After the death of the Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences (IVAN) akad. Bobojan Gafurovich Gafurov, which followed in the summer of 1977, in the winter of the same year, the new director of the corresponding member was introduced to the team. Academy of Sciences of the USSR Evgeny Maksimovich Primakov. Academician E. M. Primakov, as a scientist and organizer of science, played a significant role in the fate of Soviet orientalism ^. Overcoming the crisis in Oriental studies during his directorship continued. The time of E. M. Primakov is a period of high intensity of our science.

From the autobiography of E. M. Primakov (October 1974):

"I, Yevgeny Maksimovich Primakov, was born on October 29, 1929 in Kiev in a family of employees. My father died when I was three months old. (By this time we had already moved to Tiflis.) He was raised by his mother Primakova Anna Yakovlevna, who worked for the last 35 years of her life as a doctor in the polyclinic of the Tbilisi spinning and knitting Combine. In 1972, she died in Tbilisi" [Academician Primakov-50 years old, 1980, p. 126; see also: Korolev, 1999; Mlechin, 2001; Scientific elite..., 1993, p. 129; Primakov, 1999].

Evgeny lived on the same street with the future director Lev Kulidzhanov and studied at the same school with the future famous Russian philosopher and comrade of Mikhail Gorbachev Merab Mamardashvili. Tbilisi is an international city, where Georgians, Armenians, Russians, Jews, and Kurds were friends from childhood, where loyalty to camaraderie and the desire for mutual assistance were brought up. The city laid a solid human foundation in the character of E. M. Primakov.

In 1948, Evgeny entered the Arabic department of the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies. He studied under bright orientalists: history was brilliantly read by Prof. E. A. Belyaev, political economy was brilliantly read by the polymath Prof. E. Ya. Bregel, and Arabic was taught by such prominent specialists in our country as Prof. Kh. K. Baranov, the experienced A. F. Sultanov, and a native speaker V. Ode-Vasilyeva. They gave him an excellent education - a reliable guarantee of further success with intelligence, willpower, energy, determination and luck. E. M. Primakov had enough of these qualities.

After graduating from the Institute, Primakov was assigned to the State Committee for Television and Radio Broadcasting under the USSR Council of Ministers, where he worked for six years (1956-1962), holding various positions in the Arabic editorial office, and then becoming the editor - in-chief of the foreign broadcasting editorial office. At the same time, he wrote and defended the

With this article, the authors conclude a series of publications on the history of Russian Oriental studies in the post-war period. 2000, N 5; 2003, N 6.

¹ When Primakov was director of the Institute, Yuri Afanasyev, Alexander Bovin, Lev Razgon, Vladimir Tsvetov, Nikolai Shmelev, and other democratic politicians were invited to the Institute with his knowledge and sometimes by him.

page 119

MSU has a dissertation on the economics of the Middle East and received a PhD degree. In 1962, E. M. Primakov was introduced to the deputy editor-in-chief of the newspaper Pravda, N. N. Inozemtsev, who suggested that he go to work in the editorial office of this newspaper as a columnist in the Asia and Africa department. More than seven years (from December 1962 to April 1970) of Primakov's work in the main newspaper of the country began. Shortly after his appointment, he traveled as a sobkor to the Arab countries and spent a long time in Cairo and Beirut, as well as visiting Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Ethiopia, Libya, Iran, Kenya and Uganda. E. M. Primakov also had to carry out special assignments of the Central Committee of the CPSU. He went to very remote places and had a wide variety of meetings, from state leaders to poor Fellahs. There were few specialists in the country who knew the Middle East as well as this restless journalist from Pravda. Primakov graduated from the School of Party Journalism successfully. And more. He had learned the art of communication. Professor G. G. Diligensky later said of him: "Primakov has a genius gift for winning people's favor "[Izvestia, 1996, 15.05].

After the death of the director of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Academician A. A. Arzumanyan in 1965, N. N. Inozemtsev (academician since 1968) took up this position [Cherkasov, 2002, p. 98]. Nikolai Nikolaevich was a strong political scientist, a member of the upper echelons of power and was revered as one of the ideologues of the CPSU. In 1970, he invited E. M. Primakov to become his deputy. The "wedding" of a skilled party journalist with a stubborn academic science took place. In the biography of Evgeny Maksimovich, a new stage has come.

IMEMO was established in 1956 after the XX Party Congress for a comprehensive study of the main trends in world development, economic, political and social problems of the modern world. It was primarily a political science institute that did not delve into the wilds of classical economics and world history. N. N. Inozemtsev worked for a long time in the Central Committee of the CPSU, was a member of its elected bodies, worked in the newspaper "Pravda" and, becoming the director of the institute, considered its main task to prepare topical theoretical materials for the party leadership. Maxima went to the Institute: "the material should be prepared on the right topic, at the right time and put on the right table." E. M. Primakov passed a good Inozemtsev school of honest service to the party leadership.

The IMEMO structure included the Department of Developing Countries, which was headed by a corresponding member. The Academy of Sciences of the USSR (since 1968) was founded by V. L. Tyagunenko and such talented Oriental scientists as V. V. Rymalov, G. I. Mirsky, A. E. Elyanov, I. L. Maidanik, R. M. Avakov, A. S. Solonitsky, V. M. Kolontai, M. A. Cheshkov and others worked. Communication with them helped to develop E. M. Primakov as a scientist.

The most capable IMEMO employees regularly performed tasks of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Doctor of Science G. I. Mirsky writes in his memoirs:"...work in the Central Committee "on assignment "was considered the most responsible and honorable in such a" court " institute as ours... we sat for weeks mostly in the building itself on the Old Square, and sometimes in a country dacha. I was part of a group of five or six people who, under the leadership of Brutenz ², compiled important party documents on third world issues. I have also written fragments of speeches by Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Suslov, Mikoyan, and Ponomarev" (Mirsky, 2001, p. 179). In this case, the scientists were mercenaries of the science party. Customers demanded theoretical insights from them, and they did their best. In the bowels of the institute, an unintentional and successful idea was born, which hastily turned into a far-fetched one, not confirmed-

² Brutents Karen Nersesovich (b. 1924), Doctor of Historical Sciences (1972), then First Deputy Head of the International Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU.

page 120

It has been hailed as a" creative development " of Marxist science and powerfully voiced by party propaganda. We are talking about a new stage of the crisis that allegedly hit the world system of capitalism, after the Second World War. The "theory" has not stood the test of time. It happened exactly the opposite: the crisis hit the world system of socialism. The beginning of the crisis in the political sphere can be considered the withdrawal of Yugoslavia and Albania from it, the uprising in Hungary (1956), the discord in relations with the PRC and further ascending-Czechoslovakia, Poland, the GDR, etc. But more often than not, ideological workers served the usual Marxist dish to the boss's table with a new sauce, although they avoided putting pepper in it. They have never had any conflict with the party. There were some disagreements.

Anonymously fulfilling the tasks of the Central Committee of the party to prepare policy documents and other people's speeches, scientists followed the instructions of the "customer" and earned their image. At the Institute, creating their own monographs, defending their views and positions, they created their own scientific biographies. But even in this case they followed the" infallible"," unique"," all-powerful " teaching of Marxism-Leninism. There is an opinion that this was not the duplicity of the intellect, but, if you can put it that way, the duality of wholeness.

The humanities developed in a given coordinate system. We have to regret: the works of human scientists who were engaged in modernity turned out to be of a caliber smaller than their talent. Nevertheless, IMEMO conducted in-depth research on the global phenomena of our time. Academician A. N. Yakovlev, the future architect of perestroika and director of the Institute in 1983-1985, wrote that he "felt good at IMEMO. I must say that the institute is also very good - the environment, human relations, scientific level, attitude" [see: Cherkasov, 2004, pp. 92-109].

Great interest of the scientific community was aroused by the solid three-volume work of the IMEMO team of authors "Developing Countries: Patterns, Trends, Prospects" published in 1974 (ed. by V. L. Tyagunenko). G. I. Mirsky's books are an original and innovative study of the new dynamic forces of national liberation revolutions. In 1967, he defended a solid (1167 pages) doctoral dissertation "The political role of the army in developing countries", in 1970 he published a monograph "The Army and politics in developing countries", and in 1989-another significant updated work " The role of the army in the political life of the "Third World "countries". I. Mirsky and K. Brutentz, by the way, were the first to develop the concept of "revolutionary democracy in the "third world"").

At that time, Yevgeny Primakov was mainly concerned with the complex problems of the Middle East conflict. He was born in journalism, his element is modernity, his style of work is dynamism. The complexity of the study of modern phenomena is that if the material that the author operates with has not lain under the pressure of time, then often random facts come to the surface of the study. These facts are not always reliable, often contradictory, and it is risky to project them on the pages of books, they feel more comfortable on the wide expanse of a newspaper sheet. What is modern, what is present, requires the scholar to have mature skill and calm judgment in order to enclose the results of his work in the binding of a book. That is why the author writing a serious study is not so much interested in being quick, but rather the need to feel the temporary situation.

E. M. Primakov initiated a new effective form of advanced study of modernity. We are talking about situational analyses - detailed studies on a given topical topic, which were prepared by highly qualified experts representing, in addition to scientists, also interested practical organizations - the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Vneshtorg, SCEC, law enforcement ministries, foreign intelligence, etc.

page 121

Situational analyses were developed in closed meetings as a result of a free exchange of views among all participants. The joint outcome document contained concise conclusions, a forecast, and practical recommendations. The document was classified and sent to interested organizations and individuals on the list. The first situational analysis at IMEMO was conducted in October 1970. He led its organization, developed the methodology, compiled a group of experts, and edited the final document of the Deputy Head of the Institute. Director of IMEMO E. M. Primakov, his closest assistants were employees of this Institute V. I. Gutman and V. I. Lyubchenko. Experts changed depending on the topic of analysis. The free exchange of views covered a wide range of problems of world economic relations, foreign policy and military-political issues, taking into account religious and other factors. Among the topics analyzed were those related to the East: "New trends in Egyptian politics and prospects for Soviet-Arab relations", "Problems of partial settlement of the Middle East conflict", "Possible international political consequences of normalization of Japanese-Chinese relations"," International political consequences of ending the Vietnam War " and some others. The innovative direction of the Institute's work in the humanities, which has direct access to practical policy, was approved by the country's leadership. In 1974, Primakov was elected a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

At the end of 1977, E. M. Primakov was appointed Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences, one of the oldest institutes of the Academy of Sciences, which had a stable tradition and an established intellectual environment. It was less politicized than IMEMO. Having taken up a new position, E. M. Primakov carried out the inevitable organizational and personnel changes. He appointed a corresponding member as his first deputy. Academy of Sciences of the USSR G. F. Kim [Georgiy Fedorovich Kim, 1977, p. 38; Vorontsov, 2002, N 10; Kulikova et al., 1999, p. 42-43; Tikhvinsky and Shastitko, 1984, p. 115-117; Pak, 2004, p. 245; Shabshina, 1994, p. 146]. F. Kim held a special place at the Institute of Oriental Studies. All his long-term, successful creative life was connected with the institute. Open and friendly in character, he enjoyed great authority among the staff. G. F. Kim knew the institute, and the institute knew Kim. E. M. Primakov carried out structural changes and personnel changes in consultation with his first deputy.

G. F. Kim was born on November 3, 1924 in the village of Sinelnikovo in the Far Eastern region (now the village of Pokrovka in Primorsky Krai) in the family of a peasant. In 1937, like all Koreans in the Far East, Georgy became a victim of Stalin's first forced deportation on the basis of nationality. He ended up in Kazakhstan, where he managed to graduate first from the Petropavlovsk Teachers ' Institute, and then, in 1947, from the History Department of the Omsk Pedagogical Institute. In the summer of 1949, Georgy arrived in Moscow and entered the graduate school of the Pacific Institute. His dissertation topic was modern North Korea. After the defense, his entire long-term life until his death in 1989 was connected with the Institute of Oriental Studies. At the age of forty, he defended his doctoral dissertation in 1964 (a rarity for humanitarians), and in 1971 was appointed head of the Department of Korea, Mongolia and Vietnam and became a leader of the young Moscow Korean studies. The range of scientific interests of the young scientist expanded - he was interested in the problems of the entire Asian continent, which is in tectonic motion. He took the initiative to create a special unit at the institute that studies theoretical problems of modern Asia. In 1971. The Department of General Theoretical Problems of Contemporary Development in Asia and North Africa was established. Its head was Doctor of Historical Sciences G. F. Kim. In 1976, the Academy of Sciences elected him its corresponding member.

page 122

Upon assuming the position of Director of the Primakov Institute of Oriental Studies, G. F. Kim immediately accepted his offer to become the first deputy. Together, they developed a new structure of the institute, which included, first, a combination of studying the general problems of Asia and individual regions and even countries; secondly, the study of both the disciplines of the classical cycle of Oriental studies and modernity. The structure of the Institute has changed somewhat: along with the previous departments, new ones have appeared. There are 17 departments and two divisions in total:

General theoretical problems and development of modern Asian and North African countries (Head of the Department, Doctor of Historical Sciences N. A. Simonia, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences since 1997);

Complex problems of International Relations (Head of the Department, Doctor of Historical Sciences A. I. Chicherov);

Economic problems in Asia and North Africa (Head of the Department, Doctor of Economics A. I. Dinkevich);

Historical and cultural relations of the Soviet and foreign East (Head of the Department, Doctor of Historical Sciences P. M. Shastitko);

Monuments of writing of the peoples of the East (Head of the Department, Ph. D. G. F. Girs);

Literature of the Peoples of the East (Head of the Department, Doctor of Philology E. P. Chelyshev, Academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences since 1987);

Scientific information (Head of the Department, Candidate of Historical Sciences L. I. Chernorutskaya);

Languages of the Peoples of the East (Head of the Department, Doctor of Philology V. M. Solntsev, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences since 1984);

Ancient East (Head of the department, Academician M. A. Korostovtsev);

On the Study of Israel (Head of the Department, Candidate of Historical Sciences V. I. Kiselev);

Arab countries (Head of the Department, Candidate of Historical Sciences E. A. Lebedev);

Near and Middle East (Head of the Department, Doctor of Historical Sciences Yu. V. Gankovsky);

India and South Asia (Head of the Department, Candidate of Historical Sciences G. G. Kotovsky);

South-East Asia (Head of the Department, Doctor of Economics G. I. Chufrin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences since 1994);

China (Head of the Department, Doctor of Historical Sciences L. P. Delyusin);

Socialist countries of Asia (Head of the Department, Candidate of Economic Sciences I. S. Kazakevich), Japan (Head of the Department, Doctor of Historical Sciences I. A. Latyshev);

Pacific Problems (Head of the Department, Doctor of Historical Sciences K. V. Malakhovsky);

Divisions:

Postgraduate studies (Ph. D. V. K. Ariskin);

Laboratory of Situational Analysis (Head of the laboratory, Candidate of Technical Sciences V. I. Lyubchenko).

E. M. Primakov transferred the fruitful tree of situational analyses of contemporary Afro-Asian problems, which he had cultivated at IMEMO, to the soil of Oriental studies. For this purpose, certain organizational and technical changes ^were carried out3 . In 1981-1982, the Institute purchased and installed the SM-1406 calculating and computing machine, the first computers, and equipped its own computing center, which was headed by V. I. Lyubchenko, who moved from IMEMO. A.D. Belonogov worked on the computer, and three laboratory assistants helped them. The new direction turned out to be effective. Among the topics of situational analyses prepared at the Institute of Oriental Studies were: "China in the Asia-Pacific region", "Possible scenarios for the development of the situation and regulation of the Middle East conflict", "ASEAN in international relations", "China and the new industrial economies", " The Afghan conflict:

³ The Institute moved from Armenian Lane to 12 Zhdanov Street (now Rozhdestvenka Street). Later, the building was renovated with marble trim and stained glass windows (by the way, at the same time a wooden sculpture "Bowl of Knowledge" was erected in the lobby, the author of which is the famous artist I. Vasiliev.

page 123

ways of development" (the Afghan theme was discussed several times), "The Korean Peninsula and the foreign policy of the USSR" and some others.

In 1980, a group of scientists from IMEMO and the Institute of Oriental Studies was awarded the State Prize for developing the method and conducting a series of situational analyses. Among the winners were: head of work Director IVAN, corresponding member. Academy of Sciences of the USSR E. M. Primakov; employees of IMEMO O. N. Bykov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, V. I. Gutman, Candidate of Historical Sciences, employees of IVAN corresponding member G. F. Kim, Candidate of Historical Sciences V. I. Lyubchenko ⁴ .

In March 1979, the academicians of the USSR Academy of Sciences elected E. M. Primakov a full member of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In 1982, he published the monograph "The East after the collapse of the colonial system", and in 1985- " The history of a conspiracy "(about the Middle East policy of the United States in the 1970s-early 1980s).

Organizational, methodological and thematic changes at the main institute required discussion of the state of affairs in the entire Oriental science. On May 25-27, 1983, the Second All - Union Conference of Orientalists was held in Baku, where new tasks and new approaches to orientalism were announced by the updated leadership of the Institute. E. M. Primakov opened the conference with a brief introduction. First Secretary of the Central Committee of Azerbaijan K. M. Bagirov welcomed the delegates. In his speech, he said: "The Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences, one of the oldest and most honored research institutions of the Soviet Union, is a recognized base of Russian Oriental studies. The staff of the Institute, headed by a prominent Soviet scientist, Academician E. M. Primakov, makes a significant contribution to the development of Oriental studies and the training of scientific personnel. The Institute provides a wide range of assistance to the scientific centers of the Union republics" [II All-Union..., 1983, pp. 8-9].

E. M. Primakov, who delivered the main report "Actual problems of Oriental studies", defined Oriental studies as a complex science that has an interdisciplinary character. The study of the East, both ancient and modern, linguistics, literature, cultures and religions is doomed to failure if they are not studied in close connection with each other, as a tool for understanding the phenomena of the modern East. Primakov began his report with an analysis of the classical cycle of tasks facing Orientalists: research of Oriental languages, Oriental literatures, publication of cultural and historical monuments, study of religions, ancient history and medieval studies. However, "the core direction of the development of Soviet Oriental studies," the speaker emphasized, "is increasingly becoming the study of modern problems" [II All-Union Conference. ., 1983, p. 12]. He developed this thesis in detail and clearly. Primakov concluded his speech with a quote from the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Yu. V. Andropov: "Social sciences... we must become an effective assistant to the party and the entire people in solving political problems "[II All-Union..., 1983, p. 15]. The words of the party leader became a guide to the institute's actions. After the plenary session, the delegates were divided into five sections and subsections: 1. Socio-economic problems (22 reports were heard), 2. Political and ideological problems (16 reports), 3. Linguistics Subsection (18 reports), 4. Literature and Culture Subsection (21 reports), 5. History and Source Studies Section (50 reports). As can be seen from the list of sections and titles of reports, most orientalists worked within the framework of the classical cycle of orientalism.

⁴ For reasons unknown to the authors, V. I. Lyubchenko was removed from the list of applicants during the submission process. Primakov's attempt to restore justice ran into a blank wall. Then he withdrew his candidacy from the list of candidates for the award. Lyubchenko was reinstated and awarded.

page 124

The Second All-Union Conference of Orientalists summed up the results of its previous work and adopted a resolution outlining the priority tasks of Russian orientalism in the coming years. Appeals were made to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan, in which the delegates assured that Soviet Orientalists would respond to the party's concern with new achievements for the benefit of the socialist motherland.

After the conference, the Institute's connection with practical organizations became even stronger and took various forms. Among them (in addition to writing analytical notes) was participation in the work of public organizations, such as the Union of Friendship Societies, the Committee of Afro-Asian Solidarity, the Committee for the Protection of Peace, the Committee of Youth Organizations, etc. Some employees of the Institute were also included in the composition of responsible state delegations. In 1986, Primakov was included in the delegation headed by Mikhail Gorbachev during his visit to India. He found himself in the closest circle of the Soviet leader and took part in the preparation of important documents, including the famous Delhi Declaration, which organically combined the ideology of the USSR's struggle for peace and the Indian principles of nonviolence. Mikhail Gorbachev highly appreciated the activities of the director of the Institute of Oriental Studies. Yevgeny Primakov was noticed by the country's leadership.

Another important area of activity of the Institute of Oriental Studies was the training of personnel, as well as the work of postgraduate studies. In the mid-1980s, it trained up to 200 young orientalists, with a little less than half of them coming from Afro-Asian countries and about a quarter from the republics of Central Asia, Kazakhstan, and Transcaucasia. Returning to their countries and republics, they contributed to the formation of national scientific schools. The political and creative importance of this direction was noted by B. Gafurov. E. Primakov appreciated and developed it. In Moscow in 1969 she defended her doctoral dissertation "Babur's State in Kabul and India" by Sabohat Azimjanova, and in 1950 - 1977 she was Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan. In 1986, Vladislav Ardzimba, later the first president of Abkhazia, defended his doctoral dissertation "Rituals and Myths of ancient Anatolia". In 1972, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, the future first President of Armenia, defended his PhD thesis at the Leningrad Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies.

The Institute provided assistance in the development of science in friendly Mongolia. The first president of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences was B. III. Shirendib (1961-1981), who defended his doctoral dissertation in Ivan in 1960. A student of Yu. N. Roerich is III. Bira, General Secretary of the International Association of Mongolian Scholars, who defended his doctoral dissertation in 1972; in the same year he defended his doctoral dissertation N. Ishzhamts-Academician of the Academy of Sciences of Mongolia; N. Luvsanchultem - long-term secretary of the Presidium of the People's Khural of the MPR; P. Harloo-writer, Academician of the Academy of Sciences of Mongolia; Ts Damdinsuren, a prominent Mongolian writer, academician (by the way, his daughter currently works at the Institute of Information Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences and is preparing her doctoral dissertation). In 1982, Mahmoud Abbas defended his PhD thesis at the Institute of Oriental Studies, and over the years he became Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization and head of the Palestinian Authority. In the 1980s and early 1990s, Munir Al-Humoush, currently President of the Economic Association of Syria, Mahmoud Zanbua, currently Deputy Minister of Transport of Syria, Suleiman Abu Diyab, Syrian Ambassador to Ukraine, and many others studied and defended their PhD theses at the Institute of Transport of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

As mentioned above, not only scientists from IMEMO, the Institute of Oriental Studies, the Institute of the Far East, and others were involved in the current situation in the East.

page 125

some other humanitarian institutes, but also a number of higher educational institutions. A group of highly trained and influential Modern Orientalists worked in the Central Committee of the CPSU. These are primarily consultants of the International Department of the Central Committee. The Institute of Consultants, designed to "preserve the eternal flame" and "creatively develop" Marxist-Leninist teaching, was formed by the head of the International Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Academician B. N. Ponomarev. Its role has increased especially since 1985. Orientalists-consultants, as a rule, were doctors of sciences. The processes that took place in Africa and the Middle East were handled by K. N. Brutentz, Doctor of Historical Sciences, R. A. Ulianovsky, Doctor of Economic Sciences, South Asia (including Afghanistan), I. I. Kovalenko, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Japan and the Pacific, and China, Doctor of Historical Sciences (later Academician), Jr. Titarenko. In total, the group of consultants of the International Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU consisted of about 10 people. The leader of the group was a man of high intelligence and strong character, A. S. Chernyaev (later he would become an influential assistant to M. S. Gorbachev). In addition, in the International Department and the Department for Relations with Socialist Countries, he held the positions of head.many orientalists with academic degrees worked as reviewers in various sectors.

Relations between some consultants and employees of the Institute of Oriental Studies were sometimes difficult. R. A. Ulianovsky, one of the main proponents of the term "socialist-oriented states", according to K. N. Brutents, placed a sharply negative review on N. A. Simony's profound book " Countries of the East: Ways of Development "(Moscow, 1975) and to the work of A. I. Levkovsky " The Third World in the modern world ... "(Moscow, 1970) on the complexity of the economy of the "third world"countries. R. A. Ulyanovsk's relations with E. M. Primakov and G. F. Kim could not be called cloudless. Consultants, "these Zavidovsky clever people" ⁵, were purveyors of ideas that, once in the speeches or documents of the ruling elite, acquired the power of infallibility and obligation for all humanitarians involved in modernity. This is what happened with the dubious term "state of socialist orientation", born by consultants and approved by M. A. Suslov, the main ideologist of the party.

As for the term "state of socialist orientation", the authoritarian regimes of Afro-Asian countries have come under the ideological protection of the Kremlin. The term has been helpfully picked up by many scholars. In 1964 V. E. Chirkin defended his doctoral dissertation "Forms of the state in transition to the socialist type"in Sverdlovsk. This thesis was developed in his monograph " The state of socialist orientation "(Moscow, 1975). In 1977 G. B. Starushenko's book "Socialist Orientation in developing countries" was published, in 1978 his doctoral dissertation "Some problems of the theory and practice of modern socialist orientation (mainly on the example of African countries)" was defended by A. V. Kiva, in the same year he published a solid work "Socialist Orientation of the liberated countries. Some questions of theory and practice". The monograph "From National Liberation to Social" was published by G. F. Kim. Many collections, articles, and collective works were published, and the Central Committee continued, as in previous years, to give clear assignments to institutes of Oriental studies (often through the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences).

One example: in July 1978, a decision was received "On measures to expose Chinese falsifications and repel Beijing's territorial claims to the USSR" [RGANI, l. 1-7]. The Central Committee, not knowing the opinion of scientists, argued that the Chinese were falsifiers, and their border claims were illegal and it was necessary to give them a sharp rebuff. The Institute of the Far East was immediately assigned to prepare the materials

⁵ The documents were prepared at L. I. Brezhnev's dacha in Zavidov.

page 126

by October 15. The strict customer was not interested in how to study archives, Chinese and Western literature in this time frame. The Institute of Oriental Studies was assigned to prepare two collections of scientific articles on China's expansionist policy in modern and contemporary times. The deadline is August 25. Etc. All the points of the resolution sounded like a military command "instruct", "oblige", "offer", and unrealistic deadlines. In every line of the resolution, there is a commitment, theoretical and ideological commitment, and the desire to support one's political aspirations with the authority of science.

However, the service of the new leadership of the Institute of Oriental Studies to practical organizations in the 1980s did not mean that fundamental research was forgotten. ⁶ The release of already prepared works continued, and new ambitious projects appeared. The Institute's leaders initiated or actively encouraged them.

There is one important feature of basic research-they are not only designed for long-term use, they are the result, as a rule, of long-term and always disinterested work of scientists, often more than one generation. But they are eternal. There are many examples of how the directors changed, the initiators of the research passed away, but the works were created with a persistent pen, attracting new researchers. Even at the time when B. G. Gafurov was the director of the Institute, the sinologist R. V. Vyatkin, with the help of V. S. Taskin, undertook an extremely difficult task-translating the great monument of Chinese civilization "Sima Qian". In 1995, Rudolf Vsevolodovich died, and in the same year Vsevolod Sergeevich passed away. After their deaths, Sinologists - the son of R. V. Vyatkin Anatoly and A.M. Karapetyants-joined the work. They are currently preparing the final, ninth volume of this landmark work. The same can be said about the large Chinese-Russian dictionary, conceived and started several decades ago by Professor I. M. Oshanin, who died in 1982. Students and associates of Ilya Mikhailovich continued and finished his work. The last volume IV was published in 1984. Since the time of acad. Gafurov still publishes two significant series in the international Oriental community - "Monuments of Literature of the peoples of the East" and"Monuments of Writing of the Peoples of the East". In total, more than 150 books have been published, translated from 26 languages of the peoples of the East.

In 1978, Doctor of Historical Sciences E. A. Litvinsky and his colleagues decided to publish a four-volume work "East Turkestan in Ancient times". For two decades, intensive archaeological excavations, collection and processing of ethnographic material were conducted. Six doctoral theses were defended. The head of the study became an academician of the Academy of Sciences of Tajikistan. The last fourth volume of the capital study "East Turkestan..." was published in 2000. B. A. Litvinsky and R. Pichikyan published another fundamental work "The Temple of Oks", based on many years of archaeological excavations. For a number of years, the Institute sent two expeditions to study the non-written languages of the Vietnamese peoples (headed by V. M. Solntsev, Doctor of Historical Sciences): an archaeological expedition and a linguistic expedition.

The fundamental work was a 2-volume edition of the collection of archival documents " Russian-Indian Relations "(supervisors: Doctor of Historical Sciences P. M. Shastitko and Candidate of Historical Sciences T. N. Zagorodnikova). Hundreds of collections of dozens of archives of many Russian cities and the National Archives of India were studied. The work was started in 1988. The first volume was published in 1997, the second-in 1999. The series "History of Eastern Philosophy" has been published for 10 years (ten books have been published). In 2000, the Library of Tibetan Medicine series was founded. The first issue is a full scientific translation into Russian of the classic text "Zhudshi", which has absorbed the centuries-old experience of Tibetan healers.

⁶ The statements of some leaders of the Russian Academy of Sciences, who considered only the works of representatives of natural sciences and mathematics to be fundamental research, are puzzling.

page 127

E. M. Primakov initiated and directed the ambitious project" History of the East " in 6 volumes. By the beginning of 2005, three volumes were published, the printing house has volumes 4 and 5 (currently the responsible editor is Doctor of Historical Sciences R. B. Rybakov, deputy-Doctor of Historical Sciences L. B. Alaev). In this series, the largest Russian Orientalists are engaged, who explore the history of the East from antiquity to the turbulent events of modern history. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons beyond the Institute's control, the publication of the multi-volume fundamental encyclopedia Asia was disrupted.

It is appropriate to mention one more, in our opinion, important area of research related to the study of Soviet Oriental Studies, which has been going on for more than a decade. In 1975, the first edition of the Biobibliographical Dictionary of Russian Orientalists was published. In 1995, the second, significantly expanded and revised two-volume edition of the dictionary, compiled by S. D. Miliband, was published. This dictionary had a number of serious advantages and one, but significant, drawback: it did not include the names of many repressed Orientalists. The gap was filled by the carefully, fully and responsibly prepared works of F. D. Ashnin, V. M. Alpatov and D. M. Nasilov "Repressed Turkology" (Moscow, 2002) and Ya. V. Vasilkov and M. Yu. Sorokin (St. Petersburg, 2003) " People and Destinies. Bibliographic dictionary of Orientalists-victims of political terror in the Soviet period (1917-1991)". The first book shocks with the terrible, naked truth inherent in archival documents - these are interrogation protocols, falsified charges, dry and short sentences.

The book "People and Destinies" presents brief biographical sketches of Orientalists who were repressed in 1917-1991. A terrible number: 745 people. Here are academicians and librarians; a former general of the Russian army and an excellent indologist E. A. Snesarev; a Bolshevik, a participant in the execution of the royal family G. I. Safarov. It is impossible to understand the logic and principle of repression, they simply do not exist. It hurts to read-familiar names of predecessors, teachers, and colleagues. There is an opinion that the Bolsheviks cut down the roots of the elite humanitarian intelligentsia, often either in opposition or simply on the front in relation to dictatorship and authoritarianism. F. F. Raskolnikov (data about him are given in the book "People and Destinies") wrote about Stalin: "Like all semi-intellectuals who picked up scraps of knowledge, Stalin hates real cultural life. the intelligentsia - party and non-party alike. Despising people, he considers himself a full-fledged master over their life and death" [see: Shastitko, 2002, p.146]. The publication of the two monographs mentioned above not only fills a significant gap in the study of the history of Russian orientalism, but is also a moral duty to our predecessors.

In November 1985, E. M. Primakov, on the initiative of Academician A. N. Yakovlev (who, after the death of Academician N. N. Inozemtsev in 1982, was appointed director of IMEMO, and then went into big politics), replaced him in the directorial position ^.7 Primakov worked at IMEMO until the summer of 1989, when he was elected Chairman of the Union Council of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. In the same year, he was elected a candidate member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee. The path of E. M. Primakov went upward. Academician E. M. Primakov is certainly a moderately ambitious scientist and a non-dangerously ambitious politician. But this is not the main thing. The main thing is that he believed in the need for perestroika, which was started by Mikhail Gorbachev and Alexander Yakovlev. Mikhail Gorbachev, the first leader in the history of Russia with a real university education, hoped to carry it out by reforming the CPSU, removing its incompetent, poor intelligence and education, corrupt upper stratum, electing knowledgeable, educated people to the leadership.,

⁷ Together with E. M. Primakov, a group of orientalists left IMEMO, including future academician and director of IMEMO N. A. Simonia.

page 128

highly cultured new leaders. So on the political Olympus was E. M. Primakov. M. S. Gorbachev and his entourage were wrong about the main thing. Metastases of disintegration irreversibly struck the CPSU. And in vain E. M. Primakov lamented, writing in his poem:

We race, time lashes us, We stumble, but we are not judged by those who do not even put their foot in the stirrup And only teach everyone how to live

[Primakov, 1999, p. 431]

"Horses of Perestroika" did not survive the race and did not reach the finish line. And although President Boris Yeltsin tried to use Primakov's talent, making him chairman of the Council of Ministers of Russia, they could not work together. E. M. Primakov did not like the role of Chekhov's uncle Vanya Voinitsky, he was more like Ermolai Lopakhin by nature.

After leaving the Primakov Institute in November 1985, orientalists INITIALLY assumed that the institute would be headed by G. F. Kim, an authoritative scientist in the team and a solid organizer of science. A large group of veterans of the institute appealed to the Central Committee of the CPSU with a collective letter asking to approve G. F. Kim as director. The same opinion was expressed by the institute's party organization. The Central Committee did not take into account the wishes of the collective. In 1987, a former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, a Sinologist, professor (since December 1987, corresponding member of the Institute of Oriental Studies) was appointed director of the Institute of Oriental Studies. Academy of Sciences OF THE USSR) M. S. Kapitsa. Orientalists knew: M. S. Kapitsa and accepted a new leader. Years of his leadership of the Institute - 1987 - 1994 - These are the years of social storms and personal temptations. M. S. Kapitsa, an experienced diplomat, avoided shying away and chose a calm course [see: Russian Oriental Studies in memory of M. S. Kapitsa, 2001, p. 1].

Mikhail Stepanovich Kapitsa was born in 1921 in the village of Yurkovtsy, Kamianets-Podilsky uyezd, Ukraine. In 1941, he graduated from the Kharkiv Institute of Foreign Languages, and in 1948 from the Higher Diplomatic School. Since 1943, he linked his fate with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR. He began his diplomatic career in China (in 1943-1946 in the Kuomintang, and then in 1950-1952 in the People's Republic of China), and witnessed a huge revolutionary transformation in this country. In 1953-1959, the USSR Ambassador to Beijing was a prominent ideologist of the CPSU(b), Academician P. F. Yudin, who had a noticeable influence on the young diplomat. In 1953, M. S. Kapitsa defended his PhD thesis, and in 1958 - his doctoral dissertation, devoted to Soviet-Chinese relations in different historical periods. In the same year, M. S. Kapitsa's voluminous monograph "Soviet-Chinese Relations"was published. In 1960 - 1961, M. S. Kapitsa was the USSR Ambassador to Pakistan. This was followed by many years of work in the Central Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, from 1982 to 1987 he was Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in charge of the Far Eastern direction. In 1984, M. S. Kapitsa, as the head of the Soviet delegation, participated in negotiations on the demarcation of the Soviet-Chinese border. This was a difficult time in the development of Soviet-Chinese relations. S. S. Kapitsa consistently and uncompromisingly pursued a tough policy of the Soviet leadership towards the PRC. In the summer of 1985, a new Minister of Foreign Affairs, E. A. Shevardnadze, came to Dom na Smolenskaya . Along with the word "perestroika", the phrase "new political thinking"was heard. Diplomats of a new formation came to the ministry. The western direction became a priority. The new minister named the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and normalization of relations with China among the top priorities of Eastern policy.

page 129

On the recommendation of the Central Committee and the decision of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Mikhail Stepanovich headed the Institute of Oriental Studies. He did not immediately understand the style and essence of the leadership of a scientific institution with its obligatory pluralism of opinions, discussions, the authority of knowledge rather than position, and the ability of an independent scientist to ignore the conclusion of his superiors. The new atmosphere seemed alien to the director. He preferred monologues to dialogues. But M. S. Kapitsa was a political figure on a large scale. In particular, he was one of the organizers of the Soviet Committee of Solidarity with Asian Countries (later Asia and Africa) in April 1956 and later became its chairman [RGANI, l. 1-3]. Mikhail Stepanovich loved and knew how to perform in front of any audience. And yet the peak of his career remained in the MFA past.

When the new director came to the institute, he canceled situational analyses that required long and meticulous work. However, he was also present at scientific and practical conferences on foreign policy issues, where he spoke competently and sharply. Participating in one of them, " Russia-India. State and prospects of cooperation (June 17-18, 1992)", M. S. Kapitsa said :" We are sick and sick of the policy of the collapse of our relations with friends. We are sick because the magnificent building that we built with the efforts of great nations is collapsing. Indian-Soviet relations, Indian-Soviet friendship: how many magnificent words have been said about these relations and how much has been done by the peoples of our countries! And drop it all at once? Therefore, our conference is not just a scientific symposium, it is an alarm conference, it is an alarm bell!" [Russia and India, 1992, p. 7].

In our opinion, in the 1980s, Oriental studies developed on an inertial basis. The groundwork for Renaissance research was developed. Changes in the eastern policy of the country's leadership had an impact. The difficulties experienced by science during the period of radical changes that led to the collapse of the USSR have become more acute.

By the last decade of the 20th century, Russian Oriental studies had undergone radical changes. The main ones are:

The long-term monopoly of Marxism-Leninism in orientalism has ended. This teaching was considered all-powerful, immortal, and the only true one. The bibliography of any study began with a list of works by classics of Marxism-Leninism.

After 1991, pluralism of opinions became possible and necessary in Oriental studies. A quote from the classics of Marxism-Leninism has ceased to serve as an indisputable proof. Many researchers have rejected the well-known Marxist postulate that revolution is inevitable for changing Asian societies and believe that it is possible to achieve this through reforms.

The mandatory dictatorship of the working class, where everything is for the proletariat and in the name of the proletariat, changes to the creation of a civil society through democracy and equality of all.

The national bourgeoisie, the middle urban strata, and the army play a prominent role in the reforms that took place in the Eastern countries. In Russia, the Communist Party - the only powerful one that has taken over the legislative and executive branches of government-and its "only true" ideology are a thing of the past. The country lives in a multi-party environment, and science has ceased to serve one party.

The state dissociated itself from Oriental studies. Science develops according to its own laws, where scientists receive autonomous rights to determine research priorities themselves. They do not write analytical notes, do not conduct situational analyses on the assignments of party and state officials. However, the state, having lost consumer interest in social sciences, does not finance their development. Libraries are becoming scarce, and technical equipment is aging and falling into disrepair. The humiliator-

page 130

but the salaries of researchers are low. Many scientists have gone on fatter bread than the ragged Russian science. The number of researchers has decreased. Only the devotees of science remained.

After the collapse of the USSR, the geography of Russian Oriental studies changed. Oriental studies centers in the republics of Transcaucasia and Central Asia have left the unified scientific space of the USSR and are developing independently. Coordination of research by orientalists in the CIS countries is weak. The study of the countries of Central Asia, Kazakhstan and Transcaucasia, which previously served as the task of historians of the USSR, became the object of research of orientalists, this expanded the tasks of orientalists. The research work of orientalists is facilitated by the absence of censorship, methodological and ideological pluralism, and increased access to archives and foreign literature. There is a broader exchange with foreign scientists. The names and works of repressed Orientalists are being returned. At the same time, new scientific schools are trying to preserve the best traditions of Russian orientalism.

The 37th World Congress of Orientalists was held in Moscow on August 16-21, 2004. Its motto was "Unity in diversity". It so happened that the international Congress of Orientalists met on the territory of Russia for the first time in 1876, when the monarchy reigned in the country; the second - in 1980 in the socialist USSR; the third - in democratic Russia. Opening the congress, its president, Professor R. B. Rybakov, emphasized that Oriental studies of the XXI century ceases to be "the science of the West about the East". The era of globalization with all its pros and cons, which has not yet been studied much by scientists, fills Oriental studies with new content. This requires a new methodology.

list of literature

Academician Primakov - 50 years old // Bulletin of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 1980, N 2.

Vorontsov A.V. The last life feat of George Kim / / Wolgan Choson. 2002, N 10.

II All-Union Conference of Orientalists, Moscow, 1983.

George F. Kim / / Asia and Africa today. 1977, N 3.

Izvestia. May 15. 1996.

Korolev B. V. How Primakov became Primakov, Moscow, 1999.

Kulikova F., Li V., Ho Ding. A word about a scientist and a person: what memory has preserved. Soviet "Tomiho" / / Asia and Africa today. 1999, N 10.

Mirsky G. I. Zhizn ' v trekh epochakh [Life in Three Epochs]. Moscow, 2001.

Mlechin L. MFA. Foreign Ministers. Romantics and Cynics, Moscow, 2001.

The scientific elite. Who and Who in the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1993.

Pak M. N. G. F. Kim / / Portraits of historians. Time and fate. Vol. 4. New and Recent History, Moscow, 2004.

Primakov E. M. V gody bolshoy politiki [In the Years of Big Politics]. Moscow, 1999.

RGANI: Russian State Archive of Modern History. F., 89 op. 75, d. 367, l. 1-7; d. 31, l. 1-3.

Russian Oriental Studies in Memory of M. S. Kapitsa, Moscow, 2001.

Russia and India. Sostoyanie i perspektivy [State and prospects] / / Materials of the Scientific and practical Conference of the Institute of Oriental Studies on June 17-18, 1992. Moscow, 1992.

Tikhvinsky S. L., Shastitko P.M., 60th anniversary of G. F. Kim // Questions of history. 1984, N 10.

Cherkasov P. Zolotoy vek v formatke zastoy [The Golden Age in the format of stagnation]. 2002, N4 - 7.

Cherkasov P. Dissent in IMEMO//World economy and International relations. 2004, N 4.

Shabshina F. I. Nash tovarishch G. F. Kim / / O kollegovakh i tovarishchakh: moskovskiye vostokovedy 60 - 80-kh godov [About colleagues and comrades: Moscow Orientalists of the 60-80s]. Moscow, 1999.

Shastitko P. M. Obrechennye dogma [Doomed dogmas]. Moscow, 2002.

Permanent link to this publication: