As a result of the powerful rise of the national liberation movement and the collapse of the colonial system in the mid-twentieth century. first in Asia, and then in Africa, dozens of new states emerged. There have been radical changes in their political structures, economic basis, and development of national cultures. Young states have become active subjects of international relations and world economic relations.

The creation of national research centers and scientific schools in the liberated countries, which are interested in revising the ancient history of their peoples, their rich culture, as well as the possibility of access to state archives, prompted Soviet scientists of the classical cycle of orientalism to study the works of their Asian - African colleagues in depth.

The conquest of sovereignty by former colonial countries and the democratic changes that took place in the USSR at the beginning of the second half of the twentieth century created conditions for systematic scientific trips of Soviet scientists to the Afro-Asian countries they studied, as well as their contacts with orientalist scientists from these countries, Western Europe and America. For the first time, field studies were conducted in the countries of the East. In our country, interest in the East has sharply increased. Dozens of friendship societies with Asian and African countries were established. All this required changes in the organization and content of the work of Soviet Orientalists.

In 1953, Alexander A. Guber, a well - known expert on the modern and contemporary history of the East, was appointed Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies. He was an authoritative scientist and an outstanding organizer of science. Perhaps A. A. Guber, like no other, personified the Moscow school of Russian Oriental studies in the mid-20th century. In the same year, he was elected a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences (in 1966, he will become an academician) ^.1

A. A. Huber began to act energetically. In 1953, the institute moved from a cramped building on Volkhonka Street to a larger space in Armyansky Pereulok, where the famous Lazarevsky Institute was once located. By the decree of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR of August 12, 1955, a new structure of the institute was established - 12 sectors created according to the country-specific principle (including the sector of oriental manuscripts in Leningrad). In the same year, the scientific journal of the Institute "Soviet Oriental Studies" began to be published (Doctor of Economics V. A. Maslennikov was appointed Executive editor of the journal.) At that time, the Institute employed 220 employees.-

This article continues the development of the topic started in the articles: P. M. Shastitko, N. I. Skvortsova. Russian Oriental Studies after World War II (1943-1950) // East (Oriens). 2000. N 5; P. M. Shastitko, N. K. Charyeva. How the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies was closed // East (Oriens). 2002. N 6.

page 21

scientists, including 105 historians, 37 economists, 25 literary critics, and 50 linguists.

In 1955, a 24-member Soviet delegation headed by A. A. Huber took part in the XXIII International Congress of Orientalists in Great Britain for the first time in the history of Soviet Orientalism. The Institute has started preparing a number of fundamental works, including those on the modern and contemporary history of the East. Oriental studies was on the rise.

But in 1956, at the XX Congress of the CPSU, A. I. Mikoyan, a member of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU, criticized the work of the institute. He said that "there is an institute in the Academy of Sciences that deals with Eastern issues, but it can be said that if the entire East has awakened in our time, then this institute is still dormant" ². Further, the text of the congress transcript contains a phrase that was not included in the text of the publication of the congress materials: "They say that there the study of history barely reached the birth of Christ (revival in the hall. Laughter.) Isn't it time for him to rise up to the demands of our time?" ³ It appears that such a harsh assessment of the Institute's performance was unfair. Since the early 1950s, there have been obvious positive changes in Oriental studies.

A. I. Mikoyan's critical speech served as the basis for making a harsh decision on the work of the institute, as well as for changing its director. A certain role in this, apparently, was played by the fact of a heated discussion of the results of the XX Congress of the CPSU at the party meeting of the Institute at the end of March 1956. A senior researcher of the institute, a veteran of the CPSU, G. I. Mordvinov4, who spoke in the debate, said that the speech of N. V. Mordvinov was made by S. Khrushchev's statement about the cult of personality of I. V. Stalin does not reflect the fact that all members of the Stalinist Politburo, including N. S. Khrushchev, should bear responsibility for the shootings and repressions. G. I. Mordvinov suggested opening a free discussion in the party on the question of the cult of personality and calling an extraordinary party congress. This proposal was supported by graduate student P. M. Shastitko, who also added that it is necessary to return to Lenin's slogan "all power to the Soviets" with the election of delegates on an alternative principle, arguing that the party has replaced all legislative and executive power in the country. M. N. Ivanova, secretary of the Institute's Party Bureau, suggested condemning such anti-party and anti-Soviet actions, but the Communists did not support this proposal. Speeches similar to those that took place at the Institute of Oriental Studies also took place in the party organizations of other scientific institutions. On April 3, 1956, the Central Committee of the CPSU adopted a closed resolution on the discussion of the results of the XX Congress in party organizations. On April 5, 1956, Pravda published an editorial denouncing anti-party elements ^.5 On April 13, 1956, the issue of the personal case of G. I. Mordvinov and P. M. Shastitko was submitted to the Institute's party bureau. M. N. Ivanova's proposal to expel the "apostates" from the party was not accepted ^.6

The events at the Institute of Oriental Studies became known in the Central Committee of the CPSU and were perceived there as disobedience to the party line. Three days later, on April 16, the head of the CPSU Party Organs Department, V. Churaev, and the head of the CPSU Administrative Organs Department, G. Drozdov, sent a note to the Moscow City Party Committee "On the anti-party statements of Mordvinov and Shastitko at the party meeting of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences", in which they recommended that he hold another party meeting at the institute in order to " debunk the anti-party sorties of Mordvinov and Shastitko, resolve the issue of their partisanship and strengthen the party bureau " ⁷ .

