This article attempts to analyze the circumstances and reasons for the closure of the only specialized Oriental studies university in the Soviet Union, carried out on the basis of a short-sighted decision of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of July 1, 1954 (No. 1341).

The Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies was the successor of the famous Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages, founded in 1815 by the wealthy Armenian philanthropists brothers Ivan and Joachim Lazarev as a gymnasium for training "pupils of Armenian and other nationalities". ¹ . At the end of 1827, the school was named Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages.

The Bolshevik leaders were able to appreciate the need to train specialists in the East for the future of the Soviet state. September 7, 1920 The Council of People's Commissars decided:

"1. To teach live Oriental subjects of practical Oriental studies, the former Lazarevsky (now Armenian) Institute in Moscow is being transformed into the Central Institute of Living Oriental Languages.

2. The development of regulations on the Central Institute is entrusted to the People's Commissariat of Education together with the People's Commissariat of Education and the People's Commissariat of Education.

3. The Central Institute is under the general jurisdiction of the People's Commissariat of Education, the People's Commissariat of Education and the People's Commissariat of Education, and the approval of the composition of teachers and curricula remains with the People's Commissariat of Education. Commissars of the Institute and its branches are appointed by the People's Commissariat of Education.

Recruitment of the Institute by students, the entire organization of economic and educational affairs is carried out by the People's Commissariat of Education. The distribution of graduates of the Institute is made through the People's Commissariat of Education and the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs " ² .

The decree was signed by the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V. I. Ulyanov (Lenin).

The regulations on the Institute stated:

"1. The Central Institute of Living Languages is approved for teaching living Oriental languages and subjects of Oriental studies.

2. The purpose of the Institute is to enable persons preparing for practical activities in the East or in connection with the East in any field (economic, administrative-political, ... diplomatic, translation, etc.) to acquire the necessary Oriental knowledge and complete a systematic school of practical Oriental studies, as well as to train teachers and qualified instructors for practical courses oriental studies" ³ .

On October 27, 1927, the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopted a resolution on the merger of all Moscow Oriental educational institutions into one higher educational institution - the Narimanov Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies. The Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies (MIV) was a party, political university that trained specialists in Oriental studies.-

page 88

sheets for practical work in the East. Its first rector was a prominent military orientalist, General of the Russian Army, Professor A. E. Snesarev, who headed the Institute from 1921 to 1926.

In April 1924, the MIV was placed at the disposal of the Central Election Commission of the USSR. In 1926-1927, the Institute underwent structural changes: four departments were created : the Middle East with Arabic, Persian and Turkish sectors; the Middle East with one Industan sector; the Far East with Chinese and Japanese sectors; Languages and dialects of the Caucasus and Transcaucasia. The term of study at the Institute has changed from three years to four years. Programs have increased as a result of the inclusion of the teaching of Marxism-Leninism. In 1930, a graduate school was first opened at the IIV. The institute was located at 2/15 Maroseyka Street.

Organizational changes at the Institute in search of forms of state influence on the training of Oriental specialists continued. In 1936, by a decision of the Central Election Commission, it was reorganized into an academy-type educational institution. It accepted persons with higher education and necessarily party members with at least five years of experience. The main content of teaching was the study of Eastern and Western languages, as well as the history of the countries of the East, and therefore the studies of the disciplines of the Marxist-Leninist cycle were reduced. The conclusions followed quickly: in 1937, arrests began at the institute, followed by new changes. As the institute's teachers, associate Professors M. Blagoveshchensky and P. Fesenko, wrote, "the hostile leadership that got into the institute did everything possible to disarm the students politically by removing the study of Marxism-Leninism from the curriculum." ⁴ During 1938-1940, the "consequences of wrecking" were eliminated: the Institute's program included the study of the history of the CPSU(b). The Institute was once again reorganized and now transferred to the jurisdiction of the All-Union Committee of Higher Education under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR. The Institute was assigned the task of training reference translators who speak the Eastern language, know the history, economy, state structure of the country and one of the Western languages. The term of study at the Institute was set at three years. Persons with secondary education and who are party members or Komsomol members were admitted to the IIV. The military department was added to the existing faculties. (He will later join the Military Institute of Foreign Languages.)

