Over the past few months, spontaneous demonstrations by teachers, students and their supporters have continued in Chile. Their goal is to force the Chilean government to reform the country's education system. In particular, they call for a significant increase in funding for government educational institutions and improving the quality of education in them. Students use a wide range of means to make their voices heard: from hunger strikes and sit-ins to marches and pillow fights. Not large groups protesters dare to open forms of protest - skirmishes with police detachments. Then stones and incendiary bombs are used.

1. The response of the Chilean authorities was a complete ban on demonstrations. Those who continue to gather are dispersed with water cannons. In turn, the authorities propose to make changes to the education system, which were rejected. Students and their supporters continue to protest in the tens of thousands without official permission from the authorities, while public discontent with President Sebastian Piner grows every day. This report contains photographs from the streets of Chile taken over the past few months.

August 7, 2011. Protest march on the streets of Santiago. Students and their supporters are demanding access to free, high-quality education.


AP Photo/Aliosha Marquez

2. Clash between students and police at the gates of the Ministry of Education in Santiago. Tuesday, August 5th.


AP Photo/Luis Hidalgo

3. August 4th. Police use water cannons to disperse a rally of demonstrators on a street in Santiago, Chile. Students are demanding changes in the country's education system.

4. Argentine and Chilean students marched to the Chilean consulate in Buenos Aires on August 5, 2011, to protest police repression of Chilean students during demonstrations in Santiago de Chile.


Maxi Failla/AFP/Getty Images

5. July 6, 2011: About 500 students gathered in Santiago's Plaza de Armas to demonstrate their "passion for education."


AP Photo/Aliosha Marquez

6. June 23, 2011. Students hiding their faces shoot rocks from slingshots at police during a rally in Valparaiso, Chile.


Reuters/Eliseo Fernandez

7. August 4, 2011. A police officer hides from a stream of stones that fly from masked demonstrators during student riots in Santiago, Chile.


AP Photo/Roberto Candia

8. May 21, 2011. Demonstrators try to stop a police car with a water cannon during clashes with police near the Chilean Congress, where Sebastian Pinera delivered his annual presidential address. Valparaiso, Chile.


AP Photo/Carlos Vera

9. Ordinary people at a student rally. The latter's demands are to change the state education system in the country. August 9, Santiago, Chile.


Reuters/Ivan Alvarado

10. June 16, 2011, Santiago. A masked demonstrator dodges a water cannon during protests outside La Moneda Palace in Santiago. Thousands of students and teachers went on strike and clashed with police to protest against the infringement of citizens' rights in accessible education. The protesters also oppose the government's plans to privatize part of Chile's education system.


AP Photo/Roberto Candia

11. People and dogs came under fire from water cannons during a student rally demanding changes to the state education system in the country. July 28, Santiago, Chile.


Reuters/Carlos Vera

12. Students beat pots and pans at an anti-government rally, where they demanded changes to the state education system in the country. August 9, Santiago, Chile.


Reuters/Eliseo Fernandez

13. The cry of female students during an anti-government rally called “Our education is mass suicide.” Valparaiso, Chile, June 28, 2011. In protest, students lay down on the streets of the city, demanding changes in state system education.


Reuters/Eliseo Fernandez

14. A firefighter tries to put out a fire that engulfed a department store during a student rally in Santiago on August 4, 2011. Students organized a protest demanding changes to the education system. According to Reuters, it cannot be said that the fire was caused by the demonstrators.


Reuters/Carlos Vera

15. Police Squad special purpose in full combat readiness during student rallies in Santiago on August 9, 2011. The inscription on the wall reads: “Chile, you will do anything for profit.”


Reuters/Ivan Alvarado

16. Detention of a student by a special police unit during one of the demonstrations on the streets of Santiago. August 4, 2011.


Reuters/Carlos Vera

17. A participant in a student rally prepared to throw a homemade Molotov cocktail into a water cannon. A wave of demonstrations swept through Chile demanding changes to the country's education system. Santiago, June 30, 2011.


AP Photo/Luis Hidalgo

18. Chilean students under the spray of police water cannons during one of the demonstrations in the center of Santiago. May 12, 2011.


AP Photo/Roberto Candia

19. A demonstrator sits in a chair against the backdrop of a car that was overturned and set on fire during the riots. Riots on the streets erupted after a protest on August 9, 2011.


AP Photo/Sebastian Silva

20. One of the students was hit by a police water cannon during a rally in the center of Santiago on June 1, 2011.


Reuters/Ivan Alvarado

21. Demonstrators wearing masks against the backdrop of a flaming barricade in the center of Santiago. Riots on the streets erupted after a protest on August 9, 2011.


AP Photo/Sebastian Silva

22. Students sleep in Lyceum No. 1 during a strike in Santiago on July 5, 2011. The lying strike was a continuation of student actions calling for a review educational standards, reducing tuition fees and providing students with free public transport.


Reuters/Victor Ruiz Caballero

23. Lyceum student Dario Salas lies on the floor during a 7-day hunger strike in Santiago on July 27, 2011. 29 students from different educational institutions across the country went on hunger strikes demanding changes to the education system in Chile.


Reuters/Victor Ruiz Caballero

24. Students throw stones at police during one of the student demonstrations in Valparaiso. August 9, 2011.


Reuters/Eliseo Fernandez

25. Police disperse a student anti-government rally in Valparaiso. August 9, 2011.


Reuters/Eliseo Fernandez

26. A student anti-government rally on the streets of Santiago on July 18, 2011 took place in superman costumes.


Reuters/Victor Ruiz Caballero

27. August 9, 2011. A Santiago resident hits a frying pan while leaning out of his house window during a loud protest. Students and their supporters are lobbying the government to overhaul the country's education system.


Reuters/Ivan Alvarado

28. Massive pillow fights became part of student anti-government demonstrations in Valparaiso. The action was held under the title “Fight for better education" July 13, 2011.


Reuters/Eliseo Fernandez

29. Students throw stones at a police car set on fire with a Molotov cocktail during a rally in Valparaiso on August 9, 2011.


euters/Eliseo Fernandez

30. Demonstrators take cover from floods of water used to disperse anti-government protests in Santiago on August 9, 2011.


Reuters/Carlos Vera

31. A demonstrator with his face hidden stands in front of a car engulfed in flames that was set on fire during unrest following a student protest in Santiago on August 9, 2011.


AP Photo/Luis Hidalgo

32. Students threw paint on a police armored car during another anti-government protest in Valparaiso on August 14, 2011.


Reuters/Ivan Contreras

33. Dispersal of demonstrators by water cannons during clashes with police in Valparaiso on May 11, 2011.


AP Photo/Luis Hidalgo

34. Detention of one of the demonstrators at a student rally in Santiago on August 9, 2011.


Reuters/Carlos Vera Saavedra

35. A student shows bullet wounds after he was shot by police at an anti-government rally in Valparaiso on August 9, 2011.


Reuters/Eliseo Fernandez

36. Police use water cannons against demonstrators in Santiago on August 9, 2011.


Reuters/Victor Ruiz Caballero

37. A dog frolics under the jets of a water cannon during the dispersal of a student anti-government protest in Santiago on August 9, 2011.


Reuters/Cristobal Saavedra

38. Arrested participant in a student demonstration. Santiago, Chile, August 9, 2011.


Reuters/Victor Ruiz Caballero

Russian universities have been assessing the protest potential of students and teachers for two years. The project organizer, RUDN University employee Nikita Danyuk spoke about this during the Congress of Vice-Rectors of Universities. He explained that students are one of the main “destructors”, and educational work with them is needed to prevent the state from “plunging into chaos and anarchy.” In this regard, Dozhd recalls examples from history and modern times when student unrest became the engine of change in the political and social life of the country.

