of the whole nation. The idea of a nation now meant a community based on political equality and democracy, and democratic nationalism was the most powerful doctrine, which spelled out why that was so, and how it was to be achieved.20 His explanation of how the French Revolution and the idea of a nation came with it changed the understanding of legitimacy and governments can shed light on the Ottoman experience of nationalism. 18 Hupchick, The Balkans, 190. 19 English translation of the French Revolution’s motto is Liberty, Justice, Fraternity. 20 Kellas, Nationalism and Ethnicity, 35.
Nationalism as an ideology did not remain close within the French borders. Soon, it spread throughout the European continent, and influenced many groups living under monarchs, aristocrats – or in the Ottoman Empire’s case a dynasty. In the Ottoman territories, the idea of people to be governed by the people who shared the same background, sprouted in one of the Empire’s most ethnically and religiously heterogeneous parts – in the Balkans. First nationalist movements21 in the Ottoman Empire against its sovereignty started in the region, then spread primarily, amongst other non-Muslim communities in the Empire. In the light of these developments took place in Western Europe in late 18th century, the Balkans and its people starting from 1800s had also gone through a new chapter in their history, a period characterized by the awakening of nations and spread of nationalist movements. Even though the Ottoman Empire was still a strong institutionalized state at the beginning of the century, it did not posses the political, administrative and military power once it had, especially in the Balkans.22 Thus it paved the way to, as Dennis P. Hupchick argued “the rise of romantic nationalism” amongst the Balkan people.23 The ideas and national sentiments represented in the French Revolution entered the Balkan Peninsula through two channels. First one of these channels was the interest of European powers in the region. European states like Britain, France and Austria, but most importantly the Russian Empire had political interests in the Balkans. For long centuries, as the archenemy of the Ottoman Empire, the 21 Once again, I have to underline that the words ‘nationalism’ and ‘nationalist movements’ used here do not have pejorative meanings. 22 Stavrianos, The Balkans, 10-11. 23 Hupchick, The Balkans, 189.
Russians pursued policies of pan-Slavism in the region to unite the Slavs against the Ottoman sovereignty. The main reason was of course Russian efforts to increase their influence over the peoples of the Balkans and an effort to control the straights, as well as Constantinople. The Russian policy to some extent was based on provoking the national sentiments of the Balkan peoples against the Ottoman Empire to secure the establishment of unified Orthodox empire under Russian protection.24 The collapse of the Ottoman sovereignty in the region would mean the establishment of a stronger Balkans under the influence of the Russian Empire. On the other hand, British were mostly in favor of protecting the status quo in the Balkans in order to prevent the Russians becoming a bigger and a stronger threat to their political but mostly economic interests.25 Rather than the establishment of nation states in the Balkans, which would supposedly go under the direct Russian influence and support, the British assumed a weak Ottoman control that needed the British and the European support to keep the region under their control would be beneficial for their foreign policies. In fact, the European powers clashed each other in the Balkan Peninsula to take the region under their influence.26 24 For example, Prof. Halil İnalcık states that the Russians secretly sent around 10,000 weapons to the Serbian nationalists against the Austrian Empire. For more information on the subject see İnalcık, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu Üzerine Araştırmalar-IV, 202. 25 Ibid., 269-270. 26 The clashes between the European Powers to control the region were mostly ideological, as I
have briefly mentioned. The Russians were in favor of the establishment of nation states that would be loyal to them, whereas the British were in favor of a weak but a loyal Ottoman Empire as an ally. On the other hand, the struggle at some point turned into actual war in cases like the Crimean War. Even though the Ottomans and the Russians were the belligerents of the war, other European Powers were also involved in order to keep the balance of power in the Balkans.
The second channel was the emerging class of merchants and intellectuals, which nationalism penetrated into the Balkans. Their interactions with the Western Europeans had eventually influenced them, and as they returned their homelands they have worked on spreading the ideals of the French Revolution. The Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment in Western Europe not only changed the political and social, but also had a direct impact on the economic life. “… There was a commercial revival as the expanding economy of Europe stimulated the growth of a class of merchants and mariners, especially along the Habsburg border and in the maritime lands.”27 In the Ottoman society, on the other hand, the traders were mostly the non-Muslims, which had hindered the Muslims way into the European trade markets. As opposed to the Muslims, Christian merchants, especially the ones in the Balkans, had more chances to interact with their European counterparts, which eventually led them to get familiar with the notions of nation and nationalism.28 Children of the wealthy merchants had the chance to receive education in Western universities, where they were directly exposed to the new political thoughts and ideologies. In that sense, it is also possible to argue that the rise of the merchant class in the Balkans had a direct impact on the emergence of well-educated intellectuals. Ultimately, these two interdependent classes played a major role in the process of national awakening of the Balkan populations. Through these two channels the Balkan populations got acquainted with nationalism in modern sense. On the other hand, as the Noble Prize winner 27 Pavlowitch, History of the Balkans, 21. 28 Ibid.