The library of the Institute was significantly replenished with books from other educational institutions and totaled 245 thousand volumes. MIWa established its own publishing house (more than 20 publications were published in 1940).

During the war, MIV was evacuated to the city of Ferghana in the Uzbek SSR, but continued to train students. At the end of 1943, the Institute returned to Moscow and received the former building of the Institute of Philosophy of Literature and History (IFLI), located in Sokolniki (Rostokinsky Proezd, 13A). The MIV was fully staffed and started regular scheduled admission of students. Two small dorm buildings were provided for nonresidents in the Alekseyevsky campus of the MIVu.

The revolutionary socio-economic changes in Asia and Africa in the mid-twentieth century forced some party leaders of the Asian republics of our country to show concern about the state of training of Oriental specialists. Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Tajikistan B. G. Gafurov in a letter dated May 11, 1950, sent to the Central Committee of the CPSU(b) addressed to Secretary G. M. Malenkov, wrote:".. .The victory of the People's Liberation movement in China is having an increasing impact on all the countries of the East every day... The influence of revolutionary China especially affects the situation in India and Pakistan. There is no doubt that in the near future we will witness major events in these countries. However, we are very poorly prepared for these events. " ⁵ The main condition for getting out of a difficult situation is considered by the author to be-

page 89

tal radical improvement of Oriental studies education: "Orientalists' cadres are trained in the following areas:: Institute of Oriental Studies in Moscow, eastern faculties of Moscow, Leningrad, Tbilisi, Yerevan and Tashkent Universities. The cadres produced by these educational institutions are at an extremely low level. In 1947 - 1948 - 1949 Groups of graduates of these educational institutions came to Tajikistan to practice. Almost all of them cannot speak Hindustani, Urdu and Pashto, and only with the help of dictionaries are they able to translate light text. Graduates of the Institute of Oriental Studies and Oriental Faculties have little knowledge of the geography, history, ethnography of Eastern countries and the current situation in them.

I believe that it is now extremely necessary to take a number of urgent measures to correct this situation. To do this, in my opinion, it is necessary:

1. Concentrate qualified and experienced orientalists in Moscow for training, as well as reorganize and expand the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies.

2. Seriously expand the Eastern faculty of Leningrad University by inviting people who know the Eastern countries well from other cities of the Soviet Union.

3. To study the languages of Hindustani, Urdu, Pashto and Arabic, invite and use Communist emigrants or Soviet citizens who know the languages of these peoples theoretically and practically.

4. Due to the fact that Tajiks are culturally very close to Hindus and Afghans, organize a department for the study of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan at the Faculty of History and Philology of the Tajik State University.

5. In the post-graduate and doctoral programs of the Institute of Oriental Studies, select Communists and politically proven people who have previously graduated from the Institute of Oriental Studies and Oriental faculties, specializing in knowledge of languages, geography, history, ethnography and the current situation of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Arab countries. At the same time, these people will need to be well-versed in political matters and have organizational skills.

I think that postgraduates and doctoral students who will study the East need to create the same conditions as at the Academy of Social Sciences. " ⁶

G. M. Malenkov instructed the responsible employees of the Central Committee to respond to B. G. Gafurov's letter. Kruzhkov, Yu. Zhdanov, M. Yakovlev. They limited themselves to a general non-specific answer. But the Central Committee of the CPSU itself expressed concern about the state of Oriental studies and the training of Oriental specialists. On the instructions of M. A. Suslov, the staff of the office of D. Shepilov and A. Lyapin prepared a report "On the state of scientific work in the field of Oriental studies" ⁷, in which, in particular, they wrote about the problems in the training of Orientalists. "Training of specialists in Oriental studies in universities and scientific institutions," it said, " lags behind the growing needs of scientific and practical work, and is conducted without taking into account our increased state interests in the countries of the Near, Middle and Far East... In many important countries of the East, specialists are not prepared at all... The neglect of training personnel in the modern and contemporary history of the East is a serious obstacle to the development of Soviet Oriental studies. " ⁸

