Thirty years ago, when Armenia was fighting for life and death in the first Artsakh war, it did not occur to me that there would come a day when people in our country would be happy with the depopulation of Artsakh and the arrest of any Armenian by the Azerbaijanis.
Maybe even then, some marginal groups thought that the loss of Artsakh, tens of thousands of Armenians becoming refugees, and the waving of the Azerbaijani flag in Stepanakert would strengthen our statehood.
However, these supposedly fringe groups were wary of expressing their views. It has become almost official, or at least the view encouraged by official circles. “Albanians-Karabakh people” are to blame for everything, and now, since their issue is out of the way, we will finally be able to build an independent, sovereign state.
“Putting guilt” on some group of people (not specific individuals, but a community with certain common characteristics) is not a unique practice in human history. “Let’s finally solve the problem of the Jews, and we will build a thousand-year Reich.”
Read also
“Let’s destroy all the capitalists, and then humanity will have a bright future” – these are familiar sayings, aren’t they? The idea that Artsakh or the people of Artsakh are an obstacle to Armenian statehood is from the same series.
Meanwhile, I think it is clear to everyone that now, with the loss of Artsakh, our statehood is in a much more difficult situation. I have a simple formula on which, I think, Armenian statehood can only be built. A person born or living in any corner of the world who identifies himself with our nation is an Armenian. All the leaders of the First Republic of Armenia, Soviet Armenia, the current Republic of Armenia, Nagorno–Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO), and NKR are Armenians.
Federalists, Republicans, Civil Contract members, Armenian National Congress members, and members of other parties are all Armenians. We may not like those people; they have committed many sins and maybe they have committed crimes, but the attitude towards any Armenian should be inclusive, not divisive.
A final note. I object when the peculiar “local racism” described above is called “Nikolism.” Pashinyan is not the author of national degradation. It’s just that the current prime minister, and previously the representative of the opposition, was able and deftly used plinth-level domestic thinking to achieve his goals.
Theoretically, instead of “Garabagh-Aghvan people” in that official propaganda, there can be bespectacled people, Indians, and aliens. Or even “Mongol-Tatars”.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