"Red May" in Paris, 1968

The symbol of youth protests was the events of “Red May” in France, when a riot by dozens of students escalated into a multimillion-dollar strike and ultimately led to the resignation of President Charles de Gaulle and changes in French society and culture.

Protests began on March 22, 1968, at the University of Nanterre in the suburbs of Paris, where several student groups occupied the administrative building. They demanded the release of their comrades who attacked the American Express office to protest the Vietnam War. On the same day, the anarchist “22 March Movement” was formed, which quickly radicalized the situation, first in Nanterre and then in Paris.

The demonstrations were soon joined by students from the Sorbonne and many universities throughout France. They seized university auditoriums and clashed with the police. The protesters opposed bourgeois morality and put forward specific political demands, including the resignation of President de Gaulle, changes in working conditions and the democratization of higher education. The slogans of the student movement were “It is forbidden to prohibit!”, “Be realistic, demand the impossible!”, “Limit yourself to the maximum!” A few weeks later, the students were supported by trade unions, and a strike began in the country, in which almost ten million workers and employees took part. Demonstrations of thousands did not stop for a month.

As a result, some of the social demands of the protest were satisfied, in particular, wages and unemployment benefits were increased; democratization of higher and higher education began high school, students were allowed to study political activity. A year after the events in Paris, in April 1969, President de Gaulle announced the early termination of his powers. Unrest provoked by the “Red May” swept through other European cities, with demonstrations taking place in London, Hamburg, West Berlin, Rome, Madrid, Buenos Aires and Lima.

Events in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, 1989

In 1989, a protest began in Tiananmen Square in central Beijing, the main acting force which, as in France in 1968, was students. They were gradually joined by workers, office workers and businessmen. The composition of the protesters was heterogeneous, as were their views. Some were convinced that the government was ruling the country using totalitarian methods, was mired in corruption, and demanded democratization of the system. Representatives of the working class were afraid that the ongoing economic reforms would lead to rising prices and unemployment.

On April 27, protesters set up a tent camp; up to a million people gathered in the square on different days. A group of students demanded negotiations with the government. On May 19, authorities issued a decree banning demonstrations; despite warnings, protesters refused to disperse.

To put an end to disobedience, the leadership of the Communist Party decided to disperse the demonstrators' camp with the help of the army. On the evening of June 3, a column of armored vehicles, supported by machine gunners, entered the square. Protesters threw stones and Molotov cocktails at the tanks, and the military responded by shooting at the crowd and using tear gas. On the night of June 4, both civilians and military personnel died in the center of Beijing; the exact number of victims is still unknown. The Chinese government announced 241 dead, with independent estimates ranging from several hundred to several thousand killed.

The actions of the Chinese authorities were condemned by the international community and human rights activists; various sanctions and other restrictive measures were introduced against China. But in China itself, the attempted rebellion became a reason to strengthen the power of the ruling Communist Party. Supporters of the protests were arrested, the country banned the distribution of foreign press and tightened control over local media. In mainland China, it is still difficult to find information about the events of 1989; all information about them is blocked on the Internet, and mentioning the protests in the media is prohibited.

Umbrella revolution in Hong Kong, 2014-2015

Student demonstrations in Hong Kong, dubbed the “umbrella revolution,” began in protest against the electoral reforms that the Chinese authorities were trying to implement. In 2007, Beijing promised Hong Kongers to hold free elections in ten years, but in 2014 they decided to abandon this idea and give the population a choice of three candidates approved by a pro-Beijing commission.

In late September 2014, protesters against this reform began Occupy Central by setting up tents in Hong Kong's financial district. Basic driving force Professors and students of major universities began demonstrating. One of the leaders of the movement, activist Joshua Wong, just turned 18 in October 2014. The police repeatedly tried to disperse the protesters, using batons and tear gas. Dozens of people were detained over several months. In the end, they managed to achieve their goal: in June 2015, the electoral reform project was rejected, but some of the protest activists were persecuted. In October 2016, it became known that Joshua Wong was detained in Thailand at the request of the Chinese authorities.

Student protests in South Africa, 2015–present

Since October 2015, protests by students in the Republic of South Africa have been ongoing, demanding that higher education be made free. It all started with the government's recommendation to increase university fees by 8%. Students say high tuition fees create barriers to education for black students, and they have opposed the use of Afrikaans (the language primarily taught during apartheid) in their studies.

Initially, the demonstrations were largely peaceful, but police began to use force and clashes began, escalating into arson and riots. Then the protests were crowned with success: the government temporarily abandoned its intention to raise the cost of studying at universities, and some universities canceled teaching in Afrikaans.

However, protests resumed in 2016. In October, students called for universities to be closed until higher education became free. Prior to this, universities in the capital Cape Town and the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg were twice forced to suspend work due to demonstrations. On October 20, several hundred students gathered near the office of South African President Jacob Zuma, and police used stun grenades to disperse them.

In February-March 1899, all Russian Empire student unrest gripped. Universities of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv, Tomsk, Kazan, Kharkov, Warsaw and Odessa protested. In the capital, other educational institutions joined the strike, including the Military Medical Academy, Higher Women's Courses and even the Theological Academy. understands the causes and consequences of those events.

“They won’t hang us because of this bastard of students!”

It all started on February 8, 1899 (hereinafter all dates are in the old style), when St. Petersburg University solemnly celebrated its 80th anniversary. On the eve of the anniversary, the university posted a message from the rector, ordering students to “execute the laws, thereby protecting the honor and dignity of the university,” and warning, “Those responsible may be subject to arrest, deprivation of benefits, dismissal and expulsion from the university, and expulsion from the capital.”

The arrogant and arrogant tone of the rector outraged many, and two days before the anniversary, a crowd tore down and destroyed the ill-fated announcement. The meeting in honor of the 80th anniversary of the university ended in a scandal - the audience booed Rector Sergeevich, forcing him to interrupt his speech and leave the podium. After the ceremonial part was over, students began to leave the building in small groups to cheerfully celebrate the holiday in the city.

However, an unpleasant surprise awaited them on the street - the exit towards the Palace Bridge and pedestrian crossings across the ice of the Neva were blocked by the police. Apparently, the authorities sought to prevent a repeat of the incidents of previous years, when students marched past the royal residence towards Nevsky Prospekt, singing and shouting. But the police cordon was organized in an extremely illiterate and stupid way: no one could explain to the puzzled students which way they should go.

Confusion arose, an impressive crowd of disorganized youth gradually accumulated in front of the university building, until they finally moved along the embankment towards Rumyantsevsky Square and Nikolaevsky Bridge. Seeing this, the police authorities ordered, just in case, to escort the students with two horsemen, sergeant Skolmeister and policeman Mishin. This outraged the already embittered young people, who decided that the police were going to block the Nikolaevsky Bridge as well. In addition, the students were offended that “they were being escorted like prisoners.”

Image: Valentin Serov / Dispersal of a demonstration by Cossacks in 1905

Further events from the words of an eyewitness were described by the famous publicist of that time, Vladimir Chertkov:

“There were shouts: why? what do you need? back! Down with! Lumps of snow flew, several people grabbed brooms that were located at the guard's horse-car crossing and waved them. The horses of the two riders were frightened by the screams, turned around and, amid loud laughter from those around them, rushed off again to where the squadron stood. Several minutes passed. The crowd was already moving on; many were already crossing the bridge to the other side... - when suddenly those in the rear saw that the squadron of mounted policemen had set off and began to trot closer. Everyone stopped again. There were shouts and exclamations... and when the squadron approached, snowballs flew at it again, and one of them, as it later turned out, crushed the leader’s face.

