When the conversation was about installing a statue to Anastas Mikoyan in our capital, a terrible noise was voiced.
Those making noise, of course, oppose the idea of installing Mikoyan’s statue in our capital. Few people spoke in favor of the idea, moreover, quite frightened, because those who oppose are too many and too aggressive.
Those expressed in favor of are mostly former and current Communist Party members, mainly the elderly and people aged above average. Amongst those opposing are people of different generations: young, middle-aged, and even elderly.
Amongst those opposing, of course, the most perceiving was unrestrained frustration by the Soviet political prisoners, and their frustration is quite understandable and quite perceivable.
Read also
Similarly understandable and perceivable are the youth opposing it. They have not lived in a country called the Soviet Union, and have heard mainly negative things about the country and its leaders.
Those opposing installation of Mikoyan’s statue, they present him as a terrible monster. And, vice versa, those who sympathize with Mikoyan, present the latter as a unique benevolent and innocent angel. In other words, two extremes, infinitely different from each other.
This is a good opportunity to talk not only about Mikoyan and his statue, but just about him. Why are our opinions about the same phenomenon so different from each other?
Most amazingly are the opinions of the people in the middle and older generation, who have been living in the Soviet Union over the years, and more specifically, in the Soviet Armenia and by default they have put up with the large-size statues to Stalin, Lenin and other alien and Armenian Communist prominent figures, and today, days old, suddenly they took heart and declare that Anastas Mikoyan was an executioner.
Those making such statements should understand and know that it is senseless to look for innocent angels among the leadership of a monarchy or dictatorship. Mikoyan, of course, was a timeserver figure, he was not an angel, but he was not also an executioner as opposed to Lenin, Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, Beria, Yezhov, Kaganovich and many other communist prominent figures. If he had reached from Ilyich to Ilyich due to his timeserving and circumspection, and if we take this circumstance negative, it will mean that we are maximalists and do not tolerate that Anastas Mikoyan has lived and is not dead. In that case, why don’t we install the statue to martyred Agassi Khanjyan in an eminent place in our capital? Why don’t we install a statue to Garegin Nzhdeh? Especially since, he, at this moment, is our ruling party’s ideological milestone. More ridiculously, Suren Spandaryan’s large-size statue is still erected Garegin Nzhdeh’s square. When this square was renamed Garegin Nzhdeh, some advised replacing the head of Suren Spandaryna’s statue with the head of Garegin Nzhdeh. Is this less ridiculous?
It is less ridiculous and absurd that we are watching the film “Zangezur” on TV humbly and even with interest for years, in which Garegin Nzhdeh is presented as a buffoon, and a few years ago, as a result of the poll on TV, the same Garegin Nzhdeh was recognized the greatest Armenian of all times. Maybe, our heads are also changed in the meantime?
If we are treated tolerance and servility with understanding, why do we judge others strictly for the same thing?
I, myself, am not fond of statues and am not an idolater, and I am not only against putting up the statues to the Soviet political figures, but in general, I am against installing statues to political figures in general, because there are no angels among political figures, and they should not be, and is impossible to be.
One of the very central and main streets in our capital is named after Marshal Baghramyan. Also, a metro station is named after Baghramyan. Baghramyan’s statue is found inside and outside of the metro station, in front of the American University of Armenia. When approaching the American Embassy, we can see Isakov’s statue.
True, they were not the political figures rather than military, however, it is clear that the Soviet military figures were not free and inseparable from the politics. And one can guess that they gave a tribute to the Stalinist regime and policy on their way and extension, otherwise they would hardly survive and die a natural death. But the same Baghramyan has committed heroic deeds not only in the Soviet army, but also in Sardarapat.
In other words, it is desirable first of all to remember the good deeds of people rather than the bad ones. And it is not bad that there are people who remember the good works by Mikoyan.
My remarks, I repeat, have nothing to do with the issue of installing a statue to Mikoyan or not. If we are so statue-admirers and statue-idolaters, and if are giving so important to the statues, we can postpone the issue of Mikoyan’s statue. I think that the decision-makers, in the meantime, also realized that they have selected a very inappropriate time for putting up Mikoyan’s statue.
Voskan YEREVANTSY
