II. TURK HUKUK TARiHi KONGRESi BiLDiRiLERi Cilt: IIisamveri.org/pdfdrg/D256607/2016/2016_2_KARCICF.pdf · 2019. 5. 31. · 4 4 Leopold Ranke, Srbija i Turska u devetnaestom veku,

Uluslararast Tiirk Hukuk Tarihi Kongresi 13-14 May is 2016 - Istanbul

II. TURK HUKUK TARiHi KONGRESi BiLDiRiLERi

Cilt: II

Editor

Prof. Dr. Fethi GEDiKLi

onikilevha 1111 II 111111111111111111111111

YAYIN NO: 681

II. TiirkHukuk Tarihi Kongresi Bildirileri Cilt: II Editor: Prof. Dr. Fethi Gedikli

ISBN 978-605-152-4 70.-2

1. BASKI -iSTANBUL, ARALIK2016

© ON iKi LEVRA YAYINCILIKA. ~· Adres : Prof. Nurettin Mazhar Oktel Sokak No: 6A ~i§li I iSTANBUL Telefon : (212) 343 09 02 Faks : (212) 224 40 02 Web : www.onikilevha.com.tr E-Posta : [email protected]

Baski/Cilt Birlik Fotokopi Baski Ozalit ve Buro Malz. San. ve Tic. Ltd. ~ti. Yild1z Mah.

PROTOCOL OF THE KANLICA CONFERENCE OF 1862: LEGAL AND HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF STIPULATIONS ON MUSLIM POPULATION

.' Fikret KARCIC*

Eviction of Muslim population from areas out of fortresses in Serbia began after the conference of ambassadors of Europeai:i guarantor pow-ers and Ottoman government held in Kanhca, the suburbs oflstanbul, in the summer of 1862.1 This conference resulted in signing of the protocol that, among other things, decided on the destiny of Muslim population in Serbia. Stipulations of the protocol had later been transformed into Sultan's firman to be implemented by Ottoman authorities in Serbia.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the stipulations of the Kanli-ca Conference as related to Muslim population, to explain how they were created, and to highlight their consequences for Muslim population of Serbia. It also provides the historical context of the Kanlica Conference itself.

1. Historical context of the Kanlica Conference

In 1862, the Principality of Serbia was a vassal state with Ottoman Empire as suzerain.2 Such position was a result of the conditions estab- ·

Prof. Dr., Faculty of Law, University of Sarajevo. 1 In South Slavic languages literature, the event is mainly referred to as emigration of' Turks"

from Serbia. However, it is more appropriate to speak of emigration of Muslims because, in the Ottoman state, all Muslims created a single group regardless of ethnicity. Muslims who lived in Serbia in the 19th centurywere ethnic Turks, Bosniaks, Albanians, and Roma. Insisting on "Turks" blurs the image of the events and creates false impressions.

Srdan Sarkic, Istorija driave i prava Srbije (Novi Sad: Pravni fakultet, 2009), p.p. 44-51.

444 II. Tiirk Hukuku Tarihi Kongresi Bildirileri

lished during the 1815 Second Uprising. It was legally determined by a series of international dqcuments (Treaty of Bucharest 1812, Akkerman Convention 1826, Treaty of Adrianople 18291 Treaty of Paris 1856) as well as by the Ottoman internal documents such as hatt-i sharifs of 1830 and 1833. The latter two documents stipulated that Muslim population be moved out of Serbia by 1838. Until that time, such population was to be under the jurisdiction of the Ottoman authorities. The Ottoman state deferred the actual implementation.

Internal administration of the Principality of Serbia was under per-manent political fight: whether it should be regulated by Serbian factors (so called Sretenje Constitution of 1835) or by Ottoman government (hatt-i sharif of 1838, also known as "Turkish Constitution").

At the time on Kanlica Conference, the Principality of Serbia was headed by Mihajlo 0 brenovic for whom the period of 185 9 to 1868 was his second rule. Internally, he did not respect the "Turkish Constitution': Since there was an issue as to who should bring the new constitution -the Prince or the Porte - a compromise had been reached that individual parts of the "Turkish Constitution'' of 1838 may be substituted by the laws to be adopted by the Serbian authorities. The laws on state council, national assembly, and ministries were created, thus establishing the state structure of the Principality.

