Tweet
KARABAKH MOVEMENT: LOSSES AND GAINS - COMMENTS BY LITERARY CRITIC
17:33 * 12.02.15
http://www.tert.am/en/news/2015/02/12/hovik-charkhchyan/1587841
Launched with public rallies and a petition campaign for unification
with Armenia, the pan-national movement for the liberation of
Nagorno-Karabakh celebrates its 27th anniversary today. On this
remarkable occasion, Tert.am has interviewed Hovik Charkhchyan, an
Armenian writer and publicist, who was at the forefront of the 1988
national revival struggle.
As an activists of the Karabakh movement, what recollections do
you have today? How and in what circumstances in 1988 did you find
yourself in Yerevan's Theatrical [Freedom] Square, joining a vast
majority of the Armenian people?
It was in very interesting circumstances that I came to know of
the Karabakh movement. February 20, which we consider the Karabakh
movement's start, is also my sister's birthday, so we were celebrating
it at home. [Late Defense Minister and Premier] Vazgen Sargsyan, who
was among our guests, said he had heard about a movement in Yerevan,
with people gathering in the streets and making calls for unification
with Karabakh. That was our first knowledge about the sessions
convened in Karabakh and the decisions made (the legislative bodies'
decision on Nagorno-Karabakh's reunification with Armenia). There was
no access to such information then; the press wouldn't report anything.
And right there at the table, did we decide to head to Yerevan to see
what was going on. We went there in the morning and stayed for over
a week. All the developments in the city were concentrated in Liberty
Square, and that was beyond our understanding. It was something beyond
any description, which we could neither guess nor even think of.
People have now got accustomed to what is called square energetic.
What do you think could have attracted people - [representatives of]
the old and young generation shaped over the course of the 70 years of
Soviet rule - to the square, making them spend days and nights there.
I mean those people were not the present-day civic activists,
but rather, individuals with a completely different upbringing and
different set of values.
The entire charm about Theatrical Square was the very fact that
everything was totally new, totally unexpected and with dazzling
perceptions. It was the first time that people saw they could speak,
that they represented a power which has to be considered. They for
the first time saw leaders on square and on the podium; and for the
first time noticed that that they could say things which would be
heard and perceived.
We have intellectuals who can say, with ambiguous facial expressions,
that they do not like Theatrical Square, for instance. Why was that
square discredited later?
Anything good which turns into a means of deriving benefit or object
of bargaining immediately loses value and reputation. Understandably
enough, those huge masses must have had people who would turn out
"wittier" than other.
But when looked upon against the general background, those negative
phenomena are clearly pushed to the background, with only the
gains remaining ashore. And what we gained was independence, and
[Nagorno-]Karabakh. Of course, with major losses, which must never
be forgotten; they can be put almost on equal scales. And it is very
regrettable that such a beginning had such a bad end, because what
the huge mass were campaigning for - the united nucleus - left behind
absolutely no trace.
17:33 * 12.02.15
http://www.tert.am/en/news/2015/02/12/hovik-charkhchyan/1587841
Launched with public rallies and a petition campaign for unification
with Armenia, the pan-national movement for the liberation of
Nagorno-Karabakh celebrates its 27th anniversary today. On this
remarkable occasion, Tert.am has interviewed Hovik Charkhchyan, an
Armenian writer and publicist, who was at the forefront of the 1988
national revival struggle.
As an activists of the Karabakh movement, what recollections do
you have today? How and in what circumstances in 1988 did you find
yourself in Yerevan's Theatrical [Freedom] Square, joining a vast
majority of the Armenian people?
It was in very interesting circumstances that I came to know of
the Karabakh movement. February 20, which we consider the Karabakh
movement's start, is also my sister's birthday, so we were celebrating
it at home. [Late Defense Minister and Premier] Vazgen Sargsyan, who
was among our guests, said he had heard about a movement in Yerevan,
with people gathering in the streets and making calls for unification
with Karabakh. That was our first knowledge about the sessions
convened in Karabakh and the decisions made (the legislative bodies'
decision on Nagorno-Karabakh's reunification with Armenia). There was
no access to such information then; the press wouldn't report anything.
And right there at the table, did we decide to head to Yerevan to see
what was going on. We went there in the morning and stayed for over
a week. All the developments in the city were concentrated in Liberty
Square, and that was beyond our understanding. It was something beyond
any description, which we could neither guess nor even think of.
People have now got accustomed to what is called square energetic.
What do you think could have attracted people - [representatives of]
the old and young generation shaped over the course of the 70 years of
Soviet rule - to the square, making them spend days and nights there.
I mean those people were not the present-day civic activists,
but rather, individuals with a completely different upbringing and
different set of values.
The entire charm about Theatrical Square was the very fact that
everything was totally new, totally unexpected and with dazzling
perceptions. It was the first time that people saw they could speak,
that they represented a power which has to be considered. They for
the first time saw leaders on square and on the podium; and for the
first time noticed that that they could say things which would be
heard and perceived.
We have intellectuals who can say, with ambiguous facial expressions,
that they do not like Theatrical Square, for instance. Why was that
square discredited later?
Anything good which turns into a means of deriving benefit or object
of bargaining immediately loses value and reputation. Understandably
enough, those huge masses must have had people who would turn out
"wittier" than other.
But when looked upon against the general background, those negative
phenomena are clearly pushed to the background, with only the
gains remaining ashore. And what we gained was independence, and
[Nagorno-]Karabakh. Of course, with major losses, which must never
be forgotten; they can be put almost on equal scales. And it is very
regrettable that such a beginning had such a bad end, because what
the huge mass were campaigning for - the united nucleus - left behind
absolutely no trace.