Ashot Voskanyan Աշոտ Ոսկանյան

I can say approximately the following, when it was announced that a part of the [Karabakh] Committee, several people, were arrested, my friend called me in the evening, Levon Sargsyan, Mr. Levon, as we all knew him. He said there was this thing, they were told to gather at 11 a.m., and asked to convey the message to whoever I could. He was asking everyone to tell the people they knew. In the evening, I also took my phonebook. At that time it wasn’t all in the phone, it was in the phonebook. I looked up for all the reasonable people, who would make sense to say something. I called everyone one by one to inform them about the gathering at 11 a.m. As far as I remember it was near Cascade where we should have gathered. So, we went there the next day, and they [the organizers] said that the women should go first, so that they [the soldiers] might be a bit more careful with women, and only then the men. The women went, it turned out that there were already some clashes, several people were arrested, not the members of the [Karabakh] Committee, because they were not there, just ordinary people. It was quite a funny story, one or two people were caught, they had put them in a big, huge military car, and we pretended to protect them, we put our shoulders against it [the military car], we didn’t allow that car to move. Well, it was clear that they would not drive the car on us. After a while, they got bored with us and let those guys go. And the whole day there was that running around in Yerevan. Running here and there, we were told that we should go and inform everyone that there was such a problem. The marches started, we went to that place, to the Train Station, towards the Train Station. A squad of soldiers came running, they wanted to break us apart, so as half of the people would stay in one place, and the other half in another place. One person ran forward, another one ran back, a very interesting skirmish took place, we were right there. There is that bridge on the road to the Train Station, a bridge from above, a railway bridge, there were big stones on those rails. Someone had climbed up and was throwing the stones on them [the soldiers]. And then I saw something very interesting, which of course was nothing, but it was touching. Since there was a state of emergency, several military cars were standing there. One of the guys got into that car, switched it on and was driving it. For the first time, I saw an Armenian BTR (armored transport), not a soviet one, but Armenian, so to say Armenian power, it worked like that. Those clashes happened, after which, after a few days, the other members of the center [Karabakh committee] were arrested, and Armenia seemed to freeze.

I don’t think that the Soviet Union had a specific list of approved topics. We had enough freedom to engage with questions of our interest. It is another thing that we were more hindered by the lack of literature, because there were many things that, say, famous Western philosophers, which were not translated, they started their translation later. There was the translation issue. You had to find the books, read them. The issue with topics was like this: do whatever you do, but do not say anything obviously anti-Soviet, the rest do whatever you want. Accordingly, you know, what was important here? There were two things, the first was that one could easily engage in the so-called methodology of science. There was no problem with whatever was scientistic, you could easily do it, quote all the names, cite, etc., etc. Things that were more leaning towards social science, which contradicted, say, Marxism, uh... (although let me tell you, I consider that creative Marxism is a very deep and colossal field), but what contradicted Marxism, it could also had been easily dealt with, you just had to say that you were dealing with the history of philosophy. For example, you are engaged in criticizing bourgeois philosophy. Ok, criticize! You study all of Heidegger, you say: this is it, and at the end you say: “but this particular part he did not say well.” In other words, we had no big problems. It was a different thing, when, by some strange coincidence, I was suddenly invited to the Ministry, it was certainly related to Gorbachev’s perestroika. One of our good professors, Shakaryan, was working there. He said, you know… Well, we always went to so-called trainings, philosophy-related ones, for example, I had been in Moscow University, etc; the others went to Leningrad; Ukraine. He said they had provided Armenia with one placement for training at the University of Leipzig. They had decided to send me because I spoke German, etc. And I went to the University of Leipzig. Only one person from Armenia, one person from Georgia and four people from different parts of Russia; one from Moscow, one from Leningrad, one from Ukraine, one from Belarus, two from Russia. And it was simply surprising for us, it was me and Professor Tevzadze, he was a very famous philosopher, a specialist of Kant. For us, for Guram and me, it was such a scary thing, how our perceptions differed from their perceptions. What we could say not only openly at the university, but at a [Communist] party meeting, was anti-Soviet for them. In other words, the environment in Armenia and Georgia differed in a very radical way from the environment of the rest of the Soviet republics, excluding of course the Baltics, it was different there. There was that difference, so to say. For example, the mass was served in Thomas Kirke on Fridays, let’s say we would go there with Guram. The famous Thomanerchor sung there, and it was free of charge. Let’s say you attended it as a ceremony. Then, when you were back, you had to keep it a secret, because they would tell you that you went to church.

Now it comes to the point, there is a unique thing that I consider very important, there comes a moment when you yourself have to hold a parliamentary session. Because the following happens: Gorbachev... Now I... I have those things written down, but now I may not remember when [was it]… It was autumn, so Gorbachev saw that the country was collapsing, the republics started to leave, some centrifugal forces were working, and he decided that it was necessary to sign a new union agreement/treaty, to give the republics new rights, and to say: “well, we give you this much, let’s sign it again, let’s unite and create a new union.” Why were we worried about that, why? Because we were thinking that now they would adopt this in the center, in Moscow, they would say yes, you would have to live like this. So, how could we prevent it? To prevent it the Parliament of Armenia, in this case the Supreme Council, needed to adopt a special decree, a law, that any decision, any law, which would be adopted at the level of the Union, would be effective on the territory of Armenia, only if it would be approved, ratified by our parliament. Well, now we say let’s do something, let’s do that session. Unsurprisingly, the leadership refused to do it. Ok, you don’t do it, in that case, how is it written in the law, let’s say, the session can be held if a certain percent of people, say one-third demands it, no? Well, maybe. If it is possible, then we collect the signatures. We collected the signatures, the session should be scheduled. They do not give us a space, i.e. the hall of the Supreme Council. They don’t provide us with the space, we do it at the Opera. And here it was a unique thing, when an official Supreme Council meeting was organized in the Opera Hall, in November. Moreover, look, there should be a quorum. Now, those people are mostly ordinary people. One is a factory director, one is an advanced worker, another one is a party worker, I don't know what, there is a big number of people. But they have to come, and it is to gather them… Most are coming. First of all, they came, because at the end of the day they all were ultimately patriots, regardless of what their party affiliation was, and partly because it felt uncomfortable, since if you did not come, people in groups, in large groups, from the regions, they surrounded your house with the words “Shame! Shame! Shame!” And you are a human being, you are sitting at your house, you have children, grandchildren. They came, because it felt uncomfortable. And Ashot Manucharyan kept coming out and saying: there are this many people, there are that many people, this many are needed for the quorum. We organized the quorum. We adopted the decree, but on that day, on that same day, unrest already started in the Sevan basin between Azerbaijanis and Armenians, organized in some way, after which a state of emergency was declared immediately on the same day, everything was frozen and everything was closed.

Well, if we look at it from the above, of course it changed. Even though it was already changed. What does independence mean? If they ask me what independence means, independence has a very simple definition. If you ask someone what should you do when you have a problem, and he says: “if you have respected me and have asked, do whatever you want.” That is the independence, when you know that there is no one you can go to for solving your problems. Independence does not come overnight. Independence comes, for example, in the following way. Suppose you are facing a physical threat, and all of a sudden you find out that the empire no longer protects you. Whether it doesn’t want to or can’t, is another matter, but it doesn’t protect you. So, whether you like it or not, you have to create some armed forces, squads to protect yourself. The economy: no one gives you anything, you yourself have to make ends meet. In other words, that responsibility falls on you. And of course, an independent state is first of all a responsibility. First of all, it is a responsibility. What shall we do to not harm? That was our great concern. And we have lived with it, what should we do so that we can get out of this situation for better or worse, because on one side is Artsakh, on the other side is the war, on the other side is the collapsed economy, the absolute blockade, you have to answer for all these things, the responsibility is on you.

It was not anti-Russian. There was an anti-Russian sentiment, but that anti-Russian sentiment was rather a linguistic anti-Russian sentiment. Look, there is another interesting thing here. The point is that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, many countries simply said “yes, we are all going to the West.” Well, I will not consider Central Asia, it’s clear with Central Asia. We are going to the West; the Georgians, I don’t know, no mention of the Baltics. The only country that was in an extremely desperate situation was Armenia. I thought to myself that the Baltics were understandable, the Baltics were Europe, Moldovans had Romanians, Azerbaijanis had Turks. Ukraine is big, Ukraine, Belarus is clear. Georgians at least have a sea. But we have nothing, don’t we? And then look at what comes out. When the Soviet Union collapsed and you separated from Russia whether you liked it or not, you had to go to the other side, that other side should have been the West, but on your other side was the Turk. Because the so-called West is represented by the Turks at your side. And of course Turks are dangerous for you. And since you have the danger of the Turk, you cannot say, and we did not say, “we leave the Russians and go to the Turks.” It was out of the question. The only thing we could say, and we have said it, was that we should maintain normal relations with all our neighbors.

I’m afraid to make a mistake, because I haven’t thought about it, but let me tell you one thing, don’t be surprised. In fact, on the seventh day after those rallies started, it was already widespread. If 100,000 people are standing in a square, that's widespread. In other words, that attitude... Look, Armenia, you know, Armenia has had two important qualities that it doesn’t have so much now. First, Armenia was quite liberal, Armenia was liberal. There was no problem with Armenia’s libertarianism. In Armenia, you know, those dissidents who were persecuted, of course they were persecuted, jailed, sentenced to long terms, many of them were our friends, yesterday I was reading about the late Ashot Navasardyan, a fantastic person, all those things happened. But that was if you would strictly put the question: either you are anti-Soviet or you say I am leaving the Soviet Union. Everything else was free enough. I mean, on the one hand, people were quite open-minded, on the other hand, there was something very important at that time, surprisingly (because we always like to talk about Stalinism), but there was no fear. It was not Stalinism. I opened my eyes and there was no Stalin anymore. There was no fear. What would they do to you? Well, you were at work, they wouldn’t fire you, the salary was the same for everyone, what could they do to you? There was no fear. You see, we lived through the boom of the 60s and 70s, when Armenia… let me tell you a joke, you must have heard the joke that two Armenians, it was a joke of those years, two Armenians meet in Moscow and one says to the other: “Are you Armenian? It’s cool, isn’t it?” In other words, being Armenian was cool. Why was it cool? Well, the country was flourishing, Yerevan had become a rapidly developing city, we had a good connection with the world. They would always tour Armenia with concerts, Aznavour was coming, Lusine Amara was coming, Chicago Symphony Orchestra was coming, Jacques Brel was coming. The world was ours. And that general perception, imagine also the sports victories, the victory of Ararat, of Tigran Petrosyan, then came the victories of weightlifters, all of that created an environment where we felt that we could do anything, nothing could stop us. There was that victorious feeling and there was no fear, no persecution.

To mention Karabakh in the Constitution... this is a bit different, this is a special question, a very important question, but it is a bit different question. Because you see, in fact, yes, at that time, we were discussing that Artsakh applied to join Armenia, we said that we agreed, we accepted. But it was left hanging. Why? Because it was very clear to us that we could not do it either from the point of view of Soviet or international law. Because if the Soviet Union said that it was unacceptable for it to take a territory from one and give it to another, when the Soviet Union collapsed, it was understandably equally unacceptable for the entire international community. And the international community, be they Americans, be they Europeans, whoever, none of them can agree with you wanting someone else’s land, that is impossible. And there was something very important here, which unfortunately we don’t see today. There was something very important here, there was a need to change the discourse. In other words, it was necessary to put the Karabakh issue in such international wording, in such international terminology, that it would be acceptable for international relations, for the international community. That’s why a question was put, that we were not demanding Karabakh, we had no territorial claims from Azerbaijan, but we said that there was a very important international principle, the principle of self-determination of peoples, and the people of Karabakh had determined themselves, they were the ones to decide what to do, and we were only defending that self-determination. In other words, you could not write “Karabakh” in your Constitution. On the contrary, when we were told, why didn’t you accept, why didn’t you recognize Karabakh? We did not recognize Karabakh for the simple reason that the Minsk Group was already working at that time, and the Minsk Group was working to find a solution on how to determine the status of Karabakh. Now, can you imagine how strange it would be if I went and said that I had already recognized Karabakh within Armenia, but now I was working with you on its status? Wouldn’t they say, then what are you working on?

The second example is perhaps more profound. That was at the time when we had already formed a Constitutional Commission. I was a member of the Constitutional Commission. So we were working on the new constitution. All forces participated in it. Of course, there was the Pan-Armenian National Movement, there were other parties, but there were also representatives of thousands of other political forces, there were also individual intellectuals who did not represent any political force. Ter-Petrosyan was chairing, and there were enormous debates. Especially related to national issues. Because people would stand up and say that we should include our claims, the Genocide in the Constitution etc., etc. And we were saying that it was not possible, because we did not have Russia’s protection anymore, and therefore we had to have some kind of relationship with Turkey, we could not write something like that and at the same time hope that we could keep that relationship. Those were huge debates. And people who, for example, there was one of our philosophers, Hamlet Gevorgyan, or the then rector of the Polytechnic, Yuri Sargsyan, these people who did not belong to any party would say “how come that an independent Armenian state adopts a Constitution and does not write about the Genocide?” This was a serious, real, meaningful debate. It was not like someone was deliberately doing some kind of demagogy. No, it was a [real] problem. And after that tremendous effort, turmoil, disputes, we came to a kind of Solomon solution. We came to the following solution: because in its time we adopted the Declaration of Independence, and the Genocide was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, well, it was mentioned cautiously, but was still written, therefore we would not mention it in the Constitution, but we would write down in the Constitution that the Declaration of Independence is an integral part of the Constitution. In other words, I do not mention it, but in fact I refer to the fact that it has been already written. I am not saying that it was the best solution, but it is an example of what kind of debates, through what kind of effort it all went. So, the parliament worked, it worked very seriously.

The square could be there, there were people in the square, as they say, they gathered by inertia, but the square didn't play a big role anymore because the parliament was functioning, and the parliament was really functioning, because, of course, we never have had any other parliament that would have so much internal discussion. It was indeed a place of great debate. The Parliament was the place for debates, disagreements, fights, not beating each other, but arguing. And those arguments were extremely interesting and very important. Let me give only two examples. One example, let’s say, was the issue of declaring Armenia’s independence. So, it was quite a complicated situation, the Soviet Union was already collapsing, and two concepts were being discussed: we either say now that we are becoming independent, or we say that there is the law of the Soviet Union, which says that it is possible to become independent, that the republic has the right to become independent, and we are becoming independent in accordance with the Law of the Soviet Union. So as to preserve the legitimacy of our independence. I praise the power of Law. But the other opinion is: if you opt for the legal path, the Law requires you to first announce that you are going to organize a referendum, and announce about the referendum six months prior to the actual date of the referendum, and you don’t know what will happen in these six months. And there were huge debates on this. If I’m not mistaken, it's Varduhi Ishkhanyan who uploaded those things, the videos are there now, on YouTube, three big ones, there are three packages with all the discussions. People come out and debate: what is right, which way is right? In the end, the legal path was actually chosen. And that was also interesting. We opted for the legal path on March 21 and to do a referendum in six months, i.e. on September 21. During this period the Putsch against Gorbachev took place, the country was collapsing, the most remote republics said they were independent, the parade of sovereignties commenced. The Armenian people are sitting. How about you, guys? We will do it in accordance with the Law, we praise the power of Law.

After that, the moment came when I automatically got involved in that fight, to the extent that in fact, in 1990 the term of the Supreme Council expired. Whether you liked it or not, you had to organize an election. It was during those years when one of the students approached me and said, “Comrade Voskanyan, would you like to participate in the elections?” I said, yes, I didn’t rule it out, I could participate. And he asked if I would agree to participate on behalf of the Movement. I said that if I would participate, it was clear that I would participate on behalf of the Movement. Something interesting happened then. I wrote an article which was published in “Grakan Tert” [Literary Newspaper], it was already possible to publish anything, so it was published in the “Grakan Tert”, and was titled “What do we want?” And it was about independence, because back then there was that independentist wing, more dissident, Paruyr Hayrikyan, etc., who were constantly talking about independence, and I remembered Movses Gyorgisyan, Moso, who had already died at that time. He was walking like this during one of his speeches and shouting: “What do you want? Do you want Karabakh? I’m telling you, you won’t give it, you won’t give it. What will you want after that? Have you thought about it?” I remember that moment very well. I started my article from that. But what I said was that the problem there was not an abstract demand for independence, but [the ability] to transform the country in such a way, in its organizational, economic, structural, management, and other directions, that when that independence would come, because it would come, it could not but come, we would be ready. And my last phrase was “so that we don’t have to say like Avetis Aharonyan that independence was knocking on our door and we were not ready.” They in the “Karabakh” Committee somehow liked that article, and after that they started paying me some special attention.

That’s how the movement started, with those stories. And another very important episode. It was when they sent two members of the Politburo from Moscow, it was Dalgikh and I think it was Lukyanov, I don’t remember it well now. They were supposed to solve the issue. And there was a huge crowd gathered in the Opera. It was really a very big crowd, at that time the rallies had already gained momentum. So they were in a meeting in the building of the Central Committee, which is now the Parliament building, and [the crowd] was waiting for them to come out and announce something. Obviously, no one was going to come out and reveal anything. A decision was made: since they are not coming, we will go. So, that huge crowd moved towards the building of the Central Committee. There were so many people that when the end reached the building of the Central Committee and the whole Baghramyan was already full, the end of the crowd was barely leaving the Opera [square]. And it was at that moment, when all the people were already moving, a young man came out, you know, there were these small stairs leading down to the ticket box at the Opera at that time, he came out from there, took the trumpet and played two tunes. So, one of the tunes was Arno Babajanyan “My heart is in the mountains”, and the other one was that fame..., the tune from the movie “What is the river making noise about?” which became famous later. And they march like that under that melody. And when they reached the Opera after that, the young man stood up again, played the trumpet. And the trumpet already became a symbol here, everyone naturally raised their hands. There was also an interesting story related to the raising of hands. So, they raised their hands, as was customary in Europe, as a sign of victory. Later, [Zory] Balayan came and said, “No, we should raise like this [shows a fist], because this is a sign of unity, it’s a fist, it’s a thing, and that victory became a fist.” It was the know-how of Zori Balayan. And that’s how it started.

We all remember how in 1985-86 Gorbachev’s perestroika and glasnost were announced. And we all were very excited by those books, magazines, all that noise, that liberal spirit. However, nothing was happening in Armenia and we were so worried about why everything was boiling over there in Russia, and nothing was going on at our place. When the year [19]88 started, at that time the only thing we had were 1-2 such small environmental movements. Around ten people would gather, take a poster and walk on the street. That was it, and there were rumors that there are some developments around Artsakh, that it was discussed, maybe Karabakh would be transferred to Armenia, etc. There were such remote rumors. And one day, they announced that there should be a gathering on the Karabakh issue, and a rally should be held near the Opera House. To tell the truth, I had bought a ticket to the cinema. It was an Agatha Christie detective, we were supposed to go in the evening, and I thought we would go there [Opera House] in the afternoon. We went to the Opera and it turned out that it was the very first rally, the very first gathering dedicated to the issue of Karabakh. There were several people standing there. Now we know, it was that first committee that was to be formed. It was Silva Kaputikyan, Igor Muradyan, and several such people. They simply presented the situation, that was, in Artsakh, in Stepanakert, there was that session of the Executive Committee, that was the session of the Regional Council, that it passed a decision to apply to the Soviet Union with a request to transfer them from Azerbaijan to Armenia, and that this caused strong anger on the part of the Azerbaijanis, they threatened to attack, they said that blood would be shed, and so on, and that it was a very difficult situation at that moment. And what did they suggest to us? They said we had to stay there, we had to stay at night, we had to watch so that if something suddenly happened, we could react very quickly. And so my ticket was lost, that movie ticket was lost.

Indeed, I have written my Candidate of Sciences thesis in Russian. Why should I have written it in Russian? It’s clear. All the theses had to be written in Russian, because they had to be sent to the Higher Attestation Commission in Moscow for them to read. Even if you had written it in Armenian, you should translate and send it. Therefore, I wrote in Russian. But it was interesting, when I decided to write a doctorate, that is, a dissertation, and it was already about German hermeneutics, I decided that I would do it in Armenian, why? Because philosophy is part of culture, and a person should do culture in his language. I said as a matter of principle I would write it in Armenian. I started writing in Armenian, I wrote a significant part, the Soviet Union collapsed, that problem was gone.

I was born in Yerevan. My father was born in Kapan, and my mother was born in Yerevan, but I grew up with my grandparents. Since they did not have a son, my maternal grandmother and grandfather asked a lot for me to stay with them. My education… Well, I graduated from a Russian school. Because of me studying in a Russian school, my grandfather did not speak to my mother, his only daughter, for two years. Moreover, he knew Russian perfectly, because he had graduated from the Nersisian School of Tiflis [Tbilisi], and sometimes he just recited pieces from Gogol and others; “И до такой ничтожности, мелочности, гадости мог дойти человек.” He cited those things, but he said that you could study thousands of languages, but you should first start from Armenian. Therefore, even though I attended a Russian school, I studied at home from the first grade, both my grandmother and grandfather were teachers, distinguished teachers. So, it seems that my Armenian is not bad. My grandfather, let’s put it this way, was a model patriot. He had a big library at home, historical books, etc., but he never had such dissident, anti-Soviet things, such manifestations. It is true that he was always told that he was very talkative, that he talked too much everywhere, sometimes they told to tell that careless [guy] to not speak much, but that was it, that is, there was no anti-Sovietism in our house. When I was already in the [Karabakh] movement, it was common for journalists to ask everybody if they were involved in the dissident movement or not. So, they asked me too, “were you a dissident in the Soviet times or not?” I said that “I was not a dissident and I am not, I was thinking differently, and I do.” In other words, I was saying that a dissident is a person who thinks independently, regardless of what his thinking is in line with, while the dissidents seemed to be a bit angry with the state and constantly had a purposeful fight against it. I did not have a particular fight against the state, but let’s say I had that critical attitude.