The congresses of Orientalists, which are held with enviable regularity-every two years-show that Oriental studies arouse more and more interest in the country, become an occupation of an increasing number of people, and become more and more diverse thematically. The Fifth Congress, held in Ufa on September 26 - 27, 2006, can be considered a jubilee event if desired, and on this basis we can sum up some results of the existence of our science in the vast expanses of the country.

In recent years, faculties of Oriental studies have been opened at the universities of Kazan, Chelyabinsk, Orenburg, Gorno-Altaisk, Irkutsk, Yekaterinburg, and Kyzyl. New periodicals on Oriental studies were published. There were young people who made the study of history, philology, philosophy, economics, culture and spiritual life of the peoples of the East, including the peoples of the East of Russia, their vital task.

The organizers tried to fit the diverse themes of the congress into the wording: "The East in the historical destinies of the peoples of Russia". The congress was organized by the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Bashkortostan, the Ministry of Culture and National Policy of the Republic of Bashkortostan, the Society of Orientalists of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Ufa Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Institute of History, Language and Literature of the UNC RAS, the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation, Bashkir State University, Ufa State Academy of Arts named after Z. Izmagilov, Bashkir State Pedagogical University named after. M. Akmulli. More than 250 people gathered in Ufa, representing Oriental studies centers all over Russia. It is necessary to list all the cities that were represented, so that the reader can feel the scope of the event and see, perhaps, an incomplete "Oriental map" of Russia. In addition to Moscow, St. Petersburg and Ufa, these cities are Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, Ulan-Ude, Irkutsk, Krasnoyarsk, Gorno-Altaisk, Abakan, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Yekaterinburg, Sterlitamak, Cheboksary, Kazan, Naberezhnye Chelny, Yelabuga, Nizhny Novgorod, Lipetsk, Stavropol, Maykop, Vladikavkaz, Nalchik, and Elista. Even from this list, it is clear that such congresses are extremely necessary for coordinating efforts

page 170

It is obvious that they will inevitably turn into more and more large-scale events, and that in the interval between congresses it is necessary to sharply intensify the activities of the Society of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Participants of the previous Congress of Orientalists in Moscow in 2004 decided that it was necessary to invite colleagues from neighboring countries to All-Russian congresses. Invitations were sent out. But for various reasons, only representatives of Kazakhstan, as well as scientists from Turkey, were able to take part in the work of this congress.

The hosts of the congress-the leadership of Bashkortostan and the Society of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, headed by its president I. G. Galyautdinov, prepared the congress well. The participants received timely materials, including a detailed program and three volumes, including 247 abstracts.

During the congress, exhibitions and sales (presentations) of books published in recent years by the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of History, Language and Literature of the UNC RAS, other Bashkir scientific institutions, as well as the publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of Kazakhstan "Daik-press"were held. The presentation of the magazine "Oriental Collection"was also successful. There were guided tours to museums and the city, as well as a bus ride to Ahmed Zaki's native village of Walidi. But more on that below.

The plenary session on September 26 was chaired by Deputy Chairman of the Board of Directors. Prime Minister of the Republic of Bashkortostan and Minister of Culture and National Policy I. G. Ilishev and Director of the Institute of Information Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences R. B. Rybakov. Greetings were read out from the President of the Republic of Bashkortostan M. Rakhimov, Chairman of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation S. Mironov, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation S. Mironov. Sergey Lavrov, President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yu. Osipov, Head of the Adyghe Republic Kh. Council Member, President of the Republic of Kalmykia K. Ilyumzhinov, Academician-Secretary of the Department of Historical and Philological Sciences A. P. Derevyanko. Assistant to the President of the Russian Federation Aslanbek Aslakhanov made a speech later, at a thematic session, in which he noted the growing importance of the problems of the East and wished the congress successful work.

R. B. Rybakov in his report "The East and Oriental studies at the beginning of the XXI century" described the recent changes in the understanding of the "East", the essence of the tasks of" Oriental studies " and the expectations of society from it. Oriental studies emerged as the science of the colonies and served the interests of the colonialists. In the last century, it has split into two streams, serving the political lines of the two main camps. But it is precisely this interest of politicians and the public in the East as a possible ally in the fight against the opposite camp (and the corresponding funding) that has become the material foundation for the development of truly scientific directions of Oriental studies. The speaker expressed the hope that the increasingly active involvement of all governments and the public in solving the problems put forward by the countries of Asia and Africa will lead to a new revival of Oriental studies in our country.

Report of the head of the Department The department for socio-political development of the Administration of the President of the Republic of Bashkortostan A. M. Yuldashbayev was called "Akhmed-zaki Validi and the development of federalism in Russia", but in fact it was devoted to the views of this outstanding figure of the Bashkir national liberation movement on a wider range of issues.

The personality of Ahmed-Zaki Validov (1890-1970) became the focus of attention of the congress participants. A number of other reports were devoted to it at breakout sessions. On the last day of the congress, as already mentioned, an excursion was organized to the homeland of Walidi in the village of Kuzan (near Ishimbay), where his memorial museum was created. He was a representative of the nascent Bashkir intelligentsia, a passionate nationalist and reformer. He joined the Jadids, i.e. defended the need for the development of a modern education system, the foundation of so-called new-method schools. During the civil war, he tried to defend the autonomy of Bashkortostan, coming into conflict first with the Kolchaks, and then with the Red Army. He was forced to flee to Central Asia, where he continued to fight the Soviet government. Then he emigrated to America, in recent years he lived in Turkey, and became known as a prominent scholar of Turkology. His daughter, who lives in Turkey, provided substantial assistance in the creation of the museum.

M. H. Abuseitova (Alma-Ata), Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Kazakhstan, speaking at the first plenary session, entitled her report "Historical and cultural relations of the peoples of Eurasia in the XVII-XIX centuries: new research", but it was about the search and finds of documents on the history of Kazakhs in the archives of China, as well as in Russia - in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan, Minusinsk. A big and interesting question to think about: why earlier, while in

page 171

within a single state, Kazakh scientists were not interested in archives in Russian cities, and now, separated from them by borders, although quite permeable, but still state-owned, they have the opportunity to study the history of their people from archival materials. According to M. H. Abuseitova, it is now "a good time" for the development of historical science in Kazakhstan.

B. V. Bazarov (Ulan-Ude), Director of the Institute of Mongolian Studies, Buddhology and Tibetology of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, spoke mainly about the success of the economic development of Inner Mongolia in China. He spoke about the high rate of development of this region, but at the same time pointed out serious environmental problems that are beginning to arise for its residents.

Vice-President of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Bashkortostan, Academician N. A. Mazhitov, made a report on the life and work of Academician R. G. Kuzeev, who passed away in 2005. R. G. Kuzeev was a talented scientist and a successful organizer of science. His area of interest was the history and ethnology of the Bashkirs and other peoples living in the Southern Urals. He founded a scientific center for the study of these peoples and a museum of their culture. Since he was interested not only in the Turkic peoples, but also in Finno-Ugric ones, his works are known all over the world, in particular in Finland. During the congress, a memorial plaque was unveiled on the house where R. G. Kuzeev lived. The speakers included scientists who described his contribution to science, representatives of city authorities, and foreign colleagues.

All participants of the congress also took part in the symposium "Historical significance of the voluntary entry of Bashkiria into Russia". The 450th anniversary of this event will be widely celebrated in 2007, but the ideological preparation of the holiday has already begun.

I. G. Ilishev, who chaired the symposium, made a beautiful point in his opening remarks about the 450-year-old event: if Peter I is said to have cut a window to Europe, then Ivan the Terrible can be said to have cut a window to Asia.

The political significance of the entry of the Bashkir lands into the Russian state is beyond doubt, and the round date from the date of this entry can be a reason for celebration. However, in order for this circumstance to become the subject of scientific study, abstraction from emotions and cold analysis are required. The meeting was attended by both political - propaganda and sober-scientific principles.

First of all, it is necessary to understand what the then "Russia" and "Bashkortostan"were. Did these concepts exist at that time, and who, in fact, was included in it? This question was raised at the meeting, but did not receive an answer.

It is known that the lands inhabited by Bashkirs in the middle of the XVI century were part of three state formations: the Kazan Khanate, the Nogai Horde and the Siberian Khanate. After the conquest of Kazan by Ivan IV and the annexation of Astrakhan, he appealed to the peoples of the Volga region and the Urals with an "urgent request" to become his subjects, promising not to touch their customs, their property, namely land, and demanding only the payment of yasak. Some Western Bashkirs in 1552 sent a petition with a request to accept them as subjects. By 1557, all Bashkirs up to the Urals had submitted to Moscow. The Eastern Bashkirs formed the basis of the detachments of Khan Kuchum, who most stubbornly fought with Russian troops during the conquest of the Siberian Khanate (this was mentioned in the report of B. A. Aznabaev from Ufa, which will be discussed below).

In the report of N. A. Mazhitov and A. N. Sultanova (Ufa) "Socio-political life in Bashkortostan on the eve and during the period of joining Russia" it was noted that in the XIII century one of the Bashkir khans went to the headquarters of Genghis Khan and received from him a certificate of ownership of all the lands of the Bashkirs. Other data on the existence of leaders among the Bashkirs were also given. In this way, the idea was carried out that a certain political unity of the Bashkirs existed, and it could later become part of Russia. "Russia has become a nation with a rich social and political tradition, which has accumulated considerable experience in diplomatic maneuvering in the context of the ongoing struggle for a sphere of influence in the region."

There could be no "treaty" on Bashkortostan's entry into Russia. In the genealogies (shezhere) of many Bashkir tribes, it is said about the charters issued to these tribes by the tsarist government. But the letters were not preserved. N. M. Kulbakhtin (Ufa) proposed a method for reconstructing the charters of Ivan IV. He believes that the letters of the XVII and XVIII centuries, the presentation of which is contained in the shezhera, are exact copies of the letters of Ivan the Terrible, in which only the title of tsar is replaced. It seems, however, that over the course of a century, and even more so over two, changes in

page 172

not only the titulature of tsars, but also the diplomacy of documents and just language. It is rather difficult to assume that during the reign of Alexey Mikhailovich, and then Elizabeth Petrovna, the letters of Ivan IV were simply copied. This method of" reconstructing " documents cannot be considered convincing.

S. G. Klyashtorny (St. Petersburg) in his report "Russia and the Turkic world" highlighted the "geopolitical" aspects of the annexation of the territories inhabited by Bashkirs to the Russian state. He focused on the objective aspects of the events of that time. Russia was forced to move ever further to protect its southern and eastern borders, and the Bashkirs had no choice but to agree to join it.

Kh.A. Barlybaev (Moscow) took an even more global approach to the question of the entry of the Bashkir territories into Russia. He put this event in the context of world processes - the great geographical discoveries, the creation of the Portuguese and Spanish colonial empires, and later other empires. "During the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, all continents, countries, and peoples of the globe were shrouded in a network of colonial ties, relationships, and institutions." The speaker spoke about the economic changes in the region over the past centuries: its transformation from a nomadic cattle breeding area to an agricultural and industrial one.

A. Kadyrbaev (Moscow) raised the question of the time of formation of the Bashkirs as a nation, which is closely related to the problems mentioned above, using the method of comparing the ethnogenesis of two peoples-Bashkirs and Kazakhs. He came to the conclusion that the spread of Islam in the steppe (from the south - from Central Asia, and from the west - from Arab countries) it contributed to the consolidation of both Kazakhs and Bashkirs. But the Bashkirs became not only" statistical " but also real Muslims when they were already part of the Russian Empire, largely due to the conscious policy of the tsarist government since the time of Catherine II. "The attitude of the Russian government towards Islam ... has evolved from direct violence against the conscience of its Muslim subjects... to consciously promote the spread of Islam and strengthen its position in their possessions", of course, under the control of the Russian authorities.

B. A. Aznabaev (Ufa) in his report "Specifics of integration of Bashkiria into the administrative structure of the Russian state" spoke about the history of the Bashkirs ' stay in the Moscow Tsardom, and then the Russian Empire. In the middle of the XVI century. The Russian state did not have the means to really control the territory of nomadic peoples and minimally interfered in the affairs of internal communal self-government. But in the future, serious violations of previous agreements began to lead first to passive resistance - migrations and renunciations of citizenship. By the 1660s, the tsarist government had violated all the terms of previous agreements and granted charters, which caused the Bashkir revolt of 1662-1664. According to the speaker, the "mutual trust" that existed at the end of the XVI - first half of the XVII century, "was replaced by a general hostile attitude and suspicion of any actions of the Russian authorities." The government made significant concessions to the rebels, but " since the second half of the 17th century, the Bashkirs have become the main likely opponent of the Russian authorities."

At the beginning of the 18th century, taxes were significantly increased under Peter the Great. This caused an uprising that lasted 7 years. The government was forced to cancel the new fees, restore the old yasach salary and announce the forgiveness of all those who take the oath to the government. The tsarist government did not interfere in the self-government of Bashkir communities, but a new uprising in 1735 forced the authorities to change their policy. Measures were taken to eliminate the old Bashkir tribal nobility, expand the mass peasant, landowner and factory colonization of the region.

Director of the Khakass Research Institute of Language, Literature and History V. N. Tuguzhekova (Abakan) reminded that next year marks the 300th anniversary of the incorporation of Khakassia into Russia. However, in this case it was not a question of "voluntary joining", but only that this event had a "progressive significance" for the Khakass people and that it would be widely celebrated in 2007. In addition, she said that the republic will hold Days of Turkic Writing for a month starting from September 22 (by analogy with the Days of Slavic writing).

In the greeting of the President of the Republic of Belarus M. G. Rakhimov, which was read out at the plenary session, it was noted that the relations established between Ivan the Terrible's Russia and the Bashkir chiefdoms are a prototype of federal relations in modern Russia. In my opinion

page 173

I think this is a very unfortunate and even dangerous idea. First, modern federalism is fundamentally different from feudal relations of vassalage. Secondly, the history is such that tsarist Russia arbitrarily violated its promises by liquidating Bashkir autonomy, while the current relations between the federal center and the subject of the federation, as we all hope, will be built on completely different grounds of mutual respect.

Further, the work of the congress was held in sections called "scientific directions".

The participants of the direction "Socio-economic problems of the East" focused on two main problems: tender research and analysis of the economic model that Bashkortostan represents.

З. K. Suleymanova (Ufa) spoke about the emergence of the women's movement in Bashkiria at the beginning of the XX century G. Y. Sultanguzhina (Ufa) highlighted the processes of changes in family relations in Bashkortostan after 1917. The question of the role of polygamy in the life of Bashkir society at different stages of its history has caused some discussion.

A. G. Gumerov (Ufa) presented the report "Scientific and technical cooperation between the Republic of Bashkortostan and the Republic of India", which raised a broader question about the prospects of the republic's foreign economic activity. A.V. Akimov (Moscow) in the report "The role of Bashkortostan in implementing Russia's long-term economic strategy to participate in solving global problems" noted that The modern world economy is characterized by the aggravation of a number of problems: energy, raw materials, food, environmental and demographic. With unlimited growth of the economy and population, there are physical limitations that are fraught with global catastrophes. The speaker focused on two such problems: energy and food. Bashkortostan is a rare variant of the economic model that combines a powerful oil, refining and petrochemical complex, on the one hand, and a developed agriculture provided with mechanisms for development in market conditions, on the other. This model is also promising for Russia as a whole in the context of growing global demand for fuel and energy products and food.

Direction " Religious aspects of globalization. The factor of Islam". V. K. Yegorov, Head of the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow), presented a synthesis report "Clash of Civilizations: theory and Reality", which was mainly devoted to the role of Islam in international relations. The speaker believes that international relations are currently in a state of systemic crisis. In a unipolar world, the ability of the international community to resolve conflicts is being lost. Those that smouldered are aggravated, and new ones that were previously in a latent state appear. The fight against globalization in these conditions becomes a condition for the preservation of humanity, since diversity is a condition for movement and development.

The discussion was based on the reports of I. R. Nasyrov (Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow) "Murat Ramzi and his views on Jadidism" and A. H. Kurmanseitova (Cherkessk). "On the question of Najib Ghasri's participation in the Jadid movement of the early 20th century". The discussion focused mainly on two related issues: the assessment of reform movements in Bashkiria at the beginning of the 20th century and the status of science in Islam. Speakers argued that Ahmad-zaki Walidi was a radical reformer and considered the more moderate Murat Ramzi (1853-1936) to be a conservative. A. B. Yunusova, director of the Center for Ethnological Research of the UNC RAS (Ufa), explained that traditional Muslim educational institutions ("Kadimist") provided purely religious education, while "new-fashioned" schools they set themselves completely different tasks: to provide education that is necessary for mastering modern secular professions - doctors, diplomats, teachers. These two types of educational institutions should not be contrasted.

I. R. Nasyrov expressed the opinion that in Islam there is no opposition of faith and science, characteristic of Western Europe of the new time. He was contradicted by S. G. Klyashtorny (St. Petersburg) and D. V. Mikulsky (Moscow), who explained that ilm ("science") is understood in Islam as a religious science, theology, and therefore it is not really opposed to faith, while in Europe the very concept of science is completely different. also on the main difficulty in the activities of the Jadids or the main source of their contradictions with the orthodox Islamists. Islam knows three deadly sins: disbelief, polytheism, and "innovation" (bid'ah). Thus, by proclaiming the "new", the Jadids violated one of the main precepts of Islam and were defenseless against the accusations of the Orthodox.

page 174

T. L. Shaumyan (Moscow) spoke about the conference of Russian indologists in March 2006 (see the article about this conference).: Vostok, 2006, No. 4) and on the possibilities of further development of indology in Russia in collaboration with colleagues from former Soviet republics. E. R. Skurko (Ufa) considered the issue of West-East interactions in the works of modern Bashkir composers. The same problem was considered by T. S. Ugryumova (Ufa) on the example of the opera "Memento" by Salavat Nizametdinov (b. 1957), a representative of modern Bashkir art, and S. I. Makhney (Ufa) on the example of L. Ismagilova's oratorio "Unfading Verse", created in 1980 on the rubai of Omar Khayyam.

Sh. R. Shakurova (Ufa) introduced the participants of the congress to the popular science film "In search of Akbuzat", shot according to her script and shown on Bashkir satellite television in the spring of 2006.The film is intended as a popularization of the cult epic"Ural-Batyr" for Bashkirs. The storyline is the search for the mythical horse Akbuzat, which belonged to the hero of the epic Ural-Batyr, and disappeared after his death. The film was intended to convince that the Bashkirs were the original inhabitants of this territory, and that "the land of countless caves, mountains, rivers and lakes that Ural-Batyr and his sons created really belongs to us, their descendants."

Z. A. Imamutdinova (Moscow) analyzed the principle of ornamentation, which permeates the Muslim visual arts, and the Bashkirs also have musical traditions and literature. R. F. Yagafarov (Kazan) made an interesting application for studying folk games for children and adults as an important layer of peoples ' culture. N. K. Teuchezh (Moscow) spoke about the gold-embroidery art of the Adygs. She considers this branch of handicraft "one of the marking features of the Adyghe culture, with the help of which it is possible to consider ethno-political, economic and cultural relations; to trace the relations of the Adygs with other peoples and the processes that took place in the Adyghe social relations". O. R. Ochirov (Chita) made an interesting report "Features of Chinese business culture", which can be considered O. V. Severnee (Elista) showed the role of Buddhism in preserving the Kalmyk ethnicity in the conditions of deportation in 1943-1957.

The performance of the children's folklore ensemble "Uzoritsa" (directed by I. P. Rakhimova and R. G. Rakhimov) naturally intertwined with the session of the section.

The direction of "Regional and civilizational studies on the history of Eurasia" was also too diverse in subject matter to allow for several cross-cutting discussion topics.

N. V. Ekeev (Gorno-Altaisk) made several suggestions about the origin of the Bashkir ethnonym. He finds that this name is similar to the name of one of the Mongolian-speaking tribes. E. A. Sinetskaya (Moscow) convincingly showed that feminism as an ideology of transition from patriarchy to biarchacy also penetrates into China, both in the PRC and in Taiwan. Director of the Institute of History of Natural Science and Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.V. Postnikov highlighted one of the episodes of the Anglo-Russian confrontation in Central Asia (which is now commonly called Central) - the sending of the Russian mission to Bukhara in 1842 and the fate of the British emissaries A. Conolly and Ch. G. S. Sultangalieva (Aktobe, Kazakhstan) compared the policy of the tsarist government in Western Kazakhstan and the Southern Urals, highlighting its common and special features.

The head of the information and analytical department of the Administration of the President of the Republic of Bashkortostan, M. B. Yamalov, titled his report "Bashkortostan as the Eurasian model of modern Russia", but happily avoided fruitless philosophizing on the fashionable topic of Eurasianism. They talked about specific things - the multiculturalism of Bashkortostan, the role of Bashkirs in the Russian state, the emergence of the Bashkir Republic as part of the RSFSR, and the current political line of President E. Rakhimov, which, according to the speaker, is characterized by "reasonable conservatism", balance, and caution. This report could well be presented at the symposium "Historical significance of the voluntary entry of Bashkiria into Russia"mentioned above. As for the role of the Bashkirs in Russia, the following statements by Mikhail Yamalov attract attention: "The Bashkirs fulfilled their contractual obligations and went down in history not only with a series of uprisings for their often violated rights, but above all with their loyal military service to the Fatherland, active participation in the Russian Army, starting with the Livonian campaign, during the Great Patriotic War. many battles." "Draws attention to itself-

page 175

We believe that the region has always made constructive and reasonable agreements with the central government. Bashkortostan had its own voice and was never lost in Russia's regional politics."

V. F. Safin and S. S. Dushanbayeva (Ufa) reached a high theoretical level in their joint report "Geopolitics and the crisis of Ethnopsychological Science".

The joint report of D. D. Vasiliev and A. A. Stolyarov (Moscow) introduced the audience to conferences that have been regularly held for 15 years under the general heading "Electronic libraries and databases on the history of Eurasia in the Middle Ages". (For information about one of these conferences, see Vostok, 1999, No. 2.) This forum, organized by the Society of Orientalists of the Russian Academy of Sciences, serves as a very important means of rallying and coordinating the work of Russian Orientalists and foreign colleagues, along with the congresses, one of which is currently being discussed.

The report of V. T. Datsyshen (Krasnoyarsk) "Historical experience of Chinese adaptation in Russia"was devoted to quite practical subjects. He drew attention to the fact that the history of Chinese migration to Russia dates back at least a century and a half, but so far Russia has not developed a stable and influential community of Russian Chinese. The speaker explains this by the peculiarities of the Chinese mentality and sees no grounds for alarmist sentiments in connection with Chinese migration. S. V. Smirnov (Yekaterinburg) investigated the problem of the opposite type: whether there was an ethno-cultural integration of the Russian population of Manchuria into the local environment. He noted that before the Japanese occupation of Manchuria, neither the Russian population nor the Chinese authorities had any desire for integration. After the capture of Manchuria by Japan and the formation of the puppet state of Manchuria, Russians received the status of a national minority and became equal with other "titular" nationalities - Chinese, Japanese, Mongols and Koreans. The Japanese tried to create a single political elite from representatives of all these nationalities. But this project was doomed to failure, firstly, because of the short-term nature of its implementation (the defeat of Japan in a future and imminent war was predetermined), and secondly, because the majority of Russians did not accept it, trying to leave for China or other countries. L. A. Chereshneva (Lipetsk) analyzed the policy of the British authorities in London and India in relation to vassal principalities during the period when the issue of granting India independence and dividing it into two states was being decided.

There were also meetings of the scientific directions "Eastern Philology", "Eastern Philosophy, Law, Psychology and Pedagogy", "The system of Oriental Studies education".

During the congress, a number of other events related to its holding were held, but aimed at further developing interest in the East. A round table discussion on the role of Oriental studies in modern times was held on local television. It was attended by R. B. Rybakov, I. G. Galyautdinov, M. Kh. Abuseitova, D. D. Vasiliev, V. K. Egorov, Director of the Institute of Altaistics (Gorno-Altaisk) N. M. Ekeeva and Director of the St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences I. F. Popova. It was devoted to the challenges of the time that Oriental studies faces, and in this regard, the problem of training new generations of personnel. R. B. Rybakov also held a meeting with writers of Bashkiria. He spoke about the public movement ("platform") "Dialogue-Eurasia", in which he is the chairman until the end of 2006.

The final plenary session included reports on the work of the sections, as well as the report of the President of the Society of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences I. G. Galyautdinov, prepared by him together with the Vice-President of the Society D. D. Vasiliev, on the activities of this society in 2004-2006. The work of the company's management was considered satisfactory, and the President of the Institute of Internal Affairs of the Russian Academy of Sciences and his deputies were thanked. The participants of the congress expressed their deep gratitude to their Bashkir colleagues for their work, attention and cordiality.

During the congress, the admission of individual members to the Society of Orientalists was organized and it was decided to restore the Bashkir branch of this society. The congress participants recognized the need to open an Oriental Institute at Bashkir University, and a Department of Oriental Studies at the Institute of History, Language and Literature of the UNC RAS.

Even at the previous congress in Moscow, opinions were expressed on the restoration of a single organization of Orientalists of the CIS. In Ufa, these ideas were even more insistent. After the congress, an official letter was received signed by M. H. Abuseitova, Director of the R. B. Suleimenov Institute of Oriental Studies, Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan

page 176

with a proposal to create an "Association of Orientalists of the CIS". Now the management will have to organize a discussion of these proposals with colleagues from other countries.

During the congress meetings and on the sidelines, information was vividly discussed that the government of the Russian Federation plans to withdraw from the State Standard of Higher Education specialties "regional studies", including" Oriental studies "and"African studies". In its resolution, the Congress appealed to the Ministry of Science and Education of the Russian Federation, expressing the opinion that such science should be kept on the list.

Boris Vandanovich Bazarov, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Mongolian Studies, Buddhology and Tibetology of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, was elected President of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences for the next two years.

So it was conceived that the congresses of Orientalists are held in various Oriental centers of the country, the number of which, as was shown at the beginning of the review, has significantly increased. Naturally, most of them are located in the "East" in the sense accepted in Russian science. Each congress naturally turns not only into a cross-section of Russian Oriental studies in general, but also into a scientific conference on the history and culture of the corresponding region. Orientalists who are"foreign" meet with specialists in a specific region of "our East", moreover, with the East in kind. This is a positive trend. Cognition of other, civilizationally different, societies is quite difficult. The opportunity to study the "own East" provided by Russia gives orientalists of all specializations a chance to directly perceive the Eastern specifics.

It seems that the next congresses, which will take place in the centers of Oriental studies in different regions of the country, will open up new layers of material that will be useful for scientists working even in remote countries.

The urgent task of the Society of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the interval between congresses is to establish an exchange of information about scientific events held in different research centers, about publications of Oriental materials, and to facilitate the exchange of this literature between centers. The Society publishes its own Newsletter, but it does not reach all scientific centers interested in it. In our time, when the possibilities of diverse communication have increased dramatically, it does not seem impossible to complete these tasks.

Permanent link to this publication: