The concept of “The charm of the Russian Name”: On the Russian Mission in Central Asia in the representations of Nikolai Charykov and Nikolai Rozenbakh

The Russian policy in Central Asia during the latter half of the nineteenth century encompassed a multitude of intricate instruments, collectively aimed at integrating the region into the empire. In light of these considerations, the question of how newly acquired territories should be governed acquired particular salience. In the sources examined in this article, Russian statesmen Nikolai Rozenbakh and Nikolai Charykov employed the concept of the “charm of the Russian name” in their analysis of this issue. The overarching objective was to create a governance structure in Central Asia that would ensure the safety and security of the local population, facilitate economic activity, and provide access to cutting-edge technology. The aim of this article is to elucidate the understanding of this concept by both politicians. Nikolai Rozenbakh held the position of Governor-General of the Guberniya of Russian Turkestan between 1884 and 1889, while Nikolai Charykov served as a diplomatic official under the Governor-General from 1883 to 1886 and subsequently as a political agent in Bukhara from 1886 to 1890. The significance of this issue can be elucidated by acknowledging the paucity of research conducted on the activities of those directly responsible for implementing Russia’s policy in Central Asia. This limitation impairs our capacity to fully comprehend the intricacies of the regional processes unfolding there. A critical examination of the memoirs of Russian administrators in Turkestan, along with an analysis of epistolary sources and business correspondence, reveals that the “charm of the Russian name” could be interpreted in multiple ways. A comprehensive examination of these materials enables the identification of several key substantive elements, including moral, technical, and scientific superiority; the establishment of law and order; concern for the safety of local residents; the eradication of phenomena that impeded the implementation of the “policy of peace and prosperity”, and the preservation of traditional forms of life that did not conflict with it. The study’s principal conclusion is that both statesmen did not regard the indoctrination in Russian legal and ideological principles as a principal method of integrating Central Asia into Russia. Instead, they employed a balanced approach between “soft” and “hard” power in their interactions with the local population and elites.