In the middle of the 19th century, Haxthausen wrote: "The Armenians did not see the Russian occupation of Transcaucasia as a conquest but as their salvation. Among the Transcaucasian people, they were the only people who showed their loyalty to the Russians and regarded them in such a way that unfortunately the Russian establishment obviously did not recognise." 55
Le Chessais has in his turn written: "Turkey and Persia were countries in which an establishment founded on order and an organised army and government were missing and we know that without such institutions there is no security or welfare for the peasants and merchants. In such countries one must be a slave if one is not a member of the government or a thief or a feudal lord, in other words a Khan, and countries which are ruled by such an establishment, even if they have great riches, will wander towards corruption and decay. The escape from Turkish or Persian rule was necessary for the Christian people in Transcaucasia and it is comprehensible that the tolerance required against the oppression caused by the police system of the tsar was significantly lower in comparison to the threat against their assimilation amongst foreign customs and traditions." 56
Russian government officials utilised the Armenian and Georgian circumstance and showed neither mercy nor understanding towards these two Christian nations since they knew that they were compelled to accept the only Christian nation, Russia, despite all the accompanying disadvantages.
They refused to grant privileges to the people of Transcaucasia, even the basic rights given to the people of Russia, such as a provincial council (zanesto) and courts, and they resolutely opposed the idea of building a university, even a Russian one, in Transcaucasia. 57
The officials of the tsar establishment did not stop here, however. On occasion they would pursue a policy in Eastern Armenia aimed at strengthening the Turkic and the Tatar elements, to the disadvantage of the Armenians, on the basis that these people were more primitive than the Armenians and therefore posed a lesser threat to Russian rule. Ultimately, this policy damaged the interests of the empire. One of the most famous experts on Transcaucasian affairs, the well-known geographer Abich, writes the following: "The efforts of Russia to develop Transcaucasia bring the region up to the contemporary level will fail if they do not create an independent Eastern Armenia or an Armenian province. Turkish, Tatar and Kurdish nomadic groups are actually an obstacle to the creation of a safe and fertile environment, a circumstance which can only be based on the development of agriculture. The conflict between the tent living nomads, with tendencies to plunder, who destroy the region, and a civilian Armenian society which is more developed and a creating civilisation, is too obvious." 58
|