At the beginning of the 1950s, about 250-300 people were admitted to the IIV annually; in 1954, a total of 896 people studied at the Institute. The two faculties (Middle East and Far East) had the following departments: Chinese, Uyghur, Mongolian, Japanese, Korean, Turkish, Iranian, Indian, Arabic, Afghan and Indonesian. Those who graduated from the institute knew the eastern language of the country under study, its history, economy, and the Western language (English or French).

page 90

a thorough training in Marxist-Leninist disciplines (a significant part of the academic time was allocated for their study). In different years, the official entry in the diploma of the received specialty was formulated differently: "orientalist"," country reference","country specialist".

In 1948-1952, the director of the Institute was a former employee of the Ministry of Foreign Trade D. I. Tarkovsky, and from 1952 to 1954-an Iranist K. A. Boldyrev, who previously worked at the Moscow State University Faculty of History. The teaching staff of the Institute was extremely diverse. Along with the departments headed by such major Orientalists as Academician V. A. Gordlevsky, corresponding member N. K. Dmitriev, professors Kh. K. Baranov, G. D. Sanzheev, G. N. Voitinsky, E. Ya. Bregel, N. F. Yakovlev and others, there were departments with weak teaching staff. Thus, the Department of Indian Languages had only one candidate of Sciences, and its head, V. S. Meresh, did not have a scientific title or degree, but also an Oriental education in general. Serious damage to the teaching staff of the Institute was caused during the "purges" during the struggle against "cosmopolitanism"and " marrism". In particular, Prof. N. F. was expelled as an "unarmed terrorist". Yakovlev.

In the 1950s, when the countries of South-East Asia were experiencing tumultuous events, the management of the Institute showed neither the will, nor the organizational abilities, nor the professionalism to provide training for orientalists. The Institute did not train specialists in Burma, the Philippines, Laos, Cambodia, or Ceylon at all. Of course, there were objective difficulties: there were no specialists in these countries in the country. In 1952 alone, five graduates with a penchant for languages and a command of French were directed to study Vietnam in graduate school with the prospect of teaching the Vietnamese language, history and economy of the country to future students. No attempt was made to prepare for the training of students specializing in Black African countries. At the same time, several dozen students were admitted to the Uyghur and Mongolian departments every year, although there was no great need for them. It seemed that the management of the Institute was primarily concerned with ensuring the academic load of teachers, and not with the future fate of graduates.

The situation was unsatisfactory with textbooks, dictionaries of Oriental languages, and methodological manuals. There was a bushiness of teaching.

The distribution of graduates of the institute did not take place within the strict planned framework of a socialist university, but resembled a labor exchange. The needs of practical institutions related to the East have been poorly studied.

As a result, serious disruptions have occurred in the operation of the IIA, which require urgent measures. A contradiction has matured: the country needed Orientalists, and the institute trained specialists who were not required by practical organizations. There was another important factor at that time: admission of students to the Institute was carried out on a general basis, and graduates with "dysfunctional questionnaires" experienced difficulties in the distribution. As a result, 57 out of 220 graduates did not get a job in 1953, and another 257 students had to be assigned in 1954. It should be noted that the cost of training one specialist in the East was 150 thousand rubles ⁹ . The Central Committee of the CPSU received dozens of complaints from unallocated students of the Institute.

Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU N. S. Khrushchev gave instructions to the head of the administrative and commercial and financial bodies of the Central Committee A. A. Kolesnikov. Dedov to deal with the situation in MIVA. On March 28, 1953, A. Dedov reported to N. S. Khrushchev about the situation at the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies and made proposals on measures to eliminate the identified shortcomings. He didn't even touch the entity-

page 91

The author considers the problems of Oriental studies, the content and methods of teaching, limiting his conclusions to organizational and financial issues. A. Dedov's proposals were as follows::

"Instruct the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the State Security Committee under the Council of Ministers of the USSR, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Foreign Trade, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, TASS, the Radio Broadcasting Committee, the Main Directorate of the Civil Air Fleet, together with the Ministry of Higher Education of the USSR, to submit to the Central Committee of the CPSU the necessary proposals on the use of graduates of the Institute to work in the central and local bodies of these ministries and departments.