writer Ivo Andrić clearly described the reality of the Balkans throughout his famous book called as The Bridge on the Drina, the region had always been a source of rebellion.29 But the rebellions of the 19th century had far more
consequences both for the rebels and for the Ottoman imperial administration. One of the first Balkan populations to follow nationalist movements was the Serbs, started as early as 1804. The Serbian Revolution was followed by the Greeks, the first nation to gain its independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1821. These independence movements were also followed by other rebellions in the region, as well. The Bulgarians initiated one of the latest uprisings in that sense. Phenomenon of nationalism infiltrated into the Bulgarian political and social life through these channels I have discussed above. Both the Russian imperialistic foreign policies, and also with the emerging class of national bourgeoisie with its representatives like the merchants and the intellectuals, the Bulgarians population got ready for nation building process.30 First nationalist movements in the region by the Bulgarians took place in Vidin in 1849 and 1850, which were clearly reflections of the liberal and national movements in Western Europe.31 Yet, an important turning point in the Bulgarian national awakening was the establishment of an independent Bulgarian Orthodox Church in 1870 with the decree of Sultan 29 Ivo Andric. Drina Köprüsü (İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2016) 30 Rumyana Radkova. Balgarskata Inteligentsia prez Vazrajdento (XVIII – parvata polovina na XIX
vek) [The Period of National Revival and the Bulgarian Intelligentsia] (Sofia: Nouka i Izkustvo,1987),
Abdulaziz.32 All these events led to an uprising in the April of 1876. Ömer Turan in his book emphasizes that the incident alone did not caused a big trouble for the Ottoman Empire, yet, the consequences of the rebellion when combined with the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 resulted in the establishment of an autonomous Bulgarian Princedom.33 The Russian involvement in the creation of nation-states in the Balkans is even clearer in the case of Russo Turkish War of 1877-78. The war turned out to be one of the deadliest wars in the history, besides the soldiers participated many civilians either died in the conflict or forced to leave their homes, which eventually created a massive migration movement in the Balkans.34 On the other hand, parallel to the Russian policies toward the region, the main aim of the Russian Empire was to unify the Orthodox Christians against the Ottomans.35 Yet, even though the Russians in the battlefield were successful, they were not victorious. They did not achieve the goals, which were set before the beginning of the war. Russian Army reached the outskirts of Constantinople, a place known today as Yeşilköy. A preliminary treaty – Treaty of San Stefano was signed between the Ottomans and the Russian. Yet, neither this preliminary treaty nor the peace treaty signed in Berlin after the Congress was in favor of the Russians. They did not acquire any territories in northern parts of the Balkans. The 32 M. Hüdai Şentürk. Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bulgar Meselesi, (1850-1875) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1992), 215-222. 33 Turan, Turkish Minority in Bulgaria, 47-55. 34 Ağanoğlu, Göç, 36-40. 35 Ignatyev, Zapiski [Notes], 49-62.
emergence of an autonomous Bulgaria became an important obstacle in front of Russian imperial policies in the region. Furthermore, the Russian intervention in the domestic politics of Bulgaria divided the society into two: Russophiles and Russophobes. Overall, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78, created even bigger and more complex problems in the region, which resulted in the outbreak of the Balkan Wars. Russo-Turkish War left unsolvedproblems behind, which within thirty years or so increased the tension between the Balkan nations and opened the doors for the Balkans Wars. On the other hand, the Balkan Wars, let alone being a solution to the Eastern Question, it became a sort of rehearsal for the World War I. Even though in the First Balkan War, the Balkan countries united against the remaining Ottoman existence in the region and were successful to some extent, their achievements turned these states against each other. The Balkan League formed prior to the war by Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia and Montenegro proved to be superior against the Ottoman army, just in several months. The war started in October 1912, and lasted until May 1913 in which the Balkan League gained enormous territories in the peninsula. Just like the Russo-Turkish War, the Russian Empire was one of the earliest and strongest supporter of the unified Balkan countries against the Ottomans, yet, the outcomes of the first Balkan War came about as a significant threat to the Russian ideals.36 On the other hand, territorial gains of the Bulgarians in Eastern Thrace disturbed its allies, which resulted in significant unrest in the Balkans. Second Balkan Wars in which the Ottomans did not take part, the Balkan states once again unified – 36 Ibid., 59-62.
