Excerpts from Zori Balayan interview on patriotism and Karabagh by Sasun Paskevichyan
Balayan: I think that we must accept glasnost as a weapon in the real sense of the word. For example, for me as a writer, as a publicist, as an Armenian living in this period, glasnost is a weapon, a very sharp weapon.
[…]
If we do not use that weapon, the future will never forgive us just as we cannot forgive some of the mistakes made by our ancestors at different times of the past.
[…]
Q- One of the most critical conjunctures of the Armenian Question is the internal diaspora, particularly the question of reunification of Karabagh and Nakhichevan with Armenia. What is your opinion on this issue?
Balayan:… The history of Karabagh and Nakhichevan that is the result of Stalin’s action and that is a horrible thing… Now come, let us think about glasnost, about democracy, about reconstruction; the time for perestroika is exactly the time when we need to speak about Karabagh and Nakhichevan. We must connect that to the problem of Stalin.
[…]
Eighty per cent of the population of Mountainous Karabagh are Armenians and they constitute about 130,000 individuals. The region is about 4500 square kilometers. There are 187 Armenian schools, which unfortunately are administrated not by the Ministry of Education of Armenia, but that of Azerbaijan, in which there isn’t a single inspector or a single person who knows Armenian. This is a very dangerous thing and it is harming us. Therefore the struggle will not stop until that question is resolved. And there’s only one solution to that question. Karabagh is an Armenian region and must enter within the jurisdiction of the Armenian Republic. I do not see any other solution… The newspapers of the diaspora have written that 400,000 signatures were collected for a resolution on this issue.
[…]
In my view, the important thing is what has been done in Karabagh itself, that is, how many of the Armenians in Karabagh have signed it, and I say that if about 100,00 signatures have been sent, of these approximately 45,000 are from Karabagh. And I should also say that this isn’t the first time. Such a precedent was set in 1966; at that time, too, as many Armenians in Karabagh had signed the plebiscite, and there were even more than 100 Azerbaijanis who signed, preferring to see Karabagh attached to Soviet Armenia.
I do believe though that the question will not be resolved by signatures alone.
Q- What was Moscow’s reaction?
Balayan: …The posting of the question itself is major achievement. We’re not even expecting that there will be an answer immediately. The question has been forwarded by the Armenians of Karabagh and they’re expecting the answer. That is of concern to all of us. I understand the question in the following way.
A people that does not consider itself defeated is in the right. We [Soviet Armenians] are not considering ourselves defeated on this issue. If for no other reason than that without Karabagh we cannot live on this rocky piece of land [Soviet Armenia] physically, spiritually, historically; it is difficult to visualize our future without Karabagh… You see the land of our historic fatherland continues to remain occupied and we are gathered in a small place and we cannot continue like this.
[…]
Therefore, patriotism for us is struggle in the meaning of the word, but we should not equate patriotism with nationalism, where one is disdainful of others and places oneself above others…patriotism, first of all is struggle in the name of the fatherland, thinking of the future because we are here today, gone tomorrow, but the fatherland must continue to be there…We must wait for the right moment, but not passively so that something is offered to us on a tray. We must be ready for that particular time.
[Hye Gyank, Los Angeles, December 25, 1987 to February 19, 1988]
The Karabagh File, Documents and Facts, 1918-1988, First Edition, Cambridge Toronto 1988, by the ZORYAN INSTITUTE, edited by: Gerard J. LIBARIDIAN, pp. 71-72.
*****
Zori Balayan on Armenian writers in the diaspora and in Soviet Armenia
“Should We Still Remain Silent?
[…]
How is it possible that the wallets of Armenian writers are empty just at that time when the people and the times sense the need for a truthful and passionate word? As if the political report of the XXVII conference has not been submitted, where it was underlined: “Our achievements should not create the impression that the national processes are exempt from problems.” As if the January plenum has not invited people to see the prospects and real development of picture of the relations between nationalities
[…]
“Henceforth not a single territorial issue [between us],” stated N. Narimanov on December 1st 1920 in the name Baku Soviet, “can become a reason for bloodshed between two neighboring peoples, Armenians and Muslims (Mohammedans). The provinces of Zangezur and Nakhichevan constitute inseparable parts of Armenia, while the laboring peasants of Mountainous Karabagh are given full right of self-determination.” And was it not Stalin who disrupted and made impossible the realization in the Leninist spirit of the decision? There are hundreds of Documents about this.
But the wallets of the Armenian writers are empty.
[…]
Who has given us the right to remain silent?
Should we still remain silent, now, when the party conference has unanimously raised the leninian flag which carries the words of the leader of the revolution “Our strength lies in stating the truth”.
[Vozni, Yerevan, September 1987]
The Karabagh File, Documents and Facts, 1918-1988, First Edition, Cambridge Toronto 1988, by the ZORYAN INSTITUTE, edited by: Gerard J. LIBARIDIAN, p. 68.