Ottoman presence in the Principality had been maintained in mili-tary garrisons throughout six fortresses, the police, and civil government in charge of Muslim town population.

Due to such circumstances and because of Serbian government's attempts to transform autonomy into independence, there was a pos-sibility that an incident sparks fire in relations between Serbian and Muslim populations. Such incidents had particularly been frequent at the beginning of 1862, leading to increased distrust between Serbian and Ottoman authorities. Individual perpetrators, when submitted to "their own'' authorities, were usually mildly punished o~ acquitted.

Protocol Of The Kanlica Conference Of 1862: Legal And Historical Analysis Of

Stipulations On Muslim Population [Karlie] 445

In such conditions, Serbian authorities brought a unilateral decision that Turks (Muslims) arrested by Serbian police outside trench shall be punished according to Serbian laws by Serbian authorities3• Obviously, the decision reflected the essence of relationship between suzerain power (Ottoman state) and its vassal (Principality of Sei;,bia) so that, within the frame of such policy, a single incident could move an avalanche of events.

The incident' occurred on June 15, 1862 at Cukur cesma (fountain) in Belgrade of which there are conflicting reports depending on whether the sources of information are Serbian or Turkish. There are also reports on the event by European consuls to Belgrade. The Turkish side con-ducted an investigation which was being refused as partial.

The description of the event, according to German historian of 19th century Leopold Ranke ( 1795-1886)1 is as follows4 : There was a fight between Serbs and Turks (Muslims) at Cukur cesma in Belgrade about who would pour water from the fountain first. As a simple fight grew into mutual attacks, one Serb was killed (it turned out later that the person, a journeyman named Sava Petrovic, was not killed there). The Serbian police and a translator came to the spot and took two soldiers that were assumed guilty to the Turkish headquarters. One agha of the town joined but the dispute was not to be solved amicably. A major confusion de-veloped when shots were fired at translator and policemen. Wherever Serbs and Turks came across one another, a bloodshed occurred. Serbian minister Ilija Garasanin ( 1812-187 4) and European consuls tried to cut the fight. Muslim population of Belgrade, together with Turkish soldiers who occupied outside positions, retreated to the fortress.

Two days later, whether as a result of pressure by Muslims who had to leave their homes that had become subject to looting, or as a re-sult of retaliation, the commander of the Belgrade fortress ordered the

3 Zivota Djordjevic, Cukur eesma 1862: studija 0 odlasku Turaka iz Srbije (Beograd: No-lit, 1983),p.47.

4 4 Leopold Ranke, Srbija i Turska u devetnaestom veku, translated by Stojan Novakovic (Beograd:Parna stamparija Dimitrija Dmitrijeviea, 1892), p.p .. 468-4 72


bombarding of the town ofBelgrade5• The High Porte ordered that the bombarding stops ii?JmediatelYi that the Belgrade pasha be dismissed, and that a commissioner be appointed and dispatched to Belgrade. In Belgrade, both the Ottoman and the Serbian sides kept their positions.

Turkish commissioner Ahmed Vefik effendi quickly arrived to Bel-grade in an attempt to keep the cease fire, to conduct an investigation, and to bring the previous condition back in place. He specifically requested that the Serbian side declares in writing that they shall not keep whatever was looted as their own legal property. The Serbian side could not accept it.

Representatives of European powers took a stand that events in Bel-grade require a conference, in the spirit of the Treaty of Paris that would bring together the European ambassadors in Istanbul and the Porte in order to establish peace and solve the dispute. European ambassadors in Istanbul submitted such request to the Porte on July 8 in separate notes. The Porte accepted the request and convened a conference in Kanlica.