Instruct the Ministry of Higher Education of the USSR to reduce the number of students in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years by transferring them to other higher educational institutions.

Starting from 1954, reduce the admission to the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies to 60-65 people. " ¹⁰

A. Dedov limited himself to a general statement of the state of affairs with the distribution of graduates and considered it "expedient to instruct the Minister of Culture of the USSR, T. V. Kolesnikov." Ponomarenko and Head of the Department of Science and Culture of the Central Committee of the CPSU T. Rumyantsev additionally consider the issue of graduates of the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies and other similar educational institutions " ¹¹ .

Thus, the Department of Administrative and Commercial and Financial Authorities did not raise the issue of closing the IIV, suggesting only to limit the number of students in it. Suggestions for improving the quality and subject matter of the educational process, as well as reorganizing the institute's structure (which it undoubtedly needed and needed) this document did not provide for. A. Dedov's report was a palliative document that did not solve the main problems of the IIA.

The Council of Ministers of the USSR promptly responded to this report by Decree No. 9464-R of July 18, 1953, granting the MIVA management the right to reduce the admission of applicants. For the first year in 1953, 200 students were accepted instead of 330. Some second-and third-year students were transferred to other universities. For fifth-year graduate students who did not receive a distribution, the sixth year was organized for retraining as teachers of the Western language of secondary schools.

An analytical note by A. Dedov was sent to the Minister of Culture of the USSR P. K. Ponomarenko, who was invited to express his opinion on the training of Orientalists and their distribution. On October 22, 1953, he sent his proposals to N. S. Khrushchev: "The main drawback in the distribution of young specialists graduating from the Institute of Oriental Studies stems mainly from the fact that there is a gap between the planning of training and the actual need of the national economy for specialists in Oriental studies. In this case, the State Planning Committee of the USSR, which deals with the issues of planning admission to universities and drawing up a plan for interdepartmental distribution of young specialists, does not sufficiently study this issue and does not show real concern in identifying the need for specialists in Oriental studies... Measures aimed at implementing the Decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 9464-R of July 18, 1953, will bring the output of Orientalists into line with the need of the national economy for them, while eliminating shortcomings in their distribution by the State Planning Committee of the USSR. I consider it impractical to carry out any other additional measures at the present time. " ¹² Thus, P. K. Ponomarenko considered it inappropriate to close the institute.

The report of A. Dedov and the opinion of P. K. Ponomarenko were sent to the Department of Science and Culture of the Central Committee of the CPSU, which in a letter addressed to N. S. Khrushchev on October 31, 1953 came to the conclusion: "The Minister of Culture of the USSR, T. V. Ponomarenko, was a member of the Communist Party of the USSR. Ponomarenko said that the measures taken in this regard are:,

page 92

provided for by the decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of July 18, 1953, allow us to bring the output of Orientalists into line with the need for them in the national economy. Carrying out any other additional activities, in the opinion of T. Ponomarenko, is currently impractical. Department of Science and Culture of the Central Committee of the CPSU with the opinion of vol. Ponomarenko agrees on this issue. We consider it possible to conclude our consideration of the report by T. V. Tolstoy. Dedova Street " ¹³ . Signed the letter of zav. Department of A. Rumyantsev and V. Ivanov. There is another entry on the email: "Tov. Zolotukhin is also familiar with the note of Comrades Rumyantsev and Ivanov addressed to the Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, com. Khrushcheva N. S.-I agree. Signed: Khokhlov ¹⁴. 5 September 1953". On the text of A. Rumyantsev's letter there is a crossed-out entry by N. S. Khrushchev "tt. "To Mirukhulov A. I. and Bakradze V. M." (apparently he wanted to know the opinion of party functionaries of Eastern nationalities, but changed his mind) and a new one - "To send to the members of the Presidium and secretaries of the Central Committee of the CPSU N. Khrushchev" ¹⁵ .

