The Sultan, the Armenian Massacre, and the Turkish Constitutional Revolution

The following article is the second part of a collection of writings by Keyvan Hosseini about the Armenian genocide during World War I. These writings are based on a special three-part program "Death Parade" broadcasted by Radio Farda to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide victims. (In the first part, we examined the historical presence of Armenians in Anatolia. We also saw that with the arrival of new ideas such as nationalism in the Ottoman Empire, both Turks and Armenians established modern parties to achieve their demands for religious freedom or civil rights. To achieve their goals, they had to fight against Sultan Abdulhamid II.) Abdulhamid II believed that he must save the declining Ottoman Empire with an iron fist. He ascended to the throne in 1876 at a time when Ottoman sultans were being deposed one after another by powerful ministers and constitutional opponents before their deaths, and the throne would pass to another member of the Ottoman family. He himself, due to his connections with the underground constitutionalist group "Young Ottomans," initially accepted the first Ottoman constitution and the establishment of a parliament and constitutional monarchy. However, continuous wars and a territory that was shrinking day by day led Abdulhamid II to take another path, and within two years of coming to power, he dissolved the parliament and postponed the implementation of the constitution. From the famous quote left by the Sultan, it is clear that he considered Armenians more than any other factor responsible for the decline of his empire. Sultan Abdulhamid II stated about the loss of Ottoman territory: "Europe cut off the Turkish country by taking Greece and Romania. The loss of Bulgaria, Serbia, and Egypt deprived us of having hands. And now with this uproar that the Armenians have raised, they are after the most vital parts of our land and want to feast on our stomach. This will be the beginning of our complete destruction, and we must fight against it with all our might." These words of the Sultan were not empty threats. He initially formed a paramilitary group in Eastern Anatolia, whose members were mostly Sunni Kurds. "Europe cut off the Turkish country by taking Greece and Romania. The loss of Bulgaria, Serbia, and Egypt deprived us of having hands. And now with this uproar that the Armenians have raised, they are after the most vital parts of our land and want to feast on our stomach. This will be the beginning of our complete destruction, and we must fight against it with all our might." Abdulhamid II named this group "Hamidiye Cavalry Regiment" in honor of its founder, Abdulhamid II. The main responsibility of the group was to protect the eastern borders of the empire against Tsarist Russia; that is, the provinces where Armenians generally lived. This group became the perpetrator of massacres known today as the "Hamidian Massacres" during continuous attacks on Armenian villages in the late 19th century. Richard Hovannisian, author of books such as "The Armenian Holocaust" and "Denial and Remembrance: The Armenian Genocide Case," discusses the causes of these massacres and the details of this event, which some historians view as a precursor to events 15 years later: "As soon as Sultan Abdulhamid II came to power, the Russo-Turkish wars of 1877 and 1878 occurred, which caused the Ottoman Empire to lose more territory and the Russians to occupy Armenian regions in Eastern Anatolia. European powers that wanted to prevent Russian expansion forced Russia to retreat from Armenian regions at the Berlin Congress in 1878 and promised to oversee reforms to improve the situation of Armenians. The Sultan was forced to accept the reforms, but his practical response was to decide to teach Armenians a lesson. For this, he allowed paramilitary groups to attack Armenians. The massacres began in October 1895 in Trabzon and continued throughout the winter until 1896. Ultimately, some say up to 200,000 Armenians were killed in these massacres. Conservatively, it can be said that at least 100,000 were killed." At the same time, in response to the Armenian massacres, more than 20 men and women from the Armenian Revolutionary Federation entered the central building of the Ottoman Bank in Istanbul on a hot summer day in 1896 and took about 150 people hostage. This group demanded an end to the Armenian massacres and autonomy for six Armenian provinces in Eastern Anatolia. The hostage situation ended after hours of negotiation and the deaths of nearly 10 among the hostages and Turkish soldiers, with the mediation of European diplomats. The hostage-takers were allowed to leave the bank and exit the country with the British head of the Ottoman Bank by ship. They went to France and were praised in European newspapers. In return, Armenians in Istanbul paid the price. According to some reports, in response to this hostage situation, nearly 6,000 Armenians living in Istanbul were killed. Ultimately, the widespread massacres of Armenians also ceased in the same year, 1896. The Ottoman Empire entered the 20th century with numerous internal disputes and deep crises. The Ottoman Revolution in the century of continuous revolutions and political violence was caught in the stormy changes of this century from the very first decade. Political dissidents of this aging empire succeeded in 1908 in ending three decades of the Sultan's autocracy and restoring constitutionalism to the country. The Turkish constitutionalists, inspired by those who drafted the first Ottoman constitution, became known as the "Young Turks." Barlow Magardchian, a program official at the Armenian Studies program at California State University, describes the situation: "In the Ottoman Empire, many were dissatisfied with Abdulhamid II's rule, which had been in power since 1876. By 1908, many dissidents, including Turkish intellectuals and officers, along with Armenians, Greeks, Kurds, and all those dissatisfied with the regime, participated in a bloodless revolution. Abdulhamid was deposed, and the implementation of the 1876 constitution was resumed. This constitution promised equality for all citizens." Thus, one of the most exceptional political coalitions among Turkish intellectuals and Armenian political activists was formed. Moreover, the common interests of Armenians and the Young Turks were not limited to constitutionalism and reform of the Ottoman Empire. In the view of Turkish politicians, Tsarist Russia was considered one of the major enemies of the empire, and the political activities of dissatisfied Armenians across the Ottoman borders could weaken this old enemy in the Caucasus region. The result of this strategy was the political rapprochement between the Armenian Revolutionary Federation and Turkish revolutionary forces. Specifically, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation welcomed the Young Turks' revolution in 1908 because they saw the Young Turks as a modern and progressive group with open minds who could provide equal rights, religious freedom, and civil liberties for all groups in a multi-religious and multi-ethnic empire. Additionally, the Young Turks were much more progressive compared to the previous ruler, Abdulhamid. Michael Babayan states that one of the main reasons for the closeness of this Armenian party to the Young Turks was the hopeful promises of the revolution. This researcher says: "Specifically, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation welcomed the Young Turks' revolution in 1908 because they saw the Young Turks as a modern and progressive group with open minds who could provide equal rights, religious freedom, and civil liberties for all groups in a multi-religious and multi-ethnic empire. Additionally, the Young Turks were much more progressive compared to the previous ruler, Abdulhamid, who was repressive and anti-Armenian and regarded Armenians as second-class citizens. Armenians truly had high hopes for the 1908 revolution." At this time, six Armenians were elected as parliamentary representatives in the first House of Commons in the second constitutional period in the Ottoman Empire, and Armenian political activists were allowed to travel from the Caucasus to Istanbul to engage in activities against Tsarist Russia. The Adana Massacre However, just when it seemed that everything was on a different path and a historic opportunity had arisen to heal old wounds, a new wound tarnished the face of this national friendship, and during an event linked to some historical ambiguities, once again tens of thousands of Armenians were killed. This time in the city of Adana, in southern Anatolia and on the Mediterranean coast; a place where the Armenian community had achieved significant commercial successes and Armenians held a relatively favorable position. Richard Hovannisian, a professor at UCLA in the United States, describes this event: "This event is called the Adana Massacre and occurred on the Mediterranean coast where a very large Armenian population lived. This event took place in April 1909, during the time Armenians were celebrating Easter. There is still disagreement about the details of this event. At this time, Abdulhamid had not been completely deposed and was supposed to symbolically remain the head of the government. Apparently, some still wanted to restore his absolute monarchy, and a counter-revolutionary coup occurred simultaneously in Istanbul and southern Anatolia. When news of the coup reached Adana, people attacked Armenians, and the massacre began. However, the concerning part was the second phase of the massacre, where the army of the new regime also participated in the killings, raising the question of whether the new regime was good to Armenians or not. Ultimately, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation decided to cooperate with the revolution and worked with the Young Turk regime until 1913, which is why they are sometimes criticized for not understanding what awaited them from the events in Adana." During this massacre, between 20,000 and 30,000 Armenians and over 1,500 Assyrians were killed, and their properties were looted. What Mr. Hovannisian describes as criticisms of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation is, in fact, an analysis based on the belief that the Adana massacre was a sign of the factional beliefs of the Young Turks who later completely seized power. Barlow Magardchian, president of the Armenian Studies Society in America, is among these researchers. He says: "Within the Young Turks movement that deposed Abdulhamid, there was a group called the 'Committee of Union and Progress' that increasingly became nationalist in the direction of Pan-Turkism to the point that I call it racist. Many believe that signs of the ideology of the Committee of Union and Progress can be seen in the Adana massacre. And of course, this event once again sent the message to Armenians that nothing had really changed, and even the Young Turks were committing massacres against Armenians." In fact, the "Committee of Union and Progress" was the continuation of the old organization of an underground group called the "Committee of Ottoman Union" that, during the constitutionalists' efforts in the early years of the 20th century, joined the "Young Turks" coalition and competed fiercely with the "Freedom and Alliance" party, which was the dominant power among the groups within the Young Turks, to dominate the remaining groups of this coalition. The rivalry between these two political currents intensified the day after the victory in the 1908 revolution, and ultimately in 1912, the "Committee of Union and Progress" succeeded in winning the majority of seats in the House of Commons, which was described by many as unhealthy and full of fraud. Shortly after the elections, in the first month of 1913, an officer affiliated with the "Committee of Union and Progress" named Ismail Enver Pasha, along with a radical politician of this political movement named Mehmet Talat Pasha, entered the Sublime Porte in the heart of administrative Istanbul with their military force. They assassinated Nazim Pasha, the Minister of the Navy, who was one of the most important Ottoman ministers, deposed Mehmed Kamil Pasha, the Ottoman Grand Vizier, who was a member of the "Freedom and Alliance" party, and in a surprise coup, along with another Ottoman officer named Ahmed Jemal, seized power in the country and became Talat Pasha, Enver Pasha, and Jemal Pasha; the "Three Pashas" who from this time became the all-powerful figures of the Ottoman Empire.