The ArmenoTurkish controversy and the 1909 Adana incident

1
The Armeno-Turkish controversy and the 1909 Adana
incident

• Tetsuya Sahara
• Meiji University

2
Armeno-Turkish Controversy

• The Armenian question of the late Ottoman Empire
  is the most controversial topic in the
  Armeno-Turkish controversy.
• It has strong repercussion on the politics of the
  Turkish republic and international relations.
• Bothe Turkish and Armenian sides have their own
  agenda on this topic and adamantly insist on
  them.
• The controversy is symbolized by the fact that
  the terminology predetermines the orientation.
• The pro-Armenians use the term genocide
• The Turkish side uses the term relocation

3
Strong presence of the hardliners

• Hardliners dominate the posts of influence and
  impose the monolithic interpretations on the
  other researchers.
• Any proposal of revision of the old theories is
  instantly condemned as genocide denial or
  betrayal of the national cause.
• The categorical attitude to refuse any empirical
  method to assess the existing historical
  materials.

4
Similar attitude of the both camps

• The hardliners of the both camps agree on the
  understanding that the topic is composed of the
  three consequent events that took place in
  1895-96, 1909 and 1915-21.
• The both side agree that the there is single
  intentional thread that combines the three
  events.
• The Armenian interpretation The three events
  were the signs of the development of the single
  genocidal intention of the Turkish nationalism.
• The Turkish hardliners emphasize the intention of
  the Armenian revolutionaries who pursued the
  policy to materialize the Western intervention on
  behalf of their national independence.

5
Armenian interpretation of the Adana Incident

• Armenian authors claim the Incident was the
  liaison event between the Hamidian massacres of
  the 1890s and the CUP genocide of 1915.
• Hayk Ghazaryan
• The massacre of Adana was one of the links in
  the bloody chain of the larger genocide committed
  in Ottoman Turkey.
• Vahakn Dadrian
• The most potent factor in question was the
  clandestine, instigative role of CUP, egged on by
  the CUPs Saloniki branch leaders, headed by
  Mehmet Nazim Through coded messages they
  directed the local CUP members and their fellow
  perpetrators in the operations of the two-tier
  Adana massacre.

6
Turkish interpretation of the Adana Incident

• The Adana Incident was an abortive local uprising
  of the Armenians. As the Muslims population
  reacted rapidly, they could prevent the intrigue
  from materializing and saved themselves from the
  massacre by the Armenians.
• Esad Uras
• After the revolution in 1908, the Armenians
  thought it best to exploit the state of confusion
  that embraced Turkey to stage an uprising and
  tried to induce the foreign intervention. The
  most active instigator of revolt in Adana was the
  Armenian Bishop Mouchegh Seropian. The Bishop was
  a fanatic revolutionary and responsible for
  organizing all the operations as the head of the
  revolutionary committee.

7
Assessment on the conspiracy theories

• Both of the conspiracy theories are not well
  reasoned and often seriously contradict with the
  related events and facts.
• Both of them failed to provide the documentation
  reliable enough to their hypothesis.

8
The economic transformation of the Adana province
during the 19th century

• The Adana province (Cukurova or Cilicia) rapidly
  transformed itself from the most backward
  province to the center of the most developed
  commercialized agriculture during the 19th
  century.
• The region had been ruled by the local feudal
  lords (Derebeys) by the 1860s. Then, the Ottoman
  government introduced the total reforms and the
  commercial agriculture began to develop.
• The cotton cultivation developed rapidly owing to
  the growing demand in the market.
• Pressed by the development, the local industry
  and commerce developed accordingly.
• As a result, powerful merchant class appeared in
  the local economy and the region rapidly
  transformed itself from barter to money economy.

9
Variety of the Muslim elements

• Many Turkmen and Kurdish tribes were forced to
  live in the villages.
• The Muslim refugees from the Balkans and Caucasus
  also colonized.
• The policy drastically changed the ethnic
  composition. Now Muslims were composed of Turks,
  Arabs, Kurds, Turkmens, Avshars, Circussians,
  Chechens, Slavs and Sudanees. All had their own
  communities.

10
Variety of Christians

• The Christian population was composed of the
  Armenian Gregorians, Armenian Catholics, Greek
  Orthodox, Caldeans, and Syrians. Most of them
  were engaged in commerce and manufactures and
  settled themselves in the towns but there were
  significant number of Christian peasants.
• The Armenians were the largest community. They
  played major role in the commercialization of the
  local economy.

11
Socio-ethnic differentiation

• While the export oriented economic growth favored
  more the Muslims landowning class and the
  Christians, the Muslim small peasants could not
  enjoy the fruits of the prosperity.
• The Ottoman policy of colonization precipitated
  the process. As they gave small plot of lands to
  the colonists and didnt take any effective
  measures for the modernization of their
  agricultural production, most of the peasants had
  to live on the substantial economy.

12
local tension

• The poor Muslim peasants often brought about
  problems with the Christian elements. Some of
  them refused to pay the debt to the Christian
  merchants. Others intruded the Christian
  properties and occupied them. When the Christians
  tried to recover their right by filing the court
  actions, the Muslim landowning class provided the
  protection to Muslim peasants.

13
The second reason of the incident

• The Young Turk revolution brought about the
  constitutional government on July 1908. The
  Armenians expected the change of the hitherto
  oppressive policy and openly claimed the
  restoration of their properties.
• The Armenians requested the enactment of the
  political equality and the underground political
  organizations began to appear on the surface.
• The Armenians began to massively purchase
  firearms on the pretext that the constitution
  granted the right to them.
• These actions alarm the Muslims and made them
  fear of the eventual Armenian revolt.

14
Role of the key administrators

• The new governor, Cevad Bey, was indecisive and
  unqualified officer. He remained optimistic until
  the final moment.
• He didnt take any measures to prevent the arms
  smuggling.
• He overlooked the significance of ethnic murders
  that had taken place sporadically.
• He left free the circulation of hate speech
  disseminated by the Muslim and Armenian
  extremists.

15
Anti-Armenian Policy of Esad Asaf

• Esad Asaf, the lieutenant governor of Cebel-i
  Bereket, was pursuing anti-Armenian policy.
• He blocked the Armenian court actions for the
  liquidation of the stolen properties.
• He prevented the Armenians from acquiring new
  lands and even confiscated the already purchased
  ones.
• He also cancelled the tax exemption on the
  Armenian residential plots and neglected their
  application for the construction of new churches.

16
Flamed-up story of the possible Armenian uprising

• The Armenian population organized the protest,
  but Asaf sent gendarmerie to disperse it. Then,
  the Armenians openly declared that they wouldnt
  pay any tax so long as their constitutional right
  was not recognized.
• Asaf condemned the Armenian protest as an
  anti-government and sent Cevad Bey a report
  slandering that the Armenians were preparing a
  revolt.

17
Collision in the Adana city

• The collision between the Armenian and Muslim
  population in the Adana city took place in the
  morning of 15 April.
• It was a result of the escalation of the communal
  tension following an ethnic murder that took
  place three days before in which two Muslims were
  killed by an Armenian carpenter. The murder was
  apparently personal one but the mishandling of
  the Muslim outrage by the governor brought about
  a Muslim riot.

18
spread of violence into the counry side

• When the Armenians took up arms to defend
  themselves, the governor misinterpreted it as an
  armed uprising of the Armenians.
• Cevads order to mobilize the reserve units
  triggered off the Muslim violence as they had
  been so much frightened by the rumors of Armenian
  uprising.
• Reservists fled from the colum when they got
  rifles and hurried home to defend own families.
• Poor peasants, refugees, seminomadic tribes made
  use of the disturbance and began looting.

19
Worst timing of the incident

• Owing to the counter-revolution broke out the
  previous day in Istanbul, the central government
  was absent and no superior authority could check
  the actions of Cevad Bey and his men.
• This explained why the disturbance was mainly
  confined within the two districts, Adana and
  Cebel-i Bereket, controlled by Cevad Bey and Esad
  Asaf respectively.

20
Conclusion

• The Adana incident was an isolated local
  disturbance that was preconditioned by the
  special socio-economic and ethnic settings of the
  province.
• It was a result of a series of contingencies, out
  of which the failures and mishandlings of the key
  administrators (Cevad Bey and Esad Asaf) were
  most grave.
• There was no sign of the preparation to massacre
  the Armenians on the side of the Ottoman
  authority. There was no evidence of the
  preparation of general uprising organized by the
  Armenian revolutionaries.
• It must be viewed as an example of the social
  instability and political fluidity that
  characterized the final decades of the Ottoman
  Empire.