• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

“Visions of Azerbaijan”.-2010.-March/April.-P.58-63. WHY SUMQAYIT? A SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS by Ziya BUNYADOV Although modern Azerbaijani history is linked to the historical development of a globalizing world, it has its own unique features. The Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagornyy Karabagh conflict has left deep scars here. Unfortunately, military aggression against Azerbaijan is accompanied by ideological provocation and, as with the ancient, so certain pages of its modern history are also being distorted. These include the Sumqayit events that took place in February 1988. Every year, on the anniversary of these events, anti-Azerbaijani propaganda intensifies. The article we present here to readers, entitled "Why Sumqayit" was written in 1989 by academician Ziya Bunyadov (Newsletter of the Academy of Sciences of the Azerbaijan SSR. Series of History, Philosophy and Law, 1989. No 2, pp. 115 -121). This article written 20 years ago appears relevant today. Sometimes individual sections of this article are taken in isolation but the importance of the article lies in its overall conception and historical dynamic. This is why we are presenting this article to our readers with comments by our editorial adviser, Dr. Karim Shukurov. Several days ago I learnt from the republic's press about the barbaric acts that have taken place in Armenia - the de struction of the monument to the great poet Samad Vurgun1 and the desecration of the grave of the ashig genius, Alasgar2. These atrocities were undoubtedly committed by extremists. I have always said, and continue to say, that one cannot ascribe something done by a handful of rogues to all the Armenian people. My Yerevan-based colleague, Pro fessor P. Muradyan, recently sent me an article by A. Oganesyan entitled "Wa tershed", printed by "Kommunist", the publication of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Armenia, on 2 November 1988. He attached a note to it saying "for the consideration of Acad emician Buynadov". In relating the course of a trial in Mos cow of the criminal case against Ahmad Ahmadov, Ismayil Ismayilov and Yavar Cafarov, A. Oganesyan offers his own in terpretation of the events in Sumqayit3, relating and linking them to the past of the Armenian people. And although A. Oganesyan turns to Azerbaijani intellec tuals and calls on them to respond to what happened in Sumqayit in February 1988, he immediately and dogmatically rejects the possibility, saying: "We do not need a response. We know the response". Still, despite such a judgement, I will try to give an impartial analysis of what happened in Sumqayit and answer the question as to why it happened, and not just anywhere, not in Karabagh, where it might have been expected that some thing like this could happen after the killing of two Agdam-based men4 by Armenian police. Not in another town, indeed, but precisely in Sumqayit - a town founded upon a rosy premise, as a symbol of friendship between the two peoples - about which a host of books and dissertations have been written. Really - how could something like this happen in our country, in the eighth decade5 of its existence? How come? After all, for many years and decades now all we have done is talk at different levels about the friendship of peoples declared by Lenin and Stalin6, about friendship forever; we've established houses of friendship between peoples and even invented the "Friendship of Peoples" Order. This must have an noyed someone, otherwise why replace "Barekamutyan" with Bagramyan? One should not blame, in the usual formula, "dark forces" for the Sumqayit massacre, rather than an enemy which was alleg edly responding to the powerful and fair demand to incorporate Nagornyy Kara bagh into Armenia (although the slogan is different now - incorporate Armenia into Nagornyy Karabagh). But why have the dark (this is the only way I can describe them) revenge-seek ing Armenian forces, which are fighting for, and laying claim to, some mythical "Armenian land between the three seas -the Black, Mediterranean and Caspian", raised their heads today? After all, Ar menian statehood was eliminated in the year 3877, i.e. exactly 1,600 years ago. Armenian statehood disappeared because of the constant squabbles and disputes between the families of Artsruni, Bagratuni, Mamikonyan, Amatuni, Bznuni and other Sparapets, Azarapets, Malkhaz, Tanuters, and Katapans who claimed royal blood. It was during the liquidation of Armenia as a state in the fourth century that "Histories of Arme nia" by Byuzand, Agafangel, Parbski and Khorenski8 appeared as recollections of the past. Subsequent Armenian histo rians: Artsruni, Sebeos, Asogik, Taronski, Vardan, Aniyski, Arakel, Anonim and others, now wrote histories of compet ing families, wars, a history of the Arabs, Persians etc., mentioning only in passing the lands on which Armenians once lived or live. Actually, these were like "tears" for the past. But one theme ran through all the "histories" - all foreigners robbed ordinary Armenian people in the same way, but the Armenian rulers and clergy always enjoyed privileges. By enriching foreign rulers made hay and themselves rich with equal success. Always! A corresponding member of the Rus sian imperial academy, Professor Ker-opa Patkanyan9, wrote that Armenia had never played a particular role in the his tory of mankind. This was not a political term, but the name of a geographical zone across which settlements of Armenians were scattered. Armenians were always bad masters of the land they inhabited, but they served their strong neighbours skilfully. That is what Patkanyan said. One cannot agree with the description by the Armenian professor of his own people but if we turn to the times of the Seljuk10 conquests in the Near and Middle East, we see that only Armenians enjoyed fully the rights of a privileged nation. It was not for nothing that medi eval Armenian authors write about the "Christ-loving" Seljuk sultans who al lowed Armenians to build churches and engage in free enterprise. Armeni ans were also well off during the rule of the Atabays of Azerbaijan, under the Ilkhanids, Jalayirids, the Gara Goyunlu and Ag Goyunlu sultans, under the Safavids (except for the initial years of the rule of Shah Abbas I) and un der the Kajars 11. Armenians also had no reason to complain about the Otto man sultans, who were always, accord ing to Armenian chronicles, tolerant of Armenians and allocated troops to the Echmiadzin clergy to guard their do minions and property. Armenians, at least the privileged layers, did not have bad lives during the rule of the last Ot toman sultan, Abdulhamid II12. Everything changed after the estab lishment of the "Dashnaktsutyun"13 par ty, which was headed by representatives of the Armenian comprador bourgeoisie, whose leading representatives were fa vourites of Abdulhamid II - the famous Akop-pasha and Nubar-pasha. The former was the sultan's personal treas urer and the latter (a native of Karabagh) was even a vizier. The first time that Turkey and Eu rope learned of Armenian nationalistic organizations was in 1885. Gatherings of future Armenian Dashnak groups took place in France, the UK, Austria and oth er countries. They established their first ever committee at these gatherings; it was founded in London. In the early 20th century, a society called the "Saviours of the Armenian Community" was set up in Turkey and its Dashnak leaders, like the present-day "Asala", "Krunk", "Kara bagh" etc, forcibly collected money from the Armenian population of Turkey, "in the name of salvation". From 1895-96 these Armenian com mittees created an atmosphere in Turkey which very quickly provoked mutual alienation between citizens of the state - Turks and Armenians. From that time onwards, this alienation was progres sively stoked up by the Dashnaks. As for Armenian spiritual circles in Turkey - which enjoyed great privileges - their representatives did everything to assist the seeds of enmity to sprout and to pro mote further hatred of the state which fed the Armenians on its land. It was in those years that, under the influence of the "Cry of the Armenians", the "Armenian issue" emerged in the West. A huge number of Armenian smug glers and manipulative demagogues appeared who, without a twinge of con science or a blush, complained in all the backyards of Europe about their Turkish oppressors. This stir was aroused by Armenian nationalists following Turkey's defeat in the Balkans and on the eve of the seizure of Kars, Erzerum, Bitlis and Van by tsar ist troops. The Dashnaks assumed that, pushed by the tsarists, the Turks would leave their native homes and that they would come into huge wealth. In order to draw the Armenian working popula tion of Turkey into their vile schemes, the Dashnak leadership carried out vil lainous actions like killing their own kind to lay the blame on the Turks. Kin dling interethnic slaughter in Turkey, the Dashnaks hoped very much that Istanbul would be occupied by the allies and that this would enable them to achieve their far-reaching goals. The foregoing is taken from reports by the Russian consul general in Van, Bit lis and Erzurum, General Mayevskiy14. This was in response to the year 1895, mentioned by A. Oganesyan. Reports by Russian generals Nikolayev, dated 1 July 1915, and Bolkhovitinov, dated 9 July 1915, addressed to Count Vorontsov-Dashkov15, could serve as a response to another date mentioned by this writer, namely 1915. Both of these generals described very accurately the terror and atrocities committed by the Armenian Dashnak chetniks Tero and Khecho against civilian Turks. Sabotage in the Russian military rear in Van, com mitted by Armenian Dashnak chetniks, resulted in the Russian command order ing that they be simply shot dead.

Load more

  6

Copy Link