Content uploaded by Murat Önsoy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Murat Önsoy on Dec 19, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
31
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
Araştırma Makalesi / Research Article
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced
Migration: An Evaluation of the Bulgarian
Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy*
Ivo Kirilov Ivanov**
Murat Önsoy***
Abstract
Mnorty regulatons n Bulgara from the communst takeover
to the end of the Stalnst era were shaped under the nuence
of socalst nternatonalst polces, whch envsaged the
preservaton of ethnc and cultural derences for generatng class
soldarty among the Bulgaran ctzens. However, n practce,
the consttutonal safeguards and promses gven to them were
often gnored by the state for the sake of constructng a modern
socalst socety. e dscrmnaton ncreased further durng the
post-Stalnst years n parallel wth the regme’s deologcal shft
away from communst orthodoxy towards natonalsm. e state-
sponsored dscrmnatory polces had far-reachng consequences
for the Turks, the largest and most culturally aware of all ethnc
mnortes. Perceved as an alen element of the Bulgaran
socety, throughout the entre socalst perod, Turksh mnorty
was subjected to ntegratonst/assmlatonst polces and
* s artcle s based on the master’s thess of the frst author conducted under the supervson of the
second author.
Date of Arrval: 21 December 2021 – Date of Acceptance: 02 August 2022
You can refer to ths artcle as follows:
Ivanov, Ivo Krlov, and Murat Önsoy. “From Integraton to Assmlaton and Forced Mgraton: An
Evaluaton of the Bulgaran Communst Party’s Turksh Mnorty Polcy.” blg, no. 103, 2022, pp.
31-58.
** Independent Researcher - Blagoevgrad/Bulgara
ORCID: 0000-0003-1158-4470
vokrlovvanov@yahoo.com
*** Assoc. Prof. Dr., Hacettepe Unversty, Faculty of Economcs and Admnstratve Scences, Department
of Internatonal Relatons – Ankara/Türkye
ORCID: 0000-0002-8990-1547
onsoymurat@hotmal.com
31-58
32
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
forcbly expelled from the country at tmes when these polces
dd not produce the desred results. s artcle focuses on the
dscrmnatory polces and practces forced upon the Turksh
mnorty by the Bulgaran Communst Party durng the era of
state socalsm, and ntends to nqure nto ther results.
Keywords
Turksh Mnorty, Bulgaran Communst Party, ntegraton,
assmlaton, revval process.
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
33
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
Introduction
e coexistence of proletarian internationalism and nationalism under state
socialist regimes as two diametrically opposed ideologies is widespread in
history. e period of state socialism in Bulgaria (1944-1989) under the
pro-Soviet Bulgarian Communist Party (BCP) is a typical example of this
type of ideological symbiosis. In theory, Bulgarian policies were guided
by the principles of socialist internationalism which disregarded ethnic
distinctions in favor of class solidarity and protected ethnic and cultural
dierences. Nevertheless, in practice the state nurtured ethnic Bulgarian
culture along with socialist multiculturalism and pursued discriminatory
policies against the minorities.
In the early years of Stalinist Socialism, minority discrimination was
implicitly actualized through cultural, economic and religious policies
embedded to the totalitarian project of building a modern socialist society.
Deviation from the Stalinist ideological reference points in minority policies
has become more visible with Todor Zhivkov’s rise to power in 1954. In his
more than three decades of rule, Zhivkov blended the Marxist values with
elements of ethnic and traditional Bulgarian culture, gradually phasing out
the former in favor of the latter as evident in the Unied Bulgarian Socialist
Nation thesis and the National Revival Process in the 1970’s and 1980’s
respectively.
Turks as the largest of the ethnic minorities living in Bulgaria suered most
from regime’s eorts to blend the socialist multiculturalism project with
nationalist policies. Turkish minority and their institutions were perceived
as alien elements of the society to be assimilated into a mainstream cultural
context which was strongly paired with the culture of ethnic Bulgarians.
On the other hand, the public use of Turkish was systematically restrained
under the pretext of integrating Turkish minority to the Bulgarian society.
ese policies were complemented with the so-called voluntary migration of
them from Bulgaria. Although migration seemed to be a voluntary choice,
in practice it was a tool in the hands of the regime to homogenize Bulgaria
by lowering down the proportion of the Turkish minority in the general
population.
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
34
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
e present research has focused on the discriminatory measures taken
against the Turkish minority in socialist Bulgaria. It argues that Turkish
minority was perceived as a threat for the Bulgarian society and state, and
exposed to various forms of discrimination, over the course of the socialist
period. e general hypothesis of the study posits that discrimination
against the Turkish minority was a continuous process that has taken
place in implicit and explicit ways uninterruptedly from 1944 to 1989.
In this regard, it is argued that, from the early Stalinist period until the
promulgation of the Zhivkov constitution in 1971, discrimination was
exercised in more implicit and indirect ways which can be observed in the
exclusionary statements of the BCP rulers, as well as their less tolerant and
more unlawful attitude, towards the Turkish minority compared to other
national minorities. It is also argued that, from 1971 until the end of the
regime in 1989, discrimination was exercised in more direct and explicit
forms (eg. legislative regulations) and in the shape of open antagonism, as
well as, physical attacks and denial of the existence of the Turkish minority
identity.
ere is an extensive literature on the minority policies pursued under the
Socialist regime in Bulgaria which discuss its discriminatory nature (e.g.,
Savova-Mahon Borden 2001, Büchsenschütz 2004, Bates 1994, Kofos
1961, Mahon 2001, Sygkelos 2011). e relevant literature also focuses on
the discrimination against the Turkish minority and gives insights into its
various aspects (Aleksandrieva 2019, Bakalova 2006, Bojkov 2004, Dayıoğlu
2005, Dimitrov 2000, Eminov 1983, 1989, 1990 1997, 2000, Kamil 2016,
Karpat 1991, Mohan 2001, imir 1988, Tahir 2015). Scholarly discussion
about discrimination against the Turkish minority is established and wide-
ranging, but as yet it seems that there is still room to round out them by
attempting to explore its implicit and explicit forms.
To lay the foundation for this argument, the rst section gives a theoretical
framework to describe, and analyze the minority policies of the BCP.
e second section discusses the main features of the BCP’s minority
policies during the Communist period with an attempt to emphasize its
discriminatory nature. In the third section, BCP’s discriminatory policies
and practices towards the Turkish minority are investigated to explore both
its implicit and explicit forms. To this end, this article draws on various
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
35
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
archival materials in Bulgarian including the excerpts of the minutes of
discussion from the BCP Plenums regarding Turkish minority.
Marxism, Nationalism and Ethnic Minorities: A eoretical Perspective
e minority policies under the Socialist regime in Bulgaria needs to be
approached in conjunction with Marxism’s relation with nationalism and
national/ethnic minorities. erefore, the main theoretical background for
this research draws upon Marxist understanding of the national question.
Despite providing valuable insights, neither Marx, nor the subsequent
generations of Marxist scholars up to late 19th century have developed a
holistic approach to the phenomena (See, e.g., Nairn, Hechter, Orridge).
is caused the socialist movements of the later years to face with the absence
of a roadmap to deal with either nationalism or the problem of national/
ethnic minorities while building modern socialist societies (Avineri 638).
