"The Hunchakian Revolutionary Party 1887-1896" by Louise Nalbandian, 1963

"The Armenian Social-Democratic Hentchakist Party" by Hagop Turabian, 1916

"Revolutionary Armenians" - New York Times, 1894

 

The Hunchakian Revolutionary Party 1887-1896

Louise Nalbandian

The Hunchakian Revolutionary Party¹ was the first socialist party in Turkey and Persia. All its founders and theorists were Marxists.² It was formed by seven Russian Armenian students who had left Russia to continue their higher education in universities in Western Europe. They were young persons, in their twenties, and were from well‑to‑do bourgeois families who were financially supporting them. In the course of this chapter these individuals, where necessary, will be more fully identified. None of them ever lived under the Turkish flag, yet they were personally concerned with the living conditions of their ethnic brothers in Turkish Armenia. For the purpose of furthering revolutionary activity in Turkish Armenia, the seven young Armenians formed what was later to be called the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party in Geneva, Switzerland, in August, 1887.

PRELIMINARIES TO THE FOUNDING

The immediate motivation for the establishment of the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party had been the influence of the journal Armenia, published in Marseille by Mekertitch Portugalian. The Armenian students in Montpellier, Paris, and Geneva, who later became Hunchak leaders, had read in the pages of Portugalian's journal a proposal for a large organization that should contribute to the success of the revolutionary movement in Armenia. They had expected Portugalian to assume the leadership in such an enterprise, but they waited in vain for action. Instead, Portugalian continually postponed setting the exact time and place for a convention which should create the new organization.³ While this procrastination continued, Armenian students in Western Europe were coming into closer contact with one another and were soon to take definite steps toward the formation of a new political revolutionary organization.

In the summer of 1886 Avetis Nazarbekian (known also as Avetis Nazarbek and sometimes called Lerents), who had written some of the strongest revolutionary articles in the journal Armenia, traveled from Paris to Geneva. With him was his fiancée, Mariam Vardanian (Maro). Both Avetis and Maro were dynamic personalities in their twenties. Avetis, a strikingly handsome young man with the look of a poet, was a master of dialectics. His uncle, Melikazarian, one of the wealthiest Armenian capitalists of Tiflis (in Russian Transcaucasia), was financing his education.⁴ Maro was a vivacious and intelligent woman with a fiery disposition. After her graduation from the Tiflis Gymnasium she had gone to study in St. Petersburg, where she had become a member of a secret Russian revolutionary band. Because of political difficulties Maro had fled to Paris, where she had met Nazarbekian.⁵ Both were concentrating on the social sciences, from which they gained broader knowledge of the economic and political theories of the day. They were both very much in favor of the proposed convention for the formation of an Armenian revolutionary organization, and their enthusiasm made an indelible impression on four Russian Armenian students, Gabriel Kafian (Shemavon) and Ruben Khan‑Azat, both specializing in agriculture; Nicoli Matinian,⁶ and Mekertitch Manutcharian, all of whom were then in Geneva.

The constant subject of conversation among these students was the conditions in Turkish Armenia and the necessity for a revolutionary organization such as had been proposed in many of the articles in the Armenia.⁷ At this time (the summer of 1886), Avetis Nazarbekian sent a letter to Portugalian in which he suggested that, since the question of holding a convention had been postponed, donations should be sent to Portugalian for a future revolutionary organization of which Portugalian should be the temporary treasurer. Portugalian refused the offer, saying that he had already founded an organization, the bylaws of which would be published in a short time.⁸

When the students realized that they would not get the coöperation of Portugalian in forming the new revolutionary organization, they decided to act alone. Gabriel Kafian went to Montpellier to enlist the interest of Armenians there. On his return to Geneva he brought with him four Armenian students who seemed to be in harmony with his ideas. The students were Mattheos Shahazizian, who had written many revolutionary articles in the Armenia, Gevorg Gharadjian, Christopher Ohanian, and Poghos Afrikian. After a few months three of the students, Shahazizian, Afrikian, and Manutcharian, broke off relations with the rest of the group. By the late summer of 1886 only six Armenian students remained in the Geneva group: Avetis Nazarbekian and Mariam Vardanian from Paris, Gevorg Gharadjian and Christopher Ohanian from Montpellier, and Ruben Khan‑Azat and Gabriel Kafian from Geneva.⁹

These six students, who had made Geneva their headquarters, published and distributed a pamphlet by Nazarbekian entitled Armenian Eating Chameleon (Hayaker Kamelion). In the pamphlet these students severed their relations with Portugalian, the editor of the Armenia. Meanwhile, Portugalian published the bylaws of his newly founded organization, the Armenian Patriotic Union. The purpose of this Union was to send Armenian youth to Europe, where they were to be educated and were to return thereafter to improve Turkish Armenia. Portugalian's newly‑formed organization had nothing to do with the armed revolution that had been advocated by many Armenians in the pages of Armenia.¹⁰

Portugalian's former students in Van had responded to the journal Armenia by forming the Armenakan Party, which was operating on a small scale in the province of Van (see chapter iv). In contrast to the Armenakan Party, the six Armenian students whose headquarters was in Geneva had in mind designs for a large, powerful, active revolutionary party that would encompass the whole territory of Turkish Armenia and would have branches in the Armenian communities abroad. Dissatisfied with Portugalian's failure to give forceful leadership, the young students in Geneva decided, in 1886, to publish their own paper in opposition to Armenia. They began to raise funds for the journal by holding a "Caucasian Evening" at which they presented a drama and dance performance and had a buffet dinner. This social affair was attended by many students, faculty members, and friends, and proved to be financially profitable. The students then wrote to the Mekhitharist Monastery in Vienna for a font of Armenian type.¹¹ In the meantime they printed circulars and distributed them. Many were mailed to Armenians who were potential adherents of the revolutionary party, but this campaign had no success. They also drew up a program for the new revolutionary party.

THE PROGRAM

In the latter part of 1886 the six Geneva students chose a committee of three, consisting of Mariam Vardanian, Avetis Nazarbekian, and Gevorg Gharadjian, to draft the plan for the future organization.¹² The plan, which later became the program of the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party, may be summarized as follows:

I. The ideological impact of the times led them to a new view of society. They could now penetrate into current world conditions and see the inequalities that existed everywhere. The vast majority of the people were being oppressed and exploited by a small minority, who by virtue of their privileged positions were able to control and rule the impoverished masses.

To achieve full and real freedom for this large majority, it was imperative to establish a new order based on humanitarian and socialistic principles. The present state of affairs had to be destroyed by means of a revolution. Then, on the ashes of the old society, a new one might be built, based upon "economic truths" and "socialistic justice."

II. The immediate objective of the party was the political and national independence of Turkish Armenia. The conditions of the Armenians in Asiatic Turkey were described and the need to concentrate Hunchak activities in this area was explained. Here was set forth also the exploitation of the Armenians by the government, the aristocracy, and the capitalists through high taxes, land seizure, and the deprivation of the fruits of labor. Besides these injustices, the people were shorn of their political rights and were forced to remain silent in their position as slaves of their parasitic overlords. They were not free to worship as they pleased and lived forever in fear of marauding tribesmen. In order to save the Armenians from this slavery, the Hunchaks proposed to direct them on the road to socialism and to work toward their immediate objective, the freedom of Turkish Armenia.

After the immediate objective had been realized, certain political and economic aims were to be put into operation. The political aims were:

The economic aims of the new party were to be determined after careful investigation into the needs and desires of the people. Two economic objectives were described in the program. These were the establishment of a progressive system of taxation above a certain income bracket and a system of universal compulsory education.

Ill. The Hunchak program advocated revolution as the only means of reaching the immediate objective. The arena of revolutionary activity was designated as Turkish Armenia. The Hunchaks said that the existing social organization in Turkish Armenia could be changed by violence against the Turkish government and described the following methods: Propaganda, Agitation, Terror, Organization, and Peasant and Worker Activities.

Propaganda was to be directed to the people to educate them toward two goals. The party was to explain to them the basic reasons and the proper time for revolution against the government, thereby indoctrinating them with the basic idea of revolution. This goal, however, was not sufficient in itself. The people had to have a knowledge of the social order that was to be established after the successful revolution.

Agitation and Terror were needed to "elevate the spirit of the people." Demonstrations against the government, refusal to pay taxes, demands for reforms' and hatred of the aristocracy were part of the party's agitation campaign. The people were also to be incited against their enemies and were to "profit" from the retaliatory actions of these same enemies.

Terror was to be used as a method of protecting the people and winning their confidence in the Hunchak program. The party aimed at terrorizing the Ottoman government, thus contributing toward lowering the prestige of that regime and working toward its complete disintegration. The government itself was not to be the only focus of terroristic tactics. The Hunchaks wanted to annihilate the most dangerous of the Armenian and Turkish individuals who were then working for the government, as well as to destroy all spies and informers. To assist them in carrying out all of these terroristic acts, the party was to organize an exclusive branch, specifically devoted to performing acts of terrorism.

The Organization of the party was to be a centralized system directed by a central executive committee. The Hunchaks believed that the revolution could not be won by the participation of the party organization alone. They considered it absolutely essential to win the active support of the peasants and workers. There were to be two large revolutionary groups, one of peasants and the other of workers. Besides these separate groups, there would be guerrilla bands, composed of both peasants and workers, who would become fighting units during the anticipated revolution. The role of the peasants and workers was not to end after the victory, for the Hunchaks saw in these two groups the very basis of the society that was to be thereafter established. The peasants and workers were to protect the gains and interests of the people, and were to take the reins of government and rule according to democratic principles. The plan giving the details of these governing principles was to be published at a later date.

IV. The most opportune time to institute the general rebellion for carrying out the immediate objective was when Turkey was engaged in a war. The Hunchaks were ready to fight not only the Ottoman regime, but any other power that wished to dominate Turkish Armenia.

The non‑Armenians of Turkish Armenia were not overlooked. The party declared that in order to better the condition of the non‑Armenians, it was necessary to get the sympathy of other minorities, such as the Assyrians and Kurds, for the revolutionary cause. These groups were to help bring about a revolution against the Turkish government when circumstances should be favorable.

V. This final part of the program pointed out that the greatest number of Armenians lived in Turkish Armenia, and that the area also comprised the largest part of historic Armenia. Here the majority of the Armenian people were living under impossible conditions imposed by their Ottoman rulers, as the Great Powers had recognized when they sanctioned reform in Turkish Armenia in Article LXI of the Treaty of Berlin.

These considerations led the Hunchaks to demand that all revolutionary forces devote themselves to winning the independence of Turkish Armenia. Again, the party cautioned its followers against the selfish interests of other powers in regard to this region, and predicted that, after the fall of the already bankrupt Ottoman regime, the European Powers would systematically carve up the empire, including Turkish Armenia, for themselves. The Hunchaks therefore warned against allowing Turkish Armenia merely to pass from the hands of one oppressive overlord to another. Here they again restated their "immediate objective" ‑ the political independence of Turkish Armenia.

The program envisaged a continuation of the fighting after the establishment of an independent Turkish Armenia. The revolution would then be extended into the Russian and Persian dominated areas of Armenia, with the purpose of establishing a politically independent Armenian federative democratic republic composed of Turkish, Russian, and Persian Armenia. The independent country would then lead the Armenians in the homeland and abroad toward the Hunchak "future objective" ‑ a socialistic society for all humanity.

In a short note inserted at the end of the program, the Hunchaks reaffirmed the need for a government based on democratic principles, which they considered an absolute necessity for the progress of all humanity. Progress, it added, was impossible under the Turkish regime, or in any other autocratic state ‑ even in a government ruled by an Armenian nobility or by Armenian autocrats. The sole guarantee for Armenian progress was a free people's government in an independent Armenia.¹³

Two predominant objectives were revealed in the program. The immediate objective was the independence of Turkish Armenia; the future objective was Socialism. These two objectives were complementary. Both liberation and the building of socialism were to be striven for at the same time. The breadth of the political and ideological objectives of the Hunchaks is noteworthy. They were the only Armenian political party in the nineteenth century whose program unambiguously demanded an independent and unified Armenian Republic, and beyond this, a socialistic order for all the peoples of the world.

The program of the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party was both socialistic and nationalistic. The first part proclaimed the Marxian class struggle and predicted the triumph of the exploited classes through revolution. It called for "economic truths," which, although not described in detail, can be attributed to Marxian influences. Hunchak adherence to Marxian dialectical materialism is later defined in the pages of its party organ and other official publications.

The plan as a whole reflected the influence of Russian revolutionary thought. The "methods" outlined in part three very nearly duplicated those put forth in the Russian Narodnaya Volya (People's Will), and strikingly coincided with it in regard to propaganda, agitation, and terror. Also following Narodnaya Volya, the organization was based on a centralized system of administration. The proposed use of guerrilla bands, however, was probably a result of Greek and Bulgarian revolutionary influence.

It is not surprising that these students were so strongly influenced by the Russian Narodniki. All of them were either born in Russia or educated there, and all were well acquainted with Russian revolutionary ideology.¹⁴ Mariam Vardanian (Maro), a member of the committee that wrote the plans for the revolutionary organization, had worked with the Russian revolutionaries in St. Petersburg and, according to the late Mushegh Seropian, hers was the ruling intellect of the group.¹⁵

The Geneva students also associated and were on good terms with the Russian Social Democrats G. V. Plekhanov and Vera Zasulich, who were then in Geneva.¹⁶ Both had been former members of the secret Russian revolutionary societies Zemlya i Volya (Land and Freedom) and Cherny Peredyel (Black‑Earth Distribution), and at the time of the founding of the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party, Plekhanov was known as the leading Russian exponent of Marxism.

Nationalism is evident throughout the program. The immediate objective itself ‑ the independence of Turkish Armenia ‑ shows the patriotism of the young founders. Part two is almost entirely devoted to a sympathetic description of the Armenians in Asiatic Turkey. Nowhere in the program is there any sign of conflict between national aspirations and universal socialism. For the Hunchaks, nationalism and socialism were mutually compatible and could be harmoniously developed together.

Although the Hunchaks were strong nationalists, this did not prevent them from concerning themselves with the condition of the non‑Armenians in Armenia. Yet, while Assyrians and Kurds are specifically referred to in their program, there is no mention of the Turkish people. This is a conspicuous omission. But it should be noted that the party, from its early days, made a distinction between the Turkish government and the Turkish people.¹⁷ The party did not necessarily identify the Turkish people with their corrupt administrator, and worked with Turk as well as with Greek, Assyrian, Druz, Kurd, and Turkornan revolutionists.¹⁸

The students unanimously accepted the plan that had been drawn up by their committee. The name of the new revolutionary organization had not as yet been chosen. In the sequel, it was named after its party organ, the Hunchak (or Hentchak), the Armenian word for bell. The name was reminiscent of the journal Kolokol (Bell) published by Alexander Herzen, a contributor to the ideology of the Russian social revolutionaries.

THE FOUNDING AND ACTIVITIES, 1887‑1890

The party of the Hunchaks, founded in Geneva in August, 1887,¹⁹ did not have an official name until 1890, when it became known as the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party. The seven official founders were Avetis Nazarbekian, Mariam Vardanian (Maro), Gevorg Gharadjian, Ruben Khan‑Azat, Christopher Ohanian, Gabriel Kafian, and Levon Stepanian.²⁰

When at last the Armenian type arrived in Geneva, the students began at once to learn how to set it up and to prepare the paper. Nazarbekian and Gharadjian, who were the best equipped in the Armenian language, were appointed to write the articles for the first issue. These were read orally to the rest of the students to obtain their approval. When Gharadjian's article was rejected he was so angered that he broke off relations with the others of the group.²¹ Nazarbekian's articles were accepted and published in the first issue of the Hunchak (Bell). The paper first appeared in Geneva in November, 1887, three months after the party was formed.

The first editorial of the Hunchak appealed to its readers to join the party and spread revolutionary activity. Although the ideology of the party was socialistic, help from the capitalist European Powers was to be accepted if any was forthcoming. The first editorial read in part:²²

The accomplishment of the freedom of Armenia from Turkey cannot be realized from the outside alone, but it can succeed from within. If we fold our hands and wait for European intervention, the Armenian people will sink into unbearable misfortune. It is true that there may be created such political upheavals that a particular European government might find it profitable to bring forth the Armenian Question and might, in a direct or indirect manner, demand its just solution. Just as in the past, such possible circumstances make it necessary for us to prepare for such an occasion from which to benefit. However, we must add that the present policy and diplomacy of the European Powers is like a windmill ‑ it turns in this direction of the wind today, while tomorrow, according to the pleasures of the same wind, it may turn in the opposite direction.

The publication of the Hunchak was accomplished in complete secrecy. Three false addresses were given so that no one would know the paper was being published in Geneva. All correspondence and gifts went to three addresses, in Paris, Montpellier, and Geneva. The students were particularly careful about copies of the paper that were sent to Turkey and Russia, since they could not gain legal entry there. Such copies were printed on thin paper, wrapped in packages, and posted at intervals from Paris, Geneva, and Leipzig.²³

The students published their program for the first time in the October‑November 1888 issue of the Hunchak, and also in a separate pamphlet.²⁴ The implementation of the Hunchak program encountered strong resistance from various intransigent religious, nationalistic, and social groups in the Ottoman Empire.

To get the sympathy and coöperation of the Moslem masses, the Hunchaks distributed among them propaganda literature in the Turkish language,²⁵ but considering the profound differences that existed between the Moslems and Christians, the Hunchak efforts were bound to encounter great opposition. The Pan‑Islamic movement, which had been fostered by Sultan Abdul Hamid II, had greatly deepened the cleavage between the followers of the two faiths. This new Islamic movement stressed the superiority of Islam and had as its object the unifying of all the Moslems under the Ottoman Caliph ‑ Sultan Abdul Hamid Il.

The socialistic ideas of the Hunchaks were disapproved by some important Armenian groups as well, especially by the Russian Armenian bourgeoisie. At first the latter extended some help to the Hunchaks in their revolutionary activity, but at no time were they willing to accept socialistic doctrines. The initial cooperation came to an abrupt end, and the wealthy Russian Armenian bourgeoisie, as a whole, decided to resist the spread of Hunchak influence. The well‑to‑do Armenians in Turkey also found it to their advantage to condemn Hunchak ideas and activity.²⁶ Despite any such ideological enemies however, the Hunchaks were still determined to launch their program in Turkish Armenia.

The Hunchaks quite naturally chose Constantinople for the center of their organization and activity in Turkey. Within seven months they enlisted seven hundred members in the capital. Most of the members came from the educated class; they were mainly persons who held positions in foreign consulates and maritime companies.²⁷ The Hunchaks sent out leaders from Geneva and Constantinople to numerous towns and villages in Turkey to organize the Armenians. The places in Asiatic Turkey to which these leaders went included Bafra, Marsovan, Amasia, Tokat, Yozgat, Akin, Arabkir, and Trebizond.²⁸ It was not long before hundreds of young Armenians in Turkey, Russia, and Persia rallied to the Hunchak banner. The Hunchaks also attracted supporters in Europe and the United States. In 1890 the union of the separate groups resulted in the adoption of the party's official name, the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party.²⁹

The party translated the Communist Manifesto into Armenian and published Marxist writings in the pages of the Hunchak, but these had no important effect upon the Armenians. Many party members were not socialists by persuasion, but rather joined the Hunchaks because of their immediate objective of winning the freedom of Turkish Armenia. The Hunchaks, in fact, did not insist that those who joined them should adopt socialistic principles. This fact cannot be over‑emphasized, for it will account for much of the future strife within the ranks of the party.

THE DEMONSTRATION OF KUM KAPU

The Hunchakian Revolutionary Party revealed its power for the first time in Constantinople on Sunday, July 15, 1890, when it organized the Demonstration of Kum Kapu. The purpose of the demonstration was "... to awaken the maltreated Armenians and to make the Sublime Porte fully aware of the miseries of the Armenians." ³⁰ The demonstration started in the Armenian Cathedral in the Armenian Quarter of Kum Kapu. Here Patriarch Khoren Ashegian was addressing a large congregation gathered for the Vartavar (Transfiguration of our Lord) services. In the cathedral, Haruthiun Tjankulian, a party member, read a Hunchak protest directed to the Sultan which advocated Armenian reforms. Afterward, he went to the Patriarchate and smashed the Turkish coat of arms.³¹ Although the Armenian Patriarch protested, he was forced by the Hunchaks to join them in presenting the protest to the Sultan. Hardly had the procession toward Yildiz Palace started when it was blocked by Turkish soldiers, and a riot ensued in which a number of people were killed and wounded.³² Tjankulian, who was considered the Hunchak hero of the demonstration, was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Porte ignored the reforms urged by the Hunchaks, and the European Powers did not support them. Instead, a number of Hunchak leaders, as well as other demonstrators, were killed, wounded, and imprisoned. The casualties were not confined to Armenians alone, for a Turkish gendarme and a soldier were also killed during the riot.³³ Although the Demonstration of Kum Kapu was obviously unsuccessful, it did have an importance, for it "... appears to be the first occasion since the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks on which Christians dared resist soldiers in Stamboul." ³⁴

The Hunchaks believed that the Demonstration of Kum Kapu, though in some degree a failure, had nonetheless served to arouse the European Powers in regard to the Armenian Question. The Hunchak³⁵ wrote that England and Russia were vitally concerned with the whole Eastern Question, but could not agree between themselves about it. England wished to control Crete, and Russia was desirous of adding Turkish Armenia to its own territory.³⁶ The Hunchaks opposed Russian territorial aims and insisted on a completely independent Armenia. They would reject any European proposals that were contrary to that supreme objective, and declared themselves ready to shed their "last drop of blood" for the cause.³⁷

These party declarations were bold statements, which, when analyzed, bring up the following questions. How much blood was to be sacrificed for the revolution and who were to die for the cause ‑ only a few Hunchak revolutionaries or numerous Armenian inhabitants of the interior provinces? What would be the value of an independent country whose people had been nearly wiped out in the revolutionary process? The opponents of the Hunchaks were not willing to see a large part of their nation destroyed in order that the Hunchaks might attain a dubious political goal.

But the Hunchaks were not to be deterred. They continued to organize demonstrations and insurrections in towns and villages inhabited by Armenians. In 1891 they joined the Oriental Federation, which was composed of Macedonian, Albanian, Cretan, and Greek revolutionaries,³⁸ hoping to synchronize their efforts. Hunchak revolutionary activities were markedly evident in 1892, and even more so in 1893. The Hunchaks made the most of Turkish oppression by spreading various alarming reports through their publications, including exaggerations of Turkish atrocities. Hunchak revolutionaries posted placards on public buildings and walls of houses in the regions of Marsovan, Yozgat, Amasia, Chorum, Tokat, Angora, Sivas, and Diarbekiar.³⁹ These placards were in Turkish and were addressed to Moslems everywhere, including India, encouraging them to rebel against oppression. By such methods the Hunchaks hoped to arouse the Turkish people against their government.⁴⁰

On January 5, 1893, the placards were posted in Marsovan on the premises of Anatolia College, which was administered by the American Missionary Board. This act aroused the Turkish government against the missionaries.⁴¹ The Reverend Edwin Bliss has written that Professors Thoumaian and Kayayan, who were members of the faculty, were accused, though without proof, of having something to do with the placards, and they were arrested and imprisoned. Although the Turkish authorities may not have had definite evidence against Professor Thoumaian, we know from the Hunchak Aderbed (Sarkis Mubailiadjian) that Thoumaian was carefully watched by the government and that, as early as 1891, he and other Hunchaks were consulting with one another and planning revolution against the state.

In 1893 the Turkish government arrested and hanged many revolutionaries as well as other prominent Armenian intellectuals, merchants, and clergymen, especially in the region of Marsovan and Yozgat. In the same year the famous Hunchak hero and revolutionary pioneer, Zhirayr Poyadjian, brother of Murat (Hambardsum Poyadjian), was also hanged by the Turkish government in Yozgat. Also in 1893 Damadian, another Hunchak leader, was arrested on the road between Moush and Sassun.⁴²

THE SASSUN REBELLION

In the region of Sassun (located in the province of Bitlis), a revolutionary named Damadian, the Hunchaks, and others had been exciting hostilities between the Kurds and the Armenians;⁴³ and in August, 1894, an actual rebellion broke out. The Sassun Rebellion represented one of the major efforts of the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party against the Turkish government and the Kurds.

In the region of Sassun the Armenians had been paying tribute (hafir) to the Kurds to assure themselves of Kurdish protection and assistance. The size of the annual tribute was assessed according to the resources of the Armenians. Any refusal to pay elicited prompt and violent Kurdish reprisals; yet, somehow, the two peoples got along without actual fighting until about 1890‑1891. There were two primary reasons why hostilities should flare up at that time: (1) the establishment of a solidarity among the Kurdish tribes through religious propaganda of the sheiks; and (2) agitation among the Armenians, which had been started by such men as Damadian and later continued by the Hunchak Murat (Hambardsum Poyadjian). The rebellion began when the Kurds, secretly encouraged by the Turkish government, attacked and plundered the Armenian village of Talori.

In the spring of 1894 the Hunchak leader Murat had arrived in the region of Sassun. He too, like Damadian, encouraged the Armenians to refuse to pay the hafir and to free themselves from what he called a system of bondage. Murat and a band of followers started minor acts of aggression against the Kurds, who countered with attacks against the Armenians. The government interpreted the Armenian activities in Sassun as a rebellion against the state and sent troops to quell it.⁴⁴

Under Murat's leadership the Armenians resisted the far superior Turkish forces for more than a month; but the Turks finally succeeded in capturing Murat and a number of his men⁴⁵ and in subduing the Armenians. This latest Armenian uprising and the Turkish reprisals had aroused Great Britain, France, and Russia, who sent a Commission of Inquiry to Sassun to investigate the situation. The Commission found that the sole crimes of which the Armenians were guilty were that they (1) had sheltered Murat and his band; (2) had indulged in a few isolated acts of brigandage; and (3) had resisted the government troops under conditions that were not entirely clear.⁴⁶ The Commission concluded that the thorough Turkish devastation of the region was far in excess of what the punishment for the revolt should have been. It formally stated its belief that the misery to which the Armenians were reduced could not be justified.⁴⁷

The Hunchaks considered the Sassun Rebellion a great victory for their party as well as for the Armenian cause. They believed that because of their revolutionary activities, particularly in Sassun, the European Powers at last had recognized the crying need for reforms in Armenia. On May 11, 1895, indeed, Great Britain, France, and Russia sent a memorandum to Sultan Abdul Hamid II urging reforms in the six Turkish Armenian provinces.⁴⁸

The Memorandum⁴⁹ included a Project of Reforms for the Eastern Provinces of Asia Minor.⁵⁰ Instead of signing and enforcing this program, Sultan Abdul Hamid procrastinated as usual. In the meantime the persecution of the Armenians continued, especially in the Armenian provinces.

THE DEMONSTRATION OF BAB ALI

In a protest against the Sultan's refusal to decree reforms, the Hunchaks staged the Demonstration of Bab Ali in Constantinople on September 18/30, 1895. The demonstration was accompanied by much bloodshed. At this time the Hunchaks decided to present their own petition ‑ which they called their "Protest‑Demand" ‑ to the Sultan. For a better understanding of this demonstration we should first examine the organization of the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party in Constantinople.

In the Turkish capital there were two separate Hunchak committees. One was the Board of Directors; the other was the Executive Committee. The Board gave instructions for nearly all of the revolutionary activity in Turkey, with the knowledge and approval of the General Headquarters at Geneva. The Executive Committee of Constantinople directed the organizational work according to the instructions of the Board of Directors. The members of the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee did not know one another, but there was complete coöperation between them. This coöperation was achieved by having one man, called the Representative of the Two Committees, who acted as the intermediary between the two groups.⁵¹

The Executive Committee, after receiving the order from the Board of Directors to organize the Demonstration of Bab Ali, chose three men to supervise the project. The leader was Karo Sahakian (Heverhili Karon).⁵² Patriarch Mattheos Ismirlian, hearing rumors of a demonstration, called Karo and asked if the rumors were true. If there was to be a demonstration, the Patriarch insisted that it should be a peaceful one. Karo also wished a peaceful demonstration, but some members of the Committee did not agree; the matter was left to the Board of Directors, who decided that it should be peaceful.⁵³

Months of secret preparations ended on September 16/28, 1895. On that day the Hunchaks presented the following letter, written in French, to the foreign embassies and to the Turkish government:⁵⁴

Your Excellency,

The Armenians of Constantinople have decided to make shortly a demonstration, of a strictly peaceful character, in order to give expression to their wishes with regard to the reforms to be introduced in the Armenian provinces. As it is not intended that this demonstration shall be in any way aggressive the intervention of the police and military for the purpose of preventing it may have regrettable consequences, for which we disclaim beforehand all responsibility.

Organizing Committee
(Seal of the Hintchak Society)⁵⁵

The demonstration took place on Monday, September 18, 1895, two days after the foreign embassies were informed. The Turkish government had itself taken security measures; soldiers were posted on the streets around administrative buildings, and the police in Constantinople were alerted for possible action. It was almost noon on Monday when the Hunchak leaders entered the Armenian Patriarchate, from which they were to lead thousands of demonstrators to the palace of the Sultan.⁵⁶

The Hunchak Karo, the head of the demonstration, was to present the petition to the Sultan on behalf both of the Armenians of Constantinople and of the six Armenian provinces. The petition, written by the Hunchak Board of Directors, complained against (1) the systematic massacre of the Armenians by the Turkish government, (2) the unjust arrest and the cruel punishments of prisoners, (3) the Kurdish injustices, (4) the corruption of tax collectors, and (5) the massacre at Sassun. It demanded: (1) equality before the law; freedom of the press; freedom of speech; and freedom of assembly; (2) that all persons under arrest be given the right of habeas corpus, and that the Armenians be granted permission to bear arms if the Kurds could not be disarmed; (3) a new political delineation of the six Armenian provinces; (4) a European governor for the six Armenian provinces; and (5) financial and land reforms.⁵⁷

In their petition the Hunchaks expressed the principle of "egalitarianism" by asking that the rights demanded for themselves also be given such other Ottoman subjects as were without such rights. They warned that if the situation continued as it was the Ottoman Empire itself would suffer.⁵⁸

Karo Sahakian and some of the demonstrators, after reaching the Gates of Bab Ali, were denied entrance by the officer in charge, and Karo was seized by the zaptiehs (Turkish police). Severe fighting and violence broke out at once. In the meantime Karo was brought before a Turkish official, who, after receiving the petition, had him imprisoned. On that Monday, and for several days ensuing, hundreds of demonstrators were imprisoned. The prisons became crowded with wounded men, and scores of dead bodies were collected from the streets of Constantinople.⁵⁹

The rioting and bloodshed in Constantinople alarmed the Turkish government and disturbed Europe. The Ottoman Council of Ministers assembled to discuss the situation, while some of the leading European papers gave much attention to the rioting in Constantinople. The London Times on October 1, 1895, described "the affair" as one of "a most grave character." It went on to say that "the rioters, who were armed, offered a most stubborn resistance," and that "the Armenians, on being arrested, were thrown to the ground, disarmed, beaten, and then bound." ⁶⁰

Even before the Demonstration of Bab Ali, the Europeans were of course aware of the Armenian Question, as it was generally referred to at the time. During the years 1894‑1895, hundreds of books, pamphlets, and articles relating to the Armenian atrocities were disseminated in Europe (especially in England) and in the United States. British public opinion, in particular, favored a peaceful and friendly solution of the Armenian Question. In any event, the Powers were now made to realize the seriousness of the situation and they (England, France, and Russia, supported by Germany, Austria, and Italy) demanded that the Sultan introduce the Armenian Reform Program of May 11, 1895.⁶¹

The pressure of the European governments induced Sultan Abdul Hamid to sign the Armenian Reform Program on October 17, 1895, about a month after the bloody demonstration. The Hunchakian Revolutionary Party considered this a great victory, and their party organ, the Hunchak, carried the following:

A telegram received today, the 18th, communicates the news that at last the Sultan, by signing an official irade, has accepted the recently revised Armenian Reform Program presented to him by the three Great Powers in May.

Thus, at last, we have forced our ferocious executioner to recognize the rights of the Armenian people, to listen to their voice, and to bow before their aspirations and moral strength.

Thus, at last, today all the Armenians and the whole world are witnesses to the Party's great victory, which we won by the expenditure of so much blood and zeal.

Thus, this work of ours has been great and triumphant.⁶²

Unfortunately, the Hunchaks and the Armenians in general were too optimistic. The signing of the Armenian Reform Program by Abdul Hamid did not bring peace to the Armenians in Turkey. Like so many of the Sultanic irades (decrees), this one, too, became a dead letter, and the persecution of the Armenians continued.

THE ZEITUN REBELLION

Previous to the signing of the Reform Program, Zeitun had once again become the center of Armenian protest against the Ottoman regime. Since the Zeitun Rebellion of 1862 the inhabitants of Zeitun never ceased criticizing the central government. Their resentment was heightened in 1878, when, following another rebellion the Turks built a fortress at the entrance of the town. On October 12, 1895, the Zeitunlis rebelled once again ‑ this time under the guidance of the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party. The six Hunchak leaders in Zeitun ‑ Aghassi, Apah, Heratchia, Neshan, Meleh, and Karapet ‑ hoped that the uprising of Armenians there would be quickly followed by Armenians throughout Cilicia.⁶³

Before the insurrection gained momentum, Turkish forces attacked Alabash, an Armenian village near Zeitun.⁶⁴ This was the beginning of fighting that was to involve Zeitun as well as the numerous nearby villages. After four months of fierce fighting the Zeitun Rebellion ended on February 1, 1896,⁶⁵ following the intervention of the European Powers. After laborious negotiations the peace terms formulated by the six European consuls of Aleppo were accepted by the Porte. These peace terms, as summarized by the French ambassador to Constantinople, were as follows:

Surrender of all war arms; a general armistice; expulsion from the territory of the Empire of five foreign revolutionary committee members [all Hunchaks]; abandonment by the Porte of all arrears of taxes; promise of reduction of land taxes; and application of reforms contained in the general act.⁶⁶

However, these peace terms, like the Armenian Reform Program, soon became non‑effective.

The most active era of the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party ended in 1896. The primary purpose of the party's activities since 1887 had been to bring about European intervention with the Porte in favor of freeing Turkish Armenia. But, as it turned out, the Hunchaks had little success in securing European support.

The result of the Demonstration of Kurn Kapu (1890) was the sacrifice of many Armenian lives without either persuading Turkey to carry out the promised reforms or convincing the European Powers that they should force Turkey to do so. The rebellion precipitated by the Hunchaks at Sassun (1894), which cost the lives of thousands of Armenians, succeeded in bringing a Commission of Inquiry to Sassun, and compelled the European Powers to present the Armenian Reform Program to the Sultan on May 11, 1895. But history showed that the program of reforms proposed by the European Powers was not worth these thousands of human lives. Although the immediate result of the Demonstration of Bab Ali (September 18, 1895) had been the signing of the Reform Program by Sultan Hamid, the bloody demonstration in the long run was of little value because the Program was never enforced. Even the military victory of the Hunchaks in the Zeitun Rebellion of October, 1895‑February, 1896, when the Turks suffered heavier casualties than did the Zeitunlis, was hollow, since the Turks could afford heavy sacrifices of men, and no amelioration of conditions followed.

The Hunchaks relied in vain on the European Powers to use coercive measures against the Sultan for the purpose of making him put into effect the Armenian Reform Program which he had signed in October, 1895. The activities of the Hunchaks had only helped to enrage Sultan Abdul Hamid II, who already hated the Armenians and feared that they, like the Balkan countries, would obtain their freedom.

It was evident that the Sultan had decided to settle the Armenian Question in his own way ‑ by the massacres of 1894 and 1895, culminating in that of 1896. Thus, the year 1896 brought one of the blackest pages in the history of the Armenian people, as well as a near deathblow to the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party.

SPLIT IN THE PARTY

In 1896 there was much dissension among the members of the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party. The two primary causes for this disunity were socialism and differences concerning tactics. Many of the members of the party believed that the European Powers had abandoned the Armenian Question because of the socialist doctrine of the Hunchaks. These members insisted that the socialist doctrine be eliminated from the party's program and that the party should work solely for the political independence of Armenia.⁶⁷

The dissenters also blamed Nazarbekian, the editor of the Hunchak, for their party failures. They criticized him for writing editorials that advocated insurrections and incited fighting wherever there were Armenian revolutionaries. They likewise accused him of writing indiscreet editorials that gave the Turkish officials much information that was detrimental to the revolutionary cause.⁶⁸

The party soon fell into two factions. One was the pro-Nazarbekian faction, which was in accord with the existing program of the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party; the other was the anti‑Nazarbekian faction, which desired the elimination of socialism from the party program and called for changes in tactics and administration.

In contrast to conflicts in European socialist organizations of the day, the rift in the Hunchaks was not based on variations in socialist ideology. The anti‑Nazarbekian faction wished to eliminate socialism completely from the program, leaving no room for compromise within a socialistic framework. The August 1896 convention of the anti‑Nazarbekians firmly excluded socialism from their own program, saying that it was not necessary for the freedom of Turkish Armenia; at the same time they decided to work in absolute secrecy. Two years later (1898), at a meeting in Alexandria, Egypt, they reasserted their London decisions of 1896 and named their organization the Reformed Hunchakian Party.⁶⁹

The anti‑Nazarbekians demanded that a meeting be held to elect a new Central Committee, but this demand was refused by Nazarbekian and his wife Maro, both of whom were on the Central Committee.⁷⁰ The pro‑Nazarbekians accused their adversaries of trying to hold a meeting before that of the Second General Congress of the Hunchaks, which was to take place in September of that same year (1896).⁷¹ The anti‑Nazarbekians, whose request for a meeting was refused, decided not to wait for the convocation of the General Congress, but held a convention of their faction in London, in August, 1896. The inter‑party conflict of the Hunchaks at London in 1896 took place in the shadow of the Fourth Congress of the Second International, held July 27‑31, 1896.⁷² It is not known whether there was any direct connection between the Hunchak clash and the Socialist International Congress at London.⁷³

The Hunchakian Revolutionary Party, now no longer including the anti‑Nazarbekian faction, held its Second General Congress in London during September, 1896. In that year the party decided to abandon its old policy of public demonstrations, but its organ, the Hunchak, persisted in maintaining socialist doctrines.⁷⁴ Many pamphlets, mostly translations from Marxist ideology, continued to be printed,⁷⁵ and the party continued the publication of Aptak (Slap), a satirical journal on political and national affairs, which was first published in Athens during the year 1894.⁷⁶

The 1896 rift among the Hunchaks markedly weakened the party. Still another political party, later known as the Armenian Revolutionary Federation or Dashnaktsuthiun, which had been established on Russian soil in 1890, became a prominent revolutionary organization. The Hunchakian Revolutionary Party had been invited to join the Dashnaktsuthiun in 1890 and had temporarily merged with the new federation, but this association endured for less than a year. After certain disruptions, which will be described in chapter vii, the Hunchaks completely separated from the newly formed party and continued as a separate organization. They continued to form Hunchak branches in cities and towns in Turkish, Russian, and Persian Armenia and in communities among the Armenians of the Diaspora, as far off as the United States. These branches remained in existence even after 1896, when the most active period of the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party came to an end.

While the Hunchaks were launching their vigorous campaign in Turkish Armenia, the Dashnaktsuthiun was establishing a firm foothold among the Armenians in Russia and was beginning to make itself felt in Turkish Armenia. Previous to the establishment of this new political party in 1890, revolutionary circles had already existed among the Armenians in Russia during the 'sixties, 'seventies, and ‘eighties. We shall next consider these early organizations in Russia, which were devoted to aiding and if possible liberating the downtrodden Armenians under Turkish rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------

NOTES TO CHAPTER V (Pp. 104‑131)

1. In 1890 the organization was officially named the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party. The name was changed in 1905 to Hunchakian Social Democrat Party and then in 1909 to Social Democrat Hunchakian Party, the name it bears to the present day. Hunchakian has been rendered in various spellings: Hunchag, Hentchak, Hentchag, Hintchak, Hintchag.

2. Hagop Turabian, "The Armenian Social Democratic Hentchakist Party," Ararat, Ill (July 1915‑June 1916), 451, 456.

3. Ruben Khan‑Azat, "Hai Heghapokhakani Husherits" ["Memoirs of an Armenian Revolutionary"], Hairenik Amsagir, V (June 1927), 69.

4. Personal interview with the Armenian musicologist Rouben Tigranian, a native of Tiflis. He was personally acquainted with Avetis Nazarbekian as well as his uncle, Melikazarian of Tiflis.

5. Shortly afterward, Avetis Nazarbekian and Mariam Vardanian (Maro) were married. They had two children, a boy, Vatya, and a girl, Byelka. The Nazarbekian family resided in England, but in later years the couple was divorced and Avetis married his cousin. In 1927 Avetis Nazarbekian was in the United States and on the invitation of the Committee of Revolutionary History in Moscow, he went to the Soviet capital, where he was to write a history of the Hunchaks. For a short notice of the Nazarbekians in England in the 1890's see David Garnett, The Golden Echo (New York, 1954), pp. 39‑40.

6. Nicoli Matinian had to return to Tiflis because of financial difficulties during the first days that Avetis Nazarbekian and Mariam Vardanian came to Geneva.

7. Khan‑Azat, op. cit., p. 69.

8. Ibid., p. 71.

9. Ibid., p. 70.

10. Ibid., p. 71.

11. Khan‑Azat, Hairenik Amsagir, V (July 1927), 53.

12. Ibid., p. 54.

13. Hunchak, October‑November 1888. Hunchak is also spelled Hentchak.

14. Leo, Thiurkahai Heghapokhuthian Gaghaparabanuthiune, I, 148-152; Avetis Nazarbekian, although born in Tabriz (Persia), was con­sidered a Russian Armenian because he had lived in Russia since his childhood and had been educated there. Khan‑Azat, Hairenik Amsagir, V (July 1927), 54, states that all the Hunchak founders, including himself, were Russian Armenians.

15. From a personal interview with the late Mushegh Scropian, former Armenian Archbishop of Cilicia, and one of the first members of the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party. He was personally well acquainted with the founders of the party.

16. Khan‑Azat, Hairenik Amsagir, V (July 1927), 55.

17. Hemayeak Aramiants, Veratzenundi Erkunke [The Pains of Rebirth] (Constantinople, 1918), pp. 13‑14.

18. Aderbed (Sarkis Mubaihadjian), 50 Amyak 1878‑1928 Voskya Hobelian Hai Heghapokhuthian [Fiftieth Year, 1878‑1928 ‑ the Golden jubilee of the Armenian Revolution], MS dated Leninakan (Soviet Armenia), December 31, 1927.

19. "Soc. Dem. Hunch. Kus. Amer‑i Sherdjan" ["Social Democrat Hunchakian Party of America"], Hunchak Taregirk [Hunchak Yearly] (New York, 1932), p. 25. Hereafter cited as Hunchak Taregirk.

20. Levon Stepanian is considered the seventh of the founders of the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party although he was not in Geneva when the plans were drawn up. At that time he was studying in Montpellier and was planning to graduate in the winter of 1887. He had already expressed an ardent desire to join the party. Therefore, the six students in Geneva sent him the plans, which he, too, wholeheartedly accepted. After his graduation he joined his friends in Geneva.

21. Gevorg Gharadjian, who was a dedicated Marxist, went to Montpellier and then to the Caucasus. There he joined the ranks of the Russian Social Democratic Party. He said that when he was among the group the name of the party had not been chosen and that only after the Hunchak was published did the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party come into existence.

22. Hunchak, November 1887.

23. Khan‑Azat, Hairenik Amsagir, V (July 1927), 62.

24. Dzragir Hunchakian Kusaktsuthian [Program of the Hunchakian Party] (2d ed.; London, 1897), Preface; this special pamphlet was an abridged edition of the program. The second edition of the program printed in 1897 was also abridged.

25. Hunchak Taregirk, p. 31.

26. Sahakian, "S.D. Hunch. Kusaktsuthian Goyuthian Antscalin yev Nerkayis" ["On the Existence of the S.D. Hunchakian Party in the Past and in the Present"], Eritassard Hayastan [Young Armenia], 1944.

27. Aderbed, op. cit.

28. Ibid.

29. Turabian, op. cit., p. 456.

30. Hobelianakan Tonakataruthiun I Pars S.D. Hunch. Kusaktsuthian 60 Ameaki [The Celebration of the 60th Anniversary of the S.D. Hunchakian Party] (San Francisco, 1948).

31. Aramiants, Feratzenundi Yerkunke, p. 13.

32. Seropian, Mer Paikare, pp. 189‑190; Ormanian, Azgapatum, Ill, 4638‑4641.

33. Great Britain, Correspondence respecting the Condition of the Populations in Asiatic Turkey, and the Proceedings in the Case of Moussa Bey. Parl. Pubs., 1890‑91, Vol. XCV1 (Accounts and Papers), c. 6214, Turkey No. 1 (1890‑91), no. 86. Sir W. White to the Marquis of Salisbury ‑ (Received August 21), p. 66.

34. Ibid., no. 80. Sir W. White to the Marquis of Salisbury ‑ (Received August 8), pp. 62‑63.

35. Hunchak, September 7,1890.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid.

38. Khan‑Azat, Hairenik Amsagir, VI (February 1928), 130‑134.

39. Great Britain, Correspondence..., Turkey No. 3 (1896), op. cit., no. 87. Consul Longworth to Sir Clare Ford ‑ (Received at the Foreign Office, March 3), pp. 62‑63.

40. Personal interview with the late Max Balian. Mr. Balian was a student at Anatolia College and was one of the young Hunchaks who secretly posted the placards in the Marzovan region in 1893.

41. Bliss, Turkey and the Armenian Atrocities, pp. 336‑340.

42. Manoug C. Gismegian, Patmuthiun Amerikahai Kaghakakan Kusaktsuthiants 1890‑1925 [The History of the Armenian‑American Political Parties 1890‑1925] (Fresno, 1930), pp. 56‑59.

43. Great Britain, Correspondence relating to the Asiatic Provinces of Turkey. Part I Events at Sassoon, and Commission of Inquiry at Moush. Parl. Pubs., 1895, Vol. CIX (Accounts and Papers), c. 7894, Turkey No. 1 (1895), Inclosure in no. 23. Memorandum, pp. 11‑12.

44. Ministère des affaires étrangères, op. cit., no. 86. Annexe à la dépèche de Constantinople du 16 août 1895. Rapport Collectif des Délégues consulaires adjoints à la Commission d'enquête sur l'affaire de Sassoun, pp. 96‑111.

45. Gurgen Tahmazian, "Hambardzum Poyadjian (Murat)," Hisnameak ‑ 1887‑1937 ‑ Sots. Demokrat Hunchakian Kusaktsuthian [The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Social Democrat Hunchakian Party, 1887-1937], published by the Sots. Dem. Hunchakian Kus. Kedr. Vartchuthium [Central Committee of the Social Democrat Hunchakian Party] (Providence, 1938), pp. 114‑116. Hereafter cited as Hisnameak.

46. Great Britain, Turkey No. 1 (1895) (Part 1), Inclosure in no. 252. Report of the Consular Delegates attached to the Commission appointed to inquire into the Events at Sassoun, p. 173.

47. Ibid.

48. Great Britain, Correspondence respecting the Introduction of Reforms in the Armenian Provinces of Asiatic Turkey. Parl. Pubs., 1896, Vol. XCV (Accounts and Papers), c. 7923, Turkey No. 1 (1896), no. 45. Sir P. Currie to the Earl of Kimberley ‑ (Received May 15), p. 34.

49. Ibid., Inclosure 1 in no. 45. Memorandum, pp. 35‑45. The major points covered in this Memorandum were the following: (i) Eventual reduction of the number of vilayets; (ii) Guarantees in connection with the selection of the Valis; (iii) Amnesty for Armenians condemned or under arrest for political offences; (iv) Return of Armenians who have emigrated or who have been exiled; (v) Final settlement of pending proceedings for crimes and offences against the common law; (vi) Inquiry into the state of the prisons and the conditions of prisoners; (vii) Appointment of a High Commissioner to superintend the execution of the reforms in the provinces; (viii) The creation of a Permanent Commission of Control at Constantinople; (ix) Compensation for losses sustained by the Armenians who suffered in the occurrences at Sassoun and Talori, etc.; (x) Regulations concerning religious conversions; (xi) Maintenance and strict enforcement of the rights and privileges granted to the Armenians; (xii) Condition of the Armenians in the other vilayets of Turkey in Asia.

50. Ibid., Inclosure 2 in no. 45. Scheme of Administrative Reforms to be introduced in the Eastern Provinces of Asia Minor; the existing Vilayets of Erzeroum, Bitlis, Van, Sivas, Mamouret‑ul‑Aziz, Diarbekir, pp. 46‑64. This scheme of reforms consisted of a project of administrative, financial, and judicial reforms, which was drawn up in accordance with the existing laws of the Ottoman Empire.

51. Gegharn Vardian, "Pap Alii Tsoytse" ["The Demonstration of Bab Ali", Hisnameak, p. 133.

52. Heverhili Karon, "Pap Alii Tsoytse" ["The Demonstration of Bab Ali", Hunchak Taregirk, p. 36.

53. Ibid., pp. 37‑38.

54. Vardian, op. cit., pp. 125‑126.

55. Great Britain, Correspondence relative to the Armenian Question, and Reports from Her Majesty's Consular Officers in Asiatic Turkey. Parl. Pub., 1896, Vol. XCV (Accounts and Papers), c. 7927, Turkey No. 2 (1896), Inclosure 1 in no. 50. The Armenian Revolutionary Committee to Sir P. Currie, p. 32.

56. Vardian, op. cit, p. 126.

57. Ibid., pp. 132‑133.

58. Great Britain, Turkey No. 2 (1896), op. cit., Inclosure 2 in no. 50. Petition, pp. 32‑35.

59. Karon, Hunchak Taregirk, pp. 41‑52.

60. The London Times, October 3, 1895.

61. William L. Langer, The Diplomacy of Imperialism 1890‑1902 (2d ed.; New York, 1951), pp. 161, 203; A. J. P. Taylor, The Struggle for the Mastery in Europe 1848‑1918 (Oxford, 1954), p. 359; Morris Wee, "Great Britain and the Armenian Question 1878‑1914" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1938), p. 283.

62. Hunchak, October 20, 1895.

63. Nurhan Lusinian, "Zeytuni Tjakatamarte" ["The Battle of Zeitun"], Hisnameak, p. 136.

64. Avetis Nazarbek, "Zeitun," Contemporary Review, LXIX (April 1896), 516.

65. Zeituntsi, Zeituni Antsialen yev Nerkayen [Out of Zeitun's Past and Present] (Paris, 1903), II, 34. For a detailed account see ibid, pp. 1-76, and Aghassi, op. cit., pp. 183‑318.

66. Ministère des affaires étrangères, op. cit, no. 184. M. P. Cambon, Arnbassadeur de la République française à Constantinople, à M. Berthelot, Ministre des affaires étrangères, p. 214.

67. Hisnameak, p. 149.

68. Gismegian, op. cit, p. 53.

69. Ibid, pp. 66‑67.

70. Ibid., p. 60.

71. Hisnameak, p. 149.

72. Bulletin périodique du bureau socialiste International, 4^e année, No. 101 p. 2.

73. The Hunchakian party was a member of the Second International, but the exact date of its entrance is not clear. It is definite that the Hunchaks were members by 1904, since they had a representative at the Sixth Congress at Amsterdam, G. V. Plekhanov, a member of the Russian Social Democrat delegation. They did, however, participate in European socialist activities prior to this date. In 1903 the Hunchaks sent their own representative, S. Kasian, to the German Socialist Party convention in Dresden.

74. The Hunchak was published in Geneva from 1887 to 1892. The party moved its headquarters to Athens in 1893 where the Hunchak continued publication under Nazarbekian's editorship. In 1894 the party headquarters moved from Athens to London where, under the editorship of Nazarbekian, the Hunchak November 20, 1894 issue appeared. The Reformed Hunchakian Party also started publishing a paper called Hunchak as its party organ. A court fight between Nazarbekian and the Reformed Hunchakian Party resulted in a victory for Nazarbekian. Three issues of the Reformed Hunchakian Party paper were published without a name. These nameless issues were later called Mart [Battle]. In 1898 the Nor Kiank [New Life], another official organ of the Reformed Hunchakian Party, began to be published in London. The old Hunchak continued to be published in London until 1904, when it was moved to Paris. It was published in Paris until 1914.

75. Aderbed, op. cit. For a list of pamphlets published by the party to 1894 see the Hunchak, June 10, 1894.

76. Mihran M. Seferian, Hunchakian Mathian [Hunchakian Book], 4th pamphlet (Beirut, 1954), pp. 93, 98. At Athens during 1894 the party also published a scientific monthly, Gaghapar [Opinion], which was devoted to socialist theory. Official party newspapers and periodicals to 1954 totaled 107 publications in forty‑one different cities.

 

This article entitled "The Armenian Social-Democratic Hentchakist Party" by Hagop Turabian, for the journal 'Ararat' (London), appeared in three parts; Vol. 3 No. 34, April 1916, No. 35, May 1916, and No. 37, July 1916, and presents the historical and concise account of the foundation and activities of the Social Democrat Hunchakian Party. Additionally we consider that several issues in the following article are at the present time still a factor of domestic and foreign policy for both the Armenian people and the fledgling Armenian nation.

The first Armenian political party, and at the same time the first Socialist party in Turkey and in Persia, to be evolved, has been that of the Social-Democratic Hentchakists. The history of this party is not only intimately intertwined with the modern history of our nation, and with the Armenian revolutionary movements, of which it was the first-fruits and ever one of the chief promoters, but also with the great political events that have within recent years, subverted Turkey, the Caucasus and Persia, in so far that the party has been fighting against all three fronts. Its action, national as well as socialistic, has extended so widely and has been of so varied a character that I shall be obliged to drop all subsidiary phases of its activity and confine myself to its main lines of procedure.

To be able to formulate a just idea of tile causes that brought about the foundation of the Armenian S.- D. Hentchakist Party, it is necessary that one should call to mind the great historical events that happened in tile Balkans in tile nineteenth century and the lamentable and desperate situation of the Armenian population in the bloody empire of the Crescent.

Let us throw a rapid glance over that situation.

The intellectual, talented, progressive, peace-loving and Christian nations of European as well as Asiatic Turkey were, by fatal misfortune, compelled to live among the ignorant, parasitic, barbarous and fanatical Mongolians, who carried on their existence by pillaging, murdering and robbing their industrious and prosperous neighbours. The Turks may have been successful as conquerors, but as rulers they have never shown the slightest aptitude. Wherever they have become absolute masters, there progress and civilisation have always come to a halt, and injustice and intolerance have flourished. Instead of endeavouring to reconcile the heterogeneous elements that they subjected to serfdom by their gory yataghans and their trenchant scimitars, they persecuted and tyrannised over them so outrageously, that even the most pacific and the most loyal of them were ultimately, and through sheer desperation, driven to resistance and revolt. On this the fanatical Moslems and savage Bashibazouks, fired with frenzied hatred inherent in Islamism, with their lust for unprotected women and the prospects of loot and plunder, pounced upon their victims and devastated the hapless land with a whirlwind of destructive fire and a deluge of innocent blood.

And there was a time when the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Sultans, just as the European serfs of the Middle Ages, humbly considered themselves, their brides and their daughters, their goods and chattels, to be, by divine ordination, the absolute property of their lairds and masters. And so, with Oriental fatalism, they seemed, always meekly to submit to the immoral lusts, the crushing taxations and the arbitrary confiscations of the Turkish Pasha, the Kurdish Bey and the Circassian Chieftain with their greedy hosts of satellites. But, thanks to European schools and colleges, which, in spite of all Turkish obstacles, had been established in various parts of the Turkish empire, this blissful millennium of Ottoman misrule gradually came under the more critical contemplation of the silent sufferers. The new generations, enlightened by the liberal teachings of their European tutors, and imbued with modern ideas regarding the inalienable rights of human beings and the sanctity of their hearths and homes, began to protest and even to resist the tyrannies of their oppressors, often dying bravely in defence of the honour of their wives and daughters. The astonished Turk, accustomed to tearful submission, called these people ungrateful rebels and redoubled his persecutions. Driven into desperate resistance and self-defence, the subject nations were gradually awakened by their nascent ideas of patriotism and nationalism. Fired with new ambitions of freedom and independence, they finally resorted to open insurrection - hopeless and forlorn at first, but exultingly triumphant at the end.

Thus, in the course of a century, the incorrigible Turk has been forced to acknowledge, in succession, tile absolute independence of Greece, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, and of Bulgaria. The Bulgarian massacres in the eighties of the last century were once more agitating the horror-stricken civilised nations of Europe. Russia, urged by the Slavic world, and especially by her Near Eastern interests, declared war on Turkey with the assent of Europe. The Treaty San Stefano, which put an end to hostilities, not only freed Bulgaria from the abominable Turkish yoke, but also contained certain, articles to the advantage of the small nations which were still inhabiting portions of the Turkish empire.

The XVIth Article of the above Treaty, which, in the Congress of Berlin, was transformed into the LXIst Article, was intended to guarantee the life, the liberty and the property of Turkish Armenians. But no sooner the Russian armies retreated from Armenia, then the methodic massacres, pillage and every description of atrocities were let loose over the country under the high protecting surveillance of the Hamidian Government. The savage Kurdish hordes were, with impunity, ravaging once again in every part of Greater Armenia. In vain the religious representatives of the nation with certain Armenian intellectuals went to implore the succour of Russia, "the defenders of the Christians i