“March-march!” the officer unexpectedly commanded (apparently it was Sergeant Skolmeister - approx. "Tapes.ru"): “They won’t hang us because of this bastard of students!” The squadron rushed into the quarry and crashed into the crowd, knocking over and trampling students and private individuals who filled the street. Whips flashed in the air... One old man, a respectable gentleman, was crushed horse, and, already lying on the ground, received a whip; and torn."

“The case grew from a school prank to the level of a social phenomenon”

The students, outraged by the violence committed, went on strike, and the rector Sergeevich did not find anything better than to call the police to the university, thereby also turning a significant part of the teachers against himself. Several dozen of the most active protesters were arrested, others were expelled and expelled from the capital. Brutal reprisal against students caused anger and indignation in society.

As the same Chertkov wrote, “the uplift of spirit that began at school first spread to relatives, friends and acquaintances of the offended young men; then in widening circles it spread further and further; until finally the whole society became agitated under the influx of a long-unknown feeling of indignation. Even in the most hidebound bureaucratic and aristocratic circles a murmur of indignation was heard.”

Finance Minister and future Prime Minister Sergei Witte persuaded the Tsar to order an investigation into the events of February 8, which was headed by former Minister of War Pyotr Vannovsky. “Talking about a real, very regrettable case,” Witte noted. “I cannot help but note that ... the real riots ... are apparently devoid of any political overtones ... As a result of everything that happened, the case grew from a school prank to the level of a social phenomenon.”

Vannovsky’s commission, despite some public prejudice, worked unexpectedly conscientiously and objectively, and in its report criticized the activities of the police. She found that the police authorities were initially determined to harshly disperse the students. For example, the lower ranks of the mounted police guard were given whips before the start of the action, which were usually used only during night patrols. However, the authorities did not dare to publish this report.

Events in Moscow

After the closure of St. Petersburg University, students went on strike on February 15, 1899, in solidarity with its students. As in the capital, the authorities responded to this with mass arrests, expulsions and expulsions. A representative of St. Petersburg University who arrived in Moscow met with. The famous writer, despite working on the novel “Resurrection,” was keenly interested in student protests.

According to Saltykov’s memoirs, Tolstoy was sympathetic to the youth revolt, “he was especially interested in the form into which the movement took shape, and the student strike seemed to him one of the forms of non-resistance to evil by violence.” On February 22, the writer’s wife Sofya Andreevna Tolstaya, in a letter to critic Stasov, bitterly complained: “We are all in great excitement here, like all of Russia, about the closure of all educational institutions. They irritated the youth without any fault on their part; what a pity and how careless.”

At the end of March, large-scale repressions against students in Moscow seemed to have done their job - the strike died out. However, on April 6, a tragedy occurred in the solitary confinement cell of Butyrka prison: 22-year-old final year university student Herman Lieven doused himself with kerosene and committed self-immolation. The reasons for this act remained unclear: his friends claimed that he could not stand the bullying of the prison guards, and the authorities explained the prisoner’s suicide as an exacerbation of mental illness. After the funeral service, students marched with political slogans from the temple up the boulevards, but near the Pushkin monument they were dispersed by the police.

Lieven's funeral Nizhny Novgorod, where he was from, also grew into a student demonstration of thousands. , who was absent from the city that day, later wrote to Chekhov: “The public here is outraged by the death of the student Lieven, who burned himself in prison. I knew him, I know his mother, an old woman. This Lieven was buried here with pomp and show, a huge crowd followed the coffin and sang all the way.”

“Terror not only in prisons, but also in barracks”

The student unrest of 1899 was harshly suppressed by the authorities. The apotheosis of government arbitrariness was the approval by Nicholas II on July 29, 1899 of the “Temporary rules on serving conscription students of higher educational institutions who are expelled from these institutions for causing unrest in droves.” Violating almost all the norms of the current legislation, this document ordered that any rebellious students be recruited as soldiers, “even if they had benefits due to their marital status, or education, or had not reached conscription age.”

It is not known for certain how many destinies were then crippled by this lawless act. As Chertkov aptly put it, “the government, instead of making amends for its crimes before the students... is creating a new terror, terror not only of prisons, but also of barracks.” Lenin later wrote that “The Provisional Rules of 1899 tear off the pharisaical mask and expose the Asian essence of even those of our institutions that most closely resemble European ones.”

But, having suppressed the unrest of student youth, the government of Nicholas II won a Pyrrhic victory. Demands to protect universities from police brutality gradually gave way to political slogans. IN youth environment The popularity of radical ideas has increased sharply. The American historian considers those events to be the prologue of the first Russian revolution and the bloody revolutionary terror that swept Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. Among the students expelled in 1899 were the future terrorists Ivan Kalyaev, who in 1905 killed Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich in the Moscow Kremlin, and the Socialist Revolutionary militant Boris Savinkov.

Vladimir Chertkov, who has already been mentioned more than once, prophetically remarked in those days: “Along with ... the growth of the reaction, dissatisfaction with the regime also grew, the seeds from which the current movement grew ripened, and we saw what dimensions it assumed. This is not a momentary outburst of an offended sense of dignity, this is a conscious protest, deep in its idea, great in its size and significance... All these young men are preparing to enter life, and, already standing at its door, they peer and listen to what awaits them beyond the threshold high school... Now they all want the truth, everyone wants to believe that in the future they will begin to realize ideal principles, that they will always be on the side of justice and goodness... This is already general property youth, and a country in which youth would lose this feeling would undoubtedly decompose and perish.”

At the end of the 19th century, the most massive and active protest movement in Moscow were students. At first they obstructed the professors, putting forward demands for improvement. educational process, and got their way.

Gradually, their local actions grew into large-scale street performances, which were no longer just about education. The Eksmo publishing house published a book by historian and tour guide Pavel Gnilorybov, “Moscow in the era of reforms: from the abolition of serfdom to the First World War: a time traveler’s guide.”

T&P publishes a fragment about how the Moscow police responded to youth activity and why Mokhovaya and the Boulevard Ring are not suitable for protests.

As a result of urbanization processes, the population of Moscow and St. Petersburg is growing, the 19th century is changing the composition of participants in protest actions, and inter-class mobility is increasing.

The number of educated citizens who are ready to take to the streets in defense of their rights and interests has increased significantly. Social stratification The urban population of post-reform Russia looked like this: in 1870, honorary citizens made up 1% of the population, merchants of the three guilds - 7%, tradesmen and guilds - 92%. At this time, students acquired significant political weight.

If in early XIX V. The university accepted about 30 newcomers a year, but in post-fire Moscow this figure increases to 100 people annually.

The number of students at Moscow University is growing like an avalanche: in 1850 - 821 people, in 1880 - 1881 people, in 1885 - 3179 people, in 1890 - 3492 people, in 1894 - 3761 people. In the total share of the urban population, students did not constitute a significant part: in 1902, 613,303 men lived in Moscow, of which 5,690 were listed as university students, which is less than a percent of the total number of men in the city.

The political views of the students were also diverse: based on the results of 1905, researcher A.E. Ivanov, following the terminology drawn from V.I. Lenin, identifies in the student ranks a phalanx of socialists, liberals, “academicists,” reactionaries, and “indifferents.”

A typical form of protest is student obstruction, initially directed against the teaching staff and aimed at disrupting lectures. The professor simply could not conduct the class under such conditions: “...the whistling and hissing positively prevented them from saying anything.” […]

As a result of university obstructions, students most often achieved their demands. Professors were more responsible in preparing speeches and giving lectures, which improved the educational process. However, obstruction as a type of student protest most often did not go beyond the audience. In post-reform Russia, obstructions have transformed from local manifestations of discontent into street, large-scale, spectacular events. […]

Widespread unrest among students was caused by the new university charter of 1884, which established a percentage barrier for representatives of non-Russian nationalities. From now on, in order to enter a higher educational institution, it was necessary to show a certificate of political reliability. […]

In the 1880-1890s, when political reaction dominated the country, the student movement still seemed to be the most organized. As V.K. Plehve noted, “sedition produces its own recruitment during student unrest.”