The anti-party nature of Orientalists ' speeches was described in the editorial of the journal "Party Life" - "What is the harm of the cult of personality". It said: "The party organization of the Institute of Oriental Studies is clearly anti-party-

page 22

Similar presentations were made by Mordvinov, a co-worker, and Shastitko, a graduate student. The party organization as a whole did not express its attitude to these anti-party attacks." ⁸ The article demanded: "You can not pass by such performances. It would be political blindness not to see that certain rotten elements, under the guise of condemning the cult of personality, are trying to question the correctness of the party's policy and, in fact, are rehashing the hackneyed slanderous fabrications of foreign reactionary propaganda." ⁹

A. A. Guber was dismissed from the post of director of the Institute and replaced by First Secretary of the Communist Party of Tajikistan Bobojan Gafurov. B. G. Gafurov was an experienced politician and an excellent organizer.

B. G. Gafurov was born on December 31, 1908 in the village of Ispisar, near ancient Khojent (Tajikistan) in the family of a poor Dekhanin. He did not manage to get a systematic serious education. After completing his primary education, he studied for two years at the Khojent Railway School, where he joined the Komsomol. In 1929, he attended a one-year law course in Samarkand. After graduating from them, for some time he was an assistant to the People's Commissar of Justice of Tajikistan, then worked as the head of the department of the Republican newspaper "Kizil Tojikiston". In 1931-1935. Bobozhan Gafurovich studied in Moscow at the All-Union Communist Institute of Journalism, where prominent Moscow journalists and professors taught. Here he received his basic education. After returning to Dushanbe, the 27-year-old journalist became deputy editor of the newspaper "Kizil Tojikiston". The October Revolution brought him out of poverty and along the Soviet road to a new life. He joined the party in 1932. Soon B. G. Gafurov made a rapid party career. In 1941, he was elected Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Republic for propaganda, in 1944 - second secretary, and in 1946. - First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Tajikistan.

B. G. Gafurov not only successfully managed the economic, ideological, political and cultural life of the republic in the tense post-war period, but also took a serious interest in the history of the Tajik people. Back in 1941, he defended his PhD thesis on the topic: "The history of the Ismaili sect from the beginning of the XIX century to the first imperialist War", and in 1947 his book "The History of the Tajik people in brief"was published. In 1951, scientists of the republic elected B. G. Gafurov Academician of the Academy of Sciences of Tajikistan. In 1952, the Academic Council of the Institute of Material Culture of the USSR Academy of Sciences awarded him the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences. On May 24, 1956, B. G. Gafurov was relieved of his duties as the First Secretary of the Central Committee of Tajikistan with the standard wording "in connection with the transition to another job". A new job, unexpectedly for many, turned out to be the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences. After being appointed director of the Institute of Oriental Studies, B. G. Gafurov, undoubtedly a talented nugget of his people, proved to be an outstanding organizer with a fine sense of the situation and the scale of thinking.

In high-ranking party circles of the country, the conviction that the Institute of Oriental Studies should be strongly improved has been strengthened. On September 7, 1956, the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences adopted a detailed resolution "On the tasks and structure of the Institute of Oriental Studies" ¹⁰ . In particular, the Institute's performance was assessed as unsatisfactory. The resolution stated that "the Institute does not provide policy-making state bodies with information on the state of the economy and politics of the countries of the foreign East" ¹¹ . The main demand made by the party (and after it by the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences) was the politicization of the institute - subordination of its research to the modern political tasks of the party and state leadership.

The Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, following the instructions of the Central Committee of the CPSU, proposed "to base the institute's work on an in-depth study of the current situation in the Eastern countries, their economy, history, and politics, and the preparation of works on the national liberation movement; the crisis of the colonial system; the activities of the main parties, and especially the communist parties in these countries; and the exposure of reactionary theories

page 23

bourgeois scholars who justify colonial oppression and the policy of racial exclusivity towards certain peoples. " ¹²

The attitude of the authorities to science is often either consumer, if one can say so, vampiric, when it demands full service from science; or donor, when the authorities make financial and other injections into science. The Communist Party, in its resolution on the institute, combined both. Having demanded that its staff prepare reports, analytical materials, and reference data for the" decision-making bodies "that contribute to the development of practical eastern policy, the decision provided for"allocating an additional 154 full-time units (without managerial personnel) to the Institute, increasing admission to postgraduate studies by 15 vacancies, and increasing expenditure estimates for the institute."

The eighth point of the resolution was important and promising:" In order to sharply increase the output of printed products of the Institute of Oriental Studies, as well as to publish literary and historical monuments of the peoples of the East, to organize a self-supporting Publishing House of Oriental Literature at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences " ¹³ .

