The 1862 Kanlica Conference and Demographic Changes in Northeast Bosnia in the 1860s
Abstract
27
Full text
The 1862 Kanlica Conference and Demographic Changes in Northeast Bosnia in the 1860s Amir Krpić1 ABSTRACT: In this paper, the author links the 1862 Kanlica Conference with the demographic changes in Northeast Bosnia that occurred during the 1860s. The author claims that there was adirect link between these two, or in other words, that the Kanlica Conference was amajor factor that contributed to changing the demographics— more precisely, switching the majority between the Christians and Muslims in favor of the latter. It’s important to note it here that the Conference itself wasn’t the only reason for the changes, but the factor which, intentionally or not, caused them. KEYWORDS: Kanlica conference, diplomacy, Muslims, Christians, Bosnia, Serbia, Sanjak of Zvornik, demographics MUSLIM EXPULSION FROM SERBIA The process of liberating Serbia and the Serbian people from Ottoman rule was simultaneously also aprocess of expulsion of the Muslim population from those areas. It started with the First Serbian Uprising,2 over the early 1830s3 and ended with the final expulsion of the Muslims in the 1860s. Until that decade, all Muslims were already expelled from the territory of the Principality of Serbia except those living in the towns with castles: Belgrade, Smederevo, Šabac, Kladovo, Golubac, Ada Kala, Užice, and Soko.4 According to Safet Bandžović’s research, Muslims were amajority in the towns of the Sanjak of Smederevo (i. e. Principality of Serbia) in the 19th century— especially in Belgrade (80%), Šabac and Užice (97%). In the nahiyas (the lowest Ottoman administrative units) of the Sanjak of Smederevo there were 58% 1 Amir Krpić MA, Department of History, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Tuzla, Tihomila Markovića 1, 75000 Tuzla, Bosnia-Herzegovina, krpic.amir@ gmail.com, amir[email protected] 2 L.RANKE, The History of Servia and the Servian Revolution, London 1853, p.114. 3 R.LJUŠIĆ, Kneževine Srbija (1830–1839), Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts: Monographs vol. DLXX, Department of Historical Sciences no.12, Belgrade 1986, p.323. 4 S.S.H.MUVEKKIT, Povijest Bosne, Vol. II, Sarajevo 1997, p.1106.
28 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2020 of Muslims in total, and on the eve of the 1862 Crisis— according to Serbian assessments— there were 12.500 Muslims in the entire Sanjak.5 However, it should be understood that it wasn’t only Serbia’s state policy or the national program6 to expel Muslims from its territory. On the contrary, there were also other factors. One of them was the international diplomacy of the age, and the second one is the Ottoman Empire itself. The Ottoman leaders of that age were not against expelling Muslims from the territories lost by the Empire, and in some cases, even the to-be-expelled Muslims were not against it either. Acommon reason for both of them is abelief that Muslims should not live under the non-Muslim rule.7 An additional reason for the Empire’s leaders was amore pragmatical one— the Muslim population should not stay behind the Empire on its lost territories, for they did not want to leave even the possibility for Muslims to realize they could live without the Empire. Another mentioned factor, international diplomacy, also had asignificant role, although not all superpowers of the age shared the opinion.8 Anyway, international diplomacy played this role in the early stages of the process of liberating Serbia from Ottoman rule also. Indeed, the founding documents of the Principality of Serbia (1829–1833 sultan’s decrees, Hatt-ı Şerif) very clearly show this point. The 1830 Hatišerif, issued by sultan Mahmud II recognizing the autonomous and hereditary Principality of Serbia, ordered all Muslim civilians outside of six towns to move out.9 This demand could have come from Serbia itself, but it couldn’t be heard without 5 S.BANDŽOVIĆ, Bošnjaci ideosmanizacija Balkana: muhadžirski pokreti ipribježišta „sultanovih musafira“ (1683.–1875.), Sarajevo 2013, pp.302–303. 6 Moreover, even Ilija Garašanin— author of the infamous Načertanije, an 1844 document regarded by many as abirthplace of the aggressive Serbian nationalism and expansionism— took care of the issue of Muslims. He wrote in the document: „One of the main basis is: the principle of complete religious freedom. This principle will have to be welcomed by all Christians and, who knows, over time by some Mohammedans too.“ On the other place in the document also: „(…) besides, as athird step, ashort and comprehensive people’s history of Bosnia could be printed, in which the names and glory of some Muslim-turned Bosniaks must not be omitted. It is assumed naturally that this history would have to be written in aspirit of Slavic ethnicity and completely in aspirit of common unity of the Serbs and Bosniaks.