July 1, 1954 The Council of Ministers of the USSR adopted Resolution No. 1341 "On streamlining the training of specialists in international relations, as well as in philology and history of the countries of the Foreign East". The authors of the article found themselves unable to access documents from the archives of the USSR Council of Ministers, so it is not possible to name a member of the government who proposed, contrary to the opinion of the Central Committee, to decide the fate of the MIV. Probably, it could have been either N. S. Khrushchev or G. M. Malenkov. The decree provided for the closure of the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies and the transfer of its fifth-year students, as well as teaching staff, to the Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MGIMO). The Eastern faculty was formed at the Institute. (The first dean of the faculty was a Sinologist G. A. Ganshin). The distribution of graduates was assigned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Ministry of Higher Education (Minister V. P. Yelyutin) was instructed to complete the transfer of students to other universities by September 15, 1954. There were 673 students enrolled in the second, third and fourth years. Fifth-year students of the IIA had to complete their education at MGIMO.

Two things stand out. First. The resolution was adopted on July 1, when all teachers and students were on vacation and on vacation. Second. Neither representatives of the Institute nor major orientalists of the Academy of Sciences were invited to the government meeting. The decision, which caused serious damage to the training of Oriental specialists, and in the long run actually meant the killing of Oriental studies, was made in private.

The Institute found out about the decision of the Council of Ministers late. On July 21, A. K. Lavrentiev, the secretary of the IIV Party Bureau, wrote a letter to N. S. Khrushchev, the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, in which he said that the preparation of the resolution on the closure of the Institute was kept secret "from the scientific community" and asked "to submit a proposal to the Council of Ministers to review its resolution" ^.16 There was no reply to the party secretary's letter. August 12, 1954-Director of the Institute K. A. Boldyrev, Deputy Director of the Institute. Directors A. A. Kuznetsov and Party Committee Secretary A. K. Lavrentiev wrote to the Chairman of the Council of Ministers G. M. Malenkov, First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Minister of Foreign Affairs V. M. Molotov and Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU M. A. Suslov a letter in which they reported that "the preparation of the draft of this decision was carried out without consulting the most prominent Orientalists the issue was submitted to the Council of Ministers for consideration without sufficient study. " ¹⁷ The authors noted that MGIMO will train specialists "adapted solely to the tasks of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs", and not general orientalists.

The leaders of the IIA looked at the problem more broadly than the authors of the resolution. "At the present time, when the colonial East has woken up to a determined struggle for its national liberation and wants to establish closer ties with the Soviet Union, we will continue to work together.-

page 93

As with the great Soviet Union, the decision to liquidate the only Oriental university in the country is not caused by anything. " ¹⁸ They emphasized that the main imperialist countries, pursuing colonial goals, train a large number of specialists in eastern countries. (Further data on educational institutions of Oriental studies in the United States and Great Britain were given in the text.) The authors were specific: "In our opinion, we need to follow a different path in solving the problem of Oriental studies. It is necessary to combine all Oriental studies education on the basis of the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies, establish a more precise number of students, establish closed admission to the Institute, create better conditions for the institute and its employees (educational and housing space), etc. " ¹⁹

The leaders of the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies asked "to review the resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of 1/VII-1954 on the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies and to preserve the only university of Oriental studies in our country" ²⁰ .

G. M. Malenkov and V. M. Molotov did not read the letter, M. A. Suslov read it and instructed the Department of Science and Culture to respond to the authors. September 20, 1954 they were summoned to the Central Committee. As a result of the conversation, the following laconic note appeared::

"Director of the former Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies, T. Boldyrev, Deputy Director of the former Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies. Kuznetsov and Party Bureau Secretary T. Lavrentiev ask the Central Committee of the CPSU to review the resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of July 1, 1954 on the merger of the Institute of Oriental Studies with the Institute of International Relations, preserving the only university of Oriental studies in our country.

The author of the letter personally provided relevant explanations on this issue.

Deputy Head of the Department Department of Science and Culture of K. Kuznetsova Street

Deputy Head of the Department A. Lutchenko's sector " ²¹ .

Apparently, M. A. Suslov forgot about the anxiety associated with the training of Oriental specialists, which was voiced in the report written on his instructions by more far-sighted employees of the Central Committee apparatus D. Shepilov and A. Lyapin.