In the early 1880s, there were 21 higher and secondary educational institutions in the Mother See, which were attended by about 9 thousand people. By 1904, there were 5,641 people among the students of Moscow University.

Among the parents of students, medium and minor officials accounted for 20.6%, burghers - 18.8%, merchants - 16.9%, nobles - 16.4%, high-ranking officials and officers - 7.9%, peasants - 5.7% , priests - 4.9%6. People who came from a wide variety of strata and strata of society, from the extremely poor to the extremely wealthy, entered Moscow University.

On December 1, 1894, a group of Moscow University students “obstructed” V.O. Klyuchevsky himself. The police arrested the instigators. The reason for the speech was a speech by a famous scientist in memory of the deceased Alexandra III uttered the day before.

During the lecture, some of the students whistled, and the most unbelted presented Vasily Osipovich with a brochure with the text of his loyal speech, in which was pasted a piece of paper with Fonvizin’s fable “The Fox-Trickster.”

The fable ended with the words: “Why are you amazed that noble cattle are flattered by base cattle?” Three students were expelled from the university for their daring act, and their indignant comrades organized a meeting. The police arrested 49 riot participants, some were expelled from the city.

On holidays and celebrations, the police switched to an enhanced duty regime to quickly suppress possible student unrest. The chief police chief warned his subordinates and ordered them to increase their vigilance without leaving the police stations: this happened, in particular, on January 12, 1894, the day classes began at Moscow University.

In connection with the coronation of Nicholas II in April 1896, about 90 politically unreliable students were expelled from Moscow. On November 18, 1896, a demonstration was held in Moscow in memory of the victims of the Khodynka tragedy. About half a thousand students took to the street. “Reinforced police squads met the procession at the Presnenskaya outpost and pushed the students towards the university.

36 people were arrested, the rest were released by the police. Following this, meetings began at the university demanding freedom for those arrested and the abolition of the 1884 charter. The police carried out mass arrests, taking more than 750 students into custody,” writes V. F. Ovchenko.

He also notes that in the second half of the 1890s, the Moscow student movement suffered from disorganization and spontaneity, but it was already distinguished by its mass character and the rapid mobilization of its participants.

This speaks to evolving communication patterns and a growing number of ways to convey information about a gathering place. V.I. Lenin argued that before the emergence of workers’ organizations, until the mid-1890s in Russia “... only students rebelled.”

The increase in protest activity among young people forces the authorities to react - in 1897, the position of a police supervisor appeared on the staff of the Moscow Security Department. The new official had to make inquiries about all the apartments in the area entrusted to him, where students mainly settled.

During holidays and student holidays, police guards were required to maintain order at the station, and they were required to receive timely information from the administration of educational institutions about upcoming gatherings and performances.

Chief of Police D.F. Trepov demanded from his apparatus “to keep in mind porterhouses, hotels and generally tavern establishments, where feasts can be organized for reprehensible purposes... cookhouses for students, where proclamations usually appear for the first time, incendiary speeches are made and unauthorized activities take place.” fundraisers."

1899 turned out to be an extremely fruitful year for student unrest. On February 8, students were beaten in St. Petersburg, which became a catalyst for discontent throughout Russia. From February to May 1899, a student strike took place, involving 35 thousand people throughout the country.

Under the chairmanship of the Minister of Education P. S. Vannovsky, a commission was created that prepared the “Temporary rules for serving military service for students of higher educational institutions who are removed from these institutions for causing unrest in droves,” approved in June 1899.

From now on, students who took part in mass street protests, as well as inciting others to such actions, could be sent to the soldiers.

The cruel legislative measure caused a new round of unrest: the climax was the sending of 183 students from educational institutions in Kyiv to the army. A.P. Chekhov wrote about the student riots of 1899 to A.S. Suvorin:

“If the state wrongly alienates a piece of land from me, then I file a lawsuit, and the latter restores my right; Shouldn't it be the same when the state beats me with a whip? Shouldn't I, in the event of violence on its part, cry out about a violated right? The concept of a state must be based on certain legal relations, otherwise it is a bogeyman, an empty sound that frightens the imagination.”

On January 29, 1901, another meeting took place in the assembly hall of Moscow University: students demanded the abolition of the “Temporary Rules” and reform of the 1884 charter. The Moscow Chief of Police made a call to the Police Department, he asked to arrest up to a dozen active members of the event.

The awareness of the authorities indicates the presence of informants and double agents in the active part of the Moscow student body. More than 300 people took part in the gathering; some professors decided to become mediators and “become in closer relationships” with the students.

A larger gathering, which ended in arrests, took place on February 23, 1901: 150–200 people gathered inside the university, the rest of the students waited in the courtyard on Mokhovaya Street.

The students demanded the abolition of the “Temporary Rules” and a return “to the spirit of the Charter of 1863.” D. F. Trepov ordered a reinforced mounted and foot police force to be pulled to the university. The university was cordoned off. About 750 people were herded into the Manege building on the opposite side of the street.

Along the way, the students were divided into two large groups according to gender based, they were rewritten inside the Manege. The students refused to go to prison on their own, and the police were not enough to escort such an impressive crowd to Butyrka. A battalion of the Ekaterinoslav Regiment was called in, which played a decisive role in suppressing the unrest.

On February 9, 1902, Moscow University hosted a citywide student meeting, at which slogans were heard about the democratization of political life and the fight against autocracy. As a result of the meeting, about 500 people from among the radical youth were arrested, many of them went to Butyrka prison.

On the instructions of P. S. Vannovsky, more than 400 students were expelled from Moscow University. As a result of the mass unrest of 1899-1902, a professorial disciplinary court was created at the main university of the country, mainly consisting of representatives of the law faculty.

The new structure considered the misconduct of radical students and took measures up to the deprivation of scholarships and expulsion. In October 1904, students protested against the beating of young people who came to the Yaroslavl station to see off their comrades to the front of military operations.

Already in 1901, S.V. Zubatov noted that it was impossible to cope with student unrest with brute force alone; it was worth using the authority of the professoriate and creating other centers of gravity for social thought: “All unrest comes from instigators, before whom the masses are powerless: they... go to a meeting , where, under the influence of sophistry, theatrical effects and simply slander of agitators... he loses his head and falls into anti-government ecstasy. It is therefore necessary to create a counterforce to the agitators.”

Lenin believed that the strengthening of the mass base of protest entails the emergence of new faces: “The wider and deeper the spontaneous upsurge of the working masses becomes, the more they bring forward not only talented agitators, but also talented organizers.”

Police measures against students during this period should be considered quite successful; they were based on a combination of approaches, the introduction of agents into student circles, and not just on the dispersal of mass protests.

Zubatov built a working system for exposing illegal organizations; the protest movement was also harmed by “... the extreme, unbelievable debauchery of the intelligentsia, in the sense of complete oblivion of the traditions of secrecy developed in the era of the 70s and 80s.”

A.I. Spiridovich recalled that engaging in revolutionary work in Moscow during the time of Zubatov “was considered a hopeless cause.”

Police officials believed that students were a separate and very formidable force until 1905, but during the mass uprisings of the First Russian Revolution of 1905–1907, students dissolved into the broad revolutionary movement and served only as a contingent to replenish anti-government political movements.

Among the students there were also fans of voluntary cooperation with the police: “Among Russian students there were so-called “academicists” - young people who passionately loved science, which, however, they imagined in the form of a university diploma, which would provide a cushy place in the future.