“ Translated (and emphasized) by A.K. from: M.VUKIĆEVIĆ, Program spoljne politike Ilije Garašanina na koncu 1844 god., in: Delo, Vol.11, book 38, Belgrade 1906, pp. 331, 333. These Garašanin’s views are completely in accordance with the suggestions from František Zach regarding the Slavic Christians’ relation toward Bosnian Muslims. V.ZÁČEK, Češko ipoljko učešće upostanku Garašaninova „Načertanija“ (1844), in: Historijski zbornik, Vol. XVI, 1963, p.45. 7 As with the case of the Muslim expulsion from Hungary, Croatia, and Slavonia after the 1683 Ottoman military disaster at Kahlenberg and during the subsequent war. Though, the new Christian authorities weren’t eager to let those Muslims remain in their homes either. 8 For example, unlike the British, the French and Russian representatives at the Kanlica Conference suggested the subjugation of the Muslims to the Serbian jurisdiction, not the expulsion of them. J.RISTIĆ, Spoljašnji odnošaji Srbije novijeg vremena: Druga knjiga 1860–1868, Beograd 1887, p.142. 9 The towns (here understood as urban settlements with castles) were: Belgrade, Šabac, Smederevo, Užice, Soko, and Kladovo. V.STOJANČEVIĆ (ed.), Istorija srpskog naroda, Book V, Vol.1: Od prvog ustanka do Berlinskog kongresa 1804–1878, Belgrade 1981, p.120.
AMIR KRPIć 29 external support. As it is well-known, Serbia’s „founding decrees“ were made in the context of Russian military and diplomatic pressure on the Ottoman Empire and indeed resulted from the— for Russia and inherently Serbia— positive outcome of the 1828–29 Russo-Ottoman war. Therefore, the role of the „international community“ of the day shouldn’t be neglected. Despite all these, some Muslims remained in the Principality of Serbia until the 1860s, though under Ottoman, not Serbian jurisdiction. New Serbian Prince, Miloš Obrenović, eagerly tried to fulfill the aims of the Serbian national program.10* With such intentions, asimple way to get achance to fight for one’s aims is to use aseemingly insignificant event or incident. The incident that sparked the Ottoman-Serbian conflict— which consequently initiated the expulsion of the Muslims from Serbia to surrounding lands— occurred in 1862. It is awell-known Čukur česma incident of June 15 that year, alocal incident in which the Serbian police and Ottoman forces also engaged.11 The incident sparked awider conflict among the locals, divided by their religious affiliation. Slavic, pro-Serbian newspapers have been accusing the Ottoman side of provoking the conflict,12 while the Ottoman newspapers pointed to the Serbian side as guilty, referring to the British investigation which saw the Serbs as those who sparked the conflict because they have not respected the obligations from the earlier agreements— which was the reason for the British delegation to support the Serbian side only if they kept respecting their part of the deal.13 Moreover, according to the British consul in Serbia, it was the local Serbs, and potentially even the Serbian gov10 * The aims here should be understood as apart of foreign policy, not domestic. Serbia, naturally, tried to liberate itself from Ottoman rule, but it doesn’t mean that the expulsion of the Muslims was an inherent part of the program itself. On the contrary, in the Načertanije there is no mention of the Muslim expulsion from Serbia. The Muslim expulsion issue was part of the state policy, particularly that of Prince Mihailo, not of the program itself. 11 Š.HODŽIĆ, Migracije muslimanskog stanovništva iz Srbije usjeveroistočnu Bosnu, in: Članci igrađa za kulturnu istoriju istočne Bosne, No. II, 1958, p.66. Reports the on incident were different. According to the German historian Leopold von Ranke, the incident broke out of the argument between local Muslims and Orthodox Christians over the bizarre question— who will be the first to take water from the Čukur česma. One Sava Petrović was killed in the incident. Local Serbian police soon arrived and arrested two Ottoman soldiers suspected of being responsible for the murder. Then local Muslims reacted and started to shoot, which provoked the attention of Serbian and Ottoman administration officers and foreign consuls as well. F.KARČIĆ, Protokol konferencije uKanlidži 1862.: pravno-historijska analiza odredaba omuslimanskom stanovništvu, in: 150 godina od protjerivanja muslimana iz Kneževine Srbije: zbornik radova sa Naučnog simpozijuma 150 godina od protjerivanja muslimana iz Kneževine Srbije, 07.–08.09.2012. god., Orašje 2013, p.73. 12 Narodne novine, Vol. XXXVIII, No.72, Zagreb September 25, 1862; Narodne novine, Vol. XXXVIII, No.73, Zagreb, September 26, 1862. 13 A.Z.FURAT, Muslimanske migracije iz Srbije nakon 1862. godine: osvrt na osmansku štampu, in: 150 godina od protjerivanja muslimana iz Kneževine Srbije: zbornik radova sa Naučnog simpozijuma 150 godina od protjerivanja muslimana iz Kneževine Srbije, 07.-08.09.2012. god., Orašje 2013, p.195.
