Gifting: at the season of gifting

 VaՀe H. Apelian

(updated)

Altough there is no season for gifting, but the preparation for seasonal gifting gets underway right after Thanksgiving celebration with an ominous label, Black Friday.  In Lebanon then, maybe presently as well, seasonal gifting was for the New Year's Day and we opened the season’s gifts not on Christmas day but on the New Year day. The gifts remained wrapped under the ornamental tree until the first day of the New Year. I say ornamental tree because Lebanese Muslims and Christians alike decorated a tree in their homes and in their business showcases. Let us not forget that the symbol of Lebanon is the biblical Cedar tree. The Christians included a nativity scene under the ornamental tree.

Several incidences come to my mind about gifts and gifting.

I was in my HS junior or senior year when a guest came from the United States and stayed in the inn my father ran, the famed Hotel Lux. She said she had brought a gift to my friend and classmate from his relative in the U.S. I told him to come and pick the gift and he did. But he, I, and my parents as well were taken back when she presented the gift. It was a dispenser of single razor blades we used for shaving. This was fifty plus years ago and the United States of America was the distant land of milk and honey for us. My friend courteously accepted the gift, inquired about his relative but he left the dispenser behind when he took leave of us, letting us know that I can keep it or give it to someone else.  Surely there  was an element of understandable hurt there for having received shaving blades from his relative from the U.S.A. To ease him out of the situation I did not refuse him. The incident has remained etched in my memory. I refrain from mentioning my friend’s name. Many of my readers know him.

                                                *

The second incident about gifting is a story our frequent Afghan guest to Hotel Lux, Mr. Mohammad Zaman, told us about the incident with amusement. There was a time when the United States and Afghanistan had warm relations.  President Eisenhower and his Vice President Richard Nixon visited Afghanistan. According to Wikipedia it was in 1953 when Vice President Nixon visited Afghanistan. It so happened that a high placed friend of Mr. Mohammed Zaman was designated as Nixon’s driver. The talk of those who knew driver had been the tangible monetary gift the driver would likely be receiving from the vice-presodent of the U.S. Nixon at the end of his tour. But at the end of the tour, all that Mr. Nixon had presented to the driver to his astonishment was his personalized White House business card. The gesture had not only caused a huge disappointment but also an embarrassment, if not an insult,  to the driver. I doubt that the driver could have made use of that business card then as a tender for a loaf of bread in Afghanistan. Gifts can be no gifts at all.

                                                    *

The third incident I remember about gifting happened to me in 1995/96, during my visit to Lebanon after an absence of almost twenty years. Throughout my stay there I became a guest of my cousin the Hoglinds and with a few other relatives. As a parting gift I bought a set of worry beads, or middle eastern social rosary to my elder relative who hosted me and I presented him the gift after our lunch as a family with his children and their families. He thanked me but not only he did not open the gift but took it to his room and left it there. I had forgotten that in Lebanon  we considered a gift a private matter and did not open it in front of the presenter of the gift especially if there was company. I am not sure if that was a universal custom in Lebanon but it was within my social circle in contrast to the expected customary proclamations of appreciation I had come to learn during the past twenty years in the United States where we unwrapped the gift we received and uttered our unabashed appreciation. Of course in doing so we show our appreciation of the gesture more so than to the gift itself.  I saw our elder relative using the worry beads the next day. It was not an ordinary worry beads. No word was uttered, but I knew he had liked it and had already started using it.

Gifting is an art and a difficult one at that. We naturally appreciate the thought and the gesture and yet we cannot discount the gift  as it may become the subject of our appreciation no less.  

As to that single blades dispenser, I soon realized that it was not the ordinary matchbox size dispenser. It contained far more blades than the ones we purchased from the store. Consequently I ended up using the blades from the dispenser for months and whenever I discarded the used blade and replaced it with a new one from the dispenser, I remembered the gift and I realized how a beautiful and thoughtful gift it was.

That incident also set a pattern for me. Next to books, on most occasions I gift razor blades. Things have changed, so have the razor blades. The single blade razor is now gone into history. A new generation of cutting edge technology houses up to five sharp edges on single blade. Such blades are a la mode nowadays and can be expensive.  One cannot go wrong with such a useful gift to the guys. As to gifting the gals, that is my wife’s domain and I pray it remains that way until the last days of my life. 

                                                *

But gifting books remain my favorite because books make for far more lasting gifts, provided they are personalized. The gifted books may not be read,  but more likely than not, it remain on a book shelf or somewhere in the house and pop out at an unexpected moment rekindling memories and remembrances. Recently my paternal cousin Ara Apelian, M.D., posted a snap shot of a book I have gifted him in 1992, thirty years ago. I realized  what I had suspected all along that books make for a far more lasting gift. I do not remember the occasion but from the date I can tell it was not meant to be as a year end holiday gifting. 

There is no season for gifting.

From Sona Hammalian

Behind the public man, there often is a father

Behind every public man or woman, there usually is a father or a mother. While the public renders its evaluation and the judgement on the person who is a public man; their child or children render their own judgement on the person who is their father. The attached is about president Abraham Lincoln and his son’s relationship, I copied from the internet.

Abraham Lincoln’s youngest son, Thomas, was known to everyone as “Tad” — a nickname his father gave him because, as a baby, he wriggled and squirmed like a tadpole. Born in 1853, Tad grew up in a household where laughter and sorrow lived side by side. His older brother Willie was his closest companion, and the White House, during the Civil War, became their playground. Tad was energetic, affectionate, and famously unpredictable. He burst into Cabinet meetings, kept pet goats on the White House lawn, and had a habit of tearing through the halls with the freedom only a child can manage.

Lincoln, buried in the weight of the war and the loss of countless lives, softened around Tad. The boy’s mischief was one of the few things that could pull a smile from him. Their bond grew even stronger after Willie died of illness in 1862. Willie’s death crushed the family, and Tad, who also fell sick at the time, leaned on his father for comfort. Lincoln, in the midst of national grief, held his surviving son close, sometimes letting him sleep curled up in his office just to keep him near.

To the public, Lincoln was a president. To Tad, he was simply “Papa.” They ate meals together when schedules allowed, took evening walks, and shared private jokes. During the war, Tad often followed his father everywhere, tagging along to the War Department or stretching out on the floor while Lincoln worked late into the night.

When Lincoln was assassinated in 1865, Tad was just twelve. He reportedly cried, “Pa is dead,” again and again, struggling to understand how the world could continue without the man who had been his anchor. After the assassination, Tad and his mother traveled the world for a time, but the light that had filled him as a boy never fully returned. He died in 1871 at the age of eighteen, likely from illness, leaving behind a brief life marked by love, loss, and the shadow of history.

***

Republic of Armenia: First official visit to Turkey Report on November 23, 1918

The attached is my AI aided translation of Tatul Hakobyan's post on his facebook page today, titled: Ահարոնյանը իր՝ Թալեաթի, Էնվերի և Պոլսի մյուս հանդիպումների մասին․ 1918-ի նոյեմբերի 23, Երևան - Aharonian on his meetings with Talaat, Enver, and other people in Constantinople: November 23, 1918, Yerevan. The post was a report that appeared in the ZANK newspaper, ARF organ, No. 75, Sunday, December 1, 1918 Vaհe H Apelian

 

«On the 23rd of this month [November 1918], unger Avedis Aharonian, the chairman of the delegation to Bolis (Constantinople), gave to a small group of friends, a very interesting report, the brief content of which we present here.

The members of the delegation were Aharonian, Alexander Khatisian and Mikayel Papajanian. On the 13th of June [1918], the delegation left Tiflis and on the 19th of the same month arrived in Constantinople, where it remained until November 1, that is, approximately 4 and a half months.

In the port of Constantinople, while still on the ship, the delegation was met by  the  makhmandar, the government representative acting as the host, Mukhtar Bey, who welcomed the arrival of the delegation “on behalf of the Ottoman imperial government.” To which the delegation responded that they thank the Sublime Port “on behalf of the Armenian government.”

From the seaport, our delegation was driven to the city in government cars and accommodated in the Tokatlian Hotel, while the Georgian and Azerbaijani delegations were accommodated in the Pera Palace. The delegation was provided with all kinds of amenities, as befits a representation of a state.

The arrival of the Armenian delegation in Constantinople made a stunning impression both on Turks and Armenians alike. The news of the delegation's arrival was published in the newspapers as a sensational news, because it was completely unexpected for all of Constantinople, for all of Turkey.

The Turkish public was simply stunned upon learning of the arrival of the Armenian delegation, because until then, the Turkish public was accustomed to reading that the Armenians had been exterminated in the Caucasus, that the entire Caucasus had been subjugated by Turkey. But now, it suddenly saw that the Armenians have not only not been exterminated, but, on the contrary, have found a separate state, whose representatives have come to Constantinople.

Sunday June 23, 1918

The Armenians of Constantinople were also stunned and completely astonished. They also thought that the Armenian element no longer existed in the Caucasus, that it had been exterminated as a nation, because the Turkish government and Turkish newspapers had convinced them so; and yet they suddenly heard that the Armenians not only exist, but on the contrary, have also founded a state and sent their delegation to Constantinople. At night, Armenians secretly went from house to house, whispering this, apparently unbelievable news to each other, to  convince themselves of its accuracy.

On the second or third day, the same makhmandar came to the delegation and presented a list of institutions and officials that the delegation was to visit. The strange thing was that there was no Armenian institution on the list, not even the patriarchate.

The first visit was to the Grand Vizier, Talaat Pasha. Of course it is understandable the difficult mental state that our delegation must have experienced at that moment.

After official introductions, the chairman of the delegation addressed the Grand Vizier with approximately the following words: “Your Highness, we are glad that we have come here under the auspices of your imperial government to work out the conditions of a good-neighborly alliance. Our people and country need to expand, and if you show us that goodwill, our friendship with you will improve even more. The problem must also be addressed here in the shortest possible time, because the situation is unbearable. Here, the positive solution of these problems must form the basis of our friendship.”

Turkey was first to recognize the 11,000 square km  Republic of Armenia, which made
the Armenin republic untenable.  

The issue of emigration interested the Grand Vizier. He asked, “How many emigrants do you have?” Approximately 800 thousand, the head of the delegation replied, of which 3-4 hundred thousand are Turkish-Armenians.” “That many Turkish-Armenians?” asked the Grand Vizier, and then  mysteriously fell silent.

“Very well,” replied the Grand Vizier, “these issues will be discussed at the conference.”

The next visit was given to the Minister of War, Enver Pasha. The outward impression was extremely favorable: with a pleasant look, well-mannered, modest, not  a deceit on his face. Here also, the delegation said approximately the same thing as it had said to Talaat Pasha.

Enver said, “I knew you would come. Armenians are good opponents and good fighters. from that point of view, we give them a very high place among the Caucasian nationalities.”

The President replied: “Armenians are not only good opponents, but also good friends.”

“Why not good allies?”, Enver suddenly asked. And here he touched on the issue of the military alliance between Armenia and Turkey, hastening to immediately add that this statement is not made by the government, but only by himself, that it was his plan

Enver also pointed out the conditions on which his supposed military alliance should be based. “Of course,” he said, “we, having become conscious, cannot demand from you that you fight in our ranks, together with us, against the British. We know that you will not do that. But we want to be safe at the rear of our army. When it moves towards the English, towards Persia, it cannot be endangered by you.” The delegation reported that this is a matter on which it had no instructions from its government, and therefore did not consider itself entitled to show any position towards the matter.

A number of other visits were also made, which were more  polite in nature thanpolitical nature. Among the other visits, notable was the visit to Khalil Bey will be reported next time.

 

Courtesy of Tatul Hakobyan
According to the Turkish ultimatum, the Armenian territory comprises 11,000 square verst, (1.07 km), 580,000 Armenians and approximately 100,000 Turkish. This territory falls west of Sevan Lake, south and south east"
Source: Horizon newspaper, May 31, 1918.

 

Indra: Diran Chrakian 150th anniversary

Vaհe H Apelian

Indra is the pen name of the Armenian writer Diran Chrakian. It is said he adopted the Hindu god’s name by rearranging the letters of his name. 

I will admit that Indra is just a name for me. I have not read any of his works, nor it is likely that I will.  But my interest in the writer arose when I read in the March 2025 issue of the literary magazine Pakin, Raffi Ajemian’s exhaustive study of Indra, the person, his literary works, his convoluted life, and his search for a large than life purpose.

  Raffi Ajemian’s study in Pakin comprises eighteen pages, from page 53 to page 71, He cites 52 small lettered footnotes, some of which are relatively long passages to bolster his analysis. Raffi’s study in fact is a dissertation of sorts, and is a reflection of his personal interest in Indra.

I attached my communicative translation of excerpts from Raffi Ajemian’s opening paragraph hoping that it may give a glimpse of his fascination of and his fascinating presentation of the Armenian writer named Indra whose 150^th anniversary is this year.

 “Dear Indra, this year is the 150th anniversary of your birth. And to think that after so many years, your work continues to radiate its charm and to always have new readers beyond the mountains and seas of your native Skudar (note: Üsküdar), with its cypress trees. What a miracle it is! Who would have imagined that after so many years of the martyrdom of your people, your name would still be on our lips. At the end of your life, didn't you also turn the page of your life revealed in the name of the Indian god, and said to your friend Kegham about the fate of your papers: "What is the worth of the miserable spark that could have ignited in me, next to the magnificent reflection that I burned?" You had all your papers burned, and you abandoned the writer in you and dedicated your life as a preacher. Allow me to say that as a reader, that the tiny fire, to which you allude, burning within in the author of "Inner World" (Ներաշխարհ, 1906) and "Cypress Wood" (Նոճաստան, 1908), has not ceased spreading for the past 150 years.

It is true that you, in turn, like your people, would be martyred in a terrible way, dragging your body to Diyarbakir, to bury it near the Slivan Bridge, having the name of Christ on your lips until the last moment, preaching His love and peace. 

But for us, as your readers, it is your work published under the name of Indra that continues to ignite the flame of writing as  prose and poetic expressions of a unique quest, expressed in writing.»

Raffi Ajemian's continues saying: «One cannot help but to ask who was Diran Chirakian and not try to explain the transition from mortal Diran, to the creative Indra and  revert to Diran, but this time as a mere preacher.» Raffi Ajemian's  study of Diran in that issue of Pakin is his search of Diran Chrakian the man and Indra the writer.

 

I also included below a short biographical sketch of Indra that was posted in the September 11, 2025 issue of “Ararat” daily in Lebanon, to cap the writer at the 150^thanniversary of his birth (1875 – 1921)

'"Diran Chrakian, known in literature as Indra, was born in 1875 in the Scutari district of Istanbul. He was first educated at the Berberian School, under the tutelage of Retheos Berberian, who had a profound influence on his intellectual and artistic development. He taught at Berberian and other schools for several years, before briefly going to Paris and then Egypt to study.

Indra’s first major literary work was “The Underworld” (1906), in which he expressed his inner anxieties, his magnetic love for nature, and his quest for art. The following “Nochastan” (1908) directed his spiritual aspirations towards eternal and invisible worlds. He was a poet of great sensitivity, who worked for the Armenian press in Constantinople for about fifteen years as a teacher and writer.

In the 1910s, Intra went through a deep spiritual crisis. Renouncing his literary work, he became a preacher of the Gospel. During the First World War, he refused to bear arms, remaining faithful to his conviction of “not killing anyone.” However, the tragic events of 1915 irreversibly disturbed his mental equilibrium. He burned most of his manuscripts and focused on religious preaching.

After the armistice, in 1918-1921, with his group of weekly preachers, Chrakian gave new impetus to his activity as an evangelical preacher in the provinces bordering the Black Sea. To the point that he was condemned by the Kemalists as an “enemy of the people” and, with his followers, in February 1921, he was arrested and exiled to the depths of Tigranakert. Unable to withstand the beatings and tortures inflicted by the Turkish policemen guarding the exiles, Chrakian died near Silvan at the age of 46.»

How much do we contribute to the wealth of the richest?

Vaհe H Apelian

Courtesy Forbes Magazine

In order to figure out, or put a monetary value, how much each American, irrespective of its wealth, contributes to have a society where it makes possible for the wealthiest in America possible, to accumulate such wealth, take the following into your account.

“The total wealth of the five wealthiest Americans is approximately $1.37 trillion, based on mid-to-late 2025 estimates. This figure is the sum of Elon Musk's $428 billion, Larry Ellison's $276 billion, Mark Zuckerberg's $253 billion, Jeff Bezos's $241 billion, and Larry Page's $178 billion, though rankings and net worths can fluctuate.” (According to the Wikipedia, on the wealth of the five richest Americans). 

“Much of America’s great wealth remains concentrated at the very top of the very top. The 20 richest people in the country hold a collective $3 trillion—nearly half of all American billionaire wealth—up from $2.3 trillion a year ago”.  (Forbes magazine on the 20 wealthiest in America).Now take into account how many are the Americans to produce such wealth?

Now take into account how many are we as Americans citizens to produce such wealth?

“The population of the U.S. is approximately 343 million as of late 2025, with the U.S. Census Bureau reporting 342,849,246 on November 19, 2025. Other sources provide slightly different estimates based on different data and projection methods, such as Worldometer's estimate of 347,978,297 for the same period or Macrotrends' mid-year 2025 estimate of 343,603,404.” (Wikipedia)

Consider the following math:

Trillion (TRN) = 1000 billion (BLN)

1 billion is 1000 million (MLN)

Therefore,

3 TRN x1000 BLN/TRN x1000 MLN/BLN = 3x1000x1000 MLN$, is the combined wealth of the 20 richest persons in the U.S.

Consequently,

342,849,246 of us American citizens "contributed" 3x1000x1000 MLN$, to the richest 20 persons in the U.S. Contributed in ways that made possible for the wealthiest to have such wealth. 

Therefore

Each one of us contributed $8750 to the 20 richest persons for their resourcefulness. 

We as American contributed  $3996  to the five richest.

Therefore, each one of the five wealthiest "got" $799 from each one of us.

Therefore, each of the remaining 15 wealthiest got $317, from each one of us. 

Is each one of us "contributing"  way too much for the wealthiest 20 Americans to produce such wealth ? What do the wealthiest contribute to the average Americans in return, jobs?

You figure,.

 

 

 

Թափուր մնացին՝ Արմենակ Եղիայեանի յիշատակին

Վահէ Յ Աբէլեան

Արմենակին թափուր մնացած առօրեայ գործածութեան իր տան  բազմոցը

1962 թուականը անջնչելի մնաց մտապատկերիս մէջ։ Սուրբ Նշան միջնակարգ ազգային վարժարանին շրջանաւարութեանս տարին էր։ Հոն իր որ դպրոց սկսած էի յաճախել։ Այդ տարին ունեցանք նոր ուսուցիչներ որոնց մասին գրած եմ (տես ագոյցը)։ Անոնցմէ էր Արմենակ Եղիայեանը։  Անկէ ետք առիթ չունեցայ աշակերտելու իրեն, Եւ մեր կապը բնականաբար աւելի չզարգացաւ։

Բայց, քանի մը տասնեակ տարիներ ետք, առցանց սկսայ հետեւիլ հայերէն լեզուն զարգացնող եւ բիւրեղացնող իր գրառումներուն, ինչպէս նաեւ իր յուշագրութիւններուն որոնցմէ ոմանք Անգլերէնի թարգմանեցի։ Այսպէս,  բարեկամացանք։ Արմենակին հետ բարեկամութիւնս տառացիօրէն Ֆէյսպուքեան չէր։ Արմենակը չունէր ֆէյսպուքի էջ մը։ Իմ առօրեայ կապս  email-ով էր եւ երբեմն ալ հեռաձայնով, ինչպէս նաեւ ընկերոջս Գրիգոր Գրաճեանին միջոցաւ որուն հետ Արմենակը սերտ բարեկամութիւն մը հաստատած էր։ Այսպէս մեր կապը սկսաւ ամրանար եւ իմ բարեկամութիւնս վաւերացուց աշակերտի իմ տպաւորութիւններս, որ  Արմենակ Եղիայեանը՝ խելացի, խիզախ, գիտնականի մը միտքը ունեցող անձ մըն է։ 

Դժբախտաբար, սակայն անցեալ չորեքշաբթի օր, Ամերիկայի արեւելեան ափի ժամով, իրիկուան ժամը տասնմէկին շուրջ,  ընկեր եւ բարեկամ՝ Գրիգոր Գրաճեանէն ստացայ կարճ գրառում մը, ուր կը գուժէր սիրելի ուսուցիչիս մահուան բօթը: 

Կը կցեմ Գրիգոր Գրաճեանէն ստացած գոյժը՝

«Այլեւս՝ անուշ ժպիտը դէմքին, հիասքանչ արտաայայտութիւնը պիտի չլսենք։

-                  Ամա՜ան, տե՛ս ծառը ի՞նչ հիանալի ծաղկեր է։

-                  Ծովուն եւ երկնքի կապոյտը, որքա՜ն համահունչ են։

-                  Այդ ի՜նչ աղուոր գրութիւն է։

Միեւնոյն «ամա՜ան»-ը պիտի օգտագործեր իր ընվզումը յայտնելու, երբ ընթերցէր Հայաստանի Պետութիւն  եւ Պետականութիւն թիրախաւորող  կամ հայութեան վնաս պատճառող գրութիւն մը՝ «ամա՜ան, այդ ի՜նչ զազրելի եւ ստոր գրութիւն է այդ ի՜նչ գծուծ հեղինակ։

Մինչեւ վերջին սրտին զարկը - անտեսելով իր անձն ու առողջութիւնըւ-սիրտը բաբախեց  Հայաստանի, Հայութեան, Հայոց լեզուի, մշակոյթի, պատմութեան ի սպաս։ Եւ հանկարծ, կայծակնային արագութեամբ, կարծէս տիրեց լռութիւն։ 

Բոլորին սիրելի, յարգելի, անզուգական եւ իսկական ՄԱՐԴԸ՝ Արմենակը չկայ։»

Բնականաբար հետեւեցայ Արմենակին յուղարկաւորութեանը Հայկական առօրեայ ասոյթը կ՚ըսէ՝ «գնայ մեռիր, եկուր սիրեմ»։  Իմ  տպաւորութեամբս այդպէս չեղաւ Արմենակին յուղակրաւորութիւնը։ Չեմ գիտեր ինչու համար, պատկերացուցած էի որ Արմենակին յուղարկաւորոթիւնը պիտի ըլլար հայրապետական պատգամով մը, եթէ ոչ կոնդակով մը։ Այդպէս չեղաւ։ Իսկ օրուան հայ թերթերուն առաջին էջը, պատկերացուցած էի որ պատուած պիտի ըլլար սեւով, գուժելու անզուգական Արմենակին մահը։ Այդպէս ալ չեղաւ։ Բայց Արմենակն ալ կաղապարուելիք մարդ մը չէր, կուսակցականացած  արեւմտահայ մամուլին համար։  

Թափուր մնաց արեւմտահայ լեզուագիտութեան հանրային աթոռը, ինչպէս նաեւ իր տան բազմոցը ուր սովորաբար նստած եղած էր։ Թափուր մնացին իր ընտանիքին անդամներուն եւ իր բարեկամներուն սիրտերը։

Յ.Գ. Կցուած նկարները կը պարտիմ Գրիգոր Գրաճեանին

Արմենակ Եղիայեան (ձախին)՝ անմիջական անցեալէն
ընկերներ՝ Գրիգոր Գրաճեան,  Արա Յակոբեան

Link: They were teachers of mine: Armenag Yeghiayan: https://vhapelian.blogspot.com/2019/07/they-were-teachers-of-mine-armenag.html

 

 

When the Catholicos votes

Vaհe  H Apelian

I was surprised to read that the Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II voted in the Vagharshabad city’s municipal election. I spent almost the first three decades of my life in Lebanon and I know that the Catholicos of Cilician See and its bishops did not vote in the Lebanese elections. The one-time historic Seat in Sis in Turkey is now in the city of Antelias, in Lebanon. There is a lot to write about Cilician See Catholicosate’s bishops participation, in the Lebanese elections. Or for that matter the Cilician See participating in the secular elections of their host countries, such as in Syria. But that is altogether a different matter.

The picture of Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II voting in the Vagharshabad city’s election is a momentous depiction, as far as I am concerned.

Vagharshapat is the fourth-largest city in Armenia. It is where the religious center of the Armenian Apostolic Church, we know as Etchmiadzin is located. Vagharshapat/Vagharshabad is an ancient city and was the capital of Armenia at one time in our ancient history. The city is named after the king who founded it.

The picture I posted above is from Panorama.am online journal.The caption reads as follows: “His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, voted in the Vagharshapat municipal elections on Sunday morning. He was accompanied by Archbishop Arshak Khachatryan and other clergymen at polling station 14/46. After casting his ballot, Karekin II said they had “voted with prayer”, expressing hope that the elections would proceed fairly and that Vagharshapat would “prosper and flourish”, bringing a better and more secure future for its residents.”

Given the constitutional provision of separation of State and the Church in Armenia, I was left with the impression that the Catholicos of All Armenians seating in Etchmiadzin, does not take part in secular political elections, and does not cast his vote. Hence the bishops and the ecclesiastical fathers of the Apostolic Church do the same. They do not take part in the political process.  But obviously I was wrong; which raises in my mind the nagging question. What does constitutional state and church separation mean if the Cathollicos of All Armenians and its bishops are constitutionally allowed to take part in election? Or for that matter, if the Catholicos and the ecclesiastical fathers of the Armenian Apostolic Church, out of their free will and conviction, do not take part in elections in observance of Armenia's constitution. 

Politics by its nature is not All Armenian. It is partisan Armenian, contrary to what the Armenian Apostolic Church proclaims  it is.

Negotiation and compromise, or negotiating and compromising, are viewed as the hallmarks of any political process. In fact, the ability to compromise through negotiation is viewed as positive and progressive in any political process, to achieve unity and to resolve dispute.

But the Armenian Apostolic Church compromising on matters of Christian faith or on matters of Christian biblical standards is all together a different matter. 

Therein is the wisdom of separating the Armenian Church and the Armenian State. Apparently, that is not the case in Armenia, even though it is spelled in its constitution. In fact, the Catholicos Karekin II attested by his participation in the political process in the city, where he resides, that the separation of the state and the church  provision in the Armenia’s constitution, has no relevance to him.  Wording it harshly, he makes a mockery of the Constitution the citizens of Armenia have adopted to govern themselves.

The Armenian people cannot and should not allow the Armenian Apostolic Church in Armenia be part of the political process, if Armenians want to uphold the All-Armenian Apostolic Church they proclaim it is and is  Holy and its head is His Holiness.