Opinion Caucasus talk

So now one asks: why this deadlock?

All fingers point to history and the reading of it.

In fact,historians themselves are divided. Take for instance Turkic historian Donald Quataert: “How,then,can we explain the accusations of Armenian and Arab nationalisms of our own day,that the Young Turk Ottoman regimes were harshly Turkish nationalist? Most significantly,they recall the Armenian massacres of 1915-1918. Rather than viewing these as the actions of fierce Turkish nationalists aimed at Turkish racial dominance over others,it may be more accurate to see them as policies — to stamp out threat to its stability.”

Historians agree that the Ottoman Empire’s death mattered. The disputes begin over whether or not it was aggressive Turkish nationalism.

Analysts have scrambled to contextualise the issue through umpteen different possibilities. For instance,Donald Bloxham points to the role of foreign powers. In The Great Game of Genocide he argues that,“Given the history of Russian sponsorship of Balkan Christian independence or autonomy movements,at a time of existential crisis for the empire,the CUP (Young Turks) also suspected Russian-Armenian military collaboration.” Remember,the Young Turks’ nationalism is commemorated as crucial to creating the sense of ‘Turkishness’ that still sustains the Turkish state.

Thus,there is a band of scholars who openly acknowledge ‘genocide’,while others have dismissed it as merely the ‘Armenian question.’

Countries too remain divided over the issue. There are those who recognise the Armenian genocide: Argentina,Belgium,Canada,France,Italy and 20 others including the European Parliament. The US,UK and Israel prefer alternate terminology.

The issue is so muddled that it becomes a matter of what histories can do. Theorists attempting to distance history from current mainstream political discourse argue that “History is never for itself; it is always for someone” and “…History is as much a matter of passion as of reason.”

This is one of those times that people,and peoples,need to question the strength behind the concepts of objectivity and accuracy in history.

In fact,very progressive steps were taken by a band of Turks and Armenians in 2001 who argued that it was time to shelve historical debate and bring matters into contemporary politics. The Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission took the debate forward through civil society participation,but as David L. Phillips of the Centre for Preventive Action at CFR has pointed out,this is “not a substitute for official diplomacy.” The Commission has however placed matters in front of the International Centre for Transitional Justice,which ruled that both sides have valid grievances.

What now? Will the ceremonial event and photo-ops yield any practical policy? How likely is it that the somewhat conservative Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan will allow further debate on the ‘Armenian question’?

Herein lies the challenge. For there to be genuine reconciliation,there is a dire need for public debate. However,Turkey has stifled discourse through the draconian Article 301 of its penal code: any discussion of “genocide” amounts to “insulting Turkishness.”

Turkey’s aspirations for growth and modernisation along with its desires for integration with Europe are apparent,and to a large extent Erdogan has attempted to get in line with the qualifying Maastricht Criteria. The only bump: limits to free speech.

Nobelist Orhan Pamuk was famously targeted for his comments that “a million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds were killed in this country and I’m the only one who dares to talk about it.” The backlash was severe,death threats ensued,and the state-controlled press branded him a “traitor” and encouraged “civil society to silence him.” Pamuk went into hiding.

But what he did do was open the door to further debate. Scholars and intellectuals have for the first time in 90 years openly begun to question the issue of genocide. Naturally,condemnation has followed those efforts.

It is however reassuring that if historians have hitherto let us down by not attempting to reconcile competing narratives,that failure is not forever. Perhaps now the long-standing dispute over the Armenian question may well usher in the right questions,if not the answers.

alia.allana@expressindia.com