30 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2020 ernment itself, that caused the conflict.14 In fact, the Serbian government intended to use the incident as an excuse for peaceful expulsion of the Muslims from its territory,15 and that task was awarded to Prime Minister Ilija Garašanin.16 Because of these events, representatives of the European Powers of that age on July 8 requested17 the Ottoman government to organize aconference, to which the Ottomans agreed. Even before the Conference, the United Kingdom and the Empire of Austria sided with the Ottomans,18 while the French Empire and the Russian Empire sided with Serbia.19 The Conference20 lasted from July 22 until September 4, when the sides signed adocument titled AProtocol On The Question of Serbia Signed in Constantinople in 1862.21 Aquestion of the Muslims in Serbia was not ahot topic during the negotiations, since other questions were more important, such as the very legality of the bombing of Belgrade from the Belgrade castle, size of the Serbian army, and destruction or preservation of the castles in the concerned towns.22 Eventually, three out of twelve articles of the Protocol directly or indirectly concerned the Muslims, and one sole conclusion was emerging out of them: all remaining Muslims were going to be expelled from the towns they held according to the 1856 Paris Peace Treaty; the towns were going to be transferred to the Serbian authority, and in return for expulsion the Muslims were going to be financially compensated.23 14 S.BANDŽOVIĆ, Uvrtlozima deosmanizacije XIX stoljeća: muhadžirski pokreti iz Kneževine Srbije uBosansku posavinu, in: Migracije iBrčko: zbornik radova / Međunarodna naučna konferencija Migracije injihov uticaj na društvena iprivredna kretanja na širem području Brčkog od početka XVII do kraja XX stoljeća, održane uBrčkom, 13.i14.septembra 2019. godine, Tuzla 2020, p.39. 15 U.TATIĆ, Stav Francuske povodom bombardovanja Beograda 1862. godine, in: Vojnoistorijski glasnik, No.1, 2018, p.15. 16 J.RISTIĆ, Spoljašnji odnošaji Srbije II, p.50. 17 European states requested the convening of aconference based on Article 28 of the 1856 Paris Peace Treaty, according to which Serbia, as an Ottoman vassal principality, was under collective protection of the signatories. A.OAKES, R.B.MOWAT (eds), The Great European Treaties of the Nineteenth Century, Oxford 1930, p.182. 18 U.TATIĆ, Stav Francuske povodom bombardovanja Beograda 1862. godine, p.16. 19 J.RISTIĆ, Spoljašnji odnošaji Srbije II, p.133. 20 Representatives of the United Kingdom, the Empire of Austria, the French Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia, the Russian Empire, and the Kingdom of Sardinia participated at the 1862 Kanlica Conference. F.KARČIĆ, Protokol konferencije uKanlidži 1862., p.74. 21 N.RAĐENOVIĆ, A.ĐORĐEVIĆ, Protokol konferencije uKanlidži, in: Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta uNišu, No. LV, Niš 2012, p.118. 22 J.RISTIĆ, Spoljašnji odnošaji Srbije II, pp. 135, 143, 148. 23 Art. 1.: „(…) The Ottoman government will completely transfer the property to the Serbian government, under the condition of compensation to the owners, of all land and houses of the town of Belgrade currently belonging to the Muslims (…)“; Art. 3.: „The Serbian government will make sure to reimburse, in goods or money, all movables left by Muslims in their homes or shops after they retreated to the castle (…)“; Art. 8.: „The Sublime Porte will undertake immediate measures, in co-operation with the Serbian government, so that all Muslim inhabitants, who have lived around the five established points which it (i.e. the Porte) possesses under the Treaty, (…) may be deprived of their possessions and withdrawn from Serbian territory as soon as possible.“ Translated by author from: F.KARČIĆ, Protokol konferencije uKanlidži 1862., p.76. For full English translation of the Protocol see: S.TRIFUNOVSKA (ed.), Yugoslavia through documents:
AMIR KRPIć 31 Sultan Abdulaziz officially accepted the expulsion of the Muslims from the Principality by issuing an order (ferman) in the second half of September and Prince Miloš Obrenović officially accepted the order on October 6 and published it in the newspapers aday later. Even before the official decision in Kanlica, the Ottoman Empire authorities ordered the expulsion of Muslims from Užice, which indeed started almost immediately after the town went on fire24 on September 8 which lasted for acouple of days. Slavic press, such as Narodne novine („People’s news“ in literal translation) from Zagreb, cheerfully spread the news on expulsion of Užice’s Muslims, in such away that may be hardly understandable even for that time:25 Thank God, there are no more Turks in Užice! Today starts anew life in our borough;— truly it starts from the ashes of our homes, but our soul is calm, and we hope the good days of happiness and progress will come, and they will come for our all Užice, for as Isaid there are no more Turks there. On September 11 the last transport left. We mourn them as men when we remember how difficult was their farewell, but we don’t mourn them as Turks. Every transport was followed by one or two companies of the people’s army and everything was alright. Turks were transferred to Bosnia in Bajina Bašta by ferries arrived from Zvornik. Since they received the news that they have to move, they completely changed. They aren’t anymore those Turks who once used to roll up their sleeves and proudly walk through the street saying: „Every Turk will chase 20 Vlachs with aknife only!“ One told me these days when Isaw him off: „Iswear to the Turkish faith, how our Books say and what is the policy of the Miloš’s son of yours, God allows that we stop as far as Syria. One part of the to-be-expelled Muslims started to move out in September towards Vidin. Expulsion from Belgrade towards Niš started in October, as well as towards Bosnia, that is Sanjak of Zvornik mainly, which was the closest, right across the Drina river. Some of them crossed the Drina, and others crossed the Sava river. Muslims of Šabac started to move out by the end of October, mainly towards Brčko in the north of Bosnia, and before November 15 the Muslims of Soko were also moved out, despite being the ones who protested the most against the expulsion.26 Those Muslims From its creation to its dissolution, Dodrecht-Boston-London 1994, pp.44–47. Full text of the Protocol and the ferman sent by the Sultan to Prince Mihailo in Serbian language was published in: Srbske novine, Vol. XXIX, No.112, Belgrade, September 12, 1862, pp.399–400. 24 Afire broke in the town of Užice went on fire on September 8.Ilija Garašanin accused the Muslims of the fire, justifying it by the fact that the Muslims prevented the Serbs from putting the fire out. Muslims, however, prevented Serbs from entering the town, fearing that during the firefighting, Serbs would rob Muslim shops, as happened earlier in Belgrade. H.ORUÇ, Seoba muslimana iz Kneževine Srbije iformiranje novih naselja uBosni (1862–1865), in: 150 godina od protjerivanja muslimana iz Srbije, p.207. 25 Narodne novine, Vol. XXVIII, No.95, Zagreb October 22, 1862. Translated and emphasized by author. 26 „Itold you in the last letter something about how the Turks of Soko bitterly protest against the Imperial decree, and about how badly they welcomed the envoys who were advised them to peacefully move out.“ Narodne novine, Vol. XXVIII, no.103, Zagreb, October 31, 1862. Translated by author.
