Conclusion

The Doukhobor experience in the Molochna region is of interest on many levels. Most basically, it disputes the accuracy of published ac­counts of the sectarians by refuting the charges of mass murder that have been levelled against them and the concomitant assumptions about instability, strife, and disruptions in their community.

The Doukhobor story also reflects the complex interplay of region and centre, religious ideology, and practical administrative concerns. In terms of central policy towards religious dissent, Alexander Γs well- known religious tolerance and Nicholas’s equally well-known intoler­ance are clearly demonstrated by their treatment of Doukhobors. Most interestingly, the story evidences the impact of Nicholas’s policies on administrative practices. Whatever the religious prejudices of adminis­trators, they had no legal means to seize the Doukhobors' excess land holdings. As late as 1834, when Nicholas’s official nationality ideology was already clearly enunciated, Doukhobors were able to resist the state’s attempts to redistribute their leased land to land-poor Molokans. Re­gional and central administrators broke the Doukhobors' hold on the land by playing upon official religious prejudices.

There is nothing surprising in the final outcome of the Doukhobor sojourn in the Molochna region. Had the religious beliefs of a small group of dissenting peasants won out over the ideological imperatives of an Orthodox tsar, or had the economic well-being of peasants in a regional backwater won out over the rationalizing programs of the cen­tral administrative apparatus, this would have been news indeed. The cohesiveness that the Doukhobors showed in the face of persecution is arguably itself a consequence of their time in Molochna. The isolation they experienced in the first years of settlement, when their only neighbours were Turkic-speaking Tatars and German-speaking foreign colonists, served to emphasize their own distinct identity. Under Nicho­las I, their faith was tempered in the furnace of religious persecution, forging them into a Doukhobor commonwealth.

By the 1830s all Molochna settlers faced the need to renegotiate their relationship with the central state. Doukhobors, confronted by both religious prejudice and jealousy because of their large land holdings, could not defend themselves against the abuse of power and conse­quently were exiled. How other settlers answered the need to defend their landholdings against both central and regional demands is taken up more fully in Chapters 5 and 6.