The desire to review everything in todays’ hearth of rapid development of events is natural and understandable. It is also important, however, to know the limit in this matter and not to make the “review” a credo. An interesting trend is observed to this respect, to make unduly absolute approaches formed in the past equally extreme relative. The brightest example is the attitude to the past, which, of course, also forms our today’s modus operandi. The “relative” mind, here, moves, for example, with the following logic: we have our own truth, the Turks have theirs, from our viewpoint the Turks were evil for us, from their viewpoint we were evil. And so on. Who is right and who is wrong, it’s hard to say.
Perhaps, we are not good as well.
People get angry from such logic. And, I think, they are right. Partly because the deeds of the devotees is put under question, who were sacrificing their lives to prove our rightness; nobody will go for a serious fight for the sake of a relative, unsteady, gelatinous ideas.
Do you remember the discussion of the Karabakh issue in 1988 at the extended session of Presidium of the Supreme Council of the USSR. At that time, the director of the Oriental Institute, Academician Primakov said that the historical facts are inconceivable. Armenians claim that they are living in Artsakh from at least Strabo times, the Azeri believe that the Armenians were brought to Karabakh by Griboyedov. The two views, according to academicians, are equal. But in fact the truth in this matter (as well as in all other issues) is one, and at least for us it should be definite and final.
Read also
It’s another matter that their leaders, the kings, meliks, ministers, parliaments, politicians, are also responsible for land losses of those people, defeats, and massacres. All these disasters were consequences of not some metaphysical “bad luck” or “God’s punishment”, but rather wrong, prudent, and unrealistic policy. “We” (meaning the people in this case) are not to blame. It is also another matter that the Soviet propaganda in 60-70s was implanting tearfulness and recreancy through Soviet-Armenian intelligentsia (which was introduced “semi- dissident”, but in reality government flatterer). These artificial sobbing have nothing to do with true national values.
All of this, however, does not change the nature of the matter. And the essence is worth to fight for. The Armenian land.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
28.03.1996