The closure of the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies alarmed the scientific community, who saw this as a danger to the future fate of orientalism. On August 19, 1954, nine prominent scientists wrote a letter addressed to G. M. Malenkov, V. M. Molotov, and N. S. Khrushchev stating: "The Institute has justified itself. Among its graduates came major scientists-orientalists, diplomatic and Soviet workers. More than 40 ministries and departments draw personnel from the Institute " ²² .

In support of this thesis, we can cite the following data: V. S. Myasnikov, E. M. Primakov, N. A. Simonia became academicians among the former graduates of the IIA only in the 1950s, S. A. Harutyunov and V. M. Solntsev became corresponding members, Z. M. Buniyatov became an academician of the Azerbaijani Academy of Sciences, and about 100 former students Since those years, they now have the degree of Doctor of Sciences and the title of professor, about 15 have become ambassadors of our state, two-heads of the Foreign Intelligence Service; many well - known journalists, foreign trade workers are graduates of the IIV.

The authors of the letter reported on the extensive scientific work of the Institute's teachers, their textbooks and dictionaries. Next, the scientists focused on the main thing - the harmfulness of the closure of the Institute for the future of Oriental studies. "The merger of the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies with the Moscow State Institute of International Relations actually means eliminating the training of young Orientalists," the authors wrote . ²³ MGIMO trained a diplomat who knew the state language of the country, its political situation, and the history of international relations. The orientalist had to know the ancient history of the country, cultural monuments, literature, the basics of religion and religious treatises, ethnography, customs and customs of the people.

page 94

Scientists reported that "training of this type of personnel was possible due to the fact that both the internal organization of the institute and the programs were built on the basis of the task of training a broad-profile orientalist, and not the needs of one department" ²⁴ . As a result of the government's decision, "a comprehensive approach to the study and coverage of the past and present of the peoples of these countries, their economy, political life, and literature is being eliminated." The authors concluded: "implementation (of this solution. - P. Sh., N. Ch.) inevitably leads to the destruction of Oriental studies education in the USSR " ²⁵ .

Concern was expressed not only about the fate of students, but also about the fate of the faculty and teaching staff. "Implementation of projects of the MGIMO Directorate ... this means a reduction of about half of the scientific and teaching staff of Orientalists, who have been staffed over many years of the institute's activity and have extensive scientific and methodological experience. " ²⁶

The authors considered that "the liquidation of the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies could have occurred only as a result of incorrect information or the lack of sufficiently accurate data about this Institute" ²⁷ and asked to review the decision of the Council of Ministers of July 1, 1954. The letter was signed by: Academician V. A. Gordlevsky (Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences), corresponding member. N. K. Dmitriev (Institute of Linguistics of the USSR Academy of Sciences), Prof. G. D. Sanzheev (Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences), Stalin Prize winner Prof. E. M. Murzaev (Institute of Geography of the USSR Academy of Sciences), Prof. V. M. Nasilov (MIV), Prof. B. K. Pashkov (Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences), Prof. Kolokolov (Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences), Associate Professor L. A. Mervart (Head of the Department of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences). By the Editorial Office of the State Oriental Dictionaries. Publishers of foreign and national dictionaries).

The Central Committee was more attentive to the letter of scientists than to the letter of the MIWa leaders. The answer to them was prepared by Central Committee employees A. Rumyantsev and F. Baranenkov. They informed their management (the original version states: "Central Committee of the CPSU"): "We consider this request unfounded. The resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR "On streamlining the training of specialists in international relations, as well as in philology and history of the countries of the Foreign East" provides for improving the quality of training of international specialists in Eastern and Western countries, as well as eliminating excessive training of specialists in these branches of knowledge" ²⁸ . The authors of the answer were deceitful: scientists raised the question of training specialists in general orientalism, and they were told that the training of international specialists in Eastern countries would improve. The letter was written on September 30, 1954. A.M. Rumyantsev, who a year ago supported the opinion of the Minister of Culture P. K. Ponomarenko about preserving the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies while reducing the admission of students, changed his position. The Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies has ceased to exist. The persecutors and fools of science were temporarily triumphant. There are no words - there were mistakes and serious shortcomings in the activities of the institute during the mid-20th century. But it turned out that the child was thrown out along with dirty water.