Information on Belgrade bombarding, based on the report by the British Consul, was presented to the lower house of the British Parliament by Mr. Layard, undersecretary for foreign affairs, in an answer to a question by Darby Griffith, MP. The response was that. .. ,, ... the Government had received information that the Turkish fortress at Belgrade had bombarded the Servian portion of the town. He understood that the Servians had offered considerable provocation to the Turks. Two or three of the latter had been mur-dered, and on the 16th the Servians, by a surprise, took possession of two of the gates of the Turkish quarter. On the 17th, some shots having been fired at the fortress, the Turkish garrison was led to believe that an attack was going to be made upon them, and opened a bombardment on a part of the town. The Consuls immediately interfered; and as soon as the British Government were apprised of the occurrence, they took such me-asures as they thought most calculated to stop the effusion ofblood. The bombardment, he believed, did not last more than four hours. A telegram had just been received from the Turkish Government stating that a Commissioner would be immediately dispatched to Belgrade to investigate the matter, and that every effort would be made to bring about a satisfactory settlement of the differences which had arisen." Question.(Hamsard, 20 june 1862 ), http://hansard.millbankssystem.com/ commons1862/jun/20/ question, accessed 11/08/2012.

Protocol Of The Kanltca Conference Of 1862: Legal And Historical Analysis Of

Stipulations On Muslim Population [KarCic] 44 7

2. The Conference

The conference started to work at the mansion of the grand Vizier Fuad-pasha (kecheci-zade Mehmed Fuad-pasha, 1814-1868) in Kanlica on July 22, 18626• It ended by signing of the Protocol on September 4, 1862. The conference was attended by commissioners of Europeanguar-antor powers in Istanbul - Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, and Sardinia (th~ king ofltalywas at the time known as King of Sardinia). Based on the Treaty of Paris dated March 30, 1856, all rights of Serbia (as established by hatt-i sharifs) were under common W¥ranty of all signato-ries of the agreement7. The Ottoman government was represented by the grand vizier Fuad-pasha and by the Minister of foreign affairs Ali-pasha (Mehmed Emin Ali-pasha, 1815-1871). They were Ottoman statesmen of western orientation and devoted advocates for Tanzllnat. At the time, the commissioner from Serbia Jovan Ristic ( 1831-1899) was in Istanbul but he did not take a direct part in the conference although he left signif-icant data on its work and its decisions.8

The goal of the conference was to prevent conflict between Ottoman and Serbian authorities that occurr~d after the incident at Cukur cesrna and the subsequent Ottoman bombarding of Belgrade. For the Ottoman state, the conference was an opportunity to keep the status quo in Serbia. For Serbia, it provided a chance that its de facto independence be legally strengthened. In that regard, Serbia used its allies to request that Otto-man fortresses be demolished inside Serbia, that their garrisons retreat,

6 The mansion (yali) still exists inKanlica on Bosporus. See http: //www:kenthaber.com/ marmara/istanbul/beykoz/Rehber /yalilar /kececizade-fuat-pasa-yalisi, 'indicating "Kanhca Muayidesi ismi ile tarunan bir antla~ma da yine bu yahda irnzalanrm~tir:'

Article 28 of the agreement:

"Principality of Serbia shall continue to be under the High Porte in accordance with royal decrees that determine its rights and privileges that have been put under a col-lective warranty of signatories. As a result, the Principality shall keep its independent national administration and full freedom of faith, legislation, trade, and sailing:' English text taken from http:/ I maviboncuk.blogspot.com/2004/06/ 1856-treaty-of-paris.html, accessed 29.06.2012. Translated by author.

8 Jovan Ristic, Spoljasnji odnofaji Srbije novijega vremena, II, 1860-1868 (Beograd: Stamparija Kraljevine Srbije, 1887).


and that the issue of Muslim population in Serbia be solved. At the same time, Serbia established its· own army and strengthened the position of its government for which it demanded to be recorded as ''.Army of Serbia':

In the Kanlica conference, Serbia strongly relied on the support of France and Russia, while Turkey could rely on Austria and Great Britain. Prussia and Italy (Sardinia) were indirectly leaning toward Serbia9•

Viewed from the perspective of international law, the June 1862 events in Belgrade included three legal questions: First, who has the au-thority to decide on criminal acts occurring between the subjects of su-zerain (Ottoman) state and a dependent state (Serbia)? Second, whether the Serbian police had the authority to arrest members of suzerain pow-er? Third, whether the Ottoman commander of Belgrade fortress used legal force or not when he ordered the bombarding of Belgrade town? The Conference avoided to give answers to these questions.