The main scientific division of the Institute has become a department consisting of sectors. The department employed several dozen researchers and was able to solve large research tasks on its own. In total, there were nine departments: the Far East, South-East Asia, China, India, the Middle East, Africa, the Leningrad Department, Information and Reference, and Editorial and Publishing. The new structure also provided for four independent sectors: the Ancient East, the Publication of Monuments, Conjuncture and Propaganda. The last sector in the system of the Academy of Sciences was introduced for the first time and did not fit into the usual scheme of academic structures. The sector of technical and economic research (TEI), headed by General N. P. Savchenko, stood apart. This department worked not according to the institute's plan, but for its own customer. An important point was that the Institute should be staffed with highly professional personnel who are well versed in Eastern languages. However, there was one contradiction here: in 1954, the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies, the main training center for practical Orientalists in Moscow, was liquidated by the decision of the Central Committee of the CPSU ^.14

The decree of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR became a program for the successful development of Oriental studies. He came up with an interesting and important initiative to hold the first conference of Orientalists of the USSR in order to coordinate the research work of all scientific centers of the country and study the state of Oriental studies. On April 24, 1956, the Central Committee of the CPSU adopted a resolution on holding an All-Union Scientific Conference of Orientalists in Tashkent in May 1957. The responsibility for its implementation was assigned to the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the Academy of Sciences of the Uzbek SSR. The Organizing Committee of the conference was headed by Academician K. V. Ostrovityanov, Vice-President of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

The preparation of the conference was not smooth. Members of the organizing committee representing Uzbekistan, returning from Moscow after the meeting of the organizing committee, informed the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan N. A. Mukhitdinov that" the USSR Academy of Sciences, in particular the Institute of Oriental Studies, has not yet developed measures to prepare the conference " ¹⁵ . Soon N. A. Mukhitdinov was informed that B. G. Gafurov asked to postpone the conference from May to November-December 1957. The Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan strongly objected to the postponement of the conference and demanded to hold a meeting of the organizing committee in Tashkent with the obligatory presence of K. V. Ostrovityanov. It was an attack on B. G. Gafurov. On April 17-18, Tashkent hosted a meeting of the organizing committee of the Conference of Orientalists, chaired by K. V. Ostrovityanov16, where its program and decisions were adopted.-

page 24

organizational issues that ensure that the conference is held on time are considered. On April 19, at the meeting of the bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan, the results of the work of the organizing committee were summed up.

The first All-Union Conference of Orientalists was held in Tashkent on June 4-11, 1957. K. V. Ostrovityanov opened the conference. More than 100 reports were presented at the plenary sessions and seven sections. The report "State and tasks of Soviet Oriental Studies in the light of the XX Congress of the CPSU" was made by B. G. Gafurov. At the last meeting, the conference participants heard a speech by N. A. Mukhitdinov, who summed up the results of the conference and highly appreciated its importance.

The decision referred to the historical significance of the XX Congress of the CPSU and the need to expand the study of the revolutionary processes in the East. A decisive turn to modernity is the main requirement for the content side of Oriental studies, the conference decision noted, and it was also considered desirable to create research centers at the academies of Sciences of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. ¹⁷ The conference assigned the functions of the head institute and coordinator of research work of all orientalist centers to the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences. A special point of the decision concerns the training of Oriental specialists.

The Tashkent Conference of Orientalists played a significant role in the further development of orientalism in the USSR. At the conference, B. G. Gafurov establishes contacts with reputable scientists, shares plans for the reconstruction of Russian Oriental studies. The scale of the upcoming reforms was impressive. On May 4, 1958, academicians-Patriarchs V. V. Struve and M. N. Tikhomirov addressed a letter to the President of the USSR Academy of Sciences A. N. Nesmeyanov, in which they assured him that thanks to B. G. Gafurov, the Institute of Oriental Studies "was completely transformed, becoming a true center of Oriental studies for the countries of popular democracy and a number of Asian and African countries" ¹⁸ . They also noted the value of his scientific research in the field of Central Asian problems. The combination of administrative and scientific activities allowed the authors to recommend the candidacy of B. G. Gafurov as a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences. This proposal was supported by academicians I. A. Orbeli, corresponding members N. I. Konrad, N. V. Pigulevskaya. In June 1958, the country's orientalists introduced B. G. Gafurov to the Academy of Sciences, electing him a corresponding member. B. G. Gafurov tried to build on the success of Tashkent. On June 11, 1957, the conference in Tashkent ended, and on June 29, he sent a letter to the Central Committee of the CPSU: "We think it appropriate to raise the issue of coordinating research work in the field of Oriental studies carried out by scientific organizations of the countries of popular democracy in Europe and Asia." ¹⁹ He pragmatically suggested that "if we received the approval of the Central Committee of the CPSU, we would organize a meeting of leading Orientalists from the countries of popular democracy in Prague and propose the creation of a commission to coordinate all our work." ²⁰

The director of the Institute of Oriental Studies addressed his proposal to the Central Committee of the CPSU, bypassing the bureau of the Department of Historical Sciences of the Academy. This was his mistake. July 20, Deputy Head of the Department The Department of Science and Universities of the Central Committee of the CPSU D. Kukin replied to B. G. Gafurov that " Academician-Secretary of the Department of Historical Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences Zhukov reported that the question of organizing a meeting of Orientalists of socialist countries in Prague was not sufficiently coordinated with scientists from Czechoslovakia and other countries. In this regard, it would be premature now to make a decision on holding a meeting of Orientalists of socialist countries in Prague. " ²¹ The meeting in Prague was postponed indefinitely, and it was not possible to create a coordination center for Orientalists in the countries of popular democracy. Direk relationships-

page 25

The torah of the Institute of Oriental Studies and the leadership of the Bureau of the Department of Historical Sciences became complicated.

In pursuance of the decisions of the Tashkent Conference, the organization of new Oriental studies centers began, primarily in Moscow, as well as in the republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus. In 1956, the Institute of Chinese Studies was established, with A. S. Perevertailo as its director (later in 1966, the Institute of the Far East will be created on the basis of the Institute, headed by a corresponding member. M. I. Sladkovsky); in 1958 in Baku - Institute of Oriental Studies of Azerbaijan (Director of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR). A. A. Ali-zade, Academy of Sciences of the Azerbaijan SSR) ; in 1959 in Moscow - Institute of Africa (director prof. African studies developed as a separate part of Oriental studies. In 1960, the Institute of Oriental Studies of Georgia was formed (director of the Academy G. V. Tsereteli), in the late 1960s. Institute of Oriental Studies of Tajikistan (director of the Academy A. M. Mirzoev), in 1971 - Institute of Oriental Studies of Armenia (Director of the Academy G. H. Sargsyan). The Leningrad Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies, headed by I. A. Orbeli, ^was revived . In January 1957, the publishing house "Vostochnaya Literatura" was established at the Institute of Oriental Studies in Moscow, where O. K. Dreyer was appointed director. Later, Academician E. M. Primakov (Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies from 1977 to 1985) wrote: "It is difficult to overestimate the importance of" our " publishing house for the Institute. This was not only a way out for researchers who wanted to establish themselves as scientists by sharing the results of their research with an audience of specialists. It was the" window "of the Institute to the outside world, without which it was impossible to preserve the reputation of this outstanding center of Oriental studies." ²² The first book published by the publishing house in 1957 (and this is significant!) was "Great October and the East". Its executive editor was B. G. Gafurov.

The publishing house of Oriental literature produced up to 200 books a year. These were studies of orientalists of a wide thematic, chronological and geographical range. B. G. Gafurov and O. K. Dreyer understood that the international authority of Russian orientalism was based on the works of the classical cycle of Oriental studies. At the initiative of Academician I. A. Orbeli, preparations for the publication of fundamental research of this type have begun. The first work was the two-volume work of the highly talented orientalist N. A. Nevsky, who was repressed in 1937, "Tangut Philology (Tangut Philology: Research and Dictionary)".

The publication of N. A. Nevsky's work in 1960 was a major event in Russian and world orientalism. In 1962, she was awarded the Lenin Prize. This was the first Lenin Prize awarded to Soviet Orientalists. In the same year, the manuscript of an interesting study by the repressed orientalist Yu.K. Shchutsky, "The Chinese classical Book of Changes", was published. The publication of the works of those executed as "enemies of the people", prominent representatives of the Leningrad classical school of orientalism, do credit to B. G. Gafurov and O. K. Dreyer. The works of N. A. Nevsky and Yu. K. Shchutsky marked the beginning of the publication of a series of books "Monuments of Literature of the peoples of the East" and"Monuments of Oriental Writing". Somewhat later, the preparation of a major Large Chinese-Russian dictionary in 4 volumes under the editorship of Professor I. M. Oshanin began. The dictionary was published in 1983-1984 and was awarded the State Prize. It should be noted that the publication of dictionaries was generally successful. The publication of 17 issues of the Tibetan-Russian - English dictionary with Sanskrit parallels (started by Yu. N. Roerich, continued by Yu. M. Parfionovich and V. S. Dylykova) was unique. In 1970 pub-

^* For the creative collaboration between B. G. Gafurov and I. A. Orbeli, see N. B. Gafurova's publication " Correspondence of Academicians in Oriental Studies... "(pp. 123-131).

page 26

likovan 2-volume Japanese-Russian dictionary edited by N. I. Konrad, awarded the State Prize in 1972. In the same year, a two-volume Korean-Russian Dictionary was published under the editorship of L. B. Nikolsky, as well as a 2-volume Persian - Russian Dictionary edited by Yu. A. Rubinchik, and in 1974 a Hindi-Russian Dictionary edited by V. M. Beskrovny.

Since 1957, the illustrated magazine "Modern East" (since 1961 - "Asia and Africa Today") has been published. B. G. Gafurov became the editor-in-chief of the journal. The magazine was published in Russian and English and was intended for both Soviet and foreign readers. Since 1961, the journal" Soviet Oriental Studies "has been called" Peoples of Asia and Africa " (the editor-in-chief was I. S. Braginsky). Currently - " East (Oriens)".

B. G. Gafurov is taking steps to increase the international prestige of Soviet Oriental studies. On July 24, 1959, in a letter addressed to the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, N. S. Khrushchev, he expressed the opinion that it was necessary to attach the greatest importance to the XXV World Congress of Orientalists to be held in Moscow in 1960. ²³ B. G. Gafurov informed the high addressee that he considered the upcoming Congress as an arena of struggle for influence on theAsian countries, which has a big impact on the masses. "The preparation and holding of the Congress of Orientalists in the USSR," wrote Gafurov, "is a very convenient occasion for us to decisively strengthen our ideological work in the East." ²⁴ Having extensive experience in party diplomacy, he addressed N. S. Khrushchev with the following proposal:" It would be of great importance for all participants of the Congress and for the intelligentsia of the peoples of Asia and Africa if you found it possible to speak at the Congress. " ²⁵

