Random thoughts: Diaspora, its social media and Armenia

Vaհe H Apelian

Left: Viken Zakarin
Right, top to bottom: Monte Melkonian, Mher Juldjian, Garo Kahkedjian 

The other day a friend (Charles Bargamian) commented the following in response to a posting I had on my Facebook page: “Each time you write I am convinced not only are you a Pashinoglu loyalist but an Erdogan Aliev loyalist too!”  By Armenian social media standards, it is not unusual comment. Such derogatory comments are hurled in the Armenian social on the pretext of being more patriotic than thou.

Charles also stated that “Many Americans came to fight in the motherland for Artsakh’s freedom and also lost their lives!”.  That too is not an unusual claim. I know no Diaspora institutional source that authenticates the number of Diaspora volunteers during the Karabagh liberation war and the names of the Karabakh liberation war martyrs from Diaspora.

I know one person, Vartan Tashjian, who had his boots on the ground in Karabagh for four years. Those years are now behind me he says. He gave the following speculation as to how many from Diaspora could be estimated to have taken part in the first Karabagh war. Here is his speculative comment, he wrote a few years ago.

“Thirty-one years ago today, the fierce fighting in the Karabakh war ceased.

Yesterday, during an online conversation with young people, the question arose about how many people from the "traditional" diaspora participated in the war? Young people from 5-6 countries were present at the conversation. One of them believed that the number of participants was 7,000. He said that there were 700 participants from France alone. Others gave 5,000, 2,000, 1,000, 500, and other numbers.

The end of the conversation was shocking for many when I suggested making a rough estimate of the number of participants based on the following estimate. The number of Armenian fighters killed in 1990-1994 is estimated at about 6,000 (+). The number of participants in the fighting is estimated at about 50 thousand. Four from the traditional Diaspora fighters died - Monte Melkonian, Mher Julhadjian, Garo Kahkedjian (The White Bear),  and Viken Zakarian. Forgive me if I have a martyr whose identity I do not know. 

Based on the above data (the overall mortality rate is about 12%), the number of participants from the traditional Diaspora comes out to be about to 34. Considering that the participation of the overwhelming majority of the traditional Diaspora youth, was incomparably short-lived, compared to the fighters from Armenia and especially from Karabakh; the mortality rate can be calculated at a lower number. Thus, the number of participants can be multiplied by two, three, four, five, six, seven. The number of participants comes out to b 68, 102, 136, 170, 204, 238 persons. Which is still very far from the smallest number -500 - estimated by one of the young participants.

 A more accurate presentation of the facts (the geography of the participants, the forms and duration of participation, motivation, etc.) is expected mainly from historians of the war.”

I find Vartan’s estimation very reasonable. The burden of the Karabakh liberation war, and its consequences, were overwhelmingly shouldered by the citizens of Armenia and Artsakh, who continue to shoulder the brunt of the two Artsakh wars. 

This brings to the institutional Diaspora’s role in supporting Armenia. Diaspora needs to have an informed understanding of the budding democratic governance in the free and independent Republic of Armenia. PM Nikol Pashinyan emphatically notes: “Do you love your homeland? Strengthen its state.” Surely, he meant Armenia’s democratic state. Armenian democracy is   ridden with faults. Is not the American democracy, not ridden with faults? At the dawn of its semiquincentennial, the U.S. of America is still in quest of the perfect union. Democracy is a process, if not a race, but without a finish line. 

I know and understand the complexity of the matter and the short comings of what I pen here. But I believe Diaspora’s contribution or assistance to Armenia is unconditional or should be unconditional with no strings attached, in any form and shape.

Those from Diaspora, who claim that they have entitlements for shaping the course of Armenia, or have expectations as to how Armenia should chart its course, because of a support they render to Armenia, should cease supporting Armenia. 

Diasporans have absolutely no obligation to support Armenia. The citizens of Armenia have obligations towards their country Armenia, our homeland, and they struggle among themselves to shape its course. It is for Diaspora, if it can afford, to be compassionate towards the many needs of the citizens of Armenia and no more. 

Two anecdotes from Anastas Mikoyan

 Vaհe H Apelian

 

A few days ago, on October 22, 2025, Pietro Shakarian discussed his book - "ANASTAS MIKOYAN An Armenian Reformer in Khruschev’s Kremlin” - at the Armenian News Network - Groong Podcast. On a lighter note, he told the following two anecdotes about Anastas Mikoyan

Pietro shakarian is a historian of Russia and the Soviet Union. He earned his PhD in History at The Ohio State University (2016-2021), MA in Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor (2013-2015), and his BA in History at John Carroll University in Cleveland (2008-2012). He also received MLIS, Library and Information Science, at Ken State University (2012-2013) He has been a postdoctoral fellow in St. Petersburg, Russia and has done research in Yerevan Armenia. Recently he had his first book published titled "ANASTAS MIKOYAN An Armenian Reformer in Khruschev’s Kremlin”.  The launching of the book took place in Yerevan on July 31, 2025, (see the link below).

The anecdotes: 

                                                        ***

Anastas Mikoyan and Che Guevara had a professional, diplomatic relationship, as Soviet and Cuban officials in the early 1960s, dealing about the fallout of the Cuban Missile Crisis. They also had economic discussions, such as negotiating Soviet purchases of Cuban sugar and oil. 

It appears that their negotiations were not proceeding smoothly, to which, according to Pietro Shakarian,  Anastas Mikoyan tells Che Guevara something to the effect, “no wonder, Che in Armenian means No!”

***

In early 1960’s Catholicos of All Armenian Vazken I, invited the eminent writer and editor of his weekly Nairi, Antranig Zarougian to Armenia. His stay in Armenia coincided with a  visit by the USSR politburo member Anastas Mikoyan to Yerevan to deliver an important speech that would be heard all over the Soviet Union. Catholicos Vazken was invited to the speech and was escorted to a central at a central box. It was an unprecedent honor a highest official of the Soviet Union, the atheist communist Anastas Mikoyan had extended to the head of  the Armenian Apostolic church in Ethcmiadzin. I quote in translation what transpired after the speech.

“Mikoyan has ended his speech and he starts conversing in Armenian. He is joyful, witty and robust as if he is not the person who delivered a two-hour speech. There is a break for 20 minutes after which the reception would follow with music and dance. Thousands of eyes now remain focused on the Catholicos, who is not unaware or indifferent of the attention, but he has nothing to say.

Two persons enter the box where the Catholicos is seated.

“Vehapar, Comrade Mikoyan would like to meet you. He would have come to escort you but the buffet is ready, so he asks you to join him there.”

A pillar of Kremlin would not want to appear escorting a clergyman. All those in the hall are members of the party, committed communists, but they are Armenians. Asking outright the Catholicos to come to him would not sit well with many. In a typical Mikoyan style, the message is subtly delivered that he would have escorted the Vehapar but the buffet is ready for both of them to head there together.

It turns out that it is not the first time that Mikoyan has met the Vehapar.  Seven years ago, they have met in Bucharest during a reception in honor of Mikoyan hosted by the Romanian government.

“I was surprised to see among the guest an Armenian priest,” says Mikoyan. On the podium, it seemed Mikoyan was struggling with his Armenian. In close circles his Armenian is flawless. He reminisces about his student days.

“That Armenian priest wanted to make a clergy out of me, the priest…”. He seeks to remember the name and suddenly with an air of triumph says, “Yes, Karekin Vartabed". He is happy he remembers the name fifty years later. He suddenly realizes the Vartabed was no other than the Catholicos of the Cilician See, Karekin I.

“The good man worked hard to make something out of me, but out came a good-for-nothing”.

“Mister Mikoyan, I wish all those good-for-nothings would have been much like you,” remarks the Catholicos."  

 

Link: Pietro Shakarian launches his “Antastas Mikoyan, An Armenian Reformer in Khruschev’s Kremlin” book: https://vhapelian.blogspot.com/2025/07/pietro-shakarians-antastas-mikoyan.html

 

What happened to the Soviet Armenia railways?

Vaհe H Apelian

I updated my previous blog “What happened to the railway in Armenia” with a new commentary I came across that pertains to the railway through Meghri and titled it “what happened to the Soviet Armenia railways”.  The described dismantling of railways happened after Soviet Armenia declared independence on Septermber 21, 1991 

The present state of Meghri Soviet Armenia railway station

My translation of Tatul Hakobyan’s posting - see the link: «This article of mine is not about whether it is right to import Kazakh wheat to Armenia through the territory of Azerbaijan or not and what Baku expects in return.

This article of mine is about the fact that a large part of our people is not aware that ALL railways entering Armenia from Azerbaijan have been demolished, dismantled, and sold.

The section from Horadis to Nakhichevan, 45 kilometers of which passed through the territory of the Republic of Armenia, has been demolished, dismantled, and sold.

The Zangelan-Kapan section, which connected Yerevan with Kapan, has been demolished, dismantled, and sold.

The Armenian part of the Ijevan-Baku section, not entirely, has been demolished, dismantled, and sold.

And do you know, if we had not demolished the railway lines, then from 1994 until the last war we could have connected Meghri, the Armenian-Iranian border, with Kapan by rail.

This is what my  handwriting is about.”

And not whether historically we built Tbilisi and Baku.»

Բնագիրը՝

Իմ այս գրությունը այն մասին չէ՝ ճիշտ է՞ Ադրբեջանի տարածքով ղազախական ցորեն ներկրել Հայաստան, թե՞ ոչ և դրա դիմաց ի՞նչ է ակնկալում Բաքուն: 

Իմ այս գրությունն այն մասին է, որ մեր ժողովրդի մի մեծ հատված տեղյակ չէ, որ Ադրբեջանից Հայաստան մտնող ԲՈԼՈՐ երկաթուղիները քանդել-ապամոնտաժել-վաճառել են:

Հորադիսից մինչև Նախիջևան հատվածը, որի 45 կիլոմետրը անցնում էր ՀՀ տարածքով, քանդել-ապամոնտաժել-վաճառել են:

Զանգելան-Կապան հատվածը, որով Երևանը կապվում էր Կապանի հետ, քանդել-ապամոնտաժել-վաճառել են:

Իջևան-Բաքու հատվածի հայկական մասը, ոչ ամբողջությամբ, քանդել-ապամոնտաժել-վաճառել են:

Ու գիտե՞ք, եթե մենք չքանդեինք երկաթուղագծերը, ապա 1994 թվականից մինչև վերջին պատերազմը կարող էինք Մեղրին, հայ-իրանական սահմանը երկաթուղով կապել Կապանի հետ: 

Սա է մեր ձեռագիրը:

Թե բա Թիֆլիսն ու Բաքուն մենք են կառուցել:

                                                                            ***

The present state of Meghri Soviet Armenia abandoned railway

My translation of Nairian AR posting: "In the 1990s, the metals of the Meghri railway (as well as metal machines from some factories in Armenia) were sold at cheap prices to a neighboring country, without any thought or purpose for their future use. It's surprising, how did this machine or a small section of the railway remained. Were not they scrap metal?😏"

 

Բնագիրը՝

1990-ականներին Մեղրու երկաթուղու մետաղները (նաև Հայաստանի որոշ գործարանների մետաղյա հաստոցներ) էժան գներով վաճառվեցին հարևան երկրին՝ չունենալով որևէ միտք ու նպատակ ապագայում դրանք օգտագործելու համար․

Զարմանալի է,  ինչպե՞ս է այս մեքենան կամ երկաթգծի մի փոքր հատված մնացել այստեղ, դրանք մետաղի ջարդոն չե՞ն😏

Link: https://vhapelian.blogspot.com/2025/10/what-happened-to-railways-in-armenia.html

 

 

 

 

Grace 101: a uniquely American spiritual

Rev. Avedis Boynerian had titled his sermon this Sunday morning, “Grace 101”. Indeed so.  Surely Grace is profound subject in Christianity.  See the sermon below. As to the song, “Amazing Grace”, it is said that it is arguably  the most well-known spiritual hymn worldwide. On a personal note, there is no Armenian translation of “Amazing Grace” in the Red Hymnal, the Armenian Evangelical churches use; or anywhere else in Armenian, to my knowledge. I attempted to translate it into Armenian. I even solicited the assistance of my friend Ara Mekhsian, who writes poetry and has a very rich Armenian vocabulary. The outcome fell far short than the original lyrics, so I scraped it. “Amazing Grace” is a bona fide a uniquely American spiritual (see far below).  Vaհe H Apelian

 

Grace 101

The landowner asked: “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ (Matthew 20:15).

Matthew 20:1-16 1 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard. 3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went. “He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’ 7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered. “He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’ 8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’ 9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’ 13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ 16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

 

Grace 101

During a conference on religions, experts from around the world debated what, if any, belief was unique to the Christian faith. They began eliminating various possibilities: Incarnation? Other religions had different versions of gods appearing in human form. Resurrection? Again, other religions had accounts of return from death. 

The debate went on for some time until C. S. Lewis, the English professor and author, walked into the room and asked, “What’s the commotion all about?” As his colleagues told him what they were discussing, he said, “Oh, that’s easy. It’s grace.” 

Grace is Christianity’s unique belief! By definition, grace is God’s unmerited, unearned favor. Grace is when God shows kindness and compassion to any one of us, even when we do not deserve it. Grace! That’s what this parable is all about! In the parable: 

- the landowner is God, 

- the workers are us and 

- the pay is the kingdom of heaven.

And, as we study this parable, we can quickly see,  it’s all about grace - it's all about God’s grace. 

First, the parable says that grace is received, not deserved. We do not deserve God’s grace. Nothing that we can do makes us deserve God’s grace. All we can do is receive God’s gift of grace that God offers to us freely. No matter who we are, what titles we have, or how much we have None of it can make us deserve God’s grace because grace is given,

Second, God’s grace is about God’s mercy, not about God’s fairness. Many of us fail to understand this. What would have been fair would be to pay the later workers less than the daily wage, or pay those who had worked all day more than the daily wage. Now that would be fair. But when we talk about grace, it’s about something different than fairness. It’s about mercy. It’s about God’s mercy. God loves us and mercifully gives us more than we deserve.  And that’s exactly what God’s grace is all about.

Third, God’ grace is for the last.Grace is received, not deserved. Grace is about God’ mercy, not about God’s fairness. as well as for the first. It’s easy for us to say that we deserve more because we have been faithful to God’s call, some of us for many-many years. God does not work that way.  God wants a relationship with everyone, from those hired first thing in the morning, to those hired at the end of the day. That’s what grace is all about. The best Bible example of this is the father of the prodigal son, who overwhelms His son by His grace, as he runs to his son and welcomes him home.

In Jesus’ times hired laborers had to wait each day  in the marketplace until someone hired them for a day’s job.  No work that day meant no food on the family table. The landowner, undoubtedly, hired them in the late afternoon so they would not go home payless and hungry. The parable is about the landowner, God, who is, so compassionate, so merciful, and so generous. 

God, out of His grace, opens His kingdom to all who will enter, both those who have labored a life-time for Him and those who come at the last hour. It’s not easy to believe in such a God, who offers His grace to us because we are raised and live in a merit system, in which acceptance is based on performance:“ Do this and you will be rewarded. “Fail to do this and you will be punished.” 

It’s not easy to believe in such a God, who, even though we do not deserve, He offers us His grace, when a person works an eight-hour day and receives a fair day’s pay for his time, that’s a wage. 

When a person competes with an opponent and receives a trophy for his performance, that’s a prize. 

When a person receives recognition for his high achievements, that’s an award. 

But when a person is not capable of earning a wage, can win no prize and deserves no award; yet receives such a gift anyway. That’s a good picture of God and His grace, that’s God’s grace - unmerited favor. That’s what we mean by God and His grace.

So, what’s our take from today’s parable/sermon? 

1. The parable is about coveting We covet what God chooses to give to others. The problem is that the laborers get the same as us; and they do not deserve it, they are less worthy hey do not deserve the same as we get. We have a tendency to covet and be resentful  of what God gives to others. The owner of the vineyard asks those who have worked longest for Him. “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money”? Or are you envious because I am generous? Rhe point is that God’s grace is God’s to give away, as He sees fit. 

2. The parable is about the first and the last. The parable itself displays a reversal of expectations – “the last will be first and the first will be last.” So the message this morning is this: no matter how long or how hard a believer works during his/her lifetime, the reward of eternal life will be the same given to all.The best example of this is the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43), whose life of service was limited  to a moment of repentance and confession of faith in Jesus, received the same reward of eternal life, as anyone else. 

The ultimate reward of eternal life will be achieved by all equally. In heaven, there will be equality. 

Sandi Patti, my favorite Gospel singer, in her “In Heaven’s Eyes” song sings these words: 

“In heaven’s eyes there are no losers.

In heaven’s eyes there are no hopeless cause.

Only people like you with feelings like me amazed by the grace we can find in heaven’s eyes.”

 

I believe that’s why John Newton, the slave trader, who was changed to the Christian faith, called the hymn “Amazing Grace.”In one of his sayings, he said, “I am a big sinner and Christ is a big Savior. ”God’s grace is like water. It flows down. God’s grace is a free gift. It is available to all of us. God’s grace is to the undeserved, every time, all of time

Grace is a free gift that we receive. 

It’s not what we deserve.

It’s about mercy, not fairness. 

It’s for the last, as well as the first.

God is all about grace

Thank you.

Got it.

ՄԵԿՆԱԲԱՆԵԼ՝ ԵԿԵՂԵՑԻՆԵՐՈՒ ՀԱՄԱՇԽԱՐՀԱՅԻՆ ԽՈՐՀՈՒՐԴ

Վահէ Յ Աբէլեան

ԵԿԵՂԵՑԻՆԵՐՈՒ ՀԱՄԱՇԽԱՐՀԱՅԻՆ ԽՈՐՀՈՒՐԴ-ի վերը նշուած յայտարարութիւնը պէտք չէ որ սխալ եւ անտեղի մեկբանութիւններով քաղաքականացուի։ Ճշդեմ որ այդ յատարարութիւնը առընչուած է եկեղեցականին որ իր կոչումով մաս չի կազմեր քաղաքականութեան, տակաւին չեմ ըսեր իր երկրին հակապետական քաղաքանութեան։

Հետեւաբար եւ բնականաբար ԵԿԵՂԵՑԻՆԵՐՈՒ ՀԱՄԱՇԽԱՐՀԱՅԻՆ ԽՈՐՀՈՒՐԴը այդպէս է պիտի յայտարարէ,  քանի որ ԵԿԵՂԵՑԻՆԵՐՈՒ ՀԱՄԱՇԽԱՐՀԱՅԻՆ ԽՈՐՀՈՒՐԴը ի յառաջագունէ, կամ կանխաւ, ընդունած է այն բացայայտ հասկացողութիւնը որ Եկեղեցակը, այս պարագային Հայ Առաքելական Եկեղեցականը, իր երկրին քաղաքանութեան միջամուխ չըլլար, տակաւին չեմ ուզեր ըսել որ քաղաքականութիւն կը վարէ։ Այդ յատարութիւնը պէտք չէ որ մեկնաբանենք թէ եկեղեցականին արտօնուած է հակա-պետական քաղաքականութիւն վարել եւ մնալ անձեռնմխելի։

Այդ հասկացողութիւնը ի զօրու է մանաւանդ Հայ Առաքելական Եկեղեցիի եկեղեցականին որպէս ազգային կրօնական հաստատութեան ուխտաւորը։ Հետեւաբար Հայ Առաքելական կղերականը՝ որ կը դաւանի Հայ Առաքելական Եկեղեցին ազգային հաստատութիւն մը ըլլալը, մասնակից չի կրնար ըլալ իր եկրին հակապետական քաղաքականութեան, տակաւին չեմ ուզեր ըսել որ կը վարէ հակապետական քաղաքականութիւն ինչպէս ըրին եկեղեցականներ Բագրատ Գալստանյանը եւ Միքայել Աջապահեանը։

Այո, ազզովին դժբախտ եւ դժբախացնող պարագայ մըն է Արքեպիսկոպոսներ Գագրատ Գալստանյան-ին եւ Միքայել Աջապահյան-ին բանտարկութիւնը։ Բայց օրէնքը այլապէս չէր կրնար տնօրինել։ Եկեղեցականին եւ աշխարհական քաղաքացիին քաղաքացիական պարտաւորութիւնները ազգը՝ ոչ թէ միայն սահմանադրած է, այլ անոր խախտումիՆ պատիժը օրինակացուցած է եւ կիրարկեց արքեպիսկոպոսներուն, ըստ օրէնքին սահմանաց չափով։ 

Անկասկած որ Արքեպիսկոպոսները առանց Կաթողիկոսին արտօնութեան նման քաղաքական արշաւ պիտի չտանէին։ Բայց կրնայ ըլլալ որ կաթողիկոսը ներած է իրենց քաղաքական աշխատանքը տանիլը, բայց չէ արտօնած եւ  ոչ ալ մղած որ անոնք նման քաղաքական աշխատանք տանին։

 Իսկ եթէ պատահի որ  բացայայտուի որ Կաթողիկոսին գիտակցութեամբ եւ արտօնութեանբ չըսելու համար մղումով է որ եպիսկոպոսներ հակապետական քաղաքական աշխատանք տարած են եւ եւ կը տանին, այդ պարագային պիտի պատահի ազգային մեծ աղէտը՝ Կաթողիկոսը պիտի դատուի եւ կրնայ ըլլալ նոյնիսկ բանտարկուիլ, ինչպէս կը յաղորդեն կարգ մը մեկնաբաններ։   

 

What happened to the railways in Armenia?

Vaհe H Apelian

The attached is my translation of Tatul Hakobyan’s posting. The few words and sentences in italics are mine. They were interjected to give substance to what I thought Tatul Hakobyan meant to say. Otherwise, its verbatim. 

His posting reveals a painful truth not only in substance, but also in the manner of reporting.

 Tatul Hakobyan plainly lays down the substance of the report. It pertains to the state of the rails in Armenia. The manner of his reporting is endemic in the press in Armenia. When a report pertains this administration and its representative Nikol Pashinyan, the reporter does not shy from posting a harshly critical report with political undertone. Also, the reporter usually has no qualms in addressing the PM of Armenia in vile terms. But when it comes reflecting of the catastrophic doings laid down in this report, the dismantling and selling the rails, reporter Tatul Hakobyan shies from citing names, the inevitable questions that the report raises.  Under whose administration the rails in Armenia were dismantled and sold and to whom? What to call those who did or let the dismantling go under their watch?  Why is that No official I know  has been brought to justice for crippling Armenia’s rail infrastructure?

The translation of Tatul Hakobyan’s commentary on his Facebook page, today on October 23, 2025, is attached below. The original post is reproduced below it.

*

«This article of mine is not about whether it is right to import Kazakh wheat to Armenia through the territory of Azerbaijan or not and what Baku expects in return.

This article of mine is about the fact that a large part of our people is not aware that ALL railways entering Armenia from Azerbaijan have been demolished, dismantled, and sold.

The section from Horadis to Nakhichevan, 45 kilometers of which passed through the territory of the Republic of Armenia, has been demolished, dismantled, and sold.

The Zangelan-Kapan section, which connected Yerevan with Kapan, has been demolished, dismantled, and sold.

The Armenian part of the Ijevan-Baku section, not entirely, has been demolished, dismantled, and sold.

And do you know, if we had not demolished the railway lines, then from 1994 until the last war we could have connected Meghri, the Armenian-Iranian border, with Kapan by rail.

This is what my  handwriting is about.”

And not whether historically we built Tbilisi and Baku.»

Բնագիրը՝

Իմ այս գրությունը այն մասին չէ՝ ճիշտ է՞ Ադրբեջանի տարածքով ղազախական ցորեն ներկրել Հայաստան, թե՞ ոչ և դրա դիմաց ի՞նչ է ակնկալում Բաքուն: 

Իմ այս գրությունն այն մասին է, որ մեր ժողովրդի մի մեծ հատված տեղյակ չէ, որ Ադրբեջանից Հայաստան մտնող ԲՈԼՈՐ երկաթուղիները քանդել-ապամոնտաժել-վաճառել են:

Հորադիսից մինչև Նախիջևան հատվածը, որի 45 կիլոմետրը անցնում էր ՀՀ տարածքով, քանդել-ապամոնտաժել-վաճառել են:

Զանգելան-Կապան հատվածը, որով Երևանը կապվում էր Կապանի հետ, քանդել-ապամոնտաժել-վաճառել են:

Իջևան-Բաքու հատվածի հայկական մասը, ոչ ամբողջությամբ, քանդել-ապամոնտաժել-վաճառել են:

Ու գիտե՞ք, եթե մենք չքանդեինք երկաթուղագծերը, ապա 1994 թվականից մինչև վերջին պատերազմը կարող էինք Մեղրին, հայ-իրանական սահմանը երկաթուղով կապել Կապանի հետ: 

Սա է մեր ձեռագիրը:

Թե բա Թիֆլիսն ու Բաքուն մենք են կառուցել:

Diaspora «know thyself» – Սփիւռք «Ծանի՛ր զքեզ»

Zori Balayan once depicted Armenia as a bird whose one wing was Diaspora. That imaginary bird has been dead for a long time, while he continues to live through his old age. So have a few other depictions of Armenia and Diaspora relations have been relegated to history. 

Presently the institutional Diaspora and the State of Armenia relations are in turmoil. They surely are not the wings that flip in harmony. Since the independence, I do not think institutional Diaspora contributed to the governance of Armenia or even made a dent in the course of Armenia's governance and continues not contributing to the governance of Armenia. 

In fact, it may very well be that institutional Diaspora is undermining the very foundations of Diaspora that came about mostly during the seven decades of Soviet Armenia when its relations with Diaspora was at a very low point. Regrettably this trend will continue unless Diaspora makes a much need adjustments to its priorities for the sake of its long survival and maintaining the Armenian social ties that have come about and were nourished in Diaspora, after the genocide. The once cherished social ties in the Diaspora are in danger of coming apart from their seams and for good.

In any event, Diaspora and Armenia relation is a “fruit for thought.”

I do not discount the possibility that It could be that the present state of turmoil is the unavoidable outcome of Armenia free and independent charting its course, especially after the fall of Artsakh. But it was also present at its very foundating. But that does not negate the fact that Diaspora needs to reassess its priorities.

Attached is my translation of an excerpt from Hovhannes Katchaznouni’s work posted in ANI Research Center by Tatul Hakobyan. Capitalization is not mine. It is how I copied it. The excerpt pertains to  the Republic of Armenia's first prime minister reflecting on the Diaspora and Armenia relations at the very founding of the Republic of Armenia.  Vaհe H Apelian

Hovhannes Khatchaznouni

“In general, the Armenians abroad are not a state component for today's Armenia. The longer the current situation lasts, the more they will become alienated, estranged, and become unnecessary as a NATIONAL COMPONENT. Perhaps for a while they will represent some value (and this will largely depend on how capable we will be in organizing to maintain national ties and consciousness in the diaspora communities). But as a STATE COMPONENT, only the Armenians of Armenia and those large sections, mainly the peasantry, who are in the republic's neighboring Georgia and Azerbaijan will remain. The Armenian state must be based on them and established for them.

The diaspora Armenians, at best, will remain as a supporting force and a kind of reserve for an uncertain future.

TODAY, THE OBJECT OF CONCERN OF ARMENIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT SHOULD BE THE EXISTING REPUBLIC, THE ARMENIAN PEOPLE LIVING IN IT AND AROUND IT.

I emphasize this sentence strongly and bring it to your special attention, because this will be the starting point for our future work."

(Excerpt from the article by Hovhannes Kajaznuni collective literary work).

***

Բնագիրը

“Ընդհանուր առմամբ, դրսեցի հայերը պետական տարր չեն այսօրվա Հայաստանի համար: 

Եվ որքան երկար տեւի ներկա դրությունը, այնքան ավելի պիտի խորթանան ու օտարանան, անպէտք դառնան իբրեւ ԱԶԳԱՅԻՆ ՏԱՐՐ, թերեւս միառժամանակ ներկայացնեն որոշ արժէք ( եւ սա մեծապես կախված կլինի նրանից թէ որքան ընդունակ կլինենք կազմակերպելու ազգային կապն ու գիտակցութիւնը գաղութներում պահելու համար), բայց իբրեւ ՊԵՏԱԿԱՆ ՏԱՐՐ մնում են միայն Հայաստանի հայությունը եւ այն խոշոր հատվածները, գլխավորապէսգյուղացիությունը, որ գտնվում են հանրապետության դրացի Վրաստանի եւ Ադրբէյջանում: Սրանց վրա պիտի հենվի ու սրանց համար հաստատվի հայ պետությունը: 

Գաղութային հայությունը, լավագոյն դէպքում, մնալու է իբրեւ օժանդակող ոյժ ու մի տեսակ պահեստ՝ անորոշ ապագայի համար: 

ԱՅՍՕՐ ՀԱՅ ՔԱՂԱՔԱԿԱՆ ՄՏՔԻ ԱՆՄԻՋԱԿԱՆ ՀՈԳԱՏԱՐՈՒԹՅԱՆ ԱՌԱՐԿԱՆ ՊԻՏԻ ԼԻՆԻ ԳՈՅՈՒԹՅՈՒՆ ՈՒՆԵՑՈՂ ՀԱՆՐԱՊԵՏՈՒԹՅՈՒՆԸ, ՆՐԱ ՄԷՋ ԵՒ ՆՐԱ ՇՈՒՐՋ ԱՊՐՈՂ ՀԱՅ ԺՈՂՈՎՈՒՐԴԸ: 

Ընդգծում եմ ուժգնորէն այս նախադասությունը ու հանձնում ձեր առանձին ուշադրությանը, որովհետեւ սա՛ պիտի լինի մեր ապագա անելիքի ելակետը:” 

Հովհաննէս Քաջազնունի

Երկեր  (Հ.Յ.Դաշնակցությունը անելիք չունի այլեւս ) յօդուածէն հատված