3. Protocol regulations on Muslim population

The protocol of the Conference in Kanlica is officially titled "Pro-tocol of the Conference between Ambassadors of Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey Concerning Serbia"10• It consists of preamble and 12 articles. The preamble refers to the Treaty of Paris dated march 30, 1856 and states that the conference had been convened in order "to avoid new causes for disturbances" in relations between suzerain power and Principality. After the conference, Turkey issued a firm an published in its usual form, including details of the agree-ment, and the Serbs demolished all military facilities built in the town, between the town and fortress, as well as other facilities built in the terri-tory of Principality after the recent events.

9 Nebojsa Randjelovic i Aleksandar Djordjevic, 11Protokol konferencije u Kanlidzi'~ Zbor-nik radova Pravnogfakulteta u Ni5u, LV (2010), p.112.

10 English version of the protocol, see Snezana Trifunovska, Yugoslavia Through Documents From its Creation to Its Dissolution (Leiden: Martin us Nijhoff Publishers, 1994), p.p .. 42-49. Translated by author.


-Stipulations On Muslim Population [KarCic] 449

Out of 12 articles of the Protocol, three deal with the position of Muslim population. The paper shall further focus on these articles only. Other articles related to the continuation of Ottoman right to keep garri-sons in Belgrade fortresses, Feth-i islam (Kladovo), Sabac, and Smedere-vo, as well abolishing of fortresses in Sako and Uzice, have already been subject to scholarly analysis. 11

Article I

In order to prevent the passibility of conflict arisingfro:rz the intermix-ture in the same locality of Mussulman and Servian population, the Ottoman Government will transfer in full property to the Servian Governmen~ on condition of indemnifying the proprietors, all the Lands and Houses in the Suburb of Belgrade, belonging at the present time to Mussulmans. The Porte will abandon on the same condition to the said Government the Walls, Ditch-es, and Works forming the ancient enclosure which separates the modern from the ancient towns which is called the Faubourg, as well as the four gates of the Save, of Varos, of Stamboul, and of Vidin. These Ditches, Walls, Gates, and Works shall be demolished and levelled. The Servians shall not erect any Mil-itary Work on this ground. These modifications of the former state of things will have for result that the exclusive Jurisdiction of the Servian authorities in future extend over the whole of the Town as well as over the Faubourg of Belgrade. All the Religious Edifices and Tombs which the Mussulman popu-lation may leave standing when they .retire from the places they have hitherto occupied in virtue of ancient rights, shall be scrupulously respected.

Article III

The Servian Government shall take care to restore, in kind or in value, all moveables left by the Mussulmans in their houses or shops when they retire to the Citadel. I.£ at the time of disturbances which then occurred any Servian suffered any losses of the same nature by the act of the Mussulmans, he will be indemnified by the Ottoman Government.

11 See Nebojila Randjelovic andAleksandar Djordjevic, ,,Protokol konferencije u Kanlidzi".

450 II. Tiirk H11kuku Tarihi Kongresi Bildirileri

Article VII

The Sublime Po~te engages to take immediate measures, in concert with the Servian Governmen~ so that all the Mussulman inhabitants who live around the S fortified points which she occupies in virtue of the Treaties, and which are specified in the preceding Articles, may dispose of their properties and withdraw from the Servian Territory as quickly as possible.

The Otto.man· Commissioner sent to Belgrade in order to decide this question and others which were previously pending, shall terminate his la-bours within the period fixed by the Civil Mixed Commission described by Article V. It is well understood that there is nothing in what precedes to prevent Mussulmans from travelling upon business in the interior of the Principalit)lJ on condition of conforming to the Laws of the country.

4. Analysis of protocol regulations on Muslim population

Articles of the protocol referring to Muslim population provide guarantees for certain rights and actions such as:

1. Separation between Muslims and Serbs in Belgrade since the Con-ference decided that mixture of these two groups in the same territory lead to conflicts. (In that regard, the Muslim part of the town of Belgrade had been destroyed upon arrival of the Commission from Istanbul 12).

2. Transfer of Muslim property in the town of Belgrade to the Serbi-an government, providing indemnification.

3. Respect for Muslim places of worship and cemeteries that Mus-lims left in Belgrade. (Such buildings and locations had later been de-stroyed systematically).

4. Indemnification for Muslim movable property damaged during the conflict of June 1862.

12 Leopold Ranke, Srbija i Turska u devetnaestom veku, p.487.


Stipulations On Mi1slim Population [Kadic] 451

S. Eviction of Muslim population that had lived outside the for-tresses in Serbia (implemented upon arrival of the Commissioner from

Istanbul).

6. Right of Muslims to travel inside the country for business reasons, providing they respect Serbian laws. e

We would like to analyze two of the Kanlica Protocol regulations.

1. Opinion that mixture of Muslims and non-Muslims (Serbs) is a source of conflict

This attitude is expressed in Article 1 of the Protocol: "In order to prevent the possibility of conflict arising from the intermixture of Muslim and Serb populations in the same locality ... " The consequence of such attitude was a conclusion that the two communities should be separated. 13

The available sources do not indicate as to who advocated for such an attitude but the fact that it became part of the Protocol proves that it was accepted by all signatories. It should be mentioned that the French representative said the source of conflict was in dual government, "not because the two races cannot put up with one another:'14 This confirms the essential cause of conflict between Muslim and Serb populations in Belgrade: duality of government and duality oflegal system.

The Principality of Serbia was at the time a country on the road from actual to legal independence. It was developing the institutions of state government and law as opposed to Ottoman government ap.d law. At the time of autonomous principality, Serbs were under jurisdiction of Serbian authorities and laws while Muslims were under Ottoman rules. Since the time of Prince Milos, the jurisdiction of Serbian authorities, in addition to Serbs, included Jews and Roma who lived inside the trenches

13 Serb nationalists in Bili might envy such attitude of the Conference as they used the same argument in 1992 to prove that the country could not exist as a rnultiethnic com-munity.

14 Jovan Ristic, op.cit. p. 135

452 II. Turk Hukuku Tarihi Kongresi Bildirileri

of Belgrade and throughout Serbia.15 The intention of Serbian policy was to expand its jurisdiction territorially and personally.

One of the ways to solve a conflict in a situation of duality of the law, or legal pluralism, is to establish mixed courts. Such practice existed in the second half of 19th century in Egypt. 16 A proposal for establishing of mixed criminal court in Belgrade that would deal with litigations of Muslims and Serbs according to Turkish laws was submitted by Porte in 1861.17 Leopold Ranke mentions that the proposal was unfavorably received in Belgrade: "it was thought that such arrangement would lead to falling under the honor of Qur' an while all previous fights were aimed at the destruction of such honor".18

Since Serbian leadership was on a collision course in terms of the Ottoman suzerainship, it probably did not matter to them that the Turk-ish Criminal Code of 1858 mainly adopted the regulations of French Criminal Code of 181 O, which means that its possible implementation in " Serbia did not at all mean "the honor of Qur'an"19

In any case, the idea of mixed courts in Belgrade was not accepted. The intention was rather to solve the issue of duality of government and law radically: by strengthening of Serbian state authority aimed at full sovereignty based on ethnic principle and by extending Serbian laws to all inhabitants of Serbia. The attitude that two different religious and eth-nic communities cannot live together in one territory generates conflict was only a suitable excuse.

2. Forced emigration of Muslim population from Serbia

15 Rasid beja Istorija cudnovatih dogadjaja u Beogradu i Srbiji, translated from Turkish by D. S. CohadziC (Beograd: Srpska kraljevska akademija, Spomenik XXIII, 1894), p.31.

16 Of mixed courts (al-mahakim al-mukhtalita) in Egypt see Mark S. W Hoyle,,, The Mi-xed Courts in Egypt 1886-1895'~ Arab Law Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 5 (November 1986), p.p .. 562-576.

17 Leopold Ranke, op.cit. p. 461 18 Ibid 19 See Ihsan Yilmaz, Muslim Laws, Politics and Society in Modern Nation States: Dynamic

Legal Pluralism in England, Turkey and Pakistan (Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2005), p.90.

Protocol Of The Kanl1ca Co1iference Of 1862: Legal And Historical Analysis Of

Stipulations On Muslim Population [Kartic] 453

Eviction of Muslims from Serbia was not for the first time men-tioned at the Kanlica Conference. Such request has its history.

Hatt-i sharif of 1830, in response to the request by Serbian side, stipulated that except for garrisons and towns, "any other Turks are pro-hibited from living in Serbia20 ". The term of one year was approved for selling of properties by those "who want to abandon them" under a fair price to be deterinined by fiduciaries of both sides.

Hatt-i sharif of 1833 extended the term for Muslims inhabiting Ser-bia for another five years. Upon expiry of the term, ¥uslims who lived in towns had to move to other places. Therefore, Muslim families had to ei-ther stay within fortresses or move somewhere else. Muslims of the town of Belgrade were allowed to stay "permanently': The town of Belgrade was left to Muslims in exchange for three regions - Knjaievo, Svrljig, and Aleksinac that were given to Serbs21 • For the town of Belgrade. The hatt-i sharif of 1833 states:

"By settling in the suburbs of Belgrade1 Turks are not only to serve as the garrison of the town but to engage in trade to-gether with Serbs because both peoples are equal subjects of my Empire. Howeve1j to ensure good living for Turks1 they will live in the Belgrade suburbs and be under the rule of their regent1 my vizier Mehmed Vedzi-pasha. In order to reach the ultimate goal of maintaining general well-being and to prevent any disturbances1 the Serbs shall also live in the suburbs of Belgrade as they ever did ... 2211

This idea of two communities-Serbs and Muslims- living together in Belgrade, as expressed in hatt-i sharif of 1833, was slowly dying over the next three decades. Rashid-bey of Belgrade who witnessed the events, noted that the Serb authorities constantly harassed Muslims, slowly overtaking the power in the town. He mentioned examples of

20 Rasid beja Istorija cudnovatih dogadjaja 11 Beogradu i Srbiji, p .. 82. Translation of hatt-i sharif taken from the book by D.Matic, Jav110 pravo Knjaiestva Srbije (Belgrade: 1851).

21 Jovan Ristic, op.cit. p.154 22 Rasid beja Istorija Citdnovatih dogadjaja 11 Beogradu i Srbiji, p. 84. Translation of hatt-i

sharif taken from the book by D.Matic, Javno pravo Knjazestva Srbije (Belgrade: 1851 ).

454 II. Ti.irk Hukuku Tarihi Kongresi Bildirileri

Serbs building houses with windows overlooking Muslim courtyards which was contrary to Muslim rules and habits, and that Serbian police-men were beating Muslims who would not stand up when Prince Milos was walking down the streets, etc.23 • Corrupt and incompetent Ottoman officials were incapable of resisting. Two systems of government and two laws could hardly coexist in such circumstances.

Historic sources show that in 18611 a special Prince's envoy Ilija Ga-rasanin was ifl Istanbul with a task to work on implementation of hatt-i sharif regulations on eviction of Muslims living outside towns in Serbia. On that occasion, Jovan Ristic1 Serbian diplomat and historian wrote: "For reasons of humaneness, Serbia proposed to the Porte a concession that those Turks stay in the country under the Serbian jurisdiction"24.0n this matter, Garasanin submitted a memorandum to the Porte and in-formed foreign commissioners in Istanbul about its content. The mean-ing of such new; "more modern" approach was the following: "The Turks who live outside towns in Serbia shall fall under Serbian authorities and shall have the same rights and obligations as the Serbs"25• According to this proposal, jurisdiction of the Ottoman state would be limited to towns (fortresses) 1 Serbia would not request that Muslims move out, and the Porte would transfer the control over the Muslim part of Belgrade to Serbian authorities.

At the very conference in Kanlica1 France and Russia were of the opinion that the issue of Muslims living in the Principality should be immediately solved in a way that they fall under Serbian jurisdiction, providing that the Serbian prince guarantees their full protection by laws in effect in the Principality26•

23 Rasid beja Istorija cudnovatih dogadjaja u Beogradu i Srbiji, p.p. 33-34 24 Jovan Ristic, op.cit. p.p. 86-87 25 Rados LjusiC llija, "llija Garsanin on Serbia's Statehood'~ Balcanica, XXXIX (2008), Bel-

grade 2009, p.152. 26 Nebojsa Randjelovic i Aleksandar Djordjevic, op. cit., str .. 114.

Protocol OfTheKanlica Conference Of 1862: Legal And Historical Analysis Of


The question remains why the Ottoman state declared in the Con-ference that Muslims must move out of Serbia rather than stay under Serbian authorities.

Jovan Ristic gave the following explanation: a

"Serbian jurisdiction was not accepted so it was decided that Turks leave the country. In the Conference, Turkish representa-tives were arguing that Muslims would not want to stay under Serbian laws although, when they were moving out, many had said that they would gladly stay if Turkish go1fernment allowed for it ...

. . . But quite different reasons made the Porte decide against Serbian jurisdiction. They were afraid of a possibility that Mus-lims find themselves under Christian laws that would improve their condition and make them see how their lives as citizens, civil servants, members of parliament, was in such contrast to the lives of common people and of other Turks in the Empire. This is the only way one can explain why Porte refused to apply something that would cause no harm. They rather wanted to expose thou-sands· of their people to eviction inconveniences and to be cursed by those who are now unhappy and scattered all over Bosnia and Rumelia, facing bad consequences. The Christians, howeve1j are encouraged and filled with hope ... "27

We would not agree with the explanations provided by Jo-van Ristic although he, being an experienced diplomat, was the participant and witness of the events. His basic argument that the Porte was against stay of Muslims under Serbian jurisdiction because it was afraid of their modernization does not stand. At that time, the Ottoman state was in the process of Europe-inspi-red modernization-Tanzimat- so Muslims of the Ottoman state were, and could be, to use Ristic' s words: citizens, civil servants, and members of parliament.

The reasons for the position of the Ottoman government, in our opinion, were the following:

27 Jovan Ristic, op.cit. p.p. 147-148


1. The Ottoman state, according to the terminology of the then international law, was a suzerain power, i.e. a state that executes a certain level of power and political control over a dependent state. Serbia was the dependent state in relation to the Ottoman state. As a suzerain power, the Ottoman state could not allow that its citizens-Muslims- fall under the jurisdiction of Principality whose statehood it did not recognize at the time when the Kanlica Conference was held.

2. The pre'v:ious Serbian practice in relation to Muslims-particularly in the First Uprising when civil Muslim population was either massacred, or Christianized, or evicted28- as well as the very status of intercornmunal relationships in 186229, did not offer a guarantee that the authorities of the Principality would provide protection for Muslim population. In his History of Peculiar Events in Belgrade and Serbia, Rashid-bey Belgrad-i3Dwitnesses the permanent harassment of Muslims in Belgrade and in Serbia at the time of autonomous principality and Ottoman-Serbian dual government. He wrote:

Mihail-bey ( Obrenovic-author's comment) issued a confidential or-der to his officials to work on seizing and buying of property belonging to Turks (because Jusuf-pasha's firman prohibited that Turks sell property); that the Turkish-Serbian litigations be processed at Serbian courts; that courts bring litigation decisions in favor of Serbs; and to do anything else in order to make the Turks move out of Belgrade. They were also ordered to make sure that Serbs do not pay any respect to the pasha when they see him in town; to keep inventing suits against Turks and to harass them; to prevent Turks who come to Belgrade to settle there; and particularly to watch out for Serbs without weapons and when they find them to sell their cattle and buy them weapons ... 31

28 Safet Bandfovic, op.cit. p.p. 7-14 29 Zivota Djordjevic, op.cit. p.p. 32-45 30 The recent attention to this author and to Muslim sources relevant for the history of Ser-

bia was drawn by Mirhana Marinkovic in his work "Serbia of the 19th Century in Rashid Begogradjanin's History of Peculiar Events in Belgrade and Serbia and in The Memoir of Ibrahim Mensur effendi, ZbornikMatice Srpske za istoriju, No. 61-62, Novi Sad 2000, p.182

31 Rasid-beja Istorija cudnovatih dogadjaja u Bogradu i iSrbiji, p. 51

Protocol Of The Kanltca Conference Of 1862: Legal And Historical Analysis Of


The kind oflegal protection that Muslims could count on at Serbian courts is described by Rashid-bey as follows:

" ... It is well known that from the beginning to the end of those cir-cumstances, which will later become evident, there was a plan designed so that Serbian courts never adjudicate in favor 0f a single Turk, not even for the sake of wonder"32

• 3. The governing political orientation of Ottoman state in the mid-

dle of 19th century favored emigration (hicret) over staying under the power of non-Muslims in lost territories.33

It is probable that such reasons made the Ottoman representatives decide for eviction of Muslim population at the Kanlica Conference.