The XXV World Congress of Orientalists was held in Moscow in August 1960 in the building of Moscow State University on Leninsky Hills. It was attended by 1,393 delegates from 48 countries, including 21 Asian and African countries. The Soviet delegation consisted of 525 people. B. G. Gafurov became the President of the Congress; I. A. Orbeli, A. A. Guber, and A. S. Perevertailo became the Vice-presidents; and R. A. Ulianovsky, Doctor of Historical Sciences, became the General Secretary. The Congress delegates were welcomed by A. I. Mikoyan. He noted the world-historical significance of the national liberation movement of the peoples of Asia and Africa and the emergence of sovereign states in these regions. A. I. Mikoyan called on orientalists to objectively reflect the most important processes taking place in Afro-Asian countries. About Russian orientalism, in particular, he said: "Using all the valuable things that Russian orientalism has provided, Soviet Oriental studies on a fundamentally different scientific basis from the positions of Marxism-Leninism studies not only ancient and medieval history and philology, but also focuses on the development of modern problems, including the problems of national liberation movements. In our country, orientalist scientists, as well as scientists in all other fields of science and technology, have all the conditions for their fruitful scientific creativity." ²⁶ As can be seen, A. I. Mikoyan changed his assessment of Soviet Oriental studies given in his speech at the XX Congress of the CPSU. B. G. Gafurov hastened to assure the delegates, as was customary at that time: "In his speech, the first Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR A. I. Mikoyan set the task for us that our Oriental studies would actually help for the progress of the peoples of Asia and Africa. We consider this to be a perfectly correct indication. " ²⁷ He emphasized another important point: "... at the current Congress, almost half of the Soviet delegates are representatives of the peoples of the East. Among the speakers of our delegation alone are representatives of 20 Eastern nationalities of the Soviet Union. Among the Soviet scientists who will make presentations here, there are those whose people previously had no written language at all; there are many whose fathers could neither read nor write." ²⁸

page 27

682 reports of scientists from different countries were heard in 20 sections of the Congress. Special evenings were dedicated to storytellers from Ossetia, Buryatia, Khakassia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Karakalpakstan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan. (This was also a groundbreaking effort: before the Moscow Congress, folk storytellers of the East did not speak at such forums.) History has never known such large-scale congresses of Orientalists as the Moscow One. Closing the congress, B. G. Gafurov thanked the delegates and guests for their active participation and said: "We, Soviet Orientalists, consider it our duty to science, to our conscience, to tirelessly help the peoples of the East in their struggle for a better future." ²⁹

After closing the congress, B. G. Gafurov conducted another elegant diplomatic combination. US delegates offered to host the next forum of orientalists. Soviet party leaders considered this undesirable. B. G. Gafurov, through private negotiations with the heads of delegations of some Eastern countries, made it so that the next meeting of Orientalists of the world was scheduled not for the United States, but for India. This proposal was adopted unanimously by all delegates, including the American ones.

On December 16, 1960, the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences adopted a resolution "On the tasks, structure and management of the Institute of Asian and African Peoples", and two months later the Presidium approved the new structure of the Institute. The Editorial and Publishing Department, the Conjuncture Sector, and the failed Propaganda Sector were excluded. The independent Sector of publishing monuments was transferred to the Department of Oriental Literature. Along with the country studies departments, there were created problem-themed ones: International Issues, Literature and publications of Monuments, the Department of Languages of the Peoples of Asia, the Department of the Ancient East, and the Department of Scientific Information. Later, departments were created: General theoretical problems of development in Asia and North Africa, Complex problems of international relations, and Economic Problems in Asia and North Africa. The change in the structure of the institute meant the organizational consolidation of a new and important trend - the division of Oriental studies according to the problem-theoretical principle, and not according to the traditionally country-specific one.

Work continued to strengthen the Institute's staff. It was solved in three directions. The first is the invitation of orientalists from various institutions and centers of the country. A number of major orientalists were invited from the republics of Central Asia (among them G. L. Bondarevsky, E. A. Davidovich, Yu. N. Zavadovsky, M. I. Zand, B. A. Litvinsky, A.D. Litman, N. A. Khalfin, etc.), from Leningrad (V. M. Beskrovny, O. F. Volkova, N. D. Gavryushina L. I. Duman, V. P. Logunova, A. S. Tveritinova, I. A. Tovstykh, N. P. Shastina). Secondly, during these years, orientalists who had been repressed at various times began to return from the camps, and B. G. Gafurov showed a certain civic courage at that time, inviting some of them to the institute. Among them were R. A. Ulyanovsk, V. M. Konstantinov, I. M. Filshtinsky, Yu. V. Gankovsky, A. Z. Zusmanovich, G. Z. Sorkin. About 20 progressive political figures from Eastern countries who were in exile in the USSR were accepted to work at the Institute. Some of them, for example, the Iranian Sh. Badi, in the future they will defend their doctoral dissertations. Particularly noteworthy is the return of the outstanding orientalist Yu. N.Roerich from India to Moscow. This happened in 1957. The name of Yuri Nikolaevich is associated with the birth of the Moscow school of classical indology. The third is the training of researchers through postgraduate studies and encouraging candidates of science to defend their doctoral theses. From 1956 to 1966, about 40 doctoral theses were defended at the Institute. In 1968, S. L. Tikhvinsky became a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