They, of course, were supporters of quiet studies of Roman law and ardent opponents of the interference of students in public life. Oddly enough, the exclusive desire for knowledge often led these well-bred young people into the very thick of politics, to the place where it was diligently fabricated - to the outskirts of security departments.

There are blue collars, overwhelmed with concern for the peaceful process training sessions̆, extended a helping hand to the blue uniforms.” However, a student who entered into cooperation with the secret police was usually expelled from the academic community and the close-knit student corporation.

"He was becoming personal enemy each of his fellow students. Intelligent youth bitterly hated the police and gendarmerie, who instilled an atmosphere of suspicion in the student community.”

The monthly fee for cooperation with the secret police was about 50 rubles, and for each successful tip they could pay another 25 rubles. A.E. Ivanov writes about the contemptuous nickname “white linings” that established itself in the 1870s, denoting conservative students with right-wing views.

Mature political demands for rights and freedoms throughout the state begin to appear in student demands at the turn of the century.

“The student movement put forward a political platform only at the beginning of the 20th century. under the influence of the struggle of the working class, the activities of revolutionary social democracy." […]

What powers did the Moscow police have? In 1881, the number of employees was set at 2,350. “Reference Book for Police Officials” helps to understand the structural division of the staff of Moscow police officers, approved by the highest on May 5, 1881 and supplemented on May 24, 1893.

The law enforcement agencies included 3 police chiefs, 41 precinct bailiffs, 41 senior and 21 junior bailiff assistants, 41 precinct bailiff clerks and 40 clerk assistants. The police guard included 204 district guards and 1,400 policemen.

The police reserve consisted of one chief, 10 reserve officials, one sergeant-major-scribe, and 150 policemen. In 1902, the staff was significantly increased by higher orders - up to 2962 people. The law “On strengthening the staff of the Moscow city police”, adopted in February, regulated an increase in the number of police officers by 25%, and district guards by 50%.

The amount allocated for cash payments to police officers was listed under the line “Benefit to the State Treasury” and at the beginning of the 20th century amounted to 887,250 rubles. The total expenditures of the city of Moscow on police in 1905 were equal to 1,205,625 rubles (8.1% of total expenditures).

The Ministry of Finance was very reluctant to grant requests for increased funds for the maintenance of the police. Thus, during the unrest of 1905, some of the police were in heavy duty, the officers provided them with hot meals and left special receipts in the shops.

Owners of retail outlets provided these documents to the authorities in order to receive compensation. During January - February 1905, the policemen, who were in reinforced outfits, “ate” 1,382 rubles and 50 kopecks. The city government and the Police Department refused to allocate this amount.

As a result, Governor General A. A. Kozlov covered the funds for food for his subordinates from his own pocket. This fact speaks of the slowness of the financial apparatus of the Russian Empire in emergency situations.

Due to their duty, the police had to cooperate with representatives of the Moscow Security Department and the Moscow Provincial Gendarmerie Directorate. Under the direct leadership of the GZhU there was a cavalry division of about 500 people.

The division's tasks included suppressing street protests. In fact, no exercises were carried out, no one thought about the tactics of dispersing the impressive masses of people. The division consisted of ordinary soldiers recruited by conscription.

A.P. Martynov wrote that “... the gendarmerie division was, as it were, a ceremonial appendage to the police power of both capitals.” R. S. Mulukaev argues that the increase in the number of street crimes blurred the line between the structural units of the police, the authorities needed to develop a general strategy for the interaction of all security structures: “... In conditions when the movement against the existing system became massive, involving various layers of society, The division of the police into secret political and general, protecting public order, is outdated...”

It turns out that in the event of a outbreak of street riots in a particular area of ​​the city, the authorities could only count on 5–10 police officers on duty in a neighboring station. Help would not have come immediately - police officials were afraid to expose and leave other areas of the city unattended.

After the December unrest of 1905, a mounted guard was created in the city, a mobile unit capable of quickly and energetically establishing order in a designated area. The mounted police consisted of 150 people and service personnel - 3 clerks and 30 grooms.

Factory police officers could have reported the beginning of unrest at a large industrial enterprise. The total number of policemen in this structure did not exceed several dozen: for every 250 factory employees there was one policeman.

Thus, a large plant could boast of two or three policemen, subordinate to a single police officer. The only major exception was the Prokhorovskaya manufactory, where six policemen served.

The police's fight against student unrest, which constituted the majority of protests in 1880–1890, seems relatively easy due to the compact location of students' favorite places on the city map.

The space on Mokhovaya Street was easily cordoned off by police on both sides; in addition, over decades of student “pranks,” the actions of the police in this area were rehearsed to the extreme.

The “Latin Quarter” was located in the very center of the city, limited by the Boulevard and Garden Rings. On Tverskoy Boulevard there was a whitewashed house of the Moscow Chief of Police, on Tverskaya Street the palace of the Governor General rose, so the police especially zealously guarded the mansions of representatives of the city authorities.

Nearby was the building of the Tverskaya unit, where “political” people were often taken. The townspeople said to each other: “The politician is being taken ‘under the balls’ to Tverskaya!”

The city center with its straight boulevards was inconvenient for the actions of the protesters: the streets, designed for perspective and visual perception, were well shot through. The Parisian prefect Georges Haussmann began work on rebuilding the French capital in the 1860s, largely due to the unrest of the previous era.

The old streets of the central blocks were easily blocked by barricades, and after the appearance of wide boulevards, the actions of the rioters became constrained and difficult.

The city outskirts, populated by factory workers and the striking poor, seemed much less convenient for actions to restore order in Moscow.

At the same time, a process of social differentiation was launched: the city center was built up mainly with fashionable apartment buildings and mansions of wealthy merchants, and inexpensive living space was located on the outskirts.

Active protest actions in 1905 unfolded in the areas of Miusa, Gruziny, Presnya, where the concentration of industrial enterprises and workers' housing reached its peak.

In addition, during such protests, the police’s algorithm of actions, developed over decades, was violated, as happened with student protests in the area of ​​​​Mokhovaya Street and the Boulevard Ring.

Student. N. Yaroshenko

An interesting article about the performances of Russian students in 1899-1902 and about Russian students of the 19th century in general. On the one hand, the amazing activity of Russian students, their ability to self-organize and defend their honor and dignity. On the other side fundamental problems The students of that time are in many ways similar to those of today.
But why was it that the students of that time were not afraid to impose their rules of the game on the leadership, boldly exercised their rights in person, but today they only obsequiously look at the faces of their superiors? However, the same can be said about modern workers in comparison with the workers of the early 20th century (against this general background, the attempts of all sorts of “worker cleaners” who strive to prove that only factory workers are revolutionary) look very funny.
Another interesting point, which one comrade rightly pointed out: “It is interesting to note that the St. Petersburg meeting of students on February 5, 1902 rejected the idea of ​​legal student organizations, putting forward a demand for the right to general meetings and meetings at which all student issues would be resolved. Thus, organizations are opposed to general meetings and are seen by students as a means of reducing student activity and control by the administration. Prince Evgeniy Trubetskoy, a member of the Vannovsky commission and a professor at Moscow University, speaks about this, insisting on the legalization of fraternities in order to paralyze them criminal direction and take under supervision."

Full text articles:

The 110th anniversary of the events to which the article is dedicated will take place in February. I would like it to be celebrated by the progressive public. The student revolution began on February 8, 1899, according to the new style it is February 20. But it seems to the author that by publishing the material in advance, he will provide the opportunity for its discussion and use by those who are interested in the topics of the domestic youth movement. This is especially true during the Year of Youth in Russia. Therefore, we decided to bring the material to your attention on Tatiana’s Day, a Russian student holiday.
The article was written for the philosophical journal CredoNew and will be published in full in one of the upcoming issues.