Stipulations of the Kanlica Conference Protocol had been incorpo-rated into internal legal system of the Ottoman state by means of Sultan's firman. The firman was handed over to Prince Mihailo by the command-er of the town of Belgrade on September 21, 1862. It was translated into Serbian language and published four days later34 along with the "In-structions to the Commander of the Town of Belgrade". Concerning the Muslim population of Belgrade, the instructions included the following:

"3) You shall not allow any Muslim inhabitant to live outsi-de the town of Belgrade"35•

32 Rasid-beja Istorija eudnovatih dogadjaja u Bogradu i iSrbiji, p. 37 33 An example of such atitude can be seen two decades later when, after the Russian-Tur-

kish war of 1876-1878, the Ottoman government decided to encourage emigration of Muslim population from the Balkans and from Caucasus to remainig Ottoman territo-ries.Such standing was strengthened by classical interpretation of sharia law that gave adventage to moving of Muslims (hijret) over a stay under non-Muslim government in lost territories where basic human rights are not guaranteed to such population. See: Kemal Karpat ,,Status of Muslim under European Rule: The Eviction and Settlement of the Cherkes" in Studies in Ottoman Social and Political History: Selected Articles and Essays (Leiden: E.]. Brill, 2002 ), p.p. 661-663.

3+ Srbske novine, No. 112, September 25, 1862, p.p. 399-400 35 Ibid, p. 400


In this way, eviction of Muslims from Serbia became an order (emr) by their sovereign.

Reports on eviction from various places indicate that Mus-lims took the order quietly. In Uzice, some members of ulama complained against such "Sultan's will" while in some places,

individual Muslims asked Serbian authorities to let them stay on

their land. 36 The Muslims of Sako were revolted and decided to

movt out only when Serbian national army began to approach.

They were exasperated with Sultan and kept saying: "We have no

emperor if he sends us to exile"37 •

Finally, the stipulations of the Kanlica Conference and Sultan's firman were implemented. In this way, Muslims as a compact religious community ceased to exist in the Principality of Serbia except for two settlements on the right side of the River Drina, Mali Zvornik and Sakar.

However, over the course of the following decades-after Rus-sian-Turkish War and the First Balkan War-along with the expansion of Serbian territory, the issue of the status of Muslim population shall be raised again. It was to be settled in new conferences and under new assumptions.

Conclusion

The· Kanlica Conference of 1862 represents a final stage of a fif-ty-year long politics of emerging Serbian state leadership to build power on exclusive ethnic sovereignty principle. The request for eviction of Muslim population from Serbia, perceived as "others'~ became part of the relevant legal documents as early as 1830 but the Ottoman government had been deferring its implementation.

In 1862, the question of the destiny of Muslim population in Ser-bia became imminent as a result of conflict deriving out of duality of

36 Safet Bandfovic, op.cit. p.21; Zivota Djordjevic, op.cit. p.274 37 Zivota Djordjevic, op.cit. p.272


Stipulations Oi1 Muslim Population [KarCic] 459

government and law but also as a result of calculated policy by Serbian leadership to expand its jurisdiction territorially and personally.

In the Kanlica Conference, the Ottoman sate gave preference to obligatory eviction of Muslims over a possibility that they stay under Ser-bian laws. The Ottoman state did not want their citizens to be left under the jurisdiction of a "dependent state" whose previous attitude toward them offered ~o guarantee that their lives, religion, property, and honor would be guaranteed.

The decisions ofKanlica Conference were incorporated into a royal decreejirman- executed with no opposition by Muslim population that it referred to, and with the assistance by Serbian authorities.