Another fact that draws attention to itself is that the issues of training Oriental specialists and the fate of the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies were dealt with at various times by responsible employees of the Central Committee: V. Kruzhkov, Yu. Zhdanov, M. Yakovlev, A. Dedov, K. Kuznetsova, A. Lutchenko, A. Rumyantsev, F. Baranenkov, V. Ivanov, and the USSR Minister of Culture P. K. Ponomarenko. None of them really and deeply delved into the problem. In addition, P. K. Ponomarenko was sent to Kazakhstan in January 1954, and Yu. A. Zhdanov left his job in the Central Committee and went to Rostov-on-Don.

After the liquidation of the MIV, there were those who wanted to" grab " its property and library. In addition to a good four-story building, the institute had a printing house with oriental fonts, a darkroom, a recording room, and a library with uni-

page 95

official books and manuscripts in Eastern languages. The first to claim the building and property was the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute (MGPI), which sent a letter to the CPSU Central Committee from Stepanov, Deputy Director of the Institute (there are no initials in the letter), asking them to transfer them to MGPI. The Central Committee decided (the answer was prepared by the head. Head of the Department of Science and Culture M. Filippov and Deputy Head of the Department of Science and Culture M. Filippov. A. Lutchenko) transfer the building to the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute, and all property and the library to MGIMO. During the transfer of the library, many books and manuscripts were looted. The rest were placed in the basement, but it so happened that a water pipe burst in it, and another part of them was lost. In general, the library suffered significant damage during the transfer of books.

The need to train broad-based Orientalists soon became apparent. The country's leadership realized that it made a mistake by closing the MIV. Speaking at the XX Congress of the CPSU (February 1956), First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR A. I. Mikoyan acknowledged: "It's hard to understand ... the liquidation of the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies, which has existed for 139 years, and even at a time when our relations with the East are growing and growing stronger, when with the expansion of economic, political, and cultural ties with the countries of the East, the Soviet public's interest in them has immeasurably increased, and the need for people who know the economy ^and culture of The congress transcript goes on to say :" The institute has been liquidated. " ³⁰ In the same year, the Training Institute of Oriental Languages at Moscow State University was established.

Much attention was paid to the issue of training orientalists in higher education at the First All-Union Conference of Orientalists, held in Tashkent in October 1957. At the meeting of the section "Oriental Studies and training of Oriental specialists", a heated discussion developed. Two approaches to this problem have been identified. The director of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Academician B. G. Gafurov, proposed: "To create an Oriental Institute in Moscow with its separation from the MSU system. Provide for the training of highly qualified specialists in the field of history, economics and philology of Asian and African countries on the basis of a deep mastery of the relevant Eastern languages by graduates. The Institute should also create appropriate special faculties or departments for senior courses to train specialists for practical work in the system of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Foreign Trade and other organizations related to the East. In this regard, stop training orientalists in other educational institutions in Moscow, transferring qualified teachers to the Eastern Institute.

Set the term of study at the Eastern Institute for 6 years, including providing for a one-year internship in the department where the graduate will work in the fifth year. Allow the Directorate of the Institute to invite 50 professors from the countries of the foreign East " ³¹ . B. G. Gafurov's proposal to create an Eastern Institute was supported by Tajik party functionary Ramsetdinov. In particular, he said: "It seems to me that the liquidation of the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies was a mistake of the Ministry of Higher Education (from the spot: a very big mistake!)... The Moscow Institute has been liquidated, and this Institute has also provided the main employees of Orientalists in the field of foreign trade and diplomacy." ³²

The Ministry of Higher Education held a different position. Deputy Minister Mikhail Prokofiev stated:" In our opinion, it is necessary to train personnel on the basis of the university in Moscow, developing all the positive things and overcoming the shortcomings and difficulties of the Institute of Oriental Languages of Moscow University. " ³³

Professor D. A. Olderroge and, most importantly, the recognized Patriarch of Oriental Studies, Academician V. V. Struve, supported Prokofiev's proposal. The academician stated that isto-

page 96

the best traditions of Russian orientalism were laid down at St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kazan and other universities, and that we, our contemporaries, should not neglect the glory of our great predecessors. In his closing speech, Academician B. G. Gafurov, departing from his previous positions, stated:" We have agreed that we consider the creation of a special educational institution premature, the time is not ripe, we still need to think... " ³⁴ . The question of establishing the Oriental Institute was thus postponed and then safely forgotten.

