Peace. Everyone has been talking about it lately. Sitting in the back of her limousine, Hillary Clinton did her bit for peace as well— and with what results. Turkey and Armenia have signed a historic deal thawing 90-odd years of hostility, encouraging even more peace-talk.

Both Turkey and Armenia have held their ground for those 90 years. Armenia alleges that Turkey, during the demise of the Ottoman Empire, committed atrocious acts of ‘genocide’, a claim which Turkey hotly denies. This deadlock has delayed the development of the Caucasus and their reconciliation with each other and their integration into the international community.

So now one asks: why this deadlock?

All fingers point to history and the reading of it.

In fact, historians themselves are divided. Take for instance Turkic historian Donald Quataert: “How, then, can we explain the accusations of Armenian and Arab nationalisms of our own day, that the Young Turk Ottoman regimes were harshly Turkish nationalist? Most significantly, they recall the Armenian massacres of 1915-1918. Rather than viewing these as the actions of fierce Turkish nationalists aimed at Turkish racial dominance over others, it may be more accurate to see them as policies — to stamp out threat to its stability.”

Historians agree that the Ottoman Empire’s death mattered. The disputes begin over whether or not it was aggressive Turkish nationalism.

Analysts have scrambled to contextualise the issue through umpteen different possibilities. For instance, Donald Bloxham points to the role of foreign powers. In The Great Game of Genocide he argues that, “Given the history of Russian sponsorship of Balkan Christian independence or autonomy movements, at a time of existential crisis for the empire, the CUP (Young Turks) also suspected Russian-Armenian military collaboration.” Remember, the Young Turks’ nationalism is commemorated as crucial to creating the sense of ‘Turkishness’ that still sustains the Turkish state.

... contd.