In 1968, B. G. Gafurov rises one more step in his academic career. In September, a group of venerable and well-known academic historians-P. N. Pospelov, I. I. Mints, I. M. Maisky, (another signature is not legible) - proposed to elect him an academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The main scientific merit of G. B. Gafurov akademi-

page 28

They considered the works on the ancient history of Central Asia, and also stated that "it was B. G. Gafurov who put forward and justified the thesis about the objective historical progressiveness of the annexation of Central Asia to Russia" ³⁰ . In the same year, B. G. Gafurov was elected an Academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

Later, in 1974, M. A. Korostovtsev will be elected an academician, and in 1976 - a corresponding member of G. F. Kim. Changes in the personnel structure of the Institute created prerequisites for conducting major Oriental studies.

The Institute gradually established an atmosphere of scientific research and creativity. The initial reason for a certain emancipation of the work of Orientalists was, of course, the results of the XX Congress of the CPSU. Most scientists were interested in the long-awaited new trends in literature, art, and the humanities. Members of the editorial staff of Novy Mir, chief director of the Taganka Theater Yu. P. Lyubimov, writer A. I. Solzhenitsyn, poets E. A. Yevtushenko, B. Sh. Okudzhava; exhibitions of officially unrecognized artists and other cultural figures of the democratic direction were organized. Samizdat manuscripts were passed from hand to hand. Later, when the party leadership of the country decided to "rein in" the intellectuals and held several political trials against dissidents, letters of protest began to arrive in support of human rights defenders, which of course interested the special services. Among the" signatories " were orientalists A.M. Pyatigorsky, T. Ya. Elizarenkova, B. L. Ogibenin, Yu. A. Glazov, T. I. Shevtsova, and I. M. Filshtinsky. The leadership of the Institute, although it condemned the "signatories", but treated them with relative tolerance.

The Institute was being rebuilt. The priorities of research work changed - the problems of the national liberation movement, the collapse of the colonial system, the correlation of class forces, the workers ' and communist movements in Afro-Asian countries came to the fore. The Institute's staff began to prepare reference materials and memos for the party organs. This work was considered important and responsible. It involved the most qualified specialists. The report of the Director of the Institute of Asian Peoples of the USSR Academy of Sciences "On the work of the Institute and the plan for 1964-1965" stated:" We tried to bring our science as close as possible to the practical needs of building communism, to assist the noble struggle of the Central Committee of our Party and our government for ensuring universal peace and security of

The main difficulty of studying the current problems of development in Asia and Africa was that this work was followed by a watchful eye from the Old Square. The peculiarity of the party-Leninist approach to Oriental studies consisted primarily in the fact that events in the East were considered as an integral and integral part of the world revolutionary process. The central object of the study of Oriental studies was classes, political parties, class struggle, chronology - modern times and modernity. The main strategic concepts of science were formulated by political figures who do not know the languages and realities of the East. And if the main ideologist of socialism and the revolutionary struggle in the East, V. I. Lenin, was thoroughly familiar with Western European literature and had a powerful intellect, then J. V. Stalin actually did not know the East, with the exception of the Caucasus. N. S. Khrushchev, during the" breakthrough " of the USSR to Asia in the middle of the XX century, which began with his visit to India, he admitted: "Our knowledge of India was, frankly, not only superficial, but also just primitive. I personally drew some of my knowledge about India, don't laugh, from the aria of an Indian guest in Rimsky-Korsakov's opera Sadko:"... You can't count the diamonds in the stone caves "" ³² .

Who initiated the strategic globalist initiative? The initiative of the Soviet Union's breakthrough to the East should be sought in the objective requirements of the VRE-

page 29

First of all, in the wisdom of the Indian leader J. R. R. Tolkien. Nehru, who visited the USSR back in 1927 and closely followed the changes in our country. In June 1955, J. Nehru paid an official visit to the USSR, and in November-December of the same year, N. S. Khrushchev and N. A. Bulganin also paid an official visit to India. Thus, the New deal initiative came from Asia, but Moscow was wise enough to assess the new opportunities. A large group of professional orientalists was invited to the International Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU. They acted as experts on Asian issues. Later, Professor R. A. Ulyanovsk was engaged in the affairs of India and South Asia for a long time.

The Central Committee of the CPSU also assumed the role of curator of Oriental studies at the institutes of the Academy of Sciences. Employees of the Central Committee read the works of scientists in the manuscript or in the layout and gave a detailed, sometimes not entirely objective, conclusion. In 1966, the deputy head of the International Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU, R. A. Ulianovsky, wrote a resolution-conclusion of six points on the text of the layout of N. A. Simony's book "Problems of National Liberation Revolutions of the East", the second of which read:: "The author ignores important documents of the CPSU and the international communist movement-because he secretly criticizes them" ³³. Another innovative book by N. A. Simony "Countries of the East: Ways of Development "was subjected to unfounded criticism in the party magazine"Voprosy Istorii CPSU". S. D. Dylykov, Head of the Mongolian Sector, wrote a monograph entitled "Recent History of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region". The CPSU Central Committee issued an instruction signed by Yu. V. Andropov (at that time a responsible employee of the CPSU Central Committee): "The publication of such a work may cause an undesirable reaction in China, so the Department of the CPSU Central Committee considers it inappropriate to publish S. Dylykov's monograph." ³⁴ The book was not published. B. G. Gafurov himself, in a letter to the Central Committee of the CPSU, also became the object of harsh criticism. The magazine "Asia and Africa Today" (1963, No. 8) reprinted a map of China and Mongolia from a Japanese newspaper, where the borders between the two countries were marked as conditional. The author of the article, lawyer B. G. Sapozhnikov, and the editor-in-chief of the journal B. G. Gafurov, were immediately pointed out for their "irresponsibility" ³⁵ . L. I. Brezhnev signed the strict letter.

