At first glance, the Ottoman Empire’s practices from the early 19th century might seem startlingly familiar to the realities of modern-day societies. The use of identification cards, population surveillance, and a visible presence of diverse religions in public life evoke an almost futuristic landscape. Yet, this was life in the Ottoman Empire—particularly in the wake of the 1821 Greek revolt, when these measures were implemented in an effort to maintain control. Although these practices seem to suggest a progressive, tolerant society, they were in fact motivated by suspicion and a strategic desire for surveillance. This complicated relationship between religious freedom, state control, and social order has recently been explored in-depth by Masayuki Ueno, Associate Professor at Osaka Metropolitan University, whose research was published in Comparative Studies in Society and History.
The Ottoman Empire: A Vast, Multicultural Domain
The Ottoman Empire, a major world power from roughly 1300 until its dissolution in 1922, spanned a vast geographic area, encompassing territories from present-day Turkey to Egypt, Greece, Hungary, and beyond. Throughout its long history, the empire was home to a vast array of ethnicities, cultures, and religions. While the Ottomans, as Muslims, governed a majority Muslim population, their empire also included significant Christian and Jewish communities. The management of this religious and cultural diversity was a complex task for the Ottoman state, particularly as the empire entered the 19th century and faced both internal and external pressures, including uprisings and territorial losses.
The 1821 Greek revolt, which resulted in the rise of nationalist movements and the eventual independence of Greece, was a particularly pivotal moment for the Ottoman Empire. The revolt posed a direct challenge to Ottoman authority, demonstrating the fragility of imperial control over its diverse subjects. In response, the Ottomans implemented a range of measures designed to assert their power and strengthen internal surveillance, particularly within the non-Muslim communities that had been historically recognized and governed through a system of religious autonomy.
Religious Autonomy and Surveillance in the Ottoman Context
The Ottoman Empire employed a distinctive system known as the millet system, which granted religious communities a degree of self-governance. Under this system, non-Muslim groups such as Greek Orthodox Christians, Armenians, and Jews were allowed to maintain their own religious and civil institutions, including schools, courts, and charities. Each community had its own religious leader, who was responsible for overseeing the group’s affairs. This system, often portrayed as a model of tolerance, allowed the Ottomans to maintain a degree of order without having to interfere directly in the internal workings of these communities.
However, this apparent tolerance masked a much more complicated reality. The religious autonomy granted to non-Muslims was, in fact, a mechanism for surveillance and control. As Professor Ueno argues, the Ottomans did not view this system as a gesture of inclusivity but as a pragmatic solution to monitor and manage the empire’s vast and diverse population. Non-Muslim religious leaders, often known as patriarchs or chief rabbis, were tasked with ensuring the loyalty of their communities to the state. They acted as intermediaries between their people and the Ottoman authorities, reporting any dissent or subversive activity.
This arrangement of surveillance was not limited to passive observation; it involved the active collaboration of religious leaders with Ottoman officials. In a significant departure from traditional practices in many other empires, the Ottomans chose not to infiltrate non-Muslim communities directly with spies or secret police. Instead, they delegated surveillance duties to the religious authorities themselves. This decision reflected a fundamental mistrust of non-Muslim populations, especially after the Greek revolt, which had demonstrated the potential for ethnic and religious groups to challenge Ottoman rule.
The Introduction of Internal Passports and Population Control
In addition to delegating surveillance to religious leaders, the Ottoman government introduced the system of internal passports for its subjects. These documents, which became a standard requirement for travel within the empire, served not only to regulate movement but also to monitor the activities of the empire’s population. The issuing of internal passports marked a significant shift in the Ottoman approach to governance. Previously, travel within the empire had been relatively unrestricted. However, as tensions within the empire grew, particularly after the Greek revolt, the Ottoman state recognized the need to exert greater control over its subjects.
