The role of Hrant Dink in the Armenian-Turkish social developments

• 
• 
Tweet

Details

Created on Thursday, 13 June 2013 14:44

Before and after Hrant Dink Standpoint of Armenia   The role of Hrant Dink in the Armenian-Turkish social developments Ruben Melkonyan

Ruben Melkonyan Turcologist, Vice-dean of the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Yerevan University

Hrant Dink, who gained fame due to his journalistic and editorial activity engaged in since 1996, was definitely known to a small part of Armenian and Turkish societies.  Even the majority of Turkologists had a shallow understanding of Dink and this was limited to brief information on his active participation in left-wing movements in Turkey.     Note that on the initial phase the establishment of “Akos” newspaper was of essential and serious significance mostly for the Istanbul-Armenian community, later on expanding its geographical impact. The existing «traditional» press means of Istanbul-Armenian community had more community-like, so called limited targets, but «Akos» and Hrant Dink initially acted beyond «narrow community» newspaper limits and at last succeeded in it. Within a certain period of time Dink became more famous due to his willingness to present Armenian issues to the Turkish and Turkish speaking audience, as well as due to the consecutive steps in this direction. As a result he found himself in the maelstrom of the Armenian-Turkish relations. It should be mentioned as well that Hrant Dink's name was not accepted so definitely within Armenian scopes (that is to say in Armenia and Dispora), since Dinkyan viewpoints on Armenian-Turkish relations, dialogue, and mutual perception sometimes did not correspond to the traditional viewpoints. However, at the beginning of the 2000s Dink's viewpoints and actions regarding Armenian-Turkish relationships were more and more broadly considered in sociopolitical discussions. Indeed, the approaches offered by Dink resulted in double perceptions, but it was mostly because these approaches were new and out of traditional patterns. Moreover, such approaches were suggested by a man who knew both Armenians and Turks almost equally. As a reader of “Akos” and follower of the Dink's social activity I can say that both the newspaper and Hrant lived certain evolution during those years, which directly influenced both the direction of the newspaper and Dink’s more complete viewpoints. In particular, “Akos” obtained other level – it became a platform for free discussion of Armenian-Turkish relations, Armenian community and general Armenian topic. These were the discussions that at last led to splitting of certain taboos rooted in Turkey for decades. By facing Armenian reality more Dink, in his turn, began definitely proofreading and sometimes reformulating his viewpoints. Thus, Hrant Dink became a social diplomat in fact, who knew Turkey and Turkish society very well and already managed to get to know Armenia and Armenian society. That is why Hrant Dink took a special role and place in the Armenian-Turkish relations and became a social figure who best pictured the  communication ways of societies and had influence upon them.

Before Hrant Dink was assassinated, there were mainly three approaches towards him in the Armenian society: 1. Interest towards his approaches and sometimes approval thereof, 2. Rejection of approaches and strict criticism towards Dink, 3. Indifference. Broader scopes of Armenian society (of Armenia and Diaspora) began learning about Hrant Dink since 2005, but Dink’s assassination brought him all-Armenian fame. Thereafter the “hero-making” process of Dink began in the Armenian environment. It is distinctive that Dink was immediately perceived as a new victim of the Armenian Genocide and the expression 1 500 000+1 as well as posters were not something accidental. The fact that people visit the monument of the Armenian Genocide in Yerevan and put flowers on Malatia memorial wall, as he was  from Malatia, on the day of his death comes to proof that Dink was comprehended as a new victim of the Armenian Genocide. Both Hrant Dink’s funerals and the actions thereafter had also a double perception in the Armenian environment. The first was a superficial perception, according to which there were thousands of Armenians in Turkey, who took part in a protest march and openly announced that they were Armenians. This is known to be a wrong opinion and Armenians did not make a majority among the participants in the protest march at all. The second perception that was much more spread in the professional scopes was that Dink with his activity and death managed to split a serious taboo and change the way of thinking in certain scopes of Turkish society. It would be preferable, if this perception is preached more in the Armenian environment and professionally shown that this is Dink’s activity phenomenon. 

As a Turkish specialist I am much more interested in the developments taking place in the Turkish society. I think that Dink’s social activity opened a way for two realities: firstly, the number of persons, who were ready to listen and sometimes study and present to the society the viewpoints which were significantly different from the ones in the official thesis, was increasing and uniting around Dink’s personality. Secondly, Dink became a target of various government agencies and a chauvinist society. The issue of the Armenian Genocide is number one issue that goes under taboos and close topics of the Turkish society. A method selected by Dink was to provide the Turkish society with the information on the Armenian Genocide slowly and sometimes indirectly and this method was justified and began producing results.  The issue of Armenians and their generations that were forced to take Islam during those years has an important place in the issue of the Genocide. Hrant Dink seriously took up the issue of Islamized Armenians by providing space in his newspaper for case studies and personal stories on that issue. All these are also direct consequences of the Armenian Genocide, since the last much broader islamization of the Armenians took place in 1915. The issue of the Armenians that were forced to take Islam, in its turn, is among the issues of ethnic identity in Turkey, “identity crisis” and it may be stated that it tends to take serious volumes. It is interesting and at the same time natural that the issue of ethnic identity in Turkey is much more spread among Islamized Armenians and their generations. The integral part of this issue is that the generations of Islamized Armenians in Turkey began to look for their roots and “Akos” became a platform for publishing such stories and searching for people.  On this point Hrant Ding said, “It is a spirit of time. Today many people in Turkey are wandering in the labyrinth of their identity”. The article published in “Akos” by Hrant Dink and Tiran Lokmagyozyan in 2006 shocked the Turkish society.  The article was based on the facts and said that the adopted daughter of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of Turkey, called Sabiha Kyokchen, who is the first female pilot of the country and one of the symbols of Turkey, is Armenian indeed and her name is Khatun Sebiljyan.   This article, in the literal sense of the word, became the top issue of the Turkish political and social agenda on those days and it would be enough to mention that the general staff of armed forces in Turkey made an announcement on this issue and qualified Ding’s findings as a threat to the national security of the country. Many think that Ding’s real persecutions started and became more severe after this article.

The process that started after Ding’s death resulted in a number of social changes in Turkey. Among them are the publications of books on Armenian Genocide, activation of articles, discussions and increase in number of newspapers touching upon the very topic. We may say that today even small but a certain stratum has been formed in the Turkish society that has a different viewpoint on the Armenian Genocide and declines the state thesis.   The fact that in today’s Turkey there is a certain number of scientists and analysts who are not only for various scientific opinions, but also carry out consecutive works to study and broadcast a number of taboo issues is very important for me as a scientist. The articles of these scientists were and are published in “Akos” newspaper and, in fact, the influence of Ding’s activity here cannot be denied.

Summing-up we can state that Hrant Dink both with its activity and even death played a pivotal role in the development of mutual awareness of Armenian and Turkish societies. Prior to Dink the stratum in the Turkish society that gave way to different viewpoints about the Armenian topic was more wordless and disorganized, and due to “Akos” and activities launched by Dink, today we have a stratum in the Turkish society that contributes to the formation and development of the civil society in Turkey. The formation of such a stratum will contribute to the Armenian-Turkish dialogue and will help the Turkish society to face historical truths more quickly and correctly, which is an important pledge for natural communication between Armenian and Turkish societies.