And yet, let's take the liberty of saying that it was in Oriental studies that the most interesting innovative ideas appeared, explaining the rapid changes in the world that took place in the middle of the XX century. Perhaps the most important scientific concepts of the peculiarities of the national liberation movement in the countries of Asia and Africa, born in the middle of the XX century, were two: the path of socialist orientation for the liberated countries and the doctrine of the socio-economic diversity of former colonial and dependent countries.

The theory of socialist orientation was not born as a result of studies of the turbulent revolutionary processes in the East, but was necessary in order to give a theoretical "facet" of the party's political aspirations. And it was born in the depths of the apparatus of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Its essence consisted in the fact that a number of strong-willed, national leaders (most often military) established openly dictatorial regimes in the liberated countries, declared their anti-imperialism and commitment to the arbitrarily interpreted socialist idea. At the same time, democratic freedoms were violated in these countries, political parties were banned, communists were repressed, and dissent was persecuted. But the anti-imperialism of these military cliques corresponded to the foreign policy course of the leaders of the USSR, and they warmed it up. The Chief of Staff of the Warsaw Pact Organization, General A. Gribkov, said:: "As soon as a leader in Mozambique, Angola, Ethiopia, or Somalia mentioned the word 'socialism', our leadership immediately picked it up and decided that this country would become a socialist one. " ³⁶

page 30

Once again, self-interest prevailed over principles. The leaders of many communist parties rightly saw the adventurous rise to power of ambitious cliques as a threat to the national liberation movement and profound transformations in Afro-Asian countries. D. Aidit, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Indonesia, and M. A. Suslov, an ideologist of the CPSU, held a conversation in which the Soviet leader argued the position of the CPSU as follows:: "If the non-capitalist path that Lenin justified is not possible, then what is the alternative? Or a non-capitalist path of development, even if it is not entirely scientific socialism, but it creates a basis for strengthening the anti-imperialist struggle... If freedom is presented to the development of capitalism, then there can be no prospect of an anti-imperialist struggle in these countries. " ³⁷ Aidit was not convinced by M. A. Suslov's arguments, and stated:" ... we see two different points of view in relation to the issues that we touched upon. " ³⁸ According to the deputy head of the International Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU K. N. Brutents, the main adept of the theory of socialist orientation was R. A. Ulyanovsk. The theory of socialist orientation was adopted in the circles of Soviet social scientists.

The concept of multi-layered socio-economic development of Afro-Asian countries was most productively and fully developed in the works of A. I. Levkovsky ³⁹ . The theory of multiformity is fruitful and was born on a solid basis of serious research. It can be assumed that it will be vital and it is not threatened with oblivion.

Among the important theories of the peculiarities of the modern national liberation movement, born during the renaissance of Soviet Oriental studies, we should mention the theory of rollback in national revolutions by N. A. Simoniy, ⁴⁰ and G. I. Mirsky's research on the new role of the army in the" third world " ⁴¹ . These works advanced Russian Oriental studies into a number of advanced areas of social sciences.

As for the organizational features of research, the creation of large author teams has become more common for writing capital works. So, 40 people were engaged in creating a 4-volume history of India from antiquity to the Middle Ages. Four volumes were published in 10 years (1959-1969). The two-volume study "Foreign East and modernity" was prepared by the author's team of 50 people. The responsible editor was B. G. Gafurov.

Bobojan Gafurovich Gafurov was an outstanding organizer of Oriental studies, whose name is associated with its renaissance. The period 1956-1976 was a glorious period of serious success of Russian orientalism, associated with victorious changes in the East. The flourishing of Oriental studies was a consequence of the decisions of the XX Congress of the CPSU and is due to the fruitful activity of Academician B. G. Gafurov. B. G. Gafurov died on July 12, 1977 in Dushanbe. In 1977, a corresponding member was appointed Director of the Institute. Academy of Sciences of THE USSR E. M. Primakov.

notes

¹ For more information about him, see: Gavrilov Yu. N. Academician Alexander Andreevich Guber / / Peoples of Asia and Africa. 1982. N 3. Pp. 78-82; Gnevusheva E. L. Academician A. A. Guber. Moscow: GRVL, 1987.

² XX Congress of the CPSU. Verbatim Report, vol. 1 (February 14-25, 1956), pp. 323-324.

³ RGANI. F. 1. Op. 2. D. 23. L. 85.

⁴ Georgy Ivanovich Mordvinov (1896-1966), a Soviet Sinologist and orientalist, was born in the village of Burnashovo, Verkhne-Udinsky Uyezd, Trans-Baikal Province, in the family of a poor man. In 1915, he was drafted into the army and fought on the Southwestern Front. After the 1917 Revolution, he joined the Red Army. He participated in the liquidation of General Dukhonin's headquarters and in the suppression of the Kornilov mutiny. Since 1918, G. I. Mordvinov was an employee of the Cheka in Transbaikalia, where he became one of the organizers of the partisan struggle in the rear of the Japanese troops. After the civil War, he took part in establishing the state border in the Far East. In 1929, he entered the Chinese department of the Narimanov Institute of Oriental Studies, but a year later he was recalled by the OGPU and sent to perform a state assignment in Mongolia. In 1934, it was sent from

page 31

a secret mission to the CER and Harbin. After returning to Moscow, G. I. Mordvinov began working in the eastern department of the Comintern. Since the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, Georgy Ivanovich again works in the state security agencies. In October 1941, he was sent to Turkey to organize an assassination attempt on a prominent figure of the Fascist Reich, Von Papen. He was arrested there and tried by a military tribunal. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison. Released in 1944 due to the breakdown of relations between Turkey and Germany. Since 1946 - chief resident of Soviet intelligence in Manchuria. In 1949, he retired with the rank of colonel. He was awarded the Orders of Lenin, the Red Banner of Battle, the Patriotic War of the 1st degree, and the Mongolian Orders of the Red Banner of the 1st and 2nd degrees. He entered the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1953 and worked there until the end of his life (see Kolpakidi A., Prokhorov D. Foreign Intelligence of Russia, St. Petersburg, Moscow: Neva Publishing House, Olma-Press, 2001, pp. 300-302.

⁵ "The Communist Party won and still wins by loyalty to Leninism" / / Pravda. 5.04.1956.

⁶ For more information, see: Aksyutin Yu. V. New information about the XX Congress of the CPSU // Domestic history. 1998. N 4. P. 119; Khrushchev N. S. Memoirs. Time, people, power. Book 2. Moscow, 1999, p. 792.

⁷ RGANI. F. 5. Op. 16. D. 16. L. 87.

⁸ Party life. 1956. N 6. pp. 19-20.

⁹ Ibid., p. 20.

¹⁰ Archive of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences No. 917 of September 8, 1956. (Resolution of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences No. 485 of September 7, 1956). l. 1-7.

¹¹ Ibid., l. 2.

¹² Ibid., l. 2-3.

¹³ Ibid., l. 7.

¹⁴ For more information, see: Shastitko P. M., Charyeva N. K. How the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies was closed // East (Oriens). 2002. N 6.

¹⁵ RGANI. F. 5. Op. 35. D. 56. L. 13.

¹⁶ Ibid., l. 14.

¹⁷ Ibid., l. 60.

¹⁸ RGASPI. f. 17. Op. 100. d. 362269. L. 65-66.

¹⁹ RGANI. F. 5. Op. 35. D. 56. L. 64.

²⁰ Ibid., l. 65.

²¹ Ibid., l. 66.

²² Cit. by: Oleg Konstantinovich Dreyer, Moscow, 1998, p. 3.

²³ For more information, see: Proceedings of the XXV International Congress of Orientalists. Moscow. 9-16 August 1960, vol. 1 - 5, Moscow, 1962-1964; K totogam XXV Mezhdunarodnogo kongressa vostokovedov [To the results of the XXV International Congress of Orientalists] / / Vestnik AN SSSR, 1960, No. 10; XXV International Congress of Orientalists / / Problemy vostokovedeniya, 1960, No. 5; Novy etap v istorii vostokovedeniya // Modern East. 1960. N 9.

²⁴ RGANI. f. 5. Op. 35. d. 118. L. 160.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Proceedings of the XXV International Congress of Orientalists, p. 43.

²⁷ Ibid., p. 49.

²⁸ Ibid., p. 48.

²⁹ Ibid., pp. 65-66.

³⁰ RGASPI. f. 17. Op. 100. d. 362269. L. 88-89.

³¹ Cit.Based on: Kulagina I. M., Kuznetsova N. A. Iz istorii sovetskogo vostokovedeniya 1917 - 1967. Moscow, 1970. pp. 167-168.

^{Khrushchev N. S.} 32 Memoirs. Time, people, power. Book 3. Moscow, 1999, p. 317.

³³ Cit. By: Simoniya N. A. Oleg Dreyer - izdatel ' i chelovek [Oleg Dreyer-publisher and Man].

³⁴ RGANI. F. 5. Op. 35. d. 118. L. 36.

³⁵ RGASPI. f. 17. Op. 100. D. 362269. L. 39.

^{Mirskii, G.} 36, The Struggle of two systems for the Third World and its Results, Vostok-Zapad-Rossiya, Moscow: Progress, 2002, p. 72.

^{Brutents K. N.} 37 Thirty years on the Old Square, Moscow, 1998, p. 288.

³⁸ Ibid., p. 263.

³⁹ See: Levkovsky A. I. The Third World in the modern world (Some problems of socio-economic development of multi-layered states). Moscow, 1970; on. The petty bourgeoisie. The image and fate of the class, Moscow, 1978.

⁴⁰ See: Simoniya N. A. Strany Vostoka: puti razvitiya [Countries of the East: Ways of Development], Moscow, 1975.

⁴¹ See: Mirsky G. I. The role of the army in the political life of the Third World countries, Moscow, 1989.

Permanent link to this publication: