The more orthodox Marxists, guided by Shahoumian, exposed and denounced the nationalistic tendencies of the specifists and accused them of being contaminated by the "infectious ideology" of Dashnaktsoutiun. In their aversion to nationalism, orthodox Armenian Marxists often aspired to be more Russian than the Russians themselves. Shahoumian favoured compulsory use of the Russian language, condemned the hypothesis that each people has a "mystique", and argued that nations are formed as the result of economic concentrations during the capitalistic stage of social development. In more precise terms, Shahoumian and his associates vociferously attacked embroilment in the Western Armenian question, for, they held, the struggle should not inflame race against race, but instead class against class. 56 Though critical and active, the Armenian Marxists were unable to destroy the national-political monopoly of Dashnaktsoutiun. Only in 1920, when the Republic of Armenia was supplanted by the Soviet Socialist Republic, would they be rewarded for their long, sometimes seemingly hopeless struggle against their implacable foes.
During 1904, those foes, while directing the resistance in Transcaucasia, sought to solidify their bonds with other discontented elements of Russia. These, along with Dashnaktsoutiun, applauded when a Russian Social Revolutionary bomb pulverized Plehve, a cardinal enemy of the minority groups. Collaboration among the various revolutionary and opposition societies was attained in December when seventeen delegates representing Russian, Finnish, Latvian, Armenian Georgian, and Polish organisations convened in Paris. Of divergent political and economic persuasions, all were united in their condemnation of tsarist nationality and minority policies and in their conviction that the autocracy would be superseded by a democratic, constitutional regime for all Russia. 57
Probably few participates in the Paris convocation would have believed then that even before they return to Russia the St. Petersburg militia would fire on a group of workers petitioning Tsar Nicholas II and that this event on "Bloody Sunday" would mark the beginning of the 1905 Revolution. 58 The Russian failures in the war with Japan and mushrooming domestic unrest created a critical situation. The Caucasus united with all Russia to express its discontent through strikes and violence. 59 Armenians used the occasion to enunciate their refusal to consent to the sequestering of their national properties. If Nicholas was to survive the tempest, he had to yield and compromise. In Transcaucasia this entailed the recall of Prince Golitsyn and the restoration of the Viceroyalty for the Caucasus. To quell the wave of revolution and to regain the loyalty of the multinational region, Nicholas appointed Count I. I. Vorontsov-Dashkov to the post.
The Viceroy, who retained the title for ten years, has become the subject of heated controversy. Many adherents of Dashnaktsoutiun and nearly all Soviet students of the period accuse Vorontsov-Dashkov of hypocrisy, deceit, and perfidy. Golitsyn's open expression pf contempt for the people of Transcaucasia was assertedly transformed into a shrewd, calculated policy of divide and rule. At times feigning tolerance and even benevolence, the Viceroy pursued the aims of his predecessor in a more deliberate manner. In fairness to Vorontsov-Dashkov, it is necessary to point out that, although he employed stringent measures against dangerous revolutionary groups and quite naturally considered the interests of the Romanov dynasty above all else, he adopted a tactful, astute, and in general, conciliatory operational code. 60 In relation to the Armenians he reasoned that the most effective weapon to discredit the revolutionaries was the restoration of traditional prerogatives to the national Church. Having regained privileges, goods, and properties, the clergy would then revert to its customary conservatism. And the populace, forsaking the radicals, would pledge fealty once again to the Romanov dynasty. If, however, the impasse were not rapidly surmounted, the agitated Eastern Armenians might begin to clamour for the same type of autonomy they proposed for Western Armenians, and, spurred on by revolutionary dispositions, they would then demand the unification of the eastern and western branches of their nation, so artificially divided. The consequences of such ferment were unpredictable, but one need not to be prophet to recognize the evil omens. Vorontsov-Dashkov wisely counselled his monarch to annul the controversial edict, which had aroused the Eastern Armenians even more than the bloody activities of Abdul Hamid. In August, 1905, Nicholas heeded the words of admonition, rescinded the offensive decree of 1903, and expressed affection for his Armenian subjects. 61 The manoeuvre yielded immediate results. Hundreds of thanksgiving messages were received by Vorontsov-Dashkov and Nicholas. Spontaneous demonstrations of rejoicing, gratitude, and fidelity surged through many Transcaucasian cities and villages. Significantly, even some members of Dashnaktsoutiun participated in these manifestations. 62 The crisis precipitated by the confiscation of Church properties was overcome. Vorontsov-Dashkov was satisfied, and so was Dashnaktsoutiun, whose prestige, instead of diminishing, soared.
|
