Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

Armenian Bone Marrow Donor Registry
3111 Los Feliz Avenue, #206, Los Angeles, CA 90039
Contact person: Dr. Frieda Jordan
Phone: (323) 663-3609
Email: [email protected]

ABMDR passes European licensing inspection with flying colors

Los Angeles, March 18, 2015 – For the fourth consecutive year, the
European Federation of Immunogenetics (EFI) renewed the operating
license of the Stem Cell Harvesting Center of the Armenian Bone Marrow
Donor Registry (ABMDR) in Yerevan.

The relicensing of the ABMDR laboratory, the only facility of its type
in Armenia and the entire Caucasus region, was granted by EFI after a
thorough onsite inspection held on March 16. The inspection was carried
out by two EFI-designated inspectors, Prof. Svetlana Vojovodic of Serbia
and Prof. Zorana Grubic of Croatia.

At the start of the inspection, Prof. Grubic submitted her own blood
samples for testing at the lab, as part of the inspection process.
Professors Grubic and Vojovodic went on to implement an extensive review
of the facility. They examined the operations, specific methodologies,
and technical documents of all lab departments with regard to a broad
range of scientific research and medical procedures. These include HLA
typing for patients as well as related and unrelated donors; and its
applications in the treatment of blood-related illnesses. The EFI
inspectors also examined the integrity and effectiveness of all medical
equipment and instruments utilized at the lab.

Later, when the results of Prof. Grubic’s blood test were submitted
and the inspectors reviewed them, they determined that all protocols and
standards were followed with utmost accuracy. As the EFI representatives
completed their thorough inspection of the Stem Cell Harvesting Center
and surveyed the results, they unreservedly approved EFI’s renewal of
the lab’s license.

`Once again, the ABMDR Stem Cell Harvesting Center passed the EFI
inspection with flying colors,’ Prof. Vojovodic said. `This is a
world-class, highly professional lab. Its well-trained staff not only
excels at the skills required to run such a specialized institution, but
is also confident, friendly, and accommodating.’

During their concluding meeting with lab staff and ABMDR executives,
professors Grubic and Vojovodic praised their high level of expertise,
thanked them for their hospitality, and said they wished to return to
Armenia in the future for a chance to further explore the country.

The renewal of the Stem Cell Harvesting Center’s EFI license will
enable the facility to continue its collaboration with laboratories and
transplant centers worldwide and help save the lives of patients struck
by life-threatening blood-related illnesses.

`It is immensely gratifying to be granted EFI renewal of our center’s
license,’ stated ABMDR president Dr. Frieda Jordan, who had traveled
to Yerevan in order to be on hand during the EFI inspection process.
`The approval of our work by a global and prestigious regulatory body
such as EFI makes our life-saving mission all the more worthwhile.’

About the Armenian Bone Marrow Donor Registry: Established in 1999,
ABMDR, a nonprofit organization, helps Armenians and non-Armenians
worldwide survive life-threatening blood-related illnesses by recruiting
and matching donors to those requiring bone marrow stem cell
transplants. To date, the registry has recruited over 26,000 donors in
24 countries across four continents, identified 2,482 patients, and
facilitated 20 bone marrow transplants.

From: Baghdasarian

CLASH AT ABC ASHRAFIEH AS ARMENIANS PROTEST TURKISH FILM

NaharNet, Lebanon
March 18 2015

by Naharnet Newsdesk

A fistfight erupted Wednesday at the ABC mall in Ashrafieh after a
number of young Lebanese Armenian men tried to stop the showing of
the Turkish film Son Mektup at a Grand Cinemas movie theater.

Despite the objections, the show went on as scheduled, in the presence
of the Turkish ambassador, MTV reported.

The protest was organized by the Tashnag Party, the biggest Armenian
party in Lebanon, which described its move as a “peaceful rally.”

“The sit-in escalated into a stampede and a brawl between the
protesters and those who came to watch the movie,” LBCI television
said.

“Security forces arrived and locked down the mall for around an hour
before managing to disperse the protesters,” it added.

MTV said customers were allowed to reenter the mall after the demo
was dispersed.

The Tashnag Party meanwhile issued a statement describing the film
as a “new Turkish absurdity” and an attempt to “underestimate the
minds of the Lebanese.”

The film’s plot tells the story of a young Turkish air officer who
falls in love with a nurse during the 1915 Gallipoli Campaign.

Turkey on Wednesday marked 100 years since the start of the Gallipoli
Campaign by the Allies in World War I, an event seen now as a glorious
victory by Ottoman forces and a crucial moment in the formation of
the modern Turkish state.

On March 18, 1915, joint British-French naval forces sought to force
their way through the Dardanelles Straits separating Europe from Asia
in a bid to take Istanbul, then known as Constantinople.

However the attack was repelled by fierce Ottoman resistance, forcing
the Allies to stage a land campaign in April that the Ottoman forces
would also defeat in a months-long battle.

Although the Ottoman Empire, allied with Berlin, was on the losing
side in World War I and subsequently collapsed, the Gallipoli Campaign
is regarded by Turks as a seminal moment in their history.

Critics have accused Turkey of cynically shifting the date to
overshadow ceremonies expected in Armenia and across the world to
remember the 100th anniversary of the mass killings of Armenians by
Ottoman forces in World War I.

Turkey has always rejected pressure to accept that the killings
were a genocide and shows no sign of changing its position in the
anniversary year.

“Here we are in Beirut today witnessing a new Turkish opportunist bid
through the showing of a propaganda film in Lebanese movie theaters,”
the Tashnag Party said in a statement.

The film “narrates a bloody and oppressive phase of the Ottoman
history,” Tashnag added.

It also slammed the employees of the “ominous Turkish embassy and
those who work in its ‘black rooms’.”

“The step might seem innocent on the surface but its core and
objectives are full of inherent Turkish malevolence.”

Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Description:

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
From: Katia Peltekian
Subject: Beirut: Clash at ABC Ashrafieh as Armenians Protest Turkish Film

NaharNet, Lebanon
March 18 2015

Clash at ABC Ashrafieh as Armenians Protest Turkish Film

by Naharnet Newsdesk

A fistfight erupted Wednesday at the ABC mall in Ashrafieh after a
number of young Lebanese Armenian men tried to stop the showing of the
Turkish film Son Mektup at a Grand Cinemas movie theater.

Despite the objections, the show went on as scheduled, in the presence
of the Turkish ambassador, MTV reported.

The protest was organized by the Tashnag Party, the biggest Armenian
party in Lebanon, which described its move as a “peaceful rally.”

“The sit-in escalated into a stampede and a brawl between the
protesters and those who came to watch the movie,” LBCI television
said.

“Security forces arrived and locked down the mall for around an hour
before managing to disperse the protesters,” it added.

MTV said customers were allowed to reenter the mall after the demo was
dispersed.

The Tashnag Party meanwhile issued a statement describing the film as
a “new Turkish absurdity” and an attempt to “underestimate the minds
of the Lebanese.”

The film’s plot tells the story of a young Turkish air officer who
falls in love with a nurse during the 1915 Gallipoli Campaign.

Turkey on Wednesday marked 100 years since the start of the Gallipoli
Campaign by the Allies in World War I, an event seen now as a glorious
victory by Ottoman forces and a crucial moment in the formation of the
modern Turkish state.

On March 18, 1915, joint British-French naval forces sought to force
their way through the Dardanelles Straits separating Europe from Asia
in a bid to take Istanbul, then known as Constantinople.

However the attack was repelled by fierce Ottoman resistance, forcing
the Allies to stage a land campaign in April that the Ottoman forces
would also defeat in a months-long battle.

Although the Ottoman Empire, allied with Berlin, was on the losing
side in World War I and subsequently collapsed, the Gallipoli Campaign
is regarded by Turks as a seminal moment in their history.

Critics have accused Turkey of cynically shifting the date to
overshadow ceremonies expected in Armenia and across the world to
remember the 100th anniversary of the mass killings of Armenians by
Ottoman forces in World War I.

Turkey has always rejected pressure to accept that the killings were a
genocide and shows no sign of changing its position in the anniversary
year.

“Here we are in Beirut today witnessing a new Turkish opportunist bid
through the showing of a propaganda film in Lebanese movie theaters,”
the Tashnag Party said in a statement.

The film “narrates a bloody and oppressive phase of the Ottoman
history,” Tashnag added.

It also slammed the employees of the “ominous Turkish embassy and
those who work in its ‘black rooms’.”

“The step might seem innocent on the surface but its core and
objectives are full of inherent Turkish malevolence.”

From: Baghdasarian

ACCLAIMED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE DOCUMENTARY TO AIR ON PBS

Wednesday, March 18th, 2015

‘The Armenian Genocide’ will air on PBS in April

NEW YORK–The documentary “The Armenian Genocide” presents the complete
story of the first Genocide of the 20th century – when over a million
Armenians died at the hands of the Ottoman Turks during World War I.

This award-winning and critically acclaimed one-hour film, originally
aired on PBS in 2006, will be distributed to public television
stations across the United States in April 2015 (check local listings)
to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Genocide. The film’s
re-release is made possible by the Armenian Genocide Centennial
Committee of America, Eastern Region. The film was written, directed
and produced by Emmy Award-winning producer Andrew Goldberg of Two
Cats Productions.

The starting date of the Armenian Genocide is historically noted as
April 24, 1915, when Ottoman authorities arrested approximately 250
Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. As
Armenians worldwide mark the 100th anniversary this year, broadcasts
of “The Armenian Genocide” offer a powerful accounting of the
Genocide. The documentary, filmed in the United States, France,
Germany, Belgium, Turkey and Syria, features interviews with the
leading experts in the field such as Pulitzer Prize-winning US
Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power and New York Times
best-selling author Peter Balakian, as well as historical footage
of the events and discussions with Kurdish and Turkish citizens in
modern-day Turkey who speak openly about the stories told to them by
their parents and grandparents. “The Armenian Genocide” is narrated
by Emmy winner Julianna Margulies and includes historical narrations
by actors Ed Harris, Natalie Portman, Laura Linney and Orlando Bloom,
among others.

The 2006 premiere of “The Armenian Genocide” on PBS received
extraordinary reviews and coverage in almost every major newspaper in
the US including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Los
Angeles Times, The Washington Post and The Boston Globe. The NJ Star
Ledger called it “…serious, literate and ultimately heartbreaking.”

Alessandra Stanley of The New York Times described it as a “powerful”
film that “…honors the victims of the Genocide.” The film, which
was screened at the US Congress in an event hosted by three U.S.

Representatives, aired on networks in Germany, Canada, Australia,
France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Finland and many other
countries. The film’s television premiere also generated massive
outcry, as the Turkish government denies that a genocide occurred,
and maintains this position steadfastly to this day. The Government
of Turkey wrote a scathing letter to PBS condemning the film’s
distribution, and Congressional Representatives spoke out on both
sides of the issue.

“What the word ‘Genocide’ connotes is a systematic campaign of
destruction. If you simply call the horrors of 1915 ‘crimes against
humanity’ or ‘atrocities,’ it doesn’t fully convey just how methodical
this campaign of slaughter and deportation really was, and I think
that’s why historians look at the record and they really can come
to no other conclusion but that this word, Genocide, applies to this
methodical campaign of destruction,” said Samantha Power at the time
of the film’s initial release.

The Armenian Genocide was made possible by John and Judy Bedrosian,
The Lincy Foundation, The Avanessians Family Foundation, and The
Manoogian-Simone Foundation.

From: Baghdasarian

ALARM SIGNAL FROM METS AYRUM: PASTURE HILL OWNED BY COMMUNITY DESTROYED FOR UNKNOWN REASONS

15:55 March 17, 2015

EcoLur

The heavy machinery owned by ‘Akhtala Ore Dressing Combine’ CJSC is
destroying the hill considered to be the community pasture in Mets
Ayrum Community, Lori Region, as an alarm signal was beaten to EcoLur
from Mets Ayrum community.

In his interview with EcoLur Mets Ayrum Community Head Sahak Nazaryan
first mentioned this area is located next to the cemetery and the
land is relocated to open a parking lot for the cars parking near the
cemetery. Under him, the tailing dump hasn’t been reclaimed, but he
also didn’t deny that the land is used to fill the upper part of the
tailing dump owned by the combine.

Oleg Dulgaryan, Mets Ayrum Aldermen’s Council Member, President of
‘Community Union and Support Center’ NGO noted, ‘What does it mean to
destroy a hill, which a community property and a pasture, to change
the landscape of the community withou having any proper decision
of the Aldermen’s Council or change in the land status and without
the consent of the community? Who asked for the permission of the
community or what kind of reclaimining it’s all about when reclaiming
plan hasn’t been submitted to the commnuty? What are the standards
of the reclaiming and why shall a company, the tailing dump of which
causes damage to the community residents, mitigate the consequences
of the damage with causing another damage?’

From: Baghdasarian

EU SHOULD PUT PRESSURE ON TURKEY TO OPEN THE BORDER WITH ARMENIA WITH NO PRECONDITIONS – ARMENIAN MP

YEREVAN, March 18. /ARKA/. The European Union should, as part
of its border control elimination policy, put pressure on Turkey
to open its border with Armenia without preconditions, member of
the Armenian delegation in Euronest Parliamentary Assembly Artsvik
Minasyan said at the Euronest plenary session in Yerevan on Tuesday,
Novosti-Armenia reported.

For about 25 years now Turkey and Azerbaijan have been pursuing a
closed border policy toward