Natalya Martirosyan Նատալյա Մարտիրոսյանը

You know what? In my opinion there was also a slight difference between natural scientists and their institutes, and the humanities. Because the scientific researchers in the field of humanities were more aware of the history, like what had happened and what could happen, let me put it this way, they knew about the national aspirations, as well as the nuances of the national path. As for us, we were not that deep into everything. But because we trusted and believed in each other, we accepted it. Yet, ours mostly started during the perestroika, when we started to post things on the notice board. Clearly, there were no social networks back then, but there were, for example, articles in “Literaturnaya Gazeta”, there was the samizdat that we had to read in one night and pass to the others. And these ideas, I say it again, because we had connections with Moscow, Leningrad and other major scientific centers, that information was available to us. It was very interesting for us. And there was also a separate column [on the notice board], where we could write our own opinions about the information that was posted there, like today’s Facebook, and it was really interesting, and it was clear that we also had to do our job. But often when, for example, we had free time, we certainly discussed it. And we discussed it in a rather heated way, because there were different opinions, and even then there were people, who did not believe that it was not an imitation, that changes would really happen, they believed that the end of Gorbachev would come, the end of his ideas would come very soon, and we would fall back into the Soviet pit, where we were. There were also people, including myself, who believed that the developments were irreversible, that it was not possible to restore the ideas that kept people in that condition. And we just sensed that. Since we were small, we had to be very flexible, and take into account the possible reaction, we had to be very smart, we had to be able to find the right path, so that we would not be under the broken system of the Soviet Union and would be able to survive.

So, it was always my responsibility, I always collected news from the square, quickly went up to the institute, quickly printed the news on a typewriter and posted them. It was firsthand information, then we would discuss it, etc. In fact, our institute and especially our sector was very involved in the process, in everything. And this is how it slowly developed․ I՛m already moving to a different topic, but one is connected with the other, that's why I continue… In fact, already in May 1988, if I’m not mistaken, the Karabakh Committee was created, at least it announced its creation and... here I want to stop a little and present it. One of my tasks and responsibilities was to prepare a small informational piece about the members of the Karabakh Committee. And when I was analyzing, I noticed that 7 out of 11 people had academic degrees. Two were Doctors of Sciences, Rafael Ghazaryan and Levon Ter-Petrosyan; five were Candidates of Sciences, that’s a thing, I could say they were the majority. The professional backgrounds were also interesting, fifty-fifty. Five of them were from natural and technical sciences, mostly physicists, mathematicians in different areas, and the remaining five were from humanities. Among them, we had two teachers: Ashot Manucharyan and Samson Ghazaryan, we had Samvel Gevorgyan from the field of journalism, we had Vano Siradeghyan, a poet; and we knew what Levon Ter-Petrosyan and Hambardzum Galstyan were doing. Another interesting thing was that most of them studied in Moscow or Leningrad in one way or another. So that connection… Why am I saying this, to show that it was not just like that, that it was not born out of nothing, there was a ground, a very important idea that united people. And for me, you know what? Don’t consider it a snobbism, but Ashot Voskanyan once said that this movement had an enlightenment nature, and back then the academic, artistic activities were respected. People trusted those people more. Apart from that, political, etc., etc., also their paths, their intellectual capabilities, their image of, I don’t like that word, but intelligentsia, the image of a person that did intellectual work.