We are not fighters. We are only the shadow of fighters,
Fallen from the sun behind the mountains,
We are only messengers of the creators coming into the world,
Rich in thought and knowledge and gifts;
We are just swallows who left the south,
To usher in nature's renewal,
We only carry the news that the illness is over
And that the doctors promise the patient recovery.

From student literature of 1901-1902.

110 years ago, in February 1899, the first all-Russian student strike began, which shook the entire country. This event has not received sufficient coverage in domestic historiography. IN Soviet time this, apparently, was due to the fact that the participants in the events were students, and not the proletariat, and no leading role of the Social Democrats (later Bolsheviks) in these events can be traced. During the years of perestroika and new Russia addressing student unrest could be seen as “rocking the boat” and provoking youth protests. Apparently, this is why the 100th anniversary of the events passed almost unnoticed. As a result, a paradoxical situation has arisen in which the Russian public is better informed about the 1968 youth riots in France and the United States than about its own history. Meanwhile, turning to the experience of the student revolution of 1899 is very relevant in the context of the search for self-identity and one’s path in modern Russia. Such an appeal is especially timely now that the Year of Youth has been declared in Russia.
What happened in St. Petersburg in February 1899?
The historical outline of the events of those years is as follows.
On February 8, St. Petersburg University celebrates its founding day. On this day, after the ceremonial meeting, students, as usual, disperse to taverns and have noisy parties.
On February 4, 1899, a few days before the holiday, the following announcement appeared under glass at the official stand of St. Petersburg University:
“On February 8, on the day of the celebration of the anniversary of the Imperial S.P.B. University, students often violate order and tranquility on the streets of St. Petersburg and in public meetings. Riots begin immediately after the end of the university act with a procession of students in a large crowd singing songs and shouts of “Hurray!” along the Palace Bridge and even along Nevsky Prospect. In the evening, noisy intrusions into restaurants, entertainment venues, the circus, and the Maly Theater occur until late at night, which gives rise to regrettable events. clashes and causes displeasure among the public. The society of the capital has long paid attention to these riots; it is outraged by them and condemns the university and the entire student body for them, while only a small part of it participates in them. The law provides for this kind of riots and for disturbing public peace and quiet. subjects the perpetrators to arrest for up to 7 days or a fine of up to 25 rubles. If a whole crowd of people participates in these violations and does not disperse at the request of the police, then those who persist are subject to arrest for up to 1 month or a fine of up to 100 rubles. And if it becomes necessary to stop the disorder by force, the perpetrators are subject to arrest for up to 3 months or a fine of up to 300 rubles. On February 8, the police are obliged to protect peace and quiet in exactly the same way as on any other day of the year. If a disturbance occurs, the police are obliged to stop it at all costs. The law also prescribes the use of force to stop riots. The consequences of such a collision with the police can be very sad. Those found guilty may be subject to: arrest, loss of benefits, dismissal and expulsion from the university, and expulsion from the capital. I consider it necessary to warn Mr. Mr. about this. students. Students must comply with the laws, thereby protecting the honor and dignity of the university. Rector of the University V. Sergeevich."
This announcement was perceived by students as an insult and caused outrage. “Perhaps,” wrote Minister of Finance Count S.Yu. Witte a few days later regarding these events in a special note for the meeting of ministers, “students in such a case expected from the university authorities an appeal to a sense of honor, and not the threat of punishment for riotousness and obscenity.” behavior of their comrades. Perhaps the best part of the student body considered itself offended by the fact that for the street riots carried out annually by a group of students, a shadow was cast in the eyes of society over all university students.” The students discussed the shameful announcement among themselves for two days. On Saturday, February 6, during a student meeting that had gathered for a completely different reason, the announcement was disrupted, the window was smashed to pieces, and it was decided to meet the rector’s appearance at the university event on February 8 with obstruction.
The meeting on February 8 began at in perfect order: a report on the activities of the university over the past year was read, Professor Oldenburg, according to tradition, made a report on scientific topic. When did the rector prof. V. Sergeevich ascended to the pulpit, there was noise, whistling and hissing. The rector waited for 15 minutes and was unable to begin his speech, after which he was forced to leave the podium. After his departure, without any incidents, they performed with enthusiasm National anthem and a student song, after which the students began to go home in small groups. But they were unable to leave quietly: the path for those of them who headed towards the Palace Bridge was blocked by a detachment of mounted police that had left the courtyard of the Academy of Sciences building. It was also not possible to cross the Neva on ice, since for some reason the usual bridges from the university to Senate Square at this time of year were partially dismantled. All that remained was to go towards the Nikolaevsky Bridge, where the students, who had already gathered quite a lot, moved in a cheerful crowd. Halfway to the bridge, already approaching Rumyantsevsky Square, this crowd was caught up by the lieutenant commanding the mounted police detachment with one of the policemen. It occurred to the students that he wanted to call another police detachment that would block this path too, and they did not let the police pass, began throwing snowballs at them, someone grabbed the brooms leaning against the guardhouse at the siding and scared the horses. The officer and his companion turned back and returned to the main detachment, and soon the entire police detachment overtook the student crowd as they approached the Academy of Arts. The students again began to throw snowballs at the police, then the lieutenant commanded “March, march!”, and added words that were later mentioned in the student bulletin: “They won’t hang us because of this bastard of students!” The police rushed into the unarmed crowd, trampling people with horses and beating them with whips. As witnesses note, bystanders were also injured: one old man’s head was cut open with a blow from a whip, a woman was knocked down with a horse and continued to be beaten as she was already lying on the pavement. Students jumped over the fence of the square and tried to escape the beating there. Many were seriously injured, many had their clothes torn by whips.
The next day, February 9, a grand gathering was held at the university, which was attended by about 2,000 people, i.e. more than half of all students. The rector spoke at the meeting, inviting everyone to disperse. This time his speech was not interrupted, since the previous events had already faded into the background, and the students believed that police brutality had insulted the honor of the entire university, so both the professors and the administration should stand up for it. They listened to V. Sergeevich’s speech in silence, but no one dispersed. The rector was asked to leave and began to discuss the question of what actions should be taken after the horrific beating of students by the police, should they protest and in what form? The discussion of this issue did not end that day and was continued the next. It was proposed to appeal the actions of the police in court, but this proposal was rejected on the grounds that the court would undoubtedly impose penalties only on the officer in command of the detachment and on ordinary police officers, while the decision to use the police was undoubtedly made higher. In addition, consideration of a case against police officers at that time was possible only with the consent of their superiors, and they most likely would not give such permission. Another proposal was to file a collective petition, but this route was illegal, since the university statutes prohibited the filing of collective petitions, and although petitions had been submitted in the past, they always remained unsuccessful. Therefore, the meeting decided to suspend classes. This measure was considered the most drastic, and those gathered decided to refrain from any demonstrations and violence. Here is the resolution of the student meeting: “We are outraged by the violence of which we were victims on February 8, violence that degrades human dignity, violence that was criminal even when applied to the darkest and most voiceless layer of the population. In general, we consider such violence inhumane for everyone and protest against him. As a means to carry out our protest, we declare St. Petersburg University closed and make every effort to officially close it. We stop attending lectures and, while present at the university, prevent anyone from attending them every day; gatherings and other measures, except for violence, we stop the normal course of university life. We continue this method of obstruction until our demands are met: 1) publication for public information of all instructions that guide the police and administration regarding students, and 2) guarantees of our physical integrity. identity and the possibility of appealing all police actions in general judicial institutions; We demand all this for students of all higher educational institutions, male and female. From February 10, we are closing the university and informing professors and students about this, who have not heard our decision." The resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority, with no more than 30 people voting against.
