The Armeno-Turkish

controversy and the 1909

Adana incident
Tetsuya Sahara
Meiji University
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”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.