We felt good because our artistic circle, specifically our family, were artists, architects, doctors, etc., etc., we didn’t feel the Soviet pressure on us that much. We had a great advantage, for example, at that time we, the scientists, had a library day. Well, on that day we were not required to go to the workplace, it was considered that you were going to the library, and the library helped. Scientists, those who had already defended their dissertations, were also provided with an additional 12 square meters of extra room, for the study, so to speak. If you were already working on your dissertation, you were sent to Moscow, because there were larger libraries there. At that time, it was the Lenin Library where we were sent to work. They provided the opportunity. We felt quite comfortable in our everyday lives, yes. On the other hand, we felt a bit dissident-minded, because in that circle, where we had connections, there were thoughts that sounded a bit liberal at the time, as non-Soviet. We read Solzhenitsyn’s books, Bulgakov, at least at that time those were considered “wow!”, and we passed on these books to each other, etc., etc. Of course, we knew there were student groups that were active in 1968, etc. We didn’t get into it that much, but still I should say that coming to that idea… Well, I had been in Karabakh, because one of our guys, as I said there was this practice in Chernogolovka [Institute of Chemical Physics], students were sent there to work and we had many, many Ph.D. students there. One of our guys married a Russian woman, and he asked me to go with him to his wedding, so he would not feel uncomfortable there. And we went to Karabakh, we went through Ghazakh [Azerbaijani region neighboring with the Nagorno-KARabakh Autonomous Oblast], we did not enter Stepanakert, we went to Martakert region. And it was very strange for me. When we were passing by a bus, small children were throwing stones at that bus. This was probably around [19]88, in 1985 or 1984. There was something like that, and I was very surprised. And when we reached the village of Mokhratagh, and they were telling us, sharing with us, that, “you know, everything is fine here, you can be the second person, but you can never be the first person. Doesn’t matter that we are the majority, there is that pressure on us.” And they even told us about the cases of violence, etc., etc. We remembered these things only when this movement started. It wasn’t from nowhere, it was little by little, it was not from the good life that these people were saying this, it was a matter of life for them. It was important for the employees of our institute who were from Yerevan and the ones from Karabakh to find a compromise. What shall we do to take into account all different circumstances and not to allow the clash between the idea of independence and the idea of liberation of Karabakh? In such a way that they do not lead to a dead end. How can we harmoniously combine these two? Something like this. However, on a mass scale there was no such anti-Soviet movement, so to speak, until Gorbachev. There were stand-alone groups, there were certainly political prisoners, our Vardan Harutyunyan, Paruyr Hayrikyan, and others, yes, there were indeed dissidents, but it was not of a widespread nature, those were isolated cases, but their role was very big in all of that, their experience was also used.

I had a very harsh impression of the curfew, that they were standing around the Opera House like this, and we, together with the children, were circling around them like this. And my daughter was very rebellious. There was a water spring at the back of the Philharmonic. She approached that soldier and said, “Uncle, can I drink water?” And he stood like this, “go!” She goes, drinks the water, comes back, and we circle around again, and [approaches them] again with the same question. They don't know what to do. There, too, the people stood by, thinking that if he would not allow the kid to [drink], they would react. But our people were also kind from this point of view. I still remember how they gave candy, buns, etc. to soldiers. They said that it was not the soldiers’ guilt, they were just bought and put there.

There was no hatred towards individual people. There was dissatisfaction with the leadership of the Soviet Union. After the pogroms, of course, and especially with the Russians, who allowed it. They said they were late for only a day in Baku, Sumgait, etc. And that huge refugee influx that we worked with… we had to do something, whatever we could do. It was very difficult, but I don’t remember… you know what, I regret it, maybe there are some posters left in the archives that people were holding or that were posted on the walls of the Opera House… I don’t remember any single swearing word against the Azerbaijanis as an ethnic group on those posters. That is very important. But look in the year 1988, December, curfew, and all that “pleasures,” which started to form the demand to oppose the Russians here. What were we doing? Well, I was at home with my child, he was born in September, I hadn’t worked for a while, and at our institute they were printing such small papers, especially when the guys from the Karabakh Committee were already arrested, informational one-pagers, we had such a special glue, and I used to go out with my son, he had a cloth like a teddy bear, I put him inside that cloth and posted these informational sheets on different stores, where people and soldiers used to come and go, I waited for them to pass by, so that I could post that paper, so that people would know and get information.

Moreover, at that time, after 1988, the sessions of the Supreme Council were broadcasted on television. And we installed a TV without getting permission, but with a silent consent, and our entire lab was watching it, and people from other labs also joined us, and our management tried to turn a blind eye. But we also certainly carried on with our jobs. We worked late hours, our work did not suffer, but the atmosphere was like that. But I should tell you what we were doing. When the movement started, as I said, I was working as a postman, carrying information notes, short descriptions, like “today this many people gathered, they were talking about this,” and so on. I approached and asked about their thoughts and would post the note. Then the next day they asked me what had happened and I would show that note again, etc. Then we started to develop another work direction, preparation of references. Of course, more than one. The Institute of History prepared a reference, and the Institute of Ethnography prepared one. The second one was better, it had all the historical facts, etc., etc. We had a computer, which was not very common in the labs at the time. And we had a schedule for working on that computer. But I was allowed to work at any time, I was typing very fast. We printed the texts, made copies, and when there were business trips or other such opportunities, we used those to circulate those texts. We sent them to our partners, to other countries, be it Russia, be it Georgia, etc., etc.. We worked very well in this direction, we gained quite a few like-minded people. At least I don’t remember a single case when during a professional conference someone would have approached me and asked where Karabakh was located. Everybody, many of them were already aware, they knew, they supported, they shook our hands, etc., etc. And this was our cent in all of that.

Coming back to our institute, these conversations, discussions, exchanges of ideas were very actively taking place at our institute. And we constantly asked each other the following question: “Well, what will be the end? Where is our place?” And I had this very naive idea that as soon as the Soviet Union would collapse, the communist system would fall, everything would be fine. And we would not have another problem, that’s what we honestly thought. Moreover, I should also say that our institute, specifically our laboratory, cooperated with both Tiflis [Tbilisi] and Baku. There was a large petrochemical institute there, we were their opponents and they were our opponents during the defenses of dissertations, there were contacts, etc. And we could not imagine all of that, what the developments could lead to. But the national issue itself was not a subject of discussion within our institute. The subject of discussion was that the Soviet Union should collapse and we should get rid of them, we should be independent and we should develop and move forward according to democratic rules. And I insist again, that the very Karabakh issue was seen in the same chain, as an issue that should be resolved and for which we should all work.

Today many people superficially link everything that happened in Armenia, the independence movement, etc., only to Karabakh as a symbol, as a symbolic or the main point. I must say that I disagree with it. First, a certain ground was prepared. Nothing happens or will happen by itself. Imagine, there was a notice board in our institute (probably it existed in all the places), it was just next to the director’s office, and people would post notices, etc. When Gorbachev’s perestroika started, we started to print various articles and post them, and no one would take it out. Then it turned out that the director told to not take out the notices, he said, “people are posting those, let them do it, it’s nothing.” And of course on that wave we felt free, freer, progressive, and slowly we somehow realized that there should be some kind of solution, some way out. That accumulated energy, or positive energy, must have a specific target. Clearly, there were different people, there were people with different ways of thinking, there were people we called independentists, there were people who said that the USSR should be preserved, it should be subjected to reformation or maybe deformation, to something like that.

When I had already graduated from the university, it was [19]73, in [19]71 a new direction was launched in our institute. We understand now that it was a very important direction, because it was related to burning and explosion issues, processes. And this direction was headed by my other father, I can call him father, or the first father, Alexander Grigorevich Mirzhanov, another ethnically Armenian, who worked at the Institute of Chemical Physics in Moscow, and there was an Armenian community there as well, so to speak. There was Yenikolopov, a very famous scientist, there was also Osipyan, an academic, and other people. And they advised him, he wrote about it in his book, “Why don’t you do something in Armenia?” Alexander Grigorevich thought it was just something to say, but they kept saying it. So, using the existing connections, one can say the Armenians, they got to the head of our Government, it was Muradyan at the time, if I’m not mistaken. And they invited Merzhanov to Yerevan. And it was on a voluntary basis, of course, because he refused to be paid. A laboratory was created to deal with those issues, the issues of burning. And they allocated a building, did not take it away like they would always do now.

You know, both my scientific field and my family, if I describe it in one word, that word would be repatriation. It may be difficult to find a family [in Armenia], there are very few people who have not dealt with that pattern in one way or another. So, my maternal grandparents were Armenians from Noukhy, now it is called Shaki [in Azerbaijan]. Unfortunately, I have never been there, but according to them it was a very beautiful, neat [town], like Dilijan, with a city culture. They even had a park and an orchestra that played there [in the park] on Sundays. Anyway, it is a very interesting place. But in the [19]20, as often happens with us, they had to leave everything, the house, the place and to move, just to run away [refers to Armenian-Azerbaijani clashes]. And they reached Rostov. Why Rostov? Because there were people from their town in Rostov, neighbors, friends, I don’t know. And they had even stayed in those people’s house for a while, in their kitchen. This is my mom’s side. On my dad’s side, I had only one grandfather who was a native of Yerevan. My grandma was a refugee from Erzurum [Turkey]. They got to know each other here [in Yerevan], got married and moved to Rostov, because my grandfather’s brother, was considered an active person at the time, economically advanced, he had a business, some business in Rostov, and the family of his younger brother moved there to Rostov. My dad and mom both were born in Rostov.