It must be said that the majority of professors were on the side of the students and shared their opinion that the university had been insulted. The students explained their position to the teachers who came to give lectures, so only a few of the professors showed persistence and wanted to conduct classes at all costs, apparently for fear of being fired for absenteeism. This persistence sometimes took comical forms. For example, the dean of the Faculty of History and Philology, Professor Nikitin, carefully appeared in the classroom at the appointed hours and spent time reading newspapers. Professor Markov saw in the student strike a desire to reduce the volume of educational material submitted for the exam, and publicly declared that there would be no concessions. The professor of church law, priest Gorchakov, placed a chair in the doorway of his empty classroom and stood on it, turning to the students crowded in the corridor (later, when the police were brought into the university, the same professor Gorchakov would tell Mayor Kleigelson that his very presence within the walls university constitutes a personal insult for him, Gorchakov). There were apostates among the students, and other students had to make noise to interfere with the lectures.
At the meeting on February 11, Rector V. Sergeevich again addressed the students, and his speech began with the words: “I may have to talk to you in this composition in last time, so I ask you to listen to me calmly." It can be assumed that in this way he was already hinting at a possible different turn of events, which took place in the future. In addition, the rector made it clear that he was appointed to lead the university by the sovereign himself, and thus, arranging obstruction, students oppose His Imperial Majesty. He ended with the words: “Gentlemen, think about everything I said! The police broke the law, but you don’t break it, it will cost you dearly, and what is all this about, because of the stupidity of some police officer? Think about it, The police cannot be polite and ruin themselves because of this? +Your situation is critical, you dared the authorities. I will not remember the insult that you inflicted on me and everyone gathered at the event. I suggested that those who took part in the riots should come forward for disciplinary action. reprimanded me, but no one showed up. Now I must turn to the trustee and transfer my power to him+ What measures the trustee will take, I don’t know+ Revolution in a closed room is an absurdity. You read the rules when entering the university, you gave your word. fulfill them and must fulfill them. Now you must calmly discuss your situation: it is critical.”
The rector's speech, as expected, had no result, and the strike continued. In response, the assistant trustee of the educational district, Mr. Lavrentyev, who was replacing the sick trustee Kapustin, called the police to the university on the same day. The police were confused and did not understand what to do: not letting students into the university meant facilitating its closure and implementing the decision of the student meeting, and letting them in meant giving the opportunity to new meetings and the continuation of obstruction. As a result, the police cordoned off the university and stopped allowing students into it from 12 o’clock, and re-signed the obstructionists who had gathered in the morning. The next day, the police took away the student cards of the obstructionists who were in the building, and first locked the students who had gathered in front of the entrance and wanted to support their comrades in the Manege for several hours, and then copied them and took some of them to the police station. Thus, on February 13, 1,500 people were registered.
The appearance of the police within the university walls caused outrage even among professors, although some of them tried to conduct lectures in the presence of police officers, but there was no one to lecture: the classrooms were empty. Due to the fact that the professors clearly sympathized with the students, the Minister of Public Education Bogolepov canceled the meeting of the university council scheduled for February 12, since the minister was afraid of open opposition statements from the professors.
The strike on the same day was supported by 17 universities in the city, incl. military and spiritual. Students of the Academy of Arts, the Institute of Transport, students of the Higher Women's (Bestuzhev) courses and private women's courses of prof. Lesgaft, through the delegates, expressed sympathy and solidarity with the university students. Student meetings with the decision to suspend classes until the demands of the university students were accepted were held in Military Medical Academy, Mining, Forestry and Electrical Engineering Institutes, Women's Medical Institute and other universities in the capital. The next day they joined the strike Institute of Technology and the Institute of Civil Engineers, as well as students of the women's paramedic Christmas courses. The most decisive was, perhaps, the protest of students of the Historical and Philological Institute, where 60 out of 90 students, as a sign of solidarity with university students, submitted their resignations.
A few months after the events described, verses appeared in the student leaflet to the tune of the famous St. Petersburg student song “Through the Tumba-Tumbu-Raz” with the following words:
Over the wide river
The silent couple
A pair of sphinxes stands, grinning.
Pharaohs all around
They beat everyone with a whip,
Pyramids, scoundrel, is different!
And the parchment is alive
Under a skillful hand
It's all covered in hieroglyphs.
And for those who later
Dissatisfied with the whip
Ten plagues are sent at a time
And one crocodile
Then he said everything
That the country is governed by law!
In general, the author of the couplets feels not in Russia, but in Ancient Egypt. Here it is necessary to give some explanations: the Egyptian sphinxes were installed on the Neva embankment in front of the Academy of Arts exactly at the place where the massacre took place; Pyramidov was at that time the head of the police security department; Well, by “crocodile” we mean, of course, the rector of the university, Sergeevich.
In order to understand why something as seemingly insignificant as a clash with the police sparked such a powerful student movement across the country, it is necessary to go back to the mid-19th century. Until that time Russian university was predominantly of the nobility, and those who did not get into the university often went to military service, which was much more prestigious, and therefore chose the career of an official. The need of representatives of other classes for education and the economic need for large quantities educated people has led to the fact that since the 60s of the last century the university has become almost all-class. New students from the children of commoners, often poor and poorly dressed, sought education because it opened up new life prospects for them. The nobility, for its part, sought to preserve the caste nature of university education, rightly seeing in this a system of reproduction of the ruling elite. Almost all actions of the noble government of Russia in relation to universities are in one way or another connected precisely with this problem: to allow or not to allow other classes to study, and if so, to what extent. In practice, the solution has generally been to avoid it if possible. It is precisely this that is connected with measures to increase tuition fees, and bans on the admission to the university of Jews and people who have not completed a gymnasium course, and bans on the creation of student organizations and fraternities. Poor students, for their part, were forced to unite for mutual support and defend their rights. Naturally, these contradictions resulted in clashes between students and university administrations.
The first student demonstrations, which ended in clashes with the administration, were noted already in the late 50s of the 19th century (Kazan in 1856, Moscow and Kyiv in 1856, St. Petersburg in 1858). The first protests were not of a mass nature, but they put forward demands for free access to universities for representatives of various classes, freedom of academic organizations, there were also protests against individual teachers, as well as in defense of the Polish uprising. The activities of student associations were practically prohibited by the university charter of 1861, which did not allow student meetings, did not allow students to have their own mutual aid fund, libraries and reading rooms, which were usually organized by student societies, were prohibited, and the number of students exempt from tuition fees was reduced to a minimum. This caused a wave of student protests in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kazan and other university centers. As a result of clashes with troops, several students were imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress and in Kronstadt, St. Petersburg University was temporarily closed.
