The Armeno-Turkish 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 CUP’s 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 didn’t 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 didn’t 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 wouldn’t 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. • Cevad’s 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.