this time against the expanding Bulgarian Kingdom. The chaotic environment of the region opened the doors of hell in one sense. The conflict lasted relatively shorter, from June 1913 to August 1913. Even though the European powers like Britain and the Russian Empire directly involved in the resolution of the conflict, it did not prevent the problem of the Balkans to become a bigger and more pressing question to be solved. Eventually, the Balkan Wars became a prelude to the World War I, which started approximately one year after again from the Balkans.37 Russo-Turkish War and the Balkan Wars, along with the Russian imperial policies concerning the Balkans did not solve the problems of the region. On the contrary, these eventually led to the creation of a vicious cycle of wars and socio-economic troubles for the people, as well as the states. Interestingly, the Balkan Wars and the changing coalitions during the war determined the conditions of the Balkan countries’ to enter the World War I, as well. The hostility among the states shaped both of the pacts. Bulgaria and Greece, who were actually allies during the First Balkan War, turned out to be enemies in the Second one, which had also continued during the World War. A more interesting case is the alliance of the Ottoman Empire with the Bulgarians, who were long nemeses of each other. They fought side by side during the World War I against the Russian Empire, which the Bulgarians appreciated as the liberator at the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78. The partnership of the Ottomans and Bulgaria during the World War I laid the foundations of the close relations that continued until mid-1930s.
37 The assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist Gavrilo
Princip in the summer of 1914 in Bosnia triggered the outbreak of World War I. In that sense, nationalism and nationalist movements in the Balkans provoked the biggest conflict of history until that time.
The socio-political developments in the Balkans had a direct impact on the Ottoman political life as well as the ideologies. The nationalist movements in the Balkans resulted in the occurrence of an effort to protect the Empire from collapsing. The official policies as well as other political movements like the Young Ottomans, Young Turks or the Committee of Union and Progress followed different policies in order to ensure the survival of the State. Ideologies like Ottomanism, pan-Islamism, or even pan-Turkism were brought forward, and even sometimes found support at the imperial level.38 Yet, none of these policies or political ideologies did restrain – especially the non-Muslim subjects of the Empire to follow their own national projects. The inefficiency of other imperial policies like Ottomanism, which was supposed to bring all the citizens of the Empire together – regardless of their ethnic or religious backgrounds compelled the young, educated Ottoman bureaucrats to search for other options. A final ideology, to save the Ottoman Empire from shattering emerged after the World War I as the hegemonic power: Turkish national ideal. In that sense, it is possible to talk about a distinct Turkish nationalism, which emerged as a result of and as a reaction to the nationalist movements that took place primarily in the Balkans.39 38 One of the clearest reflections of the Ottoman political thought of the late 19th and the early 20th century is Three Kinds of Policy – Üç Tarz-ı Siyaset written by one of the leading figures of the era, Yusuf Akçura. Akçura is one of the forefathers of pioneers of the Turkish national discourse, underlines the three kinds of policies that can save the Empire from collapse. These are namely, Ottomanism – Osmanlıcılık, Pan-Islamism, and Turkism –Türkçülük. See Yusuf Akçura, Üç Tarz-ı Siyaset (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1991) for more information on the late Ottoman political thought. 39 For further information on the formation of Turkish national ideology please see Zürcher, The Young Turk Legacy, 213-235.
CHAPTER III
BULGARIA AND ITS TURKISH MINORITY, 1918-1944
The first half of the twentieth century did not only witnessed the greatest wars of all times, but also the destruction of the traditional empires40 that participated in those feuds. Borderlands – especially the Balkans – of the Ottoman Empire, on the other hand, experienced war and its consequences greater than any other places. First of all, the borderlands of the empires were consisted of ethnically and religiously diverse communities. As a result, the nationalist movements in these territories were more effective among the population, which caused even more insurgencies. Furthermore, the borderlands of the Ottoman Empire were under the direct influence of the Russian Empire and partly the Austria-Hungarian Empire. On top of these, the wars took place in these border territories caused even more complicated political and social environments.41 Due to the factors mentioned above, many new states were established while forming new ethnic and religious minorities within their territories. 40 The term traditional empires are used to describe early-modern empires, which control vast amount of territories including communities from different ethnic and religious background through well-established social and administrative institutions. 41 Omer Bartov and Eric D. Weitz. Shatterzone of Empires: Coexistence and Violence in the German, Habsburg, Russian, and Ottoman Borderlands (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013), 2.
