The unfolding legacy of "Turkmanchay Treaty" in Armenia Colonization or refuge?

Armenia once again finds itself in the midst of an intense debate, this time focusing on the historical and educational landscape. Information resources in the country are examining the situation surrounding the publication of a history textbook for the 8th grade. Specifically, the discussion centers on the title of Chapter 6.1, which is labeled "Annexation of Eastern Armenia by Russia." To elaborate, this refers to the incorporation of a portion of Armenia into the Russian Empire in 1828, described as the "eastern branch" of Armenia. Some Armenian experts emphasize that the “Turkmanchay Treaty” of 1828 is framed in the textbook as an event that led to the occupation by the Russian Empire, referred to simply as "Russia" in the text.

This emphasis is precisely what is provoking dissatisfaction among certain Armenian politicians, historians, and journalists. Notably, former Vice President of the National Assembly of Armenia, Eduard Sharmazanov, asserts that without the ‘Turkmanchay Treaty’, "it is unlikely we would have had statehood in 1918 or 1991."

Political analyst Benjamin Matevosyan is more adamant, stating that "if Russia is considered an occupant, then Armenia should not participate in Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) exercises (alongside the occupant), and there should be no Russian base in Armenia." Thus, Matevosyan concludes that "Armenia is confidently heading down the path of becoming yet another post-Soviet anti-Russia, but these ritualistic dances can come at a very high cost for us."

Meanwhile, international affairs expert Grigor Balasanyan claims that the textbook was commissioned not by members of the Armenian government, but by people living outside Armenia. He argues that their goal is to create a "new history" narrative, suggesting that since Russia "was the aggressor," Armenians "were blissfully living under Persian rule" (referring to the Qajar state).

However, he insists that "distortion of historical facts is unacceptable," not only from a "moral perspective" but also due to the "serious geopolitical dangers" it poses, as it could place Armenia "before geopolitical challenges." As a result, relevant authorities must investigate both the "motivations of the book's authors" and what influenced the individuals commissioning the textbook.

In general, the situation described is not unprecedented in Armenian society. Historically, Armenia has seen arbitrary reinterpretations of its past, which are not always well-received by the public. For instance, this February, a lawsuit was filed in the Administrative Court of Armenia against the Ministry of Education concerning a new history textbook for the 7th grade, which allegedly "discredited Armenian history." During this time, the Catholicos of all Armenians, Garegin II, also voiced his opposition to the textbook, highlighting “serious errors, omissions, and arbitrary approaches.”

In this regard, several Armenian news sites referenced the opinions of experts who noted that the textbook depicts Karabakh within the borders of Azerbaijan, despite discussing historical events during the reign of King Tigranes the Great (140-55 BC).

The author of the textbook, historian Smbat Ovanisyan, defended the content by stating that students are provided the opportunity to "simultaneously view the world map of Tigranes the Great's era alongside the contemporary map."

Undoubtedly, discussions within Armenian society regarding the aforementioned issues will continue for a considerable time, if they ever come to an end. From our side, without commenting on the course of these discussions, we will examine specific historical aspects related to how the implementation of the “Turkmanchay Treaty” transformed the demographic situation in the South Caucasus.

First and foremost, it is important to note that as early as 1711, Russian Emperor Peter I urged the Senate to "treat the Armenians kindly and ease their burdens wherever appropriate, to encourage more of them to come." This referred to the resettlement of Armenians from the Qajar state (Iran). In 1723, Peter I not only expressed his "special" imperial favor towards the Armenian people but also announced the opportunity for Armenians to come freely to cities "on the Caspian Sea" and "into our state without any fear," stating that "we shall not only protect their merchant activities and provide necessary assistance but also grant them certain special privileges."

Under the “Turkmanchay Treaty”, signed between Petersburg and Tehran in 1828, the Shah ceded to Russia "in full ownership the Irevan Khanate on both sides of the Aras River and the Nakhchivan Khanate."

Article XIV stated that "subjects of both states who have moved or will move from one country to another may settle and live wherever permitted by the government under which they find themselves." Consequently, Vasily Grigoriev, an official sent to the South Caucasus by the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Empire, noted during his 1828 statistical and economic survey of Nakhchivan that one of the "many significant benefits" that Russia gained from the esteemed “Turkmanchay Treaty” was "the resettlement within our borders of a large portion of Armenians living" in the Qajar state (Iran). This occurred against the backdrop of transforming the Irevan and Nakhchivan khanates into an Armenian region.

According to Russian military historian Vasily Potto, writing in the late 19th to early 20th centuries, this designation "visibly signified to Armenians" the beginning of a new era in their lives, and that "Muslim domination" was not "their eternal fate."

When discussing the measures "for the resettlement of Armenians and their establishment in our territories," the Russian ambassador to Qajar Iran and renowned 19th-century writer Aleksandr Griboyedov noted that most settled on "lands belonging to Muslim landlords." He remarked in a letter addressed to Ivan Paskevich, Commander of the Caucasian Corps, that "in the Nakhchivan region, I found even greater disorder and oppression due to the resettlement of Armenians than in Irevan."

Vasily Grigoriev reported that many groups of Armenian immigrants "settled in the better villages," where they observed "an abundance of arable land," and then approached the authorities with requests to confirm their claims to these chosen locations. As a result, "the indigenous residents suffered greatly, being squeezed by the new arrivals."

Azerbaijanis "had to yield a significant portion of their land and other resources" to accommodate the newcomers. Thus, "the initial settlement of 2,551 Armenian families who came from Persia took place in Nakhchivan."

As acknowledged by Levon Kazaryan, a professor at Yerevan State University, "it can be stated without exaggeration that Armenian colonization took place. It was not so much the Russians who colonized Southern Caucasus as the Armenians who colonized Russian Transcaucasia."

Over the course of 150 years, the Armenian population in the region increased by more than a hundredfold, even in areas that were practically uninhabited. Additionally, a project presented in early 1831 by Senator Yevgraf Mechnikov, who was conducting a review of the Transcaucasian territory, noted that "Armenian priests" were contemplating the "restoration of the Armenian kingdom."

In our view, this information is incredibly significant for understanding the real dynamics in the Southern Caucasus during the 18th and 19th centuries. It allows for an objective analysis, devoid of emotional bias, of what factors contributed to the demographic changes in our region. Following the “Turkmanchay Treaty”, there was a practical realization of Peter I's call to nurture and resettle the Armenians.

They were nurtured and brought closer, effectively altering the demographic landscape in favor of the incoming Armenians and to the detriment of the indigenous Azerbaijanis.

Therefore, regarding the ongoing discussions within Armenian society about how they perceive the Turkmanchay Treaty, I would like to make one point: our geographical neighbors should simply be aware of their own history. They need to understand that their presence in the South Caucasus is not indigenous but rather the result of resettlement due to the geopolitical upheavals that affected the region during that period. How they label those events—as annexation or occupation—is a matter for them. However, it is advisable for them to understand once and for all that they should never seek to appropriate what is not theirs. Recent lessons from regional history have made this abundantly clear. Therefore, it is crucial for Armenians to study these events continuously.