Marmara Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi

Öz

One of the most striking dimensions of the Russian Empire's expansionist policies towards the Turkestan region was the discursive and strategic framework constructed around the practice of slavery. Throughout the long-term process extending from the 16th century to the late 19th century, the issue of Russian captives held in the Khanates of Bukhara and Khiva consistently occupied a central position in the agenda of the Russians. However, diplomatic negotiations concerning prisoner exchanges or the release of captives largely failed, paving the way for Russia to activate military options. Russia’s military intervention in Turkestan was legitimized through a discourse that portrayed the Tsarist ideology and the imperial rhetoric of the period as committed to the abolition of slavery. Nevertheless, archival documents, travel accounts, and contemporary testimonies reveal that this discourse was largely based on political manipulation. Although slavery was officially abolished following the Russian domination of the Khanate of Khiva in 1873, it is evident that the slave trade and practices of captivity in the region continued for some time. For the khanates, the existence of Russian captives was not merely a matter of war booty; rather, it functioned as a strategic instrument providing negotiating superiority against Russia. This situation transformed the phenomenon of captivity from a mere economic activity into a crucial component of politics and diplomacy. On the other hand, for Russia, this issue was positioned at the very center of the argument of “humanitarian intervention” that justified its policy of conquest in Central Asia; yet in practice, it became clear that the primary motivation of this intervention did not go beyond the liberation of Russian captives. Russia did not aim for a profound transformation of the social and economic infrastructure of slavery in the region, a fact that became evident in its colonial practices. The role of the Turkmen groups in the slave trade constituted another complex dimension of this process. The entanglement of ethnic, sectarian, and economic factors in this structure not only shaped Russo-Turkestan relations but also formed an essential part of the internal dynamics between the khanates. Ultimately, the abolition of slavery in Turkestan was not so much the direct result of Russian intervention as it was the consequence of local resistance movements, internal rebellions, and broader processes of social transformation. The strategy of the Tsarist administration to present itself as a “liberator” was essentially a discursive construction that masked its imperial expansion. In this context, the question of slavery evolved into an ideological apparatus skillfully designed by Russia to legitimize its military and political expansion in Central Asia, becoming a striking example of the classical tension between imperial politics and humanitarian rhetoric.