In 1972, the Institute of Oriental Languages was reorganized, expanded and received a new name-the Institute of Asian and African Countries at Moscow State University (ISAA). The Institute began to train Orientalists and Africanists - professionals with a broad outlook, who know the history, languages, basics of religion, literature and the current situation of Asian and African countries. According to the new structure, the Institute had three departments: historical, philological and socio - economic. The specialties indicated in the diploma are defined as: historian, philologist, economist-orientalist and referent-translator. All departments provide a thorough knowledge of Eastern (African) and Western languages. In total, more than 40 Oriental (including African)languages are taught languages. There are departments of Southeast Asian philology and African Studies. Semitology and Sanskrit are studied. To ensure a better distribution of graduates, recruitment is made every year only in three specialties - Arabic, Chinese and Japanese; for the rest - at intervals of two, three and even four years. Learning a language is an individual process, so language groups are small in composition. Most of the students are interned in the countries under study. Such an education system ensures thorough preparation and normal distribution of students at the end of their studies. Some of them choose science as their vocation. The existence of the Institute of Asian and African Countries guarantees the successful development of Russian Oriental studies. The ISAA management drew the right conclusions from the ill-considered voluntary decision to close the IIA.

notes

¹ For more information about the Institute's work, see: History of Russian Oriental Studies (from the middle of the 19th century to 1917), Moscow, 1997; Baziyants A. P. Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages (Historical Essay), Moscow, 1959; on. Lazarev Institute in the History of Russian Oriental Studies, Moscow, 1973.

² Stanovlenie sovetskogo vostokovedeniya [Formation of Soviet Oriental Studies], Moscow, 1983 (appendices).

³ Cit. by: Baziyants A. P. Signed by Lenin // The modern historiography of the countries of the East. M., 1971. P.12.

^{Blagoveshchenskiy M., Fesenko P.} 4 Twenty years of the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies // Proceedings of the Institute of Oriental Studies. Sbornik M., 1940. N 2. P. 13.

⁵ RGASPI. f. 17. Op. 132. Ed. hr. 341. L. 13.

⁶ Ibid., pp. 13-16.

⁷ On this, see: Shastitko P. M., Skvortsova N. I. Domestic Orientalism after the Second world war (1943 - 1950) // East (Oriens). 2000. N 5.

⁸ RGASPI. f. 17. Op. 125. D. 455. L. 39. The date of this document is not set.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ RGANI. F. 5. Op. 17. d. 482. L. 45.

¹¹ Ibid. d. 441. l. 113.

¹² Ibid. d. 441. l. 115-116.

¹³ Ibid., l. 118.

¹⁴ Ibid. l. 119. V. Zolotukhin - at that time Deputy head of the administrative department of the Central Committee of the CPSU.

¹⁵ RGANI. d. 441. L. 120.

¹⁶ Ibid., l. 129.

¹⁷ Ibid., l. 162.

page 97

¹⁸ Ibid., l. 163.

¹⁹ Ibid., l. 164.

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ Ibid., l. 165.

²² Ibid., l. 167.

²³ Ibid., l. 168.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Ibid., l. 169.

²⁷ Ibid., l. 170.

²⁸ Ibid., l. 201.

^29th XX Congress. CPSU (February 14-25, 1956). Stenographic report, Moscow, 1956, vol. I. P. 324.

³⁰ Ibid.

³¹ RGANI. D. 56. Op. 35. D. 56. L. 54-55.

³² Ibid. d. 81. l. 102-109.

³³ Ibid., l. 109.

³⁴ Ibid., l. 185.

Permanent link to this publication: