A Russian bank in the Khanate of Khiva of Novo-Urgench branch of the Russo-Asiatic commercial bank

Trading house of G. Salimdzhanov and sons was an old-established and rich Kazan firm which operated in Khiva and undertook large operations with cotton, other raw materials, wool, manufactured goods, etc. “Until the present, the firm had not turned to us for discount credit, and now, having it among our clients, we hope that there will be no obstacles... in approving the credit for it” Ibid. D. 476. L. 136., as it was stated in the report of 1911. Taking into account the volume of business worth millions, the firm was issued a credit of 100 thousand roubles.

Brothers P.A. and K.A. Manuilov were seen by employees of the bank as “pioneers of cotton and oil-pressing businesses and in general of the Russian colonization in Khiva” Ibid. D. 480. L. 25 ob.-26 ob.. P.A. Manuilov owned factories and real estate in Khanka, Gurlyan and Petroalek-sandrovsk, engaged in trading cotton and tea, developed his own oil-pressing and soap manufacture. Documents of the revision bear testimony of the sizeable turnover of the Manuilov brothers. “On-call loans against trading documents are secured by 23 carloads of cotton of different kinds dispatched to Moscow and 2978 pudi of green tea (estimated at 50 roubles) kept in Urgench” Ibid..

The Safaryants brothers owned a cotton-ginning factory in Khodzheili, water-pumping station and huge lots of land which they irrigated by themselves and rented out to the local population. Their main drawer of bill (for 5 thousand roubles), beck of Khodzheili А.H. Murtazakhodzhaev was killed in February 1916 by the revolting Turkmen, other drawers of bills were mostly referred to as “their people” (estate managers, relatives, etc.) Ibid. L. 27 ob..

It is remarkable that Khivan merchants were often high officials of the khan (e. g. А. Bakkalov and M. Muradov) and the division's administration considered it was beneficial to support them from a political point of view. In November 1911, I.I. Fruhling in his letter to the administration of the bank's divisions gave a detailed explanation of the situation. “Increased debt of I.K.D. Mukhammed Muradovand A.B. Akhmethanov was a result of the increase of the loan issued to them: to the former -- up to 50 thousand roubles, and to the latter -- up to 15 thousand roubles. Mr. Mukhammed Muradov, being a high official of the khan, is a rich and influential man and an interesting client for us since he is related to many other high officials and rich Khivan merchants who we would very much like to see as our clients. As for Mr. Akhmethanov, he is a supplier for Khivan high officials and is indeed an honest and dependable man, hence we do not consider negotiation of his bills a risk” Ibid. D. 476. L. 74.. The director of the bank's division apparently kept a close watch of the Khivan political situation: “Position of Messrs. Bakkalov at the khan's court strengthened, and to support them, Khan loaned them 40 thousand roubles out of his own funds... our concern about them should now become irrelevant” Ibid. L. 85-89, 90-91, 92-93, 97-100..“By issuing loans to khan's high officials”, reported I.I. Fruhling to the administration, “although they do not engage in trade on their own, we aspire to coming closer together with that rather rich khan's entourage, with a view to, on the one hand, potentially taking deposits from them and, on the other, securing our relationship with the Khivan court which is extremely important and necessary for us” Ibid. L. 114-115..

One of the biggest clients of the bank was A. Mad'iarov, the owner of cotton-ginning factory in Khanki. Here is the characterization that was given to him by his inspector А. Lukod'ianov in 1916: “cotton trader and alfalfa profiteer, A. Mad'iarov, is a typical Khivan old-school merchant, languid and inert. His creditworthiness is unquestionable” Ibid. D. 480. L. 22 ob.-23 ob.. In March 1916, he on-called 50 thousand roubles against bills, for which he paid 9,5 %, “receiving, at the same time, only 3% from the current account, i. e. he pays 6,5 % for nothing”. It is difficult to judge A. Mad'iarov's commercial aptitude, however, he made a very thought-out political decision. “As any well-off Khivan, fearing khan's confiscation, he prefers to always have a large debt to a Russian credit institution. Nevertheless, since March this year it is us who owe to Avezbai (A. Mad'iarov. -- Authors' note) and not vice versa” Ibid., wrote the bank's inspectors ironically.

However, it was not always that influential Khivans owed to the Russian lending and finance institution. Brothers Abdurahman and Abduraim Bakkalov and their nephews owned cotton-ginning factories in Novo-Urgench and Tashauz and land lots around the khanate Ibid. L. 23 ob.-25 ob.. In 1916, Abdurahman Bakkalov was appointed bek (ruler) for Novo-Urgench and, fearing court schemes, stayed in Khiva almost constantly, and main business affairs were run by his relatives Ibid.. A. Mad'iarov was A. Bakkalov's partner in purchasing cotton and alfalfa, and it was disposable assets that the latter preferred to keep in the Novo-Ur- gench branch of the RACB. Inspectors wrote that Bakkalov “is more of our creditor than our debitor; on 13.06.1916, his current account has funds of 34 423 roubles and the amount might increase significantly since the Bakkalov brothers are going to receive from the contribution charged to the Turkmen by the Russian military authorities about 350 thousand roubles for recovering of losses they suffered in the course of Turkmen revolt” Ibid..

Large Russian clients of the division were A.I. Putilov and knyaz (prince. -- Authors' note) M.M. Andronikov who in 1914 bought “Lauzan” Akifumi S. Who Should Manage the Water of the Amu Daria? Controversy over Irrigation Concessions between Russia and Khiva, 1913-1914 // Explorations in the Social History of Modern Central Asia (19^th -- Early 20^th Century). Leiden; Boston, 2013. P. 111-136. estate from the Khivan khan through the Novo-Urgench division of the Russo-Asiatic bank at 550 thousand roubles (installments of 110 thousand roubles were paid to the bank yearly until 1918) Perepiska Upravleniia otdeleniiami s Novo-Urgenchskim otdeleniem banka ob oformlenii prav na vladenie I raschetakh s Khivinskim pravitel'stvom za priobretennuiu bankom cherez posredstvo Putilova A.I. i Andronikova M.M. dachu `Lauzan' v Khivinskom khanstve, 1914-1917 gg. // RGIA. F. 630. Op. 1. D. 478. L. 1, 4, 15.. The Khivan ruler, according to the information that the branch's director reported to Saint Petersburg, in December 1914 “promised to deposit 50 thousand roubles for 6 months with 6 % p. a.” Perepiska Upravleniia otdeleniiami s Novo-Urgenchskim otdeleniem... // RGIA. F. 630. Op. 1. D. 478. L. 28.. The Turkmen upheaval of 1915-1916 thwarted plans of Putilov, Andronikov and Asfhandiyar-khan. The branch's director wrote in August 1915: “Our dacha `Lauzan' is situated almost in the centre of the district run by khan Mamut's Turkmen, and Turkmen prevail in both its population and population of neighbouring kishlaks” Ibid. L. 91-95.. It is notable that the bank paid mortmain endowment (waqf) for the `Lauzan' estate. For instance, as per 1 November 1916, 200 roubles were paid Ibid. L. 107..

Personnel of the Novo-Urgench branch of the Russo-Asiatic commercial bank. The Novo-Urgench branch of the bank desperately needed skillful professionals. In February 1911 in a letter to F. Miliashkevich to Samarkand, the division's director V. Komarovskii described the situation with personnel worriedly: “due to truly dreadful conditions of living, we are going to face a number of similar transfer requests from our employees and thus I humbly request to make it known to us whether there are any employees that are free and would be willing to relocate to our branch” Ibid. D. 475. L. 6.. Employees of the division constantly complained to their superiors and inspectors about the harsh climate, illnesses in their families and absence of doctors Ibid. L. 7-7 06.. A. Slutskii during the inspection in 1911 gave uncomplimentary characteristics to some of the branch's employees. In particular, “first attorney, I.G. Levenstein, who was hired by the bank relatively recently, is little familar with banking practices and accounting. Second attorney, I.V. Stoliarov, unfortunately, paid no attention to anything around him. Shmidt, accountant, did not, as a matter of fact, have an opportunity to keep his professional affairs in order due to, firstly, his own lack of experience, secondly, lack of experienced employees, and thirdly, due to the fact that he did not receive timely information pertaining to conditions of transactions with clients and thus could not make accurate records” Ibid. L. 56-58.. A.F. Forst, a foreign correspondent, was described as a man of “moderate abilities but highly conscientious, responsible and loyal to work”. The appraisal of the rest of employees was “good” Ibid. L. 66 ob. -- 67 ob..

A. Slutskii paid attention to hard conditions of life in Urgench: “cost of living is frightfully expensive, by way of example: bread costs 10 kopecks per pound, kerosene during my presence there went up to 40 kopecks per pound, saksaul fire wood is up to 50 kopecks per pood, which is the equivalent of 15 roubles per square sazhen 10 vershok of regular firewood or almost 75 roubles per cubic sazhen; most unqualified servants are worth at least 15 roubles per month, almost no clothes or household goods can be bought in Urgench and one has to go to Petroaleksandrovsk, and even there pay a big extra. In case of vacation, anemployeehastospendalmost3 weeks only on the journey to Chardzhui and back, which means more expenses. Due to such conditions, given an opportunity to break away from Urgench, an employee of the branch would flee” Ibid. L. 66-66 ob.. The inspector suggested that salaries of the division's employees be increased and their weaknesses should be treated with more indulgence Ibid.. I.I. Fruhling, the successor of V.Y. Komarovskii, was forced to ask for a salary increase for his employees: for A.M. Kisliakov -- from 1500 to 1800 roubles, for A.V. Podoprigora -- from 1500 to 1800 roubles, for V.N. Sitnikov -- from 1200 to 1500 roubles, for N.A. Rodzaevskii -- from 900 to 1080 roubles Ibid. L. 135-136, 138..

By 1916, personnel of the Novo-Urgench branch of RACB consisted of the director, 2 attorneys, an accountant, 7 employees, a collector of money, a clerk, a translator and 8 servants. Among the personnel, only I.I. Fruhling, the director, could communicate -- orally, not in writing -- with the local population in the Uzbek language. From the justified perspective of the inspectors, ignorance of the local language and legal intricacies restrained the development in the entire Khivan oasis Ibid. D. 480. L. 40 ob.-45 ob.. However, the inspectors regarded vulgar corruption as the main problem in 1916 as well as in 1911. Most of the newly arrived employees of the bank, namely E.K. Trumpf, Brinkman, H.G. Ivanova-Abel' and her husband V.I. Ivanov were relatives of the wife of the branch's director, Fruhling; a relative of Fruhling himself, an Altergot, was also employed by the branch Dopolnitel'nyi otchet inspektorov banka B. Lukod'ianova i R. Tal'ma o revizii deiatel'nosti Novo- Urgenchskogo otdeleniia (konfidentsial'no) na 16 maiia 1916 g. // Ibid. D. 481. L. 3 ob.-4 ob..

Indignant inspectors pointed out the voluntarist methods of administering the branch: “Fruhling held the keys to trading operations only to himself and even the bank's attorneys saw no applications from clients, dispatches received and sent, orders and even some copybooks -- owing to all of the above, even the bank's attorneys themselves are little acquainted with the dealings of our division” Ibid.. The inspectors noted that “I. Fruhling lays down conditions impossible for the client with the view to consequently offering his own funds at interest and, moreover, a share in the profit, which is done both directly and through Khadzhi Aga (a Persian merchant)” Ibid. L. 4 ob.-5 ob..

Thereby, by 1916 I.I. Fruhling no longer advocated interests of the bank but rather pursued his own. Personal finances of I. Fruhling, according to the analysis of the inspectors, reached an impressive amount of between 150 and 200 thousand roubles Ibid. L. 5 ob.-6 ob.. The branch's director owned a large amount of real estate in Urgench and Khiva as well as several current accounts in the bank Ibid.. As a result of the revision, I.I. Fruhling was dismissed, and P.P. Moskvin was appointed to take his position.

Conclusion. The Novo-Urgench branch of the Russo-Asiatic bank failed to become a driving force of the economic development of the region. The main reasons behind that were the “adjustment” of the division to the actual economic relationships existing in Turkestan and “autonomies”, the Khivan khanate and the Emirate of Bukhara, the special status of the bank's clients at the courts of the local rulers, and issues with personnel.

Concurrently, the Novo-Urgench branch of the Russo-Asiatic bank did not exploit the region's economy but rather helped the local merchantry to increase export and enter both the empire's and international markets. The Novo-Urgench branch of the RACB attempted to control the main exports and even incite development of processing industry in cooperation with local merchants. As can be seen from the reports, in reality the bank's branch could only bring 20 % of cotton export under control, and for a short time, 4045 % of all alfalfa yield, which was pregnant with financial losses. Mainly the operations of merchants well acquainted with the local market were effectuated through the branch, namely, those of the Bakkalov brothers, Mad'iarov, Manuilov and the Rizaev brothers.

Directors of the division endeavoured to participate in commodity operations on an equal footing with merchants and companies (I.I. Fruhling was fairly successful with machinations at the bank's expense, V.Y. Komarovskii was accused of the same). Owing to external circumstances such as scarce current assets, underdeveloped infrastructure of the region, stock exchange fluctuations and problems with personnel, the Novo-Urgench branch of the Russo-Asiatic bank could not capture and control the Khivan market. On the whole, as evidenced by contemporaries, the banking sphere had no significant effect on the social structure and culture of the khanate RGIA. F. 630. Op. 1. D. 476. L. 134-136^a.. However, there were half-hearted attempts to mend the situation of the local population: in 1911, the division requested the administration for permission to allot funds to build a school for both Russians and locals in Urgench Ibid..

The activities of the Novo-Urgench branch of the RACB largely facilitated growth of profiteering with cotton and alfalfa. As in entire Turkestan, the persistent problem of small loans was not yet solved in the region concerned, due to which revenue from cotton-farming was received not by cotton farmers but by usurers and engrosses Mamaev A.V. Podgotovka reformy upravleniia Turkestanskim kraem v nachale XX v.: Ekonomi- cheskie aspekty // Nauchnyi dialog. 2019. No. 11. P. 401.. By force of objective and subjective circumstances, after the beginning of the World War I, prospects of economic modernization in the Russian Central Asia became nebulous. Contrary to the wide-spread opinion of the Soviet historiography, by the beginning of the 1917 the Russian banking system had not created an economic hierarchy in Khiva.

“Colonial” periphery at a glance from Petersburg-Petrograd seemed an attractive sphere for investment and generation of abnormal profit, but the profiteering nature of Turkestan commodity-based economy and corruptness of employees hampered natural development of the banking sphere.

russian-asian commercial bank market

References

1. Akifumi S. Who Should Manage the Water of the Amu Daria? Controversy over Irrigation Concessions between Russia and Khiva, 1913-1914. Explorations in the Social History of Modern Central Asia (19^th -- Early 20^th Century). Leiden; Boston, 2013, pp. 111-136.

2. Aminov A.M. Economic development of Central Asia (Colonial period). Tashkent, Uzbek SSR State Print, 1959, 298 p. (In Russian)

3. Gindin I.F. Banks and Economic Policy in Russia (19^th -- beginning of 20^th c.). Collection. Essays of history and typology of Russian banks. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1997, 622 p. (In Russian)

4. Kastelskaia Z.D. From the history of Turkestan territory (1865-1917). Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1980, 120 p. (In Russian)

5. Kitanina T.M. Military-inflationary concerns in Russia 1914-1917. Concern Putilov-Staheev-Batolin. Leningrad, Nauka Publ., 1969, 180 p. (In Russian)

6. Kitanina T.M. Penetration of large Russian financial capital into the economy of Central Asia at the end of 19^th -- beginning of 20^th centuries. St. Petersburg, Humanitarian book Publ., 2019, 224 p. (In Russian)

7. Khotamov N.B. The role of bank capital in the social and economic development of Central Asia (the beginning of the 90^s of the 19^th century -- 1917). Dushanbe, Donish Publ., 1990, 319 p. (In Russian)

8. Mamaev A.V. Imperial project of Hungry steppe settlement. Quaestio Rossica, 2019, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 12591274. (In Russian)

9. Mamaev A.V. Preparation of the management reform in Turkestan territory in the beginning of the 20^th century: economic aspects. Nauchniy Dialog, 2019, no. 11, pp. 388-406. (In Russian)

10. Makhkamova N.R. Social structure of society in Uzbekistan: traditions and transformations (late 19^th century to 1920^s). Tashkent, Aloqachi Publ., 2009, 323 p. (In Russian)

11. Pogorelsky I.V. Essays of economic and political history of Khiva Khanate in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. (1873-1917). Leningrad, Leningrad University Press, 1968, 148 p. (In Russian)

12. Potapova N.Y. History of entrepreneurship in Turkestan (second half of the 19^th -- beginning of the 20^th centuries). Tashkent, UMED Publ., 2011, 152 p. (In Russian)

13. Sadykov A.S. Russia and Khiva in the late 19^th -- early 20^th century. Tashkent, Fan Publ., 1972, 209 p. (In Russian)

14. Sadykov A.S. Economic relations of Khiva with Russia in the second half of 19^th -- beginning of 20^th centuries.

15. Tashkent, UzSSR Nauka Publ., 1965, 183 p. (In Russian)

16. Salomatina S.A. Russian and Soviet banks in countries of Middle and Far East 1890-1920^s: transformation of imperial traditions. Economic history: yearbook, 2014, vol. 2013, pp. 568-624. (In Russian)

17. Sokolov V.V. Colonial Turkestan: economic and industrial condition and development. Moscow, Plekhanov Russian Economic and Industrial Academy of Sciences Press, 2002, 98 p. (In Russian)

18. Yuldashev A.M. Agricultural relations in Turkestan (end of 19^th -- beginning of 20^th centuries). Tashkent, Uzbekistan Publ., 1970, 256 p. (In Russian)

19. Yuldashev A.M. Penetration of Russian monopolistic capital in economy of Turkestan (1900-1917). Avtoref.

20. diss. ... kand. econom. nauk. Tashkent, 1961, 20 p. (In Russian)

21. Vekselman M.I. Russian monopolistic and foreign capital in Central Asia (end of 19^th -- beginning of 20^th c.). Tashkent, Fan Publ., 1987, 143 p. (In Russian)

Размещено на Allbest.ru