The internal passport system allowed the government to track the movements of its citizens, particularly the non-Muslim populations, who were seen as more prone to unrest. The requirement for identification while traveling may seem commonplace today, but in the 19th-century Ottoman context, it was an unprecedented move towards systematic control and surveillance. Those without proper identification faced the possibility of punishment or detention, a form of social discipline designed to reinforce the power of the state and its ability to monitor its subjects.
The use of identification cards, while seemingly a modern tool for control, was deeply embedded in the empire’s efforts to maintain a tight grip on its increasingly restive and diverse population. The implementation of these documents was not just a matter of bureaucratic convenience; it was part of a broader strategy of population management aimed at preventing rebellion and asserting authority over all of the empire’s subjects, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
The Myth of Ottoman Tolerance
Historically, the Ottoman Empire has often been described as a tolerant empire, particularly in regard to its treatment of non-Muslim religious groups. The millet system, with its granting of autonomy to religious communities, has been cited as evidence of this tolerance. However, Professor Ueno’s research challenges this narrative, arguing that the empire’s policies were driven not by tolerance but by suspicion and the need for control.
In his study, Ueno highlights that the recognition of non-Muslim religions and the representation of their leaders within the Ottoman government were not signs of inclusivity or religious harmony. Instead, these measures were deeply connected to the empire’s broader surveillance and control mechanisms. By placing non-Muslim religious leaders in positions of authority over their own communities, the Ottoman state ensured that these leaders would act as agents of surveillance, reporting any signs of dissent or rebellion back to the authorities. In this way, the empire maintained a system of indirect rule over its non-Muslim subjects, using religious leaders as intermediaries who helped keep the population in check.
This system of control extended beyond religious communities to the entire population, including Muslims. The introduction of internal passports and the requirement for identification was a tool of state power that affected all citizens, not just non-Muslims. This was a time when the Ottoman Empire, which had once been a beacon of stability and multiculturalism, was increasingly facing the pressures of modernity and the decline of its territorial holdings. The empire’s response to these challenges was to tighten its control over its population, using surveillance as a means of preserving its authority in an increasingly unstable world.
A Bridge Between Two Historical Periods
Ueno’s research serves as a valuable bridge between two periods in Ottoman history: the early modern era (16th to 18th centuries) and the modern era (19th to early 20th centuries). These periods have traditionally been studied separately, with scholars focusing on either the earlier years of the empire or the decline and eventual collapse of the Ottoman state. By examining the policies implemented in the wake of the Greek revolt, Ueno offers a new perspective on the Ottoman Empire’s approach to governance and its treatment of non-Muslim populations.
His research also sheds light on the broader patterns of state control that emerged in the 19th century, which would become more pronounced in the early 20th century. The use of internal passports, population surveillance, and the involvement of religious authorities in governance were precursors to the more centralized, modern forms of state control that would emerge in the late Ottoman period and later in the Republic of Turkey.
Conclusion: Reexamining the Ottoman Legacy
The Ottoman Empire’s approach to governance, particularly its treatment of non-Muslim populations, is a topic that has long been the subject of debate. While many have celebrated the empire for its religious tolerance, Ueno’s research presents a more complex picture, one in which tolerance was intertwined with control, surveillance, and suspicion. The systems of population surveillance and identification that emerged in the 19th century Ottoman Empire are not simply relics of the past but resonate with contemporary issues of state control, surveillance, and the management of diversity.
As Ueno himself suggests, uncovering this history allows for a better understanding of the Ottoman Empire’s complex relationship with its diverse population. It also offers valuable insights into the ways in which states use surveillance and identification to maintain power—insights that can help inform our understanding of contemporary issues in a globalized world. By revisiting this aspect of Ottoman history, we can draw connections between past and present, fostering a deeper, more nuanced discussion about the role of state control in shaping societies.
Reference: Masayuki Ueno, Purifying Istanbul: The Greek Revolution, Population Surveillance, and Non-Muslim Religious Authorities in the Early Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Empire, Comparative Studies in Society and History (2025). DOI: 10.1017/S0010417524000343