The forthcoming 850th anniversary of Genghis Kahn has sparked a lively debate between Kazakh and Chinese historians over the ethnic origin of ?the breaker of the Universe?. Genghis Khan was declared ?the greatest military leader of the two millenia? by UNESCO. Alma Ata announced that it will be hosting a conference soon, ?Genghis Khan and Kazakh State System?. Leading scientists from Russia, Iran, China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan and other countries are expected to attend.

Common people haven?t doubted the Mongolian origin of Genghis Khan until recently. The organizers of the conference are apparently trying to prove that Genghis Kahn was Kazakh, period. According to some scientists from Kazakhstan and other countries,
?a deliberate falsification of historical facts has been going on since the rule of Ivan the Terrible.? Many scientists believe that the cause of falsification rests on ?an attempt to erase references to the enslavement of Russian ancestors by ?the wild hordes? from the memory of the Russian people.?

According to the official data, Genghis Khan (real name Temuchin) was born in 1155 on the territory of present-day Mongolia, in the clan of kiyat. He was declared khan and given a new name, Genghis Khan (the khan of the East), in 1206, at a general assembly of the clans? leaders (kurultai). The scientists claim that he was Kazakh because the Kazakh clans kiyat, merkit, zhalair and argyn participated in that kurulta.

The above clans are really considered Kazakh, but descendants of these tribes are traditionally called ?Kazakhs of Mongolian descent?.

?The division of Kazakh people into Kazakhs of Mongolian descent and those of Kazakh descent is nonsense because Mongolians never lived on that territory and have nothing to do Genghis Khan,? says Professor Kairat Zakiryalov, chief organizer of the conference. ?The works of certain historians like Karamzin upheld this division.?

Another piece of substantial evidence proving that Genghis Kahn was Kazakh by birth, according to scientists, is furnished by historical records which say that virtually all genghizids (direct descendants of Genghis Khan) were the Kazakhs who ruled a Kazakh nation up till the beginning of the twentieth century. That?s where the concept of ?blue blood? is stemming from, a number of nobles in the hierarchy of Kazakh society.

The plans to ?bring back? the prodigal son of history to Kazakhstan are in earnest. Top-level government officials are involved in the campaign. The former Prime Minister of Kazakhstan Imangali Tasmagambetov, during his time in office, ordered the manufacture of a copy of the stone of Kyulteghin. The stone of Kyulteghin is a well-known stone monument that used to be located on the territory of present-day Mongolia. It?s primarily known for its writings carved in stone. The writings say about the great feats of Kyulteghin, an Uigurian warrior. The writings made in Uigurian characters of the Kazakh language. They are of great historic value. The copy of the monument is kept at the building of the National University named after Lev Gumilev in Astana, Kazakhstan?s capital. Considering the above, we can ascertain that the Kazakh elite are fully aware of the importance of the issue and first steps have been already taken to assure ?the return? of a hero to its nation.

Aside from Kazakhstan, China is also concerned about the issue of changes in an official family tree of Genghis Khan. The erection of the Genghis Khan mausoleum in Beijing may as well prove it. Besides, ?the breaker of the Universe? was officially entered in the register of honor of the great Chinese emperors. In the meantime, when I requested the Chinese Embassy to give comments on the mausoleum, they declined to do so due to incompetence. The Mongolian diplomats were very much surprised to hear my questions. They seem to take their lineage to Genghis Khan for granted.

Chinese and Kazakh historians are maneuvering hard to snatch away the historic figure of a seemingly indisputable ethnic descent from Mongolians. The motives behind such actions become quite obvious if we try and get down to the heart of the matter. As a fairly young state, Kazakhstan has failed to produce anything for filling up an ideological niche during its thirteen years of independence. Therefore, the figure of Genghis Khan is extremely important. It can be used as the cornerstone for developing the ideas of Eurasian ideology.

It?s hard to tell if the efforts of Kazakh historians and culture experts who view Genghis Khan as Kazakh will bring out anything else apart from heated discussions.
Again, I?d like to point out one thing that is quite clear. The issue is likely to become part of the state ideology. The media has been overloaded with debates over Genghis Khan in the last few years. According to some experts, Genghis Kahn is thought to have saved the Kazakh nation by gathering all the Kazakhs and moving them over to the lands graced by Kazakhstan now. In other words, Kazakh state system began to take shape under the guidance of Genghis Kahn in the beginning of 13th century as opposed to the previous theories which shifted a time frame to the mid 15th century.

Mongolian are peacefully tending to the flocks of sheep and wait for the day of a sacred anniversary while their crafty neighbors are busy trying to change the historical facts.
The Alma Ata conference is a clear indicator that all parties involved will be fighting tooth and nail over the red-bearded ?breaker?.