In 1863, Alexander II signed a new charter that expanded the rights of universities, in particular introducing the election of rectors and deans, and also admitting women as auditors. But students did not receive recognition of their rights: the professorial disciplinary court was maintained, and student associations and libraries were still prohibited. A few years later, in 1867, students were also prohibited from organizing concerts, readings and public meetings within the university. Conservative circles of the tsarist government, which initiated this charter, considered students only as visitors to the university, and the university itself as a room for public lectures and conversations. The new charter caused a discussion in society, aroused the desire of student organizations to unite and provoked the emergence of illegal student organizations. Due to police repression in 1874, a new wave of student unrest swept across the country, the reason for which was the death of a student in hospital Kharkov University, beaten by the police. However, police repression did not stop, but only intensified. Feeling the support of other sections of the population, students picketed and filed petitions demanding the freedom to form their own self-governing corporations, student unrest swept through all university centers in 1881-1882. The students were supported by the leaders of Narodnaya Volya, who wanted to use student protests for revolutionary agitation. The government saw the heterogeneous and poor student masses as a breeding ground for freethinking and sought to limit access to universities for the poor, so in 1884 an even stricter charter and special “Rules for Students” were adopted. The institution of inspectors was introduced who had the right to submit notes on the arrest of students and their detention in a punishment cell, detention for up to four weeks or expulsion without the right of reinstatement. The Circular of the Minister of Public Education dated June 18, 1887, popularly known as the “Circular on Cook's Children,” prohibited certain categories of children from entering even gymnasiums. At universities, tuition fees increased to 70 rubles (previously it ranged from 15 to 50 rubles). In June 1889, “Temporary Rules” were introduced, which allowed students to become soldiers for participating in riots. All this caused the rise of the student movement, its consolidation, and the massive creation of fraternities that provide economic support to low-income students and organize fundraisers. Fellowships unite into unions of fraternities, uniting needy students from across the university. Despite the fact that fraternities, like other student organizations, were not allowed by the university charter, by 1894 the Moscow Union of fraternities united 43 fraternities, set up cash offices and mutual aid bureaus, libraries, self-development circles, bureaus for “delivery of classes”, as well as assistance to students, victims "for a common cause." In addition to the fraternities, which united mainly low-income students, course organizations were created that were in charge of submitting applications for exemption from fees, as well as organizing opportunities for additional work. The movement began with peaceful meetings and petitions to reduce tuition fees and eliminate inspections. In 1894, a petition was drawn up and submitted to the sovereign through the Union Council, containing five main demands: 1) university self-government; 2) freedom of teaching; 3) free access to higher education all those who received secondary school without distinction of gender, nationality and religion; 4) reduction of tuition fees; 5) freedom of student organizations. As R. Vydrin points out, despite the loyal spirit, the petition caused hostility on the part of the administration and the arrests of the signatories. The Union Council tried to stop the unrest and asked professors and administrators to remove the police and investigate the beatings, while continuing to stay out of academic politics as much as possible and trying to prevent further clashes. However, continued repression led the Council to eventually abandon such tactics and take extreme measures. It was against this background that the first all-Russian student strike broke out.
Let's return to the events of 1899. On February 17, the situation was discussed at a ministerial meeting. The Minister of Finance, Count S.Yu. Witte, prepared a special note, which we have already quoted. Witte clearly sympathized with the students. He wrote: “One cannot help but notice that the majority of young people in higher educational institutions are in that transitional period. adolescence, which is so characterized by hobbies, in which a person is so afraid of losing his not always correctly understood dignity and is painfully scrupulous about the honor of himself and his comrades." "There is reason to believe,” Witte further writes, “that the methods by which they wanted not to miss the passage of a crowd of excited young people through the city who had gathered for the act was not entirely tactful. Directing the entire crowd along one path (towards the Nikolaevsky Bridge) in itself should have caused chaos. In order to prevent students from passing by the palace, there was no need to close the passage along the Palace Bridge, because it was completely enough to close the passage along the embankment to the palace and along the square to Morskaya, leaving free passage along Admiralteysky Proezd to Nevsky Prospekt." The note was also signed Ministers Khilkov, Ermolov, Muravyov and Protasov-Bakhmetyev organized a trial during which investigators tried in every possible way to force the participants in the events to admit that the strike was organized from the outside, but these allegations were indignantly rejected by all students.
A few days later, the strike covered almost all higher educational institutions in Russia, about 25 thousand students took part in it, i.e. about 2/3 of the country's students. The authorities responded with repression: strike participants were expelled from universities, and 2,160 people were expelled. Those expelled were drafted into soldiers, i.e. The “sacred duty” of defending the Fatherland was used as a punitive measure. This lawlessness was resolved in the “Temporary Rules” adopted on the basis of the highest order of July 29 by a meeting of six ministers, but repressive measures did not stop the movement, but only spurred the transition from academic demands to political ones, the movement took to the streets. Neither in September nor in 1900 did the students return to the classroom. The professors' appeal to students in 1901, in which the authors try to present widespread speeches as the results of the machinations of “an insignificant group of malicious individuals,” ends in failure. All this forces the government and, above all, the new Minister of Education, General Vannovsky, having failed to crush the student movement, to change tactics. A specially created commission of professors from Moscow University, based on a study of student complaints, prepared proposals for changing university life. The student movement subsides for a while, awaiting a response from the Vannovsky commission. The result was minor relaxations: the election of elders, the permission of faculty meetings, but in general the demands of students were not met, university-wide meetings and student organizations were prohibited, and tuition fees remained virtually unchanged. Therefore, in 1902, student unrest broke out again. Student congresses take place, political slogans come to the fore, student freedoms are considered in the context of the lack of rights of society as a whole. It is interesting to note that the St. Petersburg meeting of students on February 5, 1902 rejected the idea of ​​legal student organizations, putting forward a demand for the right to general meetings and meetings at which all student issues would be resolved. Thus, organizations are opposed to general meetings and are seen by students as a means of reducing student activity and control by the administration. A member of the Vannovsky commission, a professor at Moscow University, Prince Evgeniy Trubetskoy, speaks about this, insisting on the legalization of fraternities in order to paralyze their criminal direction and take them under supervision.
Student unrest 1899-1902 led to self-organization and politicization of Russian students. Within a month after the events of February 8, 1899, groups of “obstructionists”, “anti-obstructionists”, “Real obstructionists”, “independents”, “like-minded”, “freethinkers”, “bourgeois radicals”, “groups of 147" and others. The student meeting becomes a real authority at the university. Measures are also being developed to insure the organizational structure in case of repression and arrests. For example, candidates who take the place of arrested or expelled members of the Committee are also elected to the Organizing Committee, which is elected to coordinate all actions at a university-wide meeting. The committee issues bulletins and coordinates the movement, ensuring that professors and renegade students who did not want to join the strike and want to continue their studies or take exams cannot infiltrate the university's mission, and also organizes speeches in support of arrested or expelled comrades. The Committee establishes relationships with similar organizational structures other educational institutions and ensures coordination and exchange of information.
The politicization of the student movement led to the creation within its framework of several directions: Social Democratic, Socialist Revolutionary and Osvobozhdeniye, as well as conservative and Black Hundred organizations (Dennitsa, etc.). Social Democrats highly valued the student uprisings, seeing in them the prologue of a future revolution and seeing in the students the instigators of future uprisings of workers and peasants. Socialist revolutionaries introduced elements of terror into the student movement, which traces its history back to the Narodnaya Volya. The Osvobozhdenie members proposed a broad political platform for unification under the slogan “Down with autocracy!” and attracted liberal Zemstvo members and the bourgeois intelligentsia into their ranks, however, with the beginning of the First Russian Revolution, the Osvobozhdenie movement collapsed.
Remembering the events of the student strike of 1899-1902. It is not difficult to see parallels between Tsarist Russia and modern Russia. The reluctance of the ruling elite to make education accessible to the public and the desire to use it for self-reproduction; police brutality and beatings; complete disrespect for the honor and dignity of the individual - all this, perhaps, only intensified. Those in power are still convinced that people can only be moved to collective action by organizers sent from outside, and not by trampled dignity or despair driven by lack of rights, that all mass actions are necessarily paid for, and are not based on the beliefs and values ​​of people, because without any convictions In addition to the thirst for power and profit, they do not allow the possibility of such in others. The ruling circles, who despise their own people, hide from them behind the fences of luxurious mansions, out of fear for their power, are ready to send to prison or to the next world everyone who is really capable of more effectively leading the state in the interests of the whole society, who use national wealth for their personal purposes as their property - inevitably lead the country to collapse. But this is a topic for another article.