Turks in Bulgaria (Flame-War Warning)

In 1878 when Bulgaria won its freedom after the Ottoman-Russian war, the situation for the Turks changed completely. Turkish scholars claim that this war changed the population balance in favor of the Bulgarians, while around one million Turks were uprooted from their homes and some 350,000 were killed or died of hunger and epidemics (Carnegie Endowment, 1914). �The Turkish minority in Bulgaria was formed according to the classical patterns where, as a result of the disintegration of a multi-national empire and the drawing of new state borders, a nationality until recently dominant in political life proves isolated from its principal ethnic mass and is forced into a rudimentary existence in an alien environment� (Stoyanov, 1994:268).

During and after the Balkan wars and the First World War, Muslim emigration picked up (Eminov, 1997:48). According to a Bulgarian estimate, approximately 350,000 left between 1880 and 1911. Between the World Wars, some 150,000-200,000 Turks emigrated, mainly on the basis of the Turkish-Bulgarian agreement of 1925 (Hoepken, 1997:55)

However, it is notable that Bulgarian governments in this period (1878-1944) tried to comply with the arrangements of international and bilateral agreements guaranteeing the rights of minorities (Eminov, 1997:49). So to say, there was no open legal discrimination against or political oppression of the Turkish and Muslim communities. According to Neuburger (1997) the newly elected king of Bulgaria, Alexander of Battenburg proclaimed �I shall love all my subjects regardless of their creed.� Around the beginning of the 20^th century, Turks had a cultural and religious autonomy. The Bulgarian state did not interfere in the application of the religious � Sheriat � legal system, the self-administration of Turkish schools, the publishing and spreading of books and periodicals in Turkish. With the spread and popularization of �Westernization� and social change at this time effected the Turks as the Turkish geographical names were changed for Bulgarian ones.

However, this period may also be marked as the creation of image of liberation from the �Ottoman Yoke� and Bulgarian nation. Bulgarian cultural efforts such as Ivan Vazov�s �Pod Igoto� (Under the Yoke) and Aleko Konstantinov�s �Bai Ganyu� contributed into this process (Neuburger, 1997). Moreover, in this period, late 19 ^th and early 20 ^th centuries, supported by the Imperial Russian Academy of Sciences, Stoyu Shishkov did an enthnographic study on the so called �Pomaks� � Slavic speaking Muslims � of Southern Bulgaria. In his study he tried to scientifically prove the �Bulgarian-ness� of these partially �Turkified� and �Islamicized� people. According to Shishkov the �Turks� who were in Bulgarian soil were also the product of the �Ottoman Assimilation politics� and they eventually lost their Bulgarian heritage (Neuburger, 1997).    

These compiled into a discrimination against the Turkish minority which started after the June 9 ^th 1923 coup, and the ousting of Alexander Stamboliiski�s government. The promised 3 million leva subvention for the Turkish schools was not given by the government; teachers of these schools were deprived of their right of retirement; the schools lost their autonomy; the Turkish participation in political life was reduced. While there were 10 Turkish MPs in the Bulgarian National Assembly (1923), in 1925 the number dropped to only 5 and in 1933 there were 4 Turkish MPs left (Stoyanov, 1994:270).

 

The ascending of Kemalism in new Turkish Republic changed the relations between the Bulgarian state and the Turkish minority even more. Bulgarian and Turkish historians interpret the impact of Kemalism on Bulgarian Turks differently. While the Bulgarians claim that it was a kind of �Panturkism� aiming at the transformation of the Bulgarian Turks into Ankara�s tools, the Turkish say that Kemalism succeeded in transforming the Bulgarian Turks into an �ethnically conscious Turkish minority� (Hoepken, 1997:61). Still some other authors claim that ethnic Turks in Bulgaria did not justify any interest in Kemalism. It is because the Kemalism was extremely secular, it did not match the views held by the majority of the Turks. What is more, the Bulgarian government was interested in the strengthening of the anti-Kemalist forces, it supported everything directed against Kemalism, including the Muslim religion (Hoepken, 1997:61).

 

In 1926 the Turan Union which was a pro-Kemalist nationalist organization uniting all Turkish cultural, sports and educational societies,  and which developed a political activity, was founded in Bulgaria. In 1930s and 40s, some local Bulgarian �patriotic� organizations (e.g. Rodna Zashtita) started maltreating the Turkish minority, the Turks were forced to speak Bulgarian and their religious practices were restricted. The situation became even worse after the Military Coup (May 19, 1934) when Turkish political parties and organizations were banned, while schools and periodicals reduced in number. All this was accompanied by a mass anti-Bulgarian campaign in Turkey which there were even appeals for military intervention. The period 1936-1937 saw the signing of an agreement between the two governments for the long-term limited emigration of 10,000 Turks annually (Stoyanov, 1994:270-271).

 

The consolidation of power by the Communist party in Bulgaria did not bring considerable changes in the policy towards the ethnic Turks. There was   pressure on religion, but on the other hand, education and modernization were encouraged. Moreover, there was same amount of atheist pressure from the secular Bulgarian government on all the religious communities in the country (Hoepken, 1997:64). Although freedom of conscience and religion was an integral part of the Dimitrov Constitution adopted in 1947, the new government made a conscious effort to undermine the religious practices of both Muslims and Christians in Bulgaria (Eminov, 1997:51-52). This policy had a limited success. For example, even in the early 1950s, after a massive campaign for Communist Party membership among the Turks of Bulgaria, which made up just five per cent of the Party members (Hoepken, 1997:66). The oppressive applications of this time resulted in the sudden emigration of 155,000 Turks to Turkey in the summer of 1950 and 1951. Bulgarian state supported this emigration as the idea was that these emigrants could also  export the communist ideology into Turkey and sending this many people into Turkey could punish Turkey for its participation in the Korean war. (Petkova, 2002)

Dictated by Moscow, Bulgarian state attemted to integrate the Turkish minority into the �proletariat brotherhood� through Bulgarian-Turkish Communist educated cadres (Neuburger, 1997). The goal of this campaign was to undermine not only religious affiliation, but also the separate ethnic identity of these minority groups. Thus, scolars from Azarbaijan were brought to Bulgaria in 1960�s to educate Turkish teachers who would constitute the base for the Communist education and world view among ethnic Turks. Some Turkish students were also sent to Baku University in Azarbaijan. Neuburger (1997) states that �Between 1940 � 1960 the Bulgarian state provided state cultural institutions for Turks while liquidating autonmous ones. Furthermore, the regime subjected  Turkish traditions to a massive �campaign of ridicule�, also de-veiling the Turkish women and providing night classes for Turkish women to teach them the modern life and aiming at overcoming religious fanaticism and family conservatism.�

According to Eminov the Turks in Bulgaria were recognized as distinct minority into the 1970s. Turks were even encouraged to develop Turkish ethnic institutions such as native language primary and secondary schools, teacher-training instututes and educational institutes, ethnic press, ethnic theatres, clubs and so on. These institutions were intended to serve as a vehicle for assimilation of Turks, because these same institutions were used to disseminate assimilationist programs and values.  However, these institutions strengthened the Turkish identity, and consequently were denied support by the state and finally were eliminated.

The new constitution -- Zhivkov�s Constitution -- of 1971 spoke of �citizens of non-Bulgarian extraction� (Art. 45 (7)) and �in 1977 the BCP proclaimed that Bulgaria already was �almost of a single ethnic type and was nearing complete homogeneity�� (Mutafchieva, 1994:35). This led to the change of the minority policy of the Bulgarian state. In 1971, the assimilation of the country�s minority populations became an explicit oficial policy (Eminov).  As shown in Eminov, the term �unified Bulgarian nation� appeared in the official press in 1973, in 1977 the Communist Party daily newspaper Rabotnichesko Delo, in an article, defined Bulgaria as �almost completely of one ethnic type and moving toward complete national homogenity.� And in 1979, the party leader Todor Zhivkov claimed that �the Bulgarian national question has been solved definitively and categorically by the population itself.� 

 