32 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2020 who moved towards the Sanjak of Zvornik were settled before the end of November. In that way, all Muslims living in towns of Serbia were moved out, except the small group of about 30 prominent Muslims in Belgrade, and those living in Kladovo, Mali Zvornik, and Sakar.27 IMMIGRATION AND SETTLEMENT OF THE EXPELLED MUSLIMS By the end of 1862, 15 households with 36 male members emigrated from Belgrade to Brčko, 134 households to Orašje, and 25 households to Gradačac. From Užice there were atotal of 533 households with 1.243 people, of which 235 households with 498male members moved to Gornja Azizija (Azizija Upper, today Bosanski Šamac), 140 households with 300 male members to Donja Azizija (Azizija Lower, today Orašje), 89 households with 215 male members to Brezovo polje, 23 households to Bijeljina, 22to Srebrenica, 14 to Gračanica, 12 to Tuzla and 3 households to Vlasenica. From Soko, there were 141 households with 373 male members settled in Kozluk, 32households with 69 male members in Bosanski Šamac, 31 households with 79 male members in Brezovo polje, and one household in Orašje. Of the Muslims expelled from Šabac, 148 households with 375 male members were settled in Brezovo polje, 25 households with 57 male members in Bosanski Šamac, and 25 households with 47male members in Orašje.28 Town → Kaza ↓ Belgrade Užice Soko Šabac Total Homes Men Homes Men Homes Men Homes Men Homes Men Tuzla Low. 1 3 107 594 8 57 1 5 117 659 Tuzla Upp. 25 143 1 5 26 148 Brčko 34 206 44 158 78 364 Zvornik 3 8 98 497 39 224 140 729 Gradačac 7 25 2 11 27 157 36 193 Gračanica 26 173 1 6 1 9 28 188 Srebrenica 2 6 96 546 199 1219 297 1771 Vlasenica 1 5 13 77 2 14 16 96 Total 14 47 401 2247 321 1840 2 14 738 4148 Table 1.Anumber of the expelled Muslim males settled in the kazas of the Sanjak of Zvornik until the end of 1863.29 27 H.ORUÇ, Seoba muslimana iz Kneževine Srbije, p.207. Muslims of Kladovo were moved out in 1865, mostly towards Vidin. Ibid., p.207. 28 S.BANDŽOVIĆ, Uvrtlozima deosmanizacije XIX stoljeća, p.49–52. Copies of the names of all Muslim males who moved from the Serbian towns to settlements in the Sanjak of Zvornik are being kept in the Archive of the Tuzla Canton (ATK) under signatures: Orijentalna zbirka (OZ)— 44 F, ATK, OZ— 45 F, ATK, OZ— 46 F, ATK, OZ— 47 F, ATK, OZ— 48 F, ATK, OZ— 49 F. 29 Š.HODŽIĆ, Migracije muslimanskog stanovništva, pp.139–141.
AMIR KRPIć 33 The governors of the provinces of Niš, Vidin, and Bosnia were in charge of assisting the accommodation of the Muslim refugees who arrived in their eyalets. On November 18, Bosnian governor Osman-pasha informed the Grand Vizier that about 1.300 households with about 7.000 members had moved to Bosnia. Authorities planned to settle alarge number of refugees on the former fiefs of Husein-Captain Gradaščević in the Sanjak of Zvornik. It is estimated that each household would receive between 40 and 100 acres of land. In addition to building houses, the state set aside another 400.000 groschens to build other facilities in the settlements that were planned to be built for refugees.30 In the first half of 1863, the construction of the mentioned settlements began in the Sanjak of Zvornik, and those were Kozluk, Brezovo Polje, Gornja Azizija, and Donja Azizija.31 According to the plans, the new settlements were to have the shape of achessboard with wide streets that would intersect at right angles, between which there would be space left for the construction of squares, mosques, and gardens.32 According to the plan from June 1863, Donja Azizija and Gornja Azizija were going to be built as towns with 200 to 300 houses each, and Brezovo polje and Kozluk as villages with 350 and 210 houses, respectively. After the governor visited the settlements that were under construction in the second half of that year, areport was compiled in November, which showed that the construction of refugee settlements was nearing completion. In the town of Kozluk— which was Osman Mahzar-pasha’s farm and which his wife donated without any compensation for the construction of arefugee settlement— 120 houses for Muslims expelled from Sokol had been built by that time, and it was planned that each household would receive one field to cultivate the land. In other places provided for refugee settlements, the land was taken from the owners on the principle of exchange, ie. landowners received compensation in the form of land in other locations. In Brezovo polje, where the immigration had already been completed by that time, 300 houses were built for the Muslims of Užice and Šabac. 200 houses for Muslims from Belgrade, Užice, and Šabac were built in Donja Azizija and 250 houses for Muslims from Užice and Sokol in Gornja Azizija.33 Although there were some obstacles, the Ottoman authorities were mostly successful in settling Muslims expelled from Serbia in the Sanjak of Zvornik, which the Consul General of Austria described as the most valuable thing of the time spent in Bosnia.34 The gradual but complete expulsion of Muslims showed the attitude of the Serbian national policy towards them, that is, it meant that if the Serbian national program is fulfilled, there will most likely be no place for Muslims in that state. At that time already the animosity towards Serbia began to manifest itself. Austrian sources state that Muslims sensed the danger from Serbia,35 and in case they had to 30 H.ORUÇ, Seoba muslimana iz Kneževine Srbije, p.208. 31 Ibid., p.208. 32 S.BANDŽOVIĆ, Bošnjaci ideosmanizacija Balkana, 327. 33 H.ORUÇ, Seoba muslimana iz Kneževine Srbije, pp.209–210. 34 G.ŠLJIVO, Naseljavanje muslimanskih prognanika (muhadžira) iz Kneževine Srbije uzvornički kajmakamluk 1863. godine, in: Prilozi, No.30, Sarajevo 2001, pp.92–93. 35 G.ŠLJIVO, Bosna iHercegovina 1861–1869, Tešanj 2005, p.475.
34 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2020 choose between Austria and Serbia, they would prefer to choose Austria if they were promised religious and property security.36 Shortly after the expulsion of Muslims from the aforementioned Serbian towns, the authorities of the Principality of Serbia— and seemingly the Serbian Orthodox people— began to put pressure on Mali Zvornik and Sakar, two small Muslim-populated settlements on the right bank of the Drina. In late 1862, the Serbian government complained against the Ottoman government about, among other issues, the fact that the two settlements were still under Ottoman rule.37 On this occasion, at the beginning of next year, negotiations began on the border, more precisely on the issue of Mali Zvornik, which Serbia wanted to take over, and the Ottoman state did not want to cede.38 This dispute lasted throughout the year,39 and even the next few of them, since Serbia did not intend to give in. In fact, the then Prime Minister of the Principality of Serbia, Ilija Garašanin, believed that Serbia must always have an unresolved issue with the Ottoman state. In 1865, he wrote to Jovan Ristić: “Mali Zvornik, as little as it is,40 is to become the subject of great events”, and again in 1866 that for Mali Zvornik, he will “ask Ali-pasha to empty this place of the Turks. It doesn’t matter if he succeeds or not.“41 These words are the best indicator of the attitude of Serbian state politics towards this issue. Taking as an argument the fact that the trade route passes through Mali Zvornik, from the very beginning of this dispute, the Serbian government intended to expel the remaining Muslims from its territory by occupying these two settlements. In his speech at the opening of the National Assembly in 1864, Prince Mihailo said, among other things: The Turks, who lived outside the towns of Belgrade, Šabac, Užice, and Sokol, were expelled, and the towns of Užice and Sokol were destroyed, but there are still Turks to emigrate from Mali Zvornik and Sahar, and the Castle to tear down. (…),”42 to which he received an answer from the Assembly on behalf of the Serbian people:”(…) but you, bright lord, will not be surprised when you hear, that we are very sad that the Turks still live in Sakar and Mali Zvornik (…).”43 Although in 1867 certain solutions were reached to the satisfaction of the Serbian side,44 these two settlements remained under the Ottoman rule as apart of the Sanjak of Zvornik until the occupation of Bosnia in 1878.45 36 G.ŠLJIVO, BiH 1861–1869, 2005, p.494. 37 Narodne novine, Vol. XXVIII, No.141, Zagreb December 17, 1862. 38 Narodne novine, Vol. XXIX, No.3, Zagreb January 5, 1863. 39 Narodne novine, Vol. XXIX, No.229, Zagreb October 8, 1863. 40 Literally translated Mali Zvornik is Little Zvornik. 41 G.ŠLJIVO, Bosna iHercegovina 1861–1869, Planjax, Tešanj 2016, pp.429–430. 42 Domobran, No.93, Zagreb September 5, 1864; Narodne novine, Vol. XXX, No.203, Zagreb September 6, 1864. 43 Domobran, No.95, Zagreb September 7, 1864; Narodne novine, Vol. XXX, No.205, Zagreb September 9, 1864. 44 Novi Pozor, Vol. I, No.36, Vienna October 16, 1867; Narodne novine, Vol. XXXIII, No.239, Zagreb October 17, 1867; Novi Pozor, Vol. I, No.41, Vienna October 22, 1867. 45 S.BANDŽOVIĆ, Uvrtlozima deosmanizacije XIX stoljeća, p. 33.
AMIR KRPIć 35 DEMOGRAPHICS IN NORTHEAST BOSNIA CENSUS DATA AND PROJECTIONS The events in Serbia during 1862 regarding the issue of Muslims in that country, influenced the demographic picture in the northeastern area of Bosnia, back then administratively known as the Sanjak of Zvornik. The demographic picture can be traced back to the introduction of the tanzimat in Bosnia when the first official census was conducted. According to that census, in the Eyalet of Bosnia, including Herzegovina and Novi Pazar, there were 547,155 male heads*, of which 119,288 in the Sanjak of Zvornik or 21.8%, which made this sanjak the most populous in the entire eyalet. In religious terms, the majority of the population in the Sanjak were Christians (Orthodox and Catholics together). There were 64,030 or 53.68% of them, and 52,918 or 44.36% Muslims. The rest of the population were Roma— 2,340 or 0.85%, and Jews.46 There were, however, some doubts regarding the accuracy of this census. In May 1861, the Narodne novine from Zagreb wrote: „Entire population was counted immediately after Omer-pasha implemented the tanzimat in Bosnia in 1851 and 1852; but those numbers are very unreliable, for according to Mr. Giljferding, that number is much smaller than the actual one.“47 Special Ottoman governmental agents Ahmed Dževdet-pasha and Pasko Vasa-efendi, who were on amission in Bosnia during the 1860s, also had similar doubts.48 Next data was brought by the official 1865 projections. According to it, 639,425 males49 lived in the Vilayet of Bosnia— excluding the Sanjak of Novi Pazar— out of which 177,685 lived in the Sanjak of Zvornik or 27.79%. The largest religious community in the Sanjak were still Orthodox Christians, with 85,697 male heads, which means that they made up 48.23% of the total number of men in this sanjak. They were followed by Muslims, which numbered 62,563 males or 35.21%, and then Catholics with 29,332 males or 16.51%. There were 93 Jewish men and they made up 0.05%. Comparing these with the corresponding data in other sanjaks, it can be concluded that almost one-third of all Muslim males (29.82%) and all Orthodox males 46 P.VASA, Bosna iHercegovina za vrijeme misije Dževdet-efendije, Sarajevo 1958, p.28. 47 Narodne novine, Vol. XXVII, No.120, Zagreb May 27, 1861. Mr. Giljferding mentioned here is the Russian consul, Aleksandar Fjorodovič Giljferding, who wrote atravelogue originally titled Pojezdka po Gercegovine, Bosnii iStaroj Serbii. Bosna vnačale goda. 1858 opiski Imperatorskago russkovo geografičeskago obšestva. Kniúka izdana pod redakcii A.F.Giljferdinga. translated into Serbian by Branko Čulić. Regarding the 1851 census, the consul noted: „Population was counted soon after Omer-pasha enforced tanzimat (1851 and 1852), but the results are very unreliable and the population number, according to this census, is much smaller than in reality.“ Also: „Irepeat that this census is not correct and the numbers don’t match the reality. However, it provides apicture of numeral relation between the Muslim and Christian population.“ A.GILJFERDING (trans. B.ČULIĆ), Putovanje po Hercegovini, Bosni iStaroj Srbiji, Sarajevo 1972, pp.330, 332. 48 P.VASA, Bosna iHercegovine za vrijeme misije Dževdet-efendije, p.30. 49 Counting the same men-to-women ratio (1:1) as in 1851/52, roughly 1,278,850 inhabitants lived in the Vilayet of Bosnia in 1865.
42 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2020 Sanjak of Zvornik, was the main factor that put weight balance in favor of Muslims. Thousands of formerly Serbian Muslims switched the religious majority in Northeast Bosnia. Therefore, decisions at the 1862 Kanlica Conference had significant reflections on the neighboring areas. Although being adiplomatic victory for Serbia, it was this conference that, intentionally or not— and certainly not— changed the demographic picture in Northeast Bosnia, not only in percentage, by increasing the number of Muslims, but by decreasing the number of Christians as well. That was unquestionably anegative consequence of the events on Ottoman-Serbian relation, and the Serbian authorities realized that in the mid-1860s and took actions to stop the outflow of the Orthodox Christians (who were supposed to be Serbs by Serbia’s state policy and its national program of foreign policy) from „the still unliberated lands,“ caused by the Conference in part (with Serbia’s law on the settlement of foreigners— adopted also due to the Conference decisions, because much of land remained vacant after the Muslims left— being the other part).