Furthermore, these new states – regardless of their regime types – experienced political instabilities, government changes and even coups within only couple decades. Bulgaria, in that sense, was no exception. As a state that was in the borderland of Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria was also under the great influence of Russian Empire as well as the Austria-Hungarian Empire. Bulgaria was also consisted of communities from different ethnic and religious backgrounds such as the Orthodox Bulgarians, Muslims Turks and other Muslim communities. This highly diverse ethnic and religious composition caused political tension during the post-war period in Bulgaria, as well as the rest of the Balkans. Even though Bulgaria became an independent Kingdom in 1908, as we have discussed in the previous chapter, Bulgaria was not able to establish a stable political atmosphere or government. On the one hand, this can be seen as a purely struggle for power among the political actors positioned themselves on various spots on the political spectrum.42 On the other hand, the political instability that Bulgaria faced once the World War I ended, was not only visible at the political level, but also shaped the social and daily lives of the society as a whole. Thus, it is fair enough to say political instability restrained the opportunity to establish a balanced cultural life and harmony among the Bulgarian citizens from different backgrounds. Minorities – whether ethnic or religious – were particularly affected by the official policies that were adopted by different governments of various political orientations. The ruling national elites in Bulgaria, similar to every other nation- 42 The political spectrum in Bulgaria after the World War I ranged from radical right to communism. All the fractions, to a certain level participated in the political process creating a highly diverse political environment.
state in that period, proclaimed a de-facto ethnic and religious balance within the society. However, the situation of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria remained as a problematic one for a long period of time till the end of the century. The Turks in that country requires a special attention because the political and social oppression over them were far more complicated in terms its consequences compared to other groups.43 What make the Turkish case unique was the interrelation of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria and the Turkish Republic – the first republic in the region with its administrative institutions and government. The status and social position of the Turks, thus, were not shaped only by the domestic policies of Bulgaria, but also by the relations of Bulgarian Kingdom and the Republic of Turkey. In the following pages I will focus on first, to explain the Bulgarian political environment between 1918 and 1944. What is equally important is to examine how did that political environment contributed to the legal status and to the social lives of the Turkish minority in that particular country. Without revealing the mutual political relations between the Turkish minority and the state, it would be almost impossible to comprehend how the socio-cultural environment surrounded the Turks had gradually transformed. That is why I will pay a special attention to that particular problem. Lastly, I will focus on how did the traditional Islamic conservatism and the modern Turkish ideologies shaped around the Turkish Republic came across in Bulgaria and what were the effects of these ideologies over the Turkish minority. 43 This statement does not mean that other minority groups in Bulgaria did not faced any assimilation policies or oppression.
3.1. Political and Social Environment, 1918-1944
In order to understand and answer the questions asked above, it is necessary to look at the end of the World War I for Bulgaria. Just like the states that were defeated in the war, the Bulgarians were forced to sign a peace treaty shortly after the war had ended on November 27, 1918. Neuilly-sur-Seine – or in short Neuilly Treaty – presented the terms of the allied forces that forced Bulgaria to form an interim government as well as forced to evacuate the territories that once captured during the Balkan Wars.44 Together with Neuilly Treaty an interim government was formed in Bulgaria in order to preserve the stability in the country until the elections that would be held in August 1919. As soon as the Great War has ended King Ferdinand was held responsible of the catastrophes during the Balkan Wars and the World War I.45 He abdicated the throne to his son Boris and was exiled immediately.46 The prime minister of the successive cabinet was Teodor Teodorov who was the head of People’s Liberal Party. The interim government on the other hand, was not acting on its own but closely followed by the Central Powers. The elections in 1919 opened a new era for Bulgarian political life together with its population. The political actors of the elections were mainly the Bulgarian National Agrarian Party (BANU), Bulgarian Communist Party (BCP) and the Democrats. Even though the Agrarian Party managed to get 31 per cent of the total votes in the 44 Crampton, History of Bulgaria, 148-149. 45 Andrew Baruch Wachtel. Dünya Tarihinde Balkanlar, trans. Ali Cevat (İstanbul: Doğan Kitap, 2010), 111. 46 Mari A. Firkatian. Diplomats and Dreamers: The Stancioff Family in Bulgarian History (Lanham: University Press of America, 2008), 167.elections, they had to form a coalition with the Democrats, since Aleksandar Stamboliyski could not convince the Bulgarian Communist Party leadership to form a coalition with his party.47 The political agenda of the BANU under the leadership of Stamboliyski was quite clear. Together with its socialist stances, one of the main aims of the party was to carry out a land reform, which they were able to realize after 1920. Furthermore, the Stamboliyski government tried to create a better income distribution with the Income Tax Law48 among the Bulgarian citizens.49 Stamboliyski’s political agenda was mostly filled with economic goals and financial development of the Bulgarian State as well as its people. Yet, another goal of Stamboliyski and his government was to punish the war criminals in Bulgaria, a country that was constantly and continuously a battlefield since the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War. He managed to get the war criminals in front of the court and trialed, as soon as the BANU came to power on its own in 1920.50 The BANU held the power until 1923, when a coup was initiated against Stamboliyski government. Holding the political power alone for Stamboliyski government was very hard, indeed. Struggling for power against the BCP, BANU faced upheavals and protests mostly as a result of their economic policies. BANU, with socialist tendencies, tried to create a better country with better opportunities for everyone, yet putting the agricultural groups to the center of 47 Crampton, History of Bulgaria, 149. 48 The exact word used is Genel Gelir Vergisi Kanunu 49 Cambazov. Başmüftülük Tarihi, 256. 50 Ibid.
their policies. One of the major opponents to the Agrarian government were the army officials who were dismissed as a result of the Neuilly Treaty signed right after Bulgaria’s defeat in the World War I. Even though, the military officers knew that Stamboliyski had not much he can do about the military, since they lost their privileges and status in the society, they became the symbol of resistance against Stamboliyski. In 1922, these discontent army officials formed an organization named Military League and was supported by the Russian with weaponry. The discontent among the military officers did not remain among them, but also spread through the political opposition, which had resulted in a coup d’état in June 1923.51 The Agrarian government was forced to resign together with Stambolisyki as he was executed right after the coup. The coup that took place on June 9, presented a new government with a new prime minister. The new government was formed under Aleksandûr Tsankov. However, the coup did not bring the political environment that would help Tsankov to overturn the Agrarian government’s policies.52 Moreover, Bulgaria after the coup slide into further chaos under the Tsankov government. Contrary to the BANU’s moderate policies, Tsankov chose oppression as a tool for governing the country.53 First, communists leaded by the BCP held mass protests in September 1923, which have eventually led to banning of the BCP within only several months.54 A legislation that was passed in September 1923, giving the 51 Crampton, History of Bulgaria, 156-157. 52 Crampton, Bulgaria, 237. 53 Cambazov. Başmüftülük Tarihi, 280. 54 The coup and the events followed, like the protests, triggered the further disintegration within the leftist parties. Under the direct influence of Russian ideologies, sympathizers of BANU and BCP – even after such pressure on the leftists – became hostile to one another.
government and the prime minister extraordinary powers against terrorist acts was initially used against BCP for banning, and confiscating its properties.55 However, banning of the BCP did not end the vicious cycle of violence. In 1925 at an official funeral held in Sofia, where most of the political figures and the King himself attended, a bomb was exploded at the roof of Sveta Nedelya Cathedral killing around 120 innocent people.56 The bombing did not put an end to the chaotic environment at the political and social level. On the contrary, economic and political instability followed as well as the oppression that had been going on since Tsankov came to power. In early 1926, after series of economic problems and after his incapability to find adequate solutions to these problems, Tsankov resigned from his office. In addition to the political and economic problems, Tsankov’s oppressive regime created an increasing discontent at the political and social level. Following Tsankov’s resignation, a third party and its leader since 1919 came to power in Bulgaria in 1926, who was a Macedonian-origin politician and the leader of the Democratic Party; Andrei Lyapchev.57 Even though the Lyapchev government is projected as more loose and less tense when compared to Tsankov’s time in the office. The elections of 1926 and the years followed created and optimistic and hopeful environment both at the political and social levels.58 However, it did not ensure the stability that Bulgaria needed desperately since the end of the World 55 Crampton, History of Bulgaria, 158. 56 Crampton, Bulgaria, 237. 57 Crampton, History of Bulgaria, 159. 58 Rumen Daskalov. Debating the Past: Modern Bulgarian History: From Stambolov to Zhivkov (Central European University Press, 2011), 146.