In 1984 there was a radical change of strategy regarding the minorities. The Bulgarian government excluded the term �Turk� from official discourse, and replaced it by �Muslim Bulgarian citizens� or �Bulgarians with restored [Bulgarian] names,� implying that the so-called �Turks� were �Bulgarians� in origin. New history books were written to avoid the term �Turks.� Bulgarian historians went further by eliminating the references of Turkish existence in the Balkan Peninsula. The population growth of Turkish community in the late 1960s and 1970s and the increasing awareness of Turkish identity after the Cyprus affair were undoubtedly among the motivating factors for these actions. During the mid 1970s most Turkish schools were closed and Turkish language newspapers and journals were terminated. (Eminov,  1997; Neuburger , 1997)

 

The peak of this policy turned into practice in 1984-1985 with the so-called �Revivalist Process� (known as Vuzroditelen Protses/Revival Process/Rebirth Campaign/Regeneration Process). The first phase was called �priobshtavane� (�inclusion�, �unity�), which declared the Turkish minority to have nothing to do with Turks in the Turkish motherland (Hoepken, 1997:67; Amnesty International, 1986:9; Neuburger, 1997). The formulation of Stoyu Shishkov was put into action in this period. In 1965 a special team of scholars at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences was set up to prove that all Bulgarian Turks had been forcibly converted to Islam and �Bulgarian blood runs in their veins� (Mutafchieva, 1994:34)

During the Revivalist Process (between 1984-1989), the Party launched a direct attack on the identity of the Turkish population. It forcefully changed their names to Bulgarian ones, banned public use of the Turkish language and Muslim religious rituals (Hoepken, 1997:67-69). This was nothing new in the state�s approach, between 1960 � 1976 it had changed the names of some 220,000 Bulgarian Pomaks. Between 1981 and 1983 the Gypsies underwent the same process, and finally between 1984 and 1985 Turkish minority was forced to change their muslim and Turkish names into Bulgarian names. So, in March 1985, Bulgaria was at last a unified single nation state, where everyone living in Bulgaria was Bulgarian.

 

According to Pulton (1993) on December 24, 1984 thousands of Turkish people gathered in Benkovski (Kurdzhali district) and on December 27, 1984 outside the Momchilgrad Town Hall, to protest the changing of their names. The demonstrtations were met by army units and then by members of the elite special security force (i.e. the �red berets�). In late January-early February 1985 the town of Yablanovo in eastern Stara Planina was sieged by Bulgarian army forces for three days and according to some reports there were 34 were killed and 29 or 30 were taken to the Kotel hospital with gunshot wounds. There were also many Turkish activists who were arrested and detained in the prison camp in Belene. Although their exact numbers cannot be stated, estimates range from 450 to 1,000 ethnic Turk prisoners in connection with the Revivalist Process (Poulton, 1993:142; Amnesty International, 1986:14).

During the name-changing phase of the campaign, Turkish towns and villages were surrounded by army units. Citizens were issued new identity cards with Bulgarian names. Failure to present a new card meant forfeiture of salary, pension payments, and bank withdrawals. Birth or marriage certificates would be issued only in Bulgarian names. Traditional Turkish costumes were banned; homes were searched and all signs of Turkish identity removed. Mosques were closed. According to estimates, 500 to 1,500 people were killed when they resisted assimilation measures, and thousands of others went to labor camps or were forcibly resettled. According to Fountarova (��) �in this period all Turkish language courses were prohobited. Assimilation meant that Turkish could no longer be taught at all, and the Turkish language was forbidden, even at home. Fines were levied for speaking Turkish in public.� (Country Studies-Bulgaria Handbook, 2003)

Religious practices were hindered and �the traditional Muslim burial rituals were characterized as contrary to socialist practice and were replaced with a �socialist� burial ritual� (Eminov, 1997:59). Women weraing traditional clothes were not served by the stores and restaurants. Circumcision of young Muslim boys was banned, if performed the family and the person who realized the ritual were punished (Eminov, 1997:58-61; Amnesty International, 1986:9).

 

Bulgarian state declared no official resistance to the Revivalist Process. On the contrary, it was described as �a new force, a spontaneous and comprehensive process of reconstructing the Bulgarian names of our compatriots who had Turkish-Arabic names. Moreover, people of Bulgaria became conscious of their Bulgarian origins and reconsidered their own past. So, they chose to change their names and to integrate into the Bulgarian nation again. Turks in Bulgaria were thus presented as people who �were exposed to the intensive working over of bourgeois Turkish propaganda, which created nationalism, religious confusion, and a conservative life-style. The reactionary forces in neighboring Turkey made futile efforts to speak in the name of the citizens with Turkish-Arabic names living in Bulgaria and arbitrary to draw them into the Turkish nation. The reconstruction of the Bulgarian names will contribute to withdrawing the reactionary Turkish influence from our co-citizens so that they can live peacefully and without contradiction (Amnesty International, 1986). This was the Bulgarian explanation of the Revivalist Process.

Internationally, the name-changing campaign in Bulgaria was met with severe condemnation, NATO statement dating August 9, 1989 says that �there, unfortunately, exists a grave situation in Bulgaria. Policies of forced assimilation and repression against Bulgarian citizens of Turkish origin have continued for nearly 5 years in contravention of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) documents.� Turkish sources claimed that hundreds of Turks were killed during the campaign; the names of Turks who were already dead were changed; the fathers and grandfathers of the Turks were also given Bulgarian names, so that the claim of common Bulgarian descent is substantiated (Simsir, 1988:29).

 

The Bulgarian government tried to defend itself against the condemnation, sometimes using curious arguments. On August 26, 1985 at the 38^th Session of the Sub-commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in Geneva, Valentin Bozhilov, Deputy Permanent Representative of Bulgaria to the UN, cited Midhat Pasha, the Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire, who wrote in a French journal in 1878, �Firstly, it must be borne in mind that among the Bulgarians who arouse so much interest there are more than one million Moslems. These Moslems did not come from Asia to establish themselves in Bulgaria, as it is widely believed. They are themselves descendants of those Bulgarians converted to Islam at the time of the conquest and during the following years. They are children of one common country, from one common race, and share a common origin� (AI, 1986:39).

 

Todor Zhivkov made a public speech on the National Television on May 29, 1989. In his speech, he asked Turkey to open up its borders to every Bulgarian Muslim willing to emigrate. This speech provoked a real emigration euphoria in the compact Turkish areas of Bulgaria, which resulted in the fact that in the summer of 1989 half of the work force in Bulgarian agriculture was lost due to the unprecedented �Big Excursion.� In the period May-August, 369,839 people left for Turkey. Some 320,000 of them managed to cross the border. By the end of the year, 154,937 people (42 per cent of the total number of emigrants) returned to Bulgaria as they were disappointed by the reception on the Turkish side, while 214,902 stayed in Turkey (Stoyanov, 1998:204-214).

 

On July 18, 1989 the Senate of the 101^st Congress of the USA voted unanimously on the Byrd-DeConcini Amendment No.279. This amendment expressed �the sense of the Congress condemning Bulgaria�s brutal treatment of its Turkish minority� and it allocated about $10 million as assistance to the Republic of Turkey, in order for the latter to cope with the huge influx of refugees (Senate Record Vote, 1989).

 

After the downfall of the Zhivkov regime and the return of a part of the Bulgarian Turks who had emigrated in 1989, the government allowed restoration of the Turkish and Arabic names through the Names of Bulgarian Citizens Act (March 1990). �By March 1991 more than 600,000 Turks, Bulgarian Muslims and Roma had already applied for re-appropriation of their old �Islamic-Arabic� names� (Hoepken, 1997:72). Regardless of all the positive developments after the fall of communism, ethnic Turks in Bulgaria still face some problems that resulted from the neglect of their minority status in the country.

 

The Post-communist Bulgarian government and the parliament condemned the �Regeneration Process�, as a result Turks of Bulgaria today are politically represented in the Bulgarian Parliament by �The Movement for Rights and Freedoms� (MRF). MRF even went into the govenrment through a coalition with the Union of Democratic Forces Party (UDF). The founder of the Turkish political Party was Ahmed Dogan, a former prisoner who was imprisoned during 1986-1989 for opposition to Zhivkov�s assimilation policy. Today, one of the Vice-presidents of 39th Bulgarian National Assembly is Turkish in origin, Younal Loutfi. He has been a founder of MRF and an MP since 1990. In the 39th Bulgarian National Assembly there are some 20 deputies from MRF and 1 independent deputy of Turkish origin.        

 

Originally posted by Kapikulu When did the assimilation process of Turks in Bulgaria has begun? I know it had got the maximum momentum at Zhivkov's era,but when was the time this policy had exactly began?

The policy of the Bulgarian state has always been that of continous assimilation or integration depending on how you look at it.

During the early precommunist (before 1944) Turks enjoyed a wide cultural autonomy. We had our own schools in Turkish.

But once communist arrived the state began to be increasing oppressive, and the oppressive policies reached their climax in the 80s when our names were changed. Peaceful protests for the restoration of the names were crusshed brutally by the red barrets, the special forces of the state .

Today there are virtually no restrictions. But concerning minorities the Bulgarian constitution is quite stringent. The study of turkish is free, but is not encouraged by the state.

The true beginning of the assimilation process (in Bulgaria this process is known as "The Rebirth Process") is in 1984 year. In 1984 the bulgarian communistic government make the decide all turks who lives in Bulgaria to be declared as bulgarians. The assimilation plan begins with the changing of the Islamic and the Turkic names of the bulgarian turks, with bulgarian names. Also, the free speaking of the turkish language was forbidden for this people, who are affected of the assimilation process. In the assimilation process was not included changing of the religion, because the communists are (and everyone knows this well) atheists. This is happened in 1984 year. This process continues up to the autumn of 1989 year, when, after 45 years of communistic horrible rule, the communistic government is at last  overthrown.

Edited by The Chargemaster

Red_Lord,

The thing about having a turkish name is Turkey is nonsense as Turkish citizens in this forum may confirm.

But concerning minority rights in general in some sense you are right about the fact that minority rights in Bulgaria are better in Bulgaria than in Tukey.

Most of the developments in Bulgaria have taken place as a result of the countries EU drive, and the oppressive policies have been eradicated.

Turkey is far behind, but it is good to see that it is being forced to improve its record under EU pressure as well. I have yet to see an openly kurdish member have an influential role int he countries polilcymaking for example.

Concerning your suggestion that the names of Bulgarian citizens should end with -OV I must say I absolutely disagree. This is simply another concealed form of assimilation which is unacceptable, a legacy of a bygone era. Everybody should be entitled to chose their name without any restrictions.

In Turkey for instance concerning kurdish anmes there was a problem with spelling. The turkish alphabet lacked letters such as w, q that are widely used in the kurdish alphabet, so Kurds could not spell their names they wanted. It was a big issue in Turkey, but in BUlgaria it is not an issue as far as I know. So far no one has asked to Latin rather than Cyrillic.

No prob bro by writting is riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes as well. I hope there is no requirement for spelling proficiency in this forum

Originally posted by The Chargemaster "Diaspora" is a kind of "Ethnic Minority". The people, who are "diaspora", came(are coming) in the territories where they live, after the people, who is the founder of the State, where are these territories at this moment.

We were here much before the Bulgarian state was formed in 1878. There was no Bulgarian NATION state before that, what you had was a protoslavic empire, an absolute monarcy, which other than name and some distant ethnic link has hardly any connection with the Bulgaria of today.

In any case due to the mixing during the Ottoman Empire many of use probably carry mixed blood as well.

"Ethnic Minority", in classical acceptation/meaning of this word, is an ethnic, racial, religious, or other group having a distinctive presence within a society, and the people, who are "ethnic minoriry", came(are coming) in the territories where they live, before the people, who is the founder of the State, where are these territories at this moment.

Could you please give a reference? I agree with the first part but the second one seems to be quite arbitrary? The second part of it seems to be quite arbitrary to me. did you just make it up ?

The ancestors of the today`s bulgarian turks came(are coming) for a first time in the Balkan peninsula in the second half of XIV century, and the bigger part of them - between XVI-XVIII centuries. The Bulgarians, the Serbs, the Croats, the Romanians and especially the Greeks were living in these lands many centuries before the coming of the ancestors of the today`s bulgarian turks. For that reason, is more correctly, the today`s bulgarian turks to be defined like "diaspora", not just like "ethnic minority".

The ancestors of the Bulgarians, the protobulgars came on these lands in 681, at a time when these territories belonged to the Greeks. For this reason Bulgarians should not be called an ethnic majority in Bulgaria, but instead a diaspora on Greek land, how about that?

In any case to call me a "diaspora" on my land, land on which I was born, land on which my ancestors are berried, land that I have grown up on and a on which my forefathers have lived for hundreds of years in unacceptable. I belong to this land, and this land belongs to me as much as it does to my Bulgarian neighbor. 

 

Edited by bg_turk

We'll all end up a diaspora of the Archebacteria.

Are you talking about this man?

http://www.rusbg.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10003/thumb_boj idar_dimitrov.jpg

This man is a joke, a fervant bulgarian nationalist. Didn't he also talk on SKAT in the program "Site bulgari zaedno" with a map on the background showing Bulgaria on three sees.

Would that so called historian also care to talk about the memory of the crimes comiited against the Turks by the Bulgarians like this one for example:

No. 6. EARLY EVENTS AT KUKUSH, in the autumn of 1912. The Catholic priest Gustave Michel, superior of the mission at Kukush, gave the following information to the correspondent of Le Temps (July 10). He could testify to certain massacres perpetrated by the Bulgarian bands at Kurkut. A Bulgarian band led by Donchev shut all the men of the place in the mosque, and gathered the women round it, in order to oblige them to witness the spectacle. The comitadjis then threw three bombs at the mosque but it was not blown up; they then set fire to it, and all who were shut up in it, to the number of about 700 men, were burnt alive. Those who attempted to flee were shot down by comitadjis posted round the mosque, and Pere Michel found human heads, arms, and legs lying about half burned in the streets. At Planitsa, Donchev's band committed still worse atrocities. It first drove all the men to the mosque and burnt them alive; it then gathered the women and burnt them in their turn in the public square. At Rayonovo a number of men and women were massacred; the Bulgarians filled a well with their corpses. At Kukush the Moslems were massacred by the Bulgarian population of the town and their mosque destroyed. All the Turkish soldiers who fled without arms and arrived in groups from Salonica were massacred.

Would he also comment on the autrocities of the Bulgarian army during the invasion of Odrin?

Would he be decent enough to declare that the Revival Process was wrong, it was an undegnified act and a crime against humanity?

No! In fact I have seen him justify this brutal crime as being in the interests of Bulgaria. In my eyes he is just a tunnelvisioned Bulgarian nationalist, no nationalist is too mild a word, he is actually shauvinist, whom I have no interest to watch at all.

Concerning you misconception that I am a member of a diaspora, pkease forget about it and swallow the bitter pill that I am equal to you and I am deeply rooted in this land. You will not manage to cut my roots by calling me a diaspora or by trying to pursuade me in a theory that I have been a bulgarian before (thats what you think I suppose since you are a fan of that Dimitrov). Please, let me make a few things clear to you:

I am a Turkish and it is an undeniable fact. For years we have endured countless harrassments to our ethnic identities and regardless we have managed to preserve it.

Our names have been changed, but did we waiver? No, we restored them.

Our mosques have been closed, did we waiver? No, we continued to follow our religion at home.

Our traditions were looked down upon as backward, did we waiver? No, we held on to them.

Our language was banned, but did we waiver? No, we kept our language, and taught it to our children.  

Our grandfathers names were changed on their tombstones, did we waiver? No, we restored them too.

I will never ever call myself Bulgarian, I simply remain Turkish and this is my own land, a land which is under the soveregnity of the Republic of Bulgaria of which I am a citizen. I have been a citizen of that state, my father has been a ctizien, my grandfather, oh the way back until Kurdzhali was occupied in The First Balkan. Now how can you take control of a land and at the same time declare that its inhabitants in this case the Turks are a diaspora on that land? How does that make sense at all? Please wake up and smell the coffee! 

You assimilatory policy will fail, it has failed before, and it will fail again. Let us not repeat the mistakes of before, and try to make this ethnic model where everybody respects everybody elses religion, language and equality. Believe this will be the best for my and your children as well.

Edited by bg_turk

You got the guy all wrong BG. He was simply trying to use a more correct term. No one has ever denied you're a Turk. Whether you call it a dioaspora or minority it still remains TURKISH. Don't be so suspecious, he's not saying you're a Bulgarian.

YES, THAT`S RIGHT!

And, bg_turk, NEVER CALL ME "ASSIMILATOR" AGAIN !!!

Edited by The Chargemaster

Please do not use Bg flag to make turkish propaganda.