As national movements grew in Russian and the Austro-Hungarian Empires
in the early 20th century, the concepts have begun to be discussed more
thoroughly by various Marxist theoretical currents including the Austro-
Marxists and Bolsheviks (See, e.g., Ezergailis 3). On the other hand,
the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917 reinforced the ideas of leading
Bolsheviks on the subject. e 1913 conceptualization of the nation by
Georgian Bolshevik, Joseph Stalin (12) as: “a historically evolved, stable
community of language, territory, economic life, and psychological makeup
manifested in a community of culture” has since become accepted as the
most orthodox denition (Blaut 143). Stalin also dened nationalities
(ethnic minorities) as ethnic groups that have failed to qualify as nation.
ey are thus fated to dissolve politically through assimilation (Blaut 143).
Vladimir Lenin was another crucial gure in the development of Soviet
minority policies. He believed that people’s cultural dierences would be
superseded by collective solidarity and patriotism. Until then, however, it
was necessary to develop a temporary stage of tolerance for them (Eminov
1990). In this regard, the Soviet Union’s early minority policies were known
for the slogan “national in form, socialist in content” in reference to the
limited linguistic and cultural autonomy provided to the ethnic minorities.
However, such policies proved extremely dicult to maintain on the
ground and pushed the Soviet leaders in the opposite direction by the
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
36
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
1930s. Accordingly, the pre- and early revolutionary eorts on building a
socialist society on the basis of tolerance, the right to self-determination,
cultural autonomy, and federalism were replaced with the policy of Russo-
centric Sovietization of non-Russian minorities. is entailed promoting
Russian culture and language by making Russian the Soviet Union’s lingua
franca. It then became extremely dicult to dierentiate between policies
of Sovietization and Russication. Minority policies changed little in the
post-Stalin periods as the Soviet Union’s leaders continued the policy of
Russication of minorities under the banner of Sovietization.
Faced with similar problems, Eastern Europe’s state socialist regimes in the
early years of their experience with state socialism, attempted to integrate
minorities into the society in accordance with communist internationalist
principles. However, various obstacles including lack of legitimacy resulting
from their poor economic and political performances, prevented them from
achieving a universal socialist class identity. Ultimately, the Communist
regimes of Eastern Europe, one by one reconciled with nationalism
(Sygkelos 9-10). In a pragmatic manner, they generated a political climate
in which nationalism became the main dynamic in the society. e rise
of nationalism continued with an increasing trend in the Soviet sphere of
inuence with the consent given by Kruschev in the mid-1950s to national
Communism. Eventually, their minority policies also shared the same
destiny with that of the Soviet Union they resigned themselves to the forces
of majority nationalism and imposed policies of linguistic and cultural
uniformity (Gustavsson 62). All in all, theoretically, the Communist
Regimes in Eastern Europe including the BCP followed the Soviet path in
ethnic minority issues.
Bulgarian Ethnic/National Minority Policies under State Socialism
(1944-1989)
Since the late 19th century, the Bulgarian Communists had been in a
constant search for an appropriate response to the minority strategy to be
implemented under a future socialist regime in Bulgaria (Bojkov 346). e
absence of a Marxist roadmap on the national question, which is discussed
in the previous section, has also left them in obscurity about the best policy
to be implemented. Despite a certain degree of nationalist deviation from
Marxist ideals, they were generally subservient to the principles of Socialist
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
37
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
Internationalism, therefore, remained (until the consolidation of power)
committed to the idea of a multi-ethnic communist society with equal
citizenship rights irrespective of sex, religion, race, or nation (Sygkelos
112). Accordingly, after the coup of 9 September 1944, the Communist-
led anti-fascist Fatherland Front (FF) coalition made no major theoretical
revision of the Soviet nationalities model and adopted a non-national
communist minority policy. In this regard, their approach to the ethnic
minority problem is quite similar to the above discussed ideas of Lenin. In
this sense ethnic minorities were given cultural concessions and promised
the protection of their ethnic, albeit not religious identities (Sygkelos 113).
Besides being a natural outcome of the Marxist thinking, the adoption of
a more-or-less tolerant minority policy was a pragmatic move to secure as
much support from ethnic minorities as possible for the new communist
system (Kamusella).
e brief period of relaxation and political pluralism came to an end in
1947 with the speeding up of Bulgaria’s transformation to Soviet model
authoritarianism (Warhola and Boteva 260-264). However, the restrictive
nature of the regime was barely detectible in the legal documents. Under
the Soviet inspired Dimitrov constitution of 1947, named after the Stalinist
BCP Party Secretary Georgi Dimitrov, state recognized the existence of
national minorities, allowed them to retain their cultural identity through
granting of certain rights in the context of Soviet internationalism. Besides
the rights such as developing minority-language education and other
national characteristics, certain measures were taken as part of the policy
of Sovietization/modernization through education to increase minorities’
level of education with the intention of creating minority elites loyal to
the regime (6-toto Veliko Narodno Sabranie). However, restrictions were
placed on the cultural freedoms of the minorities (Dimitrov and Sassoon
7). For example, the provisions protecting the cultural rights of the ethnic
minorities were reverted through tightened central government control on
minority cultural institutions including schools, and religious institutions
(Kofos 40).
e repressive minority policies were furthered by Dimitrov’s successor Vulko
Chervenkov (1949-1954) who marginalized all the pluralist provisions
of the constitution based on Stalinist assumption that the diversity of the
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
38
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
society was threatening the security of the state by increasing foreign claims
upon Bulgarian citizens (Crampton 174). One exception to this was the
use of the minority languages as the medium of instruction in the schools
which was believed to promote better and more eective indoctrination of
minority children to communism. On the other hand, Chervenkov started
the so-called “cultural revolution” of Bulgaria, a series of modernization
eorts aimed at speeding up Sovietization and the building of a classless
atheist society devoted to the Communist ideology (Znepolski, et al.
313-314). In this context, the anti-religious campaigns pursued since the
beginning of the communist period, developed into a ght with Islam, the
faith of the majority of the Bulgarian minorities. Such acts as conscation
of the properties of Islamic charities and the abolishing of Quran schools
became common practices across Bulgaria (Jalamov 248). rough the
extremely prohibitive Denominations act of 1949, the religious activities
of the Muslims were put under strict control of the Oce of the Chief
Muftiate, which was no more an elected body but a bureaucrat appointed
by the BCP, (Mahon 256).
e enforcement of Stalinist orthodoxy in minority policies slowed down
when Chervenkov was deposed as BCP party secretary by Todor Zhivkov in
1954 (Nikova) and totally ended two years later with Chervenkov’s dismissal
as prime minister. Following the footsteps of Khrushchev, Zhivkov embarked
on comprehensive changes in the course of Bulgarian minority policies.
He was determined to reverse the policies followed by his predecessors,
whom he accused, in his memoirs, for leading to a multinational Bulgaria
and causing disunity among the Bulgarian people by isolating minorities
(Zhivkov 444). Accordingly, the ocial narrative is transformed to socialist
nationalism which was a Marxist-nationalist symbiosis. With this new
variant of state socialism, ethnic Bulgarian culture, which was already the
de facto dominant culture of Bulgaria, was ocially incorporated into the
project of building a socialist Bulgarian society (Gruev and Kalionski 27).
e ethnic minority policies of the BCP eventually resigned to the forces
of social uniformity and nationalism. Zhivkov began to pursue a Bulgaro-
centric Sovietization of the non-Bulgarian minorities through the imposition
of linguistic and cultural uniformity. As put by Avramov (34) since the
1960’s, minority policies in the country gradually shifted from “tolerant
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
39
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
disintegration” of cultural identity to “intolerant integration”. is shift
was predominantly attributed to the legitimacy problem of the BCP that
resulted from poor economic and political performance and its subsequent
failure in creating a universal socialist class identity. Accordingly, the new
party line under Zhivkov was to foster the assimilation of certain minorities
like Roma, and Macedonians whose Bulgarian origins were reinforced by
state sponsored historians, and alienate other minorities like Turks, who
were used as a tool for consolidating Bulgaria’s ethnic majority around
Bulgarian nationalism.
In the early 1970’s Zhivkov introduced new social reforms with lasting
consequences for the Bulgarian minorities, most important of which was
the adaptation of Brezhnev’s thesis of the unied Soviet people to Bulgaria as
the unied Bulgarian Socialist people (Stojanov 143). ese reforms, which
were the formalization of the discriminative policies that de facto existed
since the late 1950’s, entailed creating one nation one language Socialist
state by eliminating distinguishing features of the minorities.
Bulgaria’s 1971 Constitution, introduced the unied Bulgarian Socialist
people thesis, which was the nal stage in the marginalization process of
ethnic minorities. Opening the era of more explicit and direct discrimination
against the minorities, the new constitution, unlike the old one, made no
explicit reference to national minorities, and the term itself was replaced by
citizens of non-Bulgarian origin (5-o Narodno Sabranie).
e impact of the principles of the 1971 Constitution was felt shortly
after its promulgation, through more systematic and explicit assimilation
campaigns exercised on ethnic minorities by the BCP according to the
constitutions’ homogenously formulated denition of the Bulgarian society.
For instance, the old identity cards of the citizens replaced with new ones
that do not state nationality (Savova-Mahon Borden 270). e rst victims
of the assimilationist policies of the 1970s were the Pomaks whose names
were attempted to be unsuccessfully changed by the state between 1971 and
1973 (Büchsenschütz 86).
In 1979, Zhivkov claimed publicly that Bulgaria had no minority problem
as the question of minorities had been denitively solved by the people
themselves (Eminov 8). His public statement was a prelude to the last act of
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
40
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
the state in the 1980’s to achieve linguistically and culturally homogenous
Bulgaria. As a product of this idea, large-scale assimilation campaigns have
started against the Turkish minority in the last days of 1984 (Mahon 257).
e ongoing persecutions in the second half of the 1980’s went hand in hand
with protests against the regime’s resistance to the wave of liberalization
in Eastern Bloc countries marking the end of the BCP’s decade-long
integrationist and assimilationist policies, and its own demise in 1989.
e Era of Implicit Discrimination: Turkish Minority from the Stalinist
Period to the Promulgation of the 1971 Constitution
When the communist dominated FF took power in 9 September 1944, there
were approximately 750,000 Turks in Bulgaria living primarily as peasant
societies mainly in the southeastern provinces of Kardzhali, Haskovo, Stara
Zagora, Plovdid, Sliven and northeastern provinces of Razgrad, Rousse,
Shumen, Targovishte, Silistra, Dobriç and Varna. During the pre-Stalinist
transition to socialism (1944-1947) the BCP had to win over the members
of the Turkish minority to its side in order to consolidate a power base against
strong political opponents in the FF. erefore, a number of concessions
were made to the Turkish minority such as giving back their rights that have
been taken over the past decades, amelioration of their adverse economic
situation prevalent since the early 20th century, as well as giving small size
lands to the landless Turkish peasants. However, the mood of optimism did
not last long. Soon after, the Stalinist regime started its harsh and punitive
ideological homogenization policies (imir 136).
After the signing of the Paris Peace Treaty (February 1947) and promulgation
of the Dimitrov constitution (December 1947), the Stalinist BCP, began
nationalizing the Turkish minority schools which were then transformed
into state-controlled centers of communist indoctrination (imir 155).
Bulgarian became a compulsory course in these schools in order to create
a bilingual Turkish youth and a Bulgarian speaking Turkish intelligentsia.
Moreover, Bulgarian publishing houses opened Turkish branches and
published Turkish language books, journals and newspapers with communist
propaganda material. On the other hand, a Turkish Philology department
was established at the University of Soa responsible for the standardization
of the written and spoken Turkish in line with the communist needs. In
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
41
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
a similar vein the State radio began broadcasting Turkish programs with
ideological context (Eminov 140).
In theory the Stalinist BCP has provided the Turks, like all the other
minority groups, with constitutional right that protected their ethnic and
linguistic identity (TİKA 217). However, in practice, unlike the approach
to Roma, Macedonians and to a certain extent Pomaks, the BCP regime
implicitly deprived the rights of the Turks to establish cultural institutions of
their own (Sygkelos 112). e suppressive policies such as the purges in the
Turkish community schools became the order of the day (Crampton 148).
e regimes shift in its attitude towards the Turkish minority was evident
in the words that Dimitrov spoke in a speech he addressed to the BCP
leadership: “Full rights to national minorities, but concerning the Turks -
circumspectly” (Kalinova and Baeva 81). Dimitrov was also known for his
categorization of minorities as the ones aliated with a friendly nation and
an enemy one (Sygkelos 112), in this regard the Turks as a minority was
aliated with an enemy nation.
On the other hand, the BCP was very concerned with Turkish minorities’
ties with neighboring Türkiye (Eminov 140). In 1945, Bulgarian Ministry
of Interior reported on Turkish minority’s aliation to a hostile nation
(Türkiye) and that Ankara was increasing its engagements in Bulgaria since
the end of the Second World War with aim of using the Bulgarian Turks
as a fth column (Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti, Dekemvri 1945 33).
According to the Bulgarian Ministry of War documents, the Turkish minority
in South East Bulgaria bordering Türkiye, comprising of the majority
population in the region, was an imminent security threat. erefore, to
eliminate the threat, the Ministry was proposing to encourage the voluntary
emigration of as many minority Turks in the region as possible to Türkiye.
e plan also aimed at resettling the region with ethnic Bulgarians to create
an ethnic balance and to ll the vacuum in the economy caused by the
deportation of the Turks (Ivanov, M. and Jalamov, I. 579-580). It was hoped
that the remaining Turks would then assimilate into the Bulgarian culture,
abandon the “Great-Turkish aspirations”, and embrace Communist values
(Ministerstvo na voynata, Generalen Shtab 1947, 103 - 104; 109 - 111)
ese were necessary steps to build a bright future for the People’s Republic
(Ministerstvo na voynata, Generalen Shtab 1947, 103).
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
42
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
Reports of various ministries on the threat that the Turkish minority posed
will resonate in the closed plenum of the Central Committee (CC) of
the BCP in August 1948. Georgi Dimitrov, complained that there was a
persistent problem on Bulgaria’s southern borders due to a population of
non-Bulgarian origin (referring to the Turkish minority) and added that “as
a party and government, stands before them the question of nding a way
to remove them from there and settle our Bulgarian population” (Ivanova
62). Following Dimitrov’s sudden death in July 1949, nding a solution to
this question fell to his successor Chervenkov.
For Chervenkov, Bulgarian Turks were dierent from ethnic Bulgarians, and
their cohesion as a community made their integration into the Bulgarian
Communist people almost impossible (Kostanick 41). On the other hand,
the solution that Chervenkov proposed for dealing with the problem of
Turkish minority in South East Bulgaria was to forcefully expulse them
from the country. e eagerness of the Turks to leave the country as a result
of oppression and ill-treatment they were exposed to, was an excuse for
the implementation of this policy. On the 18th of August 1949, the CC of
BCP agreed on sending Türkiye of Turkish minority in South East Bulgaria
who no longer wanted to stay. It was also agreed to forcibly relocate the
remaining Turks to other regions within Bulgaria. More than 250,000 visa
applications were made in the rst few months of the process majority of
which were peasant Turks who lost their lands due to the collectivization
policies. Most of the missing paperwork were deliberately ignored by the
authorities to maximize the number of emigrants (Poulton 118-119). Over
150,000 people had left Bulgaria until the closure of borders in 1951 by
Ankara (Büchsenschütz 124).
After the 1950-1951 emigration, the BCP followed a softer approach
towards the remaining Turkish population, introducing the “special care”
plan with the goal of reducing the social unrest, and discouraging their
extant desire to leave Bulgaria. Accordingly, modernization plans were put
in force to increase their standard of living (TİKA 220).
e BPC leaders argued that Stalinist concessions to the Turks have led
the undesirable result of strengthening their national consciousness. e
attempts to inltrate into the Turkish minority life and integrate them
into the communist society resulted to a great extent in vain (Kofos 41).
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
43
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
erefore, the end of Stalinism in the Soviet Union and easing of Moscow’s
control over Bulgaria has given greater freedom of action to those who were
not satised with the Stalinist minority policies. e policies shifted more
pronouncedly from Zhivkov’s early years onward. Discrimination was felt
most through the linguistic and cultural barriers put in front of the Turkish
minority.
e new trend gained momentum with the introduction of ‘theses for
work among the Turkish population’ adopted in the special plenums of
the BCP Politburo in June and October 1958 whereby a more intensied
struggle started against the so called ‘display of nationalism and religious
fanaticism among the Turkish minority’ (e Central Party Archives of the
BCP, Fond 1, Record 5, File 353). In this regard, major de-facto limitations
were introduced on the use of Turkish language and practice of Islam
which were seen as driving forces behind the national unity of the Turks
and a stronghold of their resistance to integration (Stojanov 133-134).
Accordingly, the Turkish and Bulgarian schools were merged by the state
based on the “unity in language thesis” and the high school curriculum was
taught exclusively in Bulgarian with the exception of elective Turkish courses
(Marinov 506). Meanwhile, number of Turkish-language newspapers and
magazines decreased drastically and remaining ones became bilingual
(Gruev and Kalionski 113).
e ‘theses for work among the Turkish population’ also aimed at weakening
the ties of Turkish minority with religion. From 1959-1960 onwards, Islam
was suppressed through closure of Mosques, reduction in the number of
Muslim Turkish clergy, conscation of religious literature and introduction
of the state appointment system, replacing the previous system of election
for local imams (Ministterstvo na vǎtrešnite raboti, November 1959).
External factors also played an important role in the shaping of the BCP’s
Turkish minority policy throughout the 1960s. After the outbreak of the
Cyprus crisis in late 1963, the Turkish minority came to the fore as an
irredentist threat to the Bulgaria. According to the Bulgarian authorities,
the intercommunal crisis on the island was a demonstration of the conict
potential that the Turkish minority possessed. However, the Cyprus crisis
did not have a long-term impact on the minority conditions and a period
of relaxation started with the improvement in Bulgaria-Türkiye relations
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
44
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
following the 1964 Johnson’s letter crisis. Ankara’s search for a rapprochement
with the Soviet Union following the crisis, caused Moscow to show its good
intentions by ordering Soa to repair its relations with Ankara, as well as to
soften its attitude towards the Turkish minority (Bishku 85).
e bilateral relations between Bulgaria and Türkiye developed further with
the launch of the Détente period. e softening of international conict
environment was crowned with Zhivkov’s ocial visit to Ankara in 1968,
during which the two sides signed a new Bulgarian-Turkish immigration
agreement, called the Close Relative Migration Agreement. Under this
agreement, Bulgarian citizens of ethnic Turkish origin whose close relatives
had migrated to Türkiye by 1952 were to migrate to Türkiye between April
and November of each year until 1978 (imir 255).
However, the improving relations between Türkiye and Bulgaria did not
have a lasting eect on Turkish minority. By the end of 1960s Bulgarian
authorities were once again voicing their disappointment with the failure of
the linguistic homogenization policies. (Bojkov 355-356). As a result of the
calls for more radical steps, the BCP’s CC passed a resolution in February
1969 to “carry out party activities for the Turkish minority”. e aim of the
resolution was described as the achievement of the cultural advancement
of Turkish minority and accelerating the natural process of overcoming
ethnic dierences. e mechanisms of this process which was deemed to
be natural and progressive were: facilitating the coexistence and work of
ethnic Bulgarians and ethnic Turks; promoting mixed marriages between
Turkish women and Bulgarian men; improving educational infrastructure
in the mixed regions (Büchsenschütz 131).
Beginning of Explicit Discrimination: e 1971 Constitution and Beyond
e decades long de facto discrimination of the Turkish minority turned to de
jure politics following the promulgation of the Zhivkov constitution, which
no longer referred to national minorities in Bulgaria. After the constitution
came into force in 1971, the number of attempts to systematically erode the
Turkish minority from the public domain increased tremendously. ere
was an increased level of anti-Muslim and anti-Turkish rhetoric in media,
which resulted in a change in the ethnic Bulgarians perception about the
Turkish minority. e Turks who continue their traditional way of life and
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
45
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
attachment to Turkish nationalism were marginalized and accused of being
national traitors, and agents of Türkiye (Engström 81).
Accordingly, a new ocial history of Bulgaria was created, with very little
emphasis on the Turkish minority. Historians were delegated the task of
revising the old history books and writing new ones which would provide
the scientic basis of regime’s claim that there are no Turks in Bulgaria and
there is no Turkish inuence in Bulgarian history and culture (Dechev 40).
On the other hand, there was an increasing emphasis on the antiquity of
Bulgarians through extensive use of symbols and rituals from the periods
of the medieval Bulgarian Empire, and the Bulgarian National Revival. In
this regard one of the strongest symbols used in the new history writing was
the term “Turkish Yoke” which was used in reference to Bulgaria’s suering
under Ottoman-Turkish rule (Mahon 150-151).
In 1974, the BCP adopted new measures intended for the ideological and
political inclusion of the population of Turkish origin. e goal was to
strengthen the integration of the Turkish minority to the Bulgarian society
by separating Turkish Muslim children from their families who were believed
to be interfering in the success of modern communist education (Tahirov
57-62). e state-built hostels and boarding schools for Turkish students, to
which, a third of all ethnic Turkish students have been attending by the late
1970s (Ivanova 133-134). By 1975, all the Turkish courses were dropped
from the school curriculum while atheist propaganda was strengthened as
a mean to weaken the religious ties of the conservative Turkish Muslim
community (Gruev and Kalionski 85).
e BCP’s attitude towards the Turkish minority became more suppressive in
the 1970’s due to Türkiye’s military intervention in Cyprus (Neuburger 71).
e intervention of the Turkish Armed Forces in 1974 was instrumentalized
in the domestic political discourse to nourish threat perceptions and anti-
Turkish prejudices (Bojkov 355). e BCP, to spread fears among the
Bulgarian population, propagated that Türkiye would repeat the “Cyprus
scenario” in Bulgaria to support Turkish minority in South East Bulgaria
(Dimitrov 12).
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
46
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
Discrimination in the Late Socialist Era and the Revival Process (1980-1989)
Living up to the hype created around the Cyprus issue, the intelligence
reports from the 1980s claimed that Ankara was planning terrorist attacks on
Bulgarian territory through secretly founded organizations which recruited
the most reactionary members of the Turkish minority (Ministerstvo na
vatreshnite raboti, May 1980. 806). Reportedly, the Turkish Intelligence
Organization (MIT) was attempting to undermine the moral and political
unity of the Bulgarian People and government eorts for the inclusion of
the Muslim population in the construction of Communism (Ministerstvo
na vatreshnite raboti, May 1980. 809). Other sources reported that
Türkiye would propose administrative autonomy for regions with Turkish
populations in Bulgaria (Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti, Fevruari 1982
829). Accordingly, Georgi Dzhagarov, a prominent ideological pundit of
the BCP argued that current living conditions, conning ethnic Turks
within their communities, was making them a tool of international powers
to damage Bulgaria’s security. He further argued that ethnic dierences
should be overcome for the security of the state (Avramov 78).
e coercive identity politics of the BCP culminated in large-scale
assimilation campaigns by 1984. In mid-1984, the Politburo discussed a
detailed report on the failed integration of the Turks. en, two consecutive
resolutions have passed, in May and June, underlining the necessity to
further the attempts for involving Turks in the cause of socialism (Prava
i Svobodi, Nr.5, 18.3.1991, p.12). Finally, the regime started a systematic
assimilation campaign on 10 December 1984, under the code name
“national revival process”. e campaign of the forced change of names
of the minority Turks in South East Bulgaria started the very same day.
Bulgarian police and army units, acting under the ocial orders of
Bulgarian Minister of Interior Dimitar Stoyanov, surrounded the villages
and towns inhabited by Turks in Momcilgrad, Krumovgrad, Kardzhali and
Dzebel (Gruev and Kalionski 135-136). e operation was held under strict
secrecy. Entrance of foreign observers and visitors to the region were not
allowed and communication with the outside world was completely cut
o (Avramov 99). By 14 January 1985, a month after the beginning of
the Revival Process, 550,000 Turks had been given ethnic Bulgarian names
in South East Bulgaria (Büchsenschütz 172). e BCP Secretary Georgi
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
47
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
Atanasov, in his address to the rst secretaries of the local committees on 18
January 1985, described the Revival process as a historical act with which
the last scar from the Turkish yoke upon the Bulgarian people was removed,
creating new conditions for the national unity and the enhancement of
the moral-political cohesion” (Atanasov, G., 18 January 1985 7-20). At
the same meeting, Zhivkov stated that the Turks were descendants of Slav
Bulgarians who had converted to Islam under Ottoman rule, a statement
which he later on repeated to the general public (Neuburger 6).
e same name changing procedure was then repeated in Ludogorie
(Deliorman) region of northeast Bulgaria, including the municipalities
of Razgrad, Shumen, Sliven, Rousse, Dobriç, Varna and Targovishte.
When the name changing process was completed by 11 February 1985,
the number of minority Turks who were forcibly given Bulgarian names
reached to 822,588 (Avramov 110). No ocial statement was made about
the ongoing campaign until March 1985 and then, it was presented as an
entirely voluntary act by the local population (Dimitrov 10). On 30 March
1985, in the Politburo meeting of the BCP, Zhivkov said that the Turkish
minority problem of Bulgaria was not completely resolved, but a decisive
step was taken in this direction. He added that everything will be forgotten
in 15-20 years (Lubanska 55-96).
e National Revival Process continued throughout the second half
of the 1980’s with additional discriminatory practices, such as ban on
speaking Turkish in public, performing religious rituals (including male
circumcision), and wearing traditional clothing (Asenov 94). ere was
resistance among the members of the Turkish minority, who pursued justice
through organizing street protests, forming underground organizations
and showing passive resistance. ose who opposed the name changing
process were punished by the regime through dismissals, torture, nes, and
imprisonment (Tsoneva 12). e ones who were arrested were sent to the
infamous Belene Prison which was reopened in 1985 for Turkish prisoners
after being closed for many years. After their release from prison, Turks were
sent to other regions of Bulgaria with an obligation to stay there for one to
three years (Sharlanov and Ganev 6).
e waves of protests to the ongoing Revival Process grew in size in the early
1989. Increased demands for migration to Türkiye were initially ignored,
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
48
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
as the BCP was planning to resettle the Turks in other parts of Bulgaria.
However, by early 1989, the Ministry of Interior started preparing special
application forms for international passports and distributed them among
the Turks (Bakalova 235). On 29 May 1989, Zhivkov gave a live speech
on state television and radio, stressing the Bulgarian origin of Turks while
also saying that those who wanted to leave could do so. During the same
speech he also called on Türkiye to open borders. As a response to Zhivkov’s
speech, Turkish government opened borders in 3 June 1989, through which
started one of the biggest migration waves in the modern times, known as
the “Great Exodus”. More than 300,000 Turks left Bulgaria for Türkiye until
the Turkish authorities, under a state of emergency, closed the borders on
21 August 1989. Meanwhile tens of thousands of others were still waiting
to cross the border.
On 7 June 1989, the BCP’s Politburo CC held a meeting of all high ranking
BCP members to discuss the nationwide protests in which the revival
process was presented as necessary and migration was considered more than
welcome for the protection of Bulgaria’s national security (Dalekova, 7 June
1989 87). e Revival Process ocially ended on 10 November 1989, when
the party leadership, under great pressure from the international society,
forced Zhivkov to step down. On 22 December 1989, all the imprisoned
protesters were released under an amnesty. On 29 December 1989, a
CC special plenum of the BCP, dominated by the reformist wing of the
party, condemned Revival Process, declared Zhivkov and his close circle
as responsible for the events (Baeva 68) and allowed Turkish minority to
restore their names (recognized by law in March 1990)
Conclusion
Despite the multi-ethnic character of the socialist Bulgarian state, minorities
in the country were considered as alien elements to be suppressed and
assimilated to a mainstream cultural context which was strongly paired with
the culture of the ethnic Bulgarians. e circumstances from the 1940s to
the mid-1950s mandated an ideological orthodoxy which the BCP rulers
must exhibit in all spheres of society, the realm of minority policy being
no exception. State-minority relations had to be organized based on the
Soviet model of nationalities that recognizes the existence of various ethnic
minorities with equal rights and opportunities. However, the promotion
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
49
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
of ethnic Bulgarian culture remained the de facto policy by means of the
privileged position that is granted to it. e move towards assimilation
became explicit in the early years of Todor Zhivkov’s rule through the
gradual shift away from communist orthodoxy to nationalist ideology and
reached its zenith with the adaptation of the Unied Bulgarian Socialist
Nation thesis and one nation one language policy.
is paper intended to inquire into the results of the discriminatory
attitude towards the Turkish minority that came to the fore in both implicit
and explicit ways in the policies of the BCP regime. It is argued that
from the Stalinist years until the promulgation of the 1971 constitution,
discrimination was present in more implicit and indirect ways. It is
observable in the high degree of marginalization of the minority Turks
compared to other minorities, and in the discourses of the BCP rulers
in closed party meetings or intra state exchanges of documents. In this
regard, discrimination was implicitly practiced in various forms such as
the linguistic (Bulgarian language monopoly since the late 1950s), and
cultural (exclusion of the Turks from the national history, mythology etc.
since the late 1960s) policies followed by the BCP. Next, discrimination
was transformed into more explicit forms after the promulgation of the
1971 constitution. Legislative regulations paved the way for action against
the Turkish minority, which was followed by verbal antagonism, as well as,
physical attacks and denial of their minority identity until the demise of the
regime in 1989.
Bulgarian archives and books in Bulgarian, English and Turkish provide
rich primary and secondary source material for researchers who study
the history of the Turkish minority in Socialist Bulgaria. e topic is also
chosen as case studies by various researchers who used dierent lenses of
social sciences (e.g. economics, political science, international relations,
sociology, social psychology, etc.) to explore the answers to their research
questions. However, research in social sciences is moving towards more
interdisciplinary endeavors. erefore, future research should address the
topic from the combined lenses of the relevant elds of social sciences.
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
50
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
Support and Acknowledgment Statement
e authors would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Stefan Detchev and Prof.
Dr. Nonka Bogomilova for their valuable cooperation and support in
carrying out this work.
Contribution Rate Statement
e authors’ contribution rates in this study are equal.
Conict of Interest Statement
ere is no conict of interest with any institution or person within the
scope of this study. ere is no conict of interest between the authors.
References
5-o Narodno sabranie. Konstitutsiya na Narodna Republika Balgariya, 1971.
Svaleno ot Narodno sabranie na Republika Balgariya, 18 May 1971: https://
parliament.bg/bg/19 (Accessed: 02.06.2021).
6-toto Veliko Narodno Sabranie. Konstitutsiya na Narodna Republika Balgariya.
Svaleno ot Narodno sabranie na Republika Balgariya. 06 Dekemvri 1947:
https://parliament.bg/bg/18 (Accessed: 03.06.2021).
Aleksandrieva, Liljana, and Dejan Kiuranov. Balgarizirane na Balgaria (1984-
1985). Nasilstvenata asimilatsia na Turtsite v Balgaria, ed. Rumen Avramov.
Riva, 2019, pp. 69-90.
Asenov, Boncho. Vazroditelniyat protses i Darzhavna sigurnost. Soa, 1996.
Atanasov, Georgi., 18th of January 1985. “Doklad na Georgi Atanasov.” Istinata za
“Vazroditelniya Protses” dokumenti ot arhiva na CC of BCP, In III. Institut za
izsledvane na Integratsiyata (III), 2003, pp. 7-20.
Avineri Shlomo. “Marxism and Nationalism.” Journal of Contemporary History, vol.
26, no. 3, 1991, pp. 637-657. doi:10.1177/002200949102600315
Avramov, Rumen. Ikonomika na “Vazroditelniya Protses”. Riva, 2016.
Baeva, Iskra, and Evgenia Kalinova. “Bulgarian Turks During the Transition
Period.” Bulgaria and Europe: Shifting Identities, ed. Stefanos Katsikas,
Anthem Press, 2011, pp. 63-78.
Bakalova, Maria. “e Bulgarian Turkish Names Conict and Democratic
Transition.” Innovation, vol. 19, no. 3-4, 2006. 233-246.
Bates, Daniel. “What’s in a name? Minorities, Idenity, and Politics in Bulgaria.”
Identities, vol. 1 no. 2-3, 1994. pp. 201-225.
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
51
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
Bishku, Michale B. “Turkish-Bulgarian Relations: From Conict and Distrust to
Cooperation over Minority Issues and International Politics.” Mediterranean
Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 2, 2003, pp. 77-94.
Blaut, James M. e National Question: Decolonizing the eory of Nationalism. Zed
Books, 1987.
Bojkov, Victor. “Bulgaria’s Turks in the 1980s: a Minority Endangered.” Journal of
Genocide Research, vol. 6 no. 3, 2004, pp. 343-369.
Büchsenschütz, Ulrich. Minderheitenpolitik in Bulgarien: Die Politik der Bulgarischen
Kommunistischen Partei (BKP) gegenüber den Juden, Roma, Pomaken und
Türken 1944-1989. Digital Library Eastern Europe, 2004.
Crampton, Richard J. Bulgaria. Oxford University Press, 2007.
Dalekova, M., 7th of June 1989. Sreshta na Politburo of CC of BCP. In I. z.
integratsiata, Istinata za “Vazroditelnia protses.” Dokumenti ot arhiva na
Politburo i CC of BCP. Institut za izsledvane na integratsiata, 2003, pp. 85-
127.
Dayıoğlu, Ali. Toplama Kampından Meclise: Bulgaristan’da Müslüman ve Türk
Azınlığı. İletiim Yayınları, 2005.
Dechev, Stefan. “Balgarskata istoriograya i proto ideologiyata na t. nar.
Vazroditelen protses.” Nasilstvenata asimilatsiya na turtsite v Balgariya
1984-1989 : razmisli varhu ideologiyata, istoriyata, posleditsite, ed. Rumen
Avramov. Tsentar za akademichni izsledvaniya, 2019, pp. 15-42.
Dimitrov, Martin K., and Joseph Sassoon. “State Security, Information, and
Repression: A Comparison of Communist Bulgaria and Ba‘thist Iraq.”
Journal of Cold War Studies, vol. 16, no. 2, 2014, pp. 3-31.
Dimitrov, Vesselin. In Search of a Homogenous Nation: the Assimilation of Bulgaria’s
Turkish Minority, 1984-1985, 23 December 2000. Retrieved from
Heinonline: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.
journals/jemie2000&div=6&id=&page= (Accessed: 01.06.2021).
Eminov, Ali. “e education of Turkish Speakers in Bulgaria.” Ethnic Groups, vol.
5, no. 2, 1983, pp. 129-150.
Eminov, Ali. e Elimination of Turkish language instruction in Bulgaria. Wayne
State College, 1989. Retrieved from https://ia803101.us.archive.org/19/
items/ERIC_ED317459/ERIC_ED317459.pdf (Accessed: 31.05.2021).
Eminov, Ali. “Nationality Policy in the USSR and in Bulgaria: Some Observations.”
e Anthropology of East Europe Review: Newsletter of the East European
Anthropology Group, vol. 9, no 2, Fall 1990.
Eminov, Ali. Turkish and other Muslim minorities in Bulgaria. Routledge, 1997.
Eminov, Ali. “Turks and Tatars in Bulgaria and the Balkans.” Nationalities Papers,
vol. 28, no. 1, 2000, pp. 129-164.
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
52
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
Engström, Jenny. Democratisation and the Prevention of Violent Conict: Lessons
Learned from Bulgaria and Macedonia. Routledge, 2009.
Ezergailis, Andrievs. “e Nationality Question in Bolshevik Ideology.” Bulletin of
Baltic Studies, vol. 2, no. 5, 1971, pp. 3-19.
Gruev, Mikhail, and Aleksey Kalionski. Vazroditelniyat Protses. Myusyulmanskite
obshtnosti i komunisticheskiyat rezhim. Institut za izsledvane na blizkoto
minalo, 2008.
Gustavsson, Sven. “Socialism and Nationalism. Trends and Tendencies in the
Language, Nationality and Minority. Policy of the Socialist Countries in
Post-War Europe.” Sociolinguistica, vol. 4, no. 1, 1990, pp. 50-83. https://
doi.org/10.1515/9783110245097.50
Hechter, Michael. Internal Colonialism: Celtic Fringe in British National Development,
1536-1966. California Press, 1975.
Ivanov, Mihail, and İbrahim Jalamov. “Turskata obshtnost v Balgaria i neyniyat
periodichen pechat (1878-1997).” Balgarsko mediaznanie. Entsiklopedichno
izdanie za mediyanauka i mediyapublitsistika, ed. Rosen Milev, Tom 2.
Balkanmediya, 1998, pp. 556-600.
Ivanova, Evgenija. Othvarlenite priobshteni ili protsesat, narechen‚ vazroditelen.
Institut za iztochnoevropeyska Humanistika, 2002.
Jalamov, İbrahim. İstoria na Turskata obtnost v Bulgaria. IMIR, 2002.
Kalinova, Evgenia, and Iskra Baeva. Bulgarian Transition, 1939-2002. Paradigma,
2002.
Kamil, İbrahim. “Bulgaristan’dan Türkiye’ye Gerçekleen 1950-1951 Göçünün
Nedenleri.” Balkan Aratırma Enstitüsü Dergisi, vol. 5, no. 2, 2016, pp. 31-65.
Karpat, Kemal. e Turks of Bulgaria: e history, culture and political fate of a
minority. University of Wisconsin Press, 1990.
Kamusella, Tomasz D. Bulgaria’s Denial of its Ottoman Past and Turkish Identity.
Retrieved from New Eastern Europe: https://neweasterneurope.
eu/2019/03/24/bulgarias-denial-of-its-ottoman-past-and-turkish-identity/
(Accessed: 03.07.2021).
Kofos, Evangelos. “Balkan Minorities under Communist Regimes.” Balkan Studies,
vol. 2, no. 1, 1961, pp. 23-46.
Kostanick, Huey L. “Turkish Resettlement of Refugees from Bulgaria, 1950-1953.”
Middle East Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, 1955, pp. 41-52.
Lubanska, Magdalena. Muslims and Christians in the Bulgarian Rhodopes. Studies on
Religious (Anti)Syncretism. De Gruyter Open, 2015.
Mahon, Milena. “e Turkish Minority Under Communist Bulgaria - Politics of
Ethnicity and Power.” Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, vol. 1, no.
2, 1999, pp. 149-162.
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
53
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
Marinov, Tchavdar. “Ot “internatsionalizam” kam natsionalizam. Komunisticheskiyat
rezhim, makedonskiat vapros i politikata kam etnicheskite i religioznite
obshtnosti.” Istoria na Narodna Republika Balgariya. Rezhim i Obshtestvoto,
ed. I. Znepolski. CIELA, 2009, pp. 481-516.
Ministerstvo na vatresnite raboti, 10 Noemvri 1959. “Spravka otnosno: Dopusnatite
izvrashteniya v razferedzavaneto sred turskoto naselenie v Razgradski okrag.”
KRDOPBGDSRSBNA, Darzhavna Sigurnost - Smyana na imenata -
Vazroditelniyat Protses (1945-1985) Tom 1, KRDOPBGDSRSBNA, 2013,
pp. 259-263.
Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti, Dekemvri 1945. Raport na nachalnika na VI grupa
, „B“ v Balgariya, Soa, 12 Dekemvri 1945. Ot KRDOPBGDSRSBNA,
Darzhavna Sigurnost - Smyana na Imenata - Vazroditelniyat Protses (1945
- 1985) KRDOPBGDSRSBNA. 2013, pp. 31-38.
Ministerstvo na voynata, Generalen Shtab 1947. Turskiyat maltsinstven i
izselnicheski vapros, Soa, 30 June 1947 (М, ф. 3, оп. 3, а. е. 55, л. 1-68).
In, Durzhavna Sigurnost - Smyana na Imenata - Vazroditelniyat Proces
(1945 - 1985) KRDOPBGDSRSBNA. 2013, pp. 39-111).
Ministterstvo na vatreshnite raboti,. Februari 1982. Informatsiyata otnosno
harakterni momenti ot obstanovkata v stranata vav vrazka s predstojashtoto
poseshtenie na darzhavna glava na Turciya, M, f. Az, op. 12, a. e. 414, l.
113-17. In, Darzhavna Sigurnost - Smyana na Imenata - Vazroditelniyat
Protses (1945 - 1985) KRDOPBGDSRSBNA. 2013, pp. 827-831.
Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti, Mart 1983. Informaciya otnosno sazdadenata
mezhduvedomstvena komisiya v Turtsiya za borba sreshtu „asimilatsiyata“
na balgarski turtsi v NRB; M, f. 1, op. 12, a. e. 506, l. 59-62. Ot
KRDOPBGDSRSBNA, Darzhavna Sigurnost - Smyana na Imenata -
Vazroditelniyat Protses (1945-1985) Soa: KRDOPBGDSRSBNA. 2013,
pp. 940-943.
Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti, May 1980. Informaciya otnosno podrivnata
deynost na “Asotsiatsiya za kultura i solidarnost s rodopskite i dunavskite
turci” protiv Balgariya i meropriatiyata za neynoto neutralizirane i
komprometirane, Soa, 28 maj 1980 g .; M, f. Az, op. 12, a.e. 388a, l. 11-
22. In, Darzhavna Sigurnost - Smyana na Imenata - Vazroditelniyat Protses
(1945 - 1985). KRDOPBGDSRSBNA, 2013, pp. 801-812.
Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti, Noemvri 1959.. Spravka otnosno poluchenite
signali za predstoyashtoto izselvane na turtsite ot Balgariya za Turtsiya
i dopusnatite izvrashteniya po razferedzavaneto. In, Darzhavna
Sigurnost - Smyana na Imenata - Vazroditelniyat Protses (1945 - 1985).
KRDOPBGDSRSBNA, 2013, pp. 264-267.
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
54
bilig
AUTUMN 2022/ISSUE 103
Nairn, Tom. “e Modern Janus.” New Left Review, vol. 1, no. 94, 1975, pp. 3-29.
Orridge, Andrew R. “Uneven Development and Nationalism: I.” Political Studies,
vol. 29, no. 1, 1981, pp. 1-15.
Poulton, Hugh. e Balkans: Minorities and States in Conict. Minority Rights
Group.
Prava i Svobodi, Nr.5, 18.3.1991. (1993).
Savova-Mahon Borden, Milena. e Politics of Nationalism under Communism in
Bulgaria. Myths, Memories, and Minorities. Ph. D. esis. University of
London, 2001.
Sharlanov, Dinyu, and Venelin Ganev. “Country Report - Bulgaria - Crimes
Committed by the Communist Regime in Bulgaria.” Proceedings of an
international Conference held in Prague, 24-26 February 2010, Institute for
the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, Prague, 2010.
Stalin, Joseph. Marxism and the National Question. n.d. , 1913.
Sygkelos, Yannis. Nationalism From the Left. Leiden. Brill, 2011.
imir, Bilal. e Turks of Bulgaria (1878-1985). K. Rystem and Brother, 1988.
Tahir, Nuri A. “Bulgar Komünist Partisi ve Bulgaristan’daki Türklere Yönelik
Asimilasyon Politikası.” Uluslararası Sosyal Aratırmalar Dergisi, vol. 8, no.
41, 2015, pp. 578-587.
Tahirov, ükrü. Rolyata na uchilishteto za priobshtavaneto na Turskoto naselenie kam
Balgarskiya Narod v Borbata za Socializam i Komunizam. Soa: Narodna
prosveta, 1970.
e Central Party Archives of the BCP, Fond 1, Record 5, File 353.
TİKA. Balkanlarda İslam. 2016. Retrieved from TİKA: https://www.
tika.gov.tr/upload/2016/INGILIZCE%20SITE%20ESERLER/
PREST%C4%B0J%20ESERLER/Balkanlarda%20%C4%B0slam%20
PDF/4.cilt.pdf (Accessed: 03.07.2021)
Tsoneva, Denitsa. e Puzzle of the Bulgarian-Turkish Interethnic Cooperation in
Post-Communist Bulgaria. Budapest, Hungary. Masters esis. Central
European University, 2005.
Warhola, James, and Orlina Boteva. “e Turkish Minority in Contemporary
Bulgaria.” Nationalities Papers, vol. 31, no. 3, 2003, pp. 255-280.
Zhivkov, Todor. Memoari. Abagar, 1997.
Znepolski, Ivaylo et al. Bulgaria Under Communism. Routledge, 2018.
•Ivanov, Önsoy,
From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy
•
55
bilig
GÜZ 2022/SAYI 103
Entegrasyondan Asimilasyona ve
Zorunlu Göçe: Bulgaristan Komünist
Partisi’nin Türk Azınlık Siyasetinin Bir
Değerlendirmesi*
Ivo Kirilov Ivanov**
Murat Önsoy***
Öz
Bulgarstan’da komünzmn ktdara gelnden Stalnst dönemn
sonuna kadar geçen sürede azınlıklara yönelk yasal düzenlemeler
sosyalst enternasyonalzm lkelernn etks altında ekllenm,
Bulgarstan vatandaları arasında sınıfsal dayanıma blncnn
geltrlmes amacıyla etnk ve kültürel farklılıkların muhafaza
edlmes öngörülmütür. Gerçekte se, azınlıklara sağlanan anaya-
sal güvenceler ve verlen sözler, modern sosyalst toplum ve kmlk
nası uğruna, görmezden gelnmtr. Stalnzm sonrası dönemde
se komünst ortodoksden mllyetçlğe doğru gerçekleen de-
olojk kayıın da etksyle ayrımcı poltkalarda artı yaanmı.
Devlet elyle sürdürülen ayrımcı poltkalar Bulgarstan’dak etnk
azınlıklar çnde en kalabalık ve kültürel farkındalığı en yüksek
azınlık olan Türkler çn gen kapsamlı sonuçlar doğurmutur.
Sosyalst dönem boyunca Bulgar toplumunun yabancı br unsuru
olarak algılanan Türk azınlık, devletn entegrasyonst/asmlasyo-
nst poltkalarının öncelkl hedef olmu, stenlen sonuçlar alı-
namadığında se Bulgarstan’dan zorla göç ettrlmtr. Bu makale,
* Bu makale brnc yazarın knc yazar danımanlığında hazırladığı yüksek lsans teznden türetlmtr.
Gel Tarh: 21 Aralık 2022 – Kabul Tarh: 02 Ağustos 2022
Bu makaley u eklde kaynak göstereblrsnz:
Ivanov, Ivo Krlov, and Murat Önsoy. “From Integraton to Assmlaton and Forced Mgraton: An
Evaluaton of the Bulgaran Communst Party’s Turksh Mnorty Polcy.” blg, no. 103, 2022, ss. 31-58.
** Bağımsız Aratırmacı – Blagoevgrad/Bulgarstan
ORCID: 0000-0003-1158-4470
vokrlovvanov@yahoo.com
*** Doç. Dr., Hacettepe Ünverstes, İktsad ve İdar Blmler Fakültes, Uluslararası İlkler Bölümü –
Ankara/Türkye
ORCID: 0000-0002-8990-1547
onsoymurat@hotmal.com
56
bilig
GÜZ 2022/SAYI 103
devlet sosyalzm dönemnde Bulgar Komünst Parts’nn Türk
azınlığa dayattığı ayrımcı poltka ve uygulamaları ele almakta ve
sonuçlarını ncelemey amaçlamaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Türk Azınlık, Bulgarstan Komünst Parts, entegrasyon, asm-
lasyon, yenden doğu sürec.
bilig
Осень 2022 / Выпусĸ 103
57
От интеграции к ассимиляции и
вынужденной миграции: оценка
политики Болгарской коммунистической
партии в отношении турецкого
меньшинства*
Иво Кирилов Иванов **
Мурат Онсой ***
Аннотация
Положения о меньшинствах в Болгарии от коммунисти-
ческого переворота до конца сталинской эпохи формиро-
вались под влиянием социалистической интернационали-
стической политики, которая предусматривала сохранение
этнических и культурных различий для создания классовой
солидарности среди болгарских граждан. Однако на прак-
тике данные им конституционные гарантии и обещания
зачастую игнорировались государством в угоду построе-
нию современного социалистического общества. Дискри-
минация еще больше усилилась в постсталинские годы
параллельно с идеологическим сдвигом режима от ком-
мунистической ортодоксии к национализму. Спонсируемая
государством дискриминационная политика имела далеко
идущие последствия для турок, самого многочисленного
и культурно осведомленного из всех этнических мень-
* Статья написана на основе магистерской диссертации первого автора, подготовленной под
руководством второго соавтора.
Ссылка на статью: 21 декабря 2021 г. – Принято в номер: 2 августа 2022 г.
Ссылка на статью:
Ivanov, Ivo Kirilov, and Murat Önsoy. “From Integration to Assimilation and Forced Migration:
An Evaluation of the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish Minority Policy.” bilig, no. 103, 2022,
pp. 31-58.
** Независимый исследователь – Благоевград / Болгария
ORCID: 0000-0003-1158-4470
ivokirilovivanov@yahoo.com
*** Доц., д-р, Университет Хаджеттепе, факультет экономики и управления, кафедра
международных отношений – Анкара / Турция
ORCID: 0000-0002-8990-1547
onsoymurat@hotmail.com
bilig
Осень 2022 / Выпусĸ 103
58
шинств. Воспринимаемое как чужеродный элемент болгар-
ского общества, на протяжении всего социалистического
периода турецкое меньшинство подвергалось интеграцио-
нистской/ассимиляционистской политике и насильственно
изгонялось из страны в периоды, когда эта политика не
давала желаемых результатов. Эта статья посвящена дис-
криминационной политике и практике, навязанной турец-
кому меньшинству Болгарской коммунистической партией
в эпоху государственного социализма, и намерена иссле-
довать их результаты.
Ключевые слова
Турецкое меньшинство, Болгарская коммунистическая
партия, интеграция, ассимиляция, процесс возрождения
