Subsequently, the term the Soviets used was ‘basmachestvo’, but qorbashi (possibly also qorbachi) appears to have been the term used by the early basmachis themselves. But, as you pointed out Ali, very few sources on this period are purely objective, and as history tends to be written by the victors, basmachi (which, I still maintain, is a largely pejorative term) is the label that has stuck. For ease of reference, basmachi will probably continue to be used by historians – I have no quarrel with that.

But can we reduce the activities of the basmachis to plain, simple, common criminality, which is what the term basmachi suggests? Nowadays, we have enough trouble labelling the anti-occupation movement in Iraq: terrorists? rebels? guerrillas? revolutionaries? insurgents? resistance fighters? jihadis? Islamists? nationalists? etc. No-one would call them ‘brigands’.

I am by no means a post-modern deconstructionist who endlessly argues the toss over definitions, but I do think the label of basmachi as applied to the (largely) anti-Soviet forces of Central Asia in the 1920s and 1930s ignores the ideological forces driving these people. It is arguably a typical Soviet-ism to characterise motivated and organised groups of people to the level of mere ‘brigands’.

However, I agree that study of the basmachi movement has been coloured by biased records. The very name of the movement itself is indicative of the pro-Soviet spin put on that period – as I noted, use of the term qorbashi appears to have fallen into abeyance.

There are a lot of interesting aricles on basmachis tucked away in journals; I came across a whole stash recently, one of which focused upon the portrayal of the basmachis in Red Army magazines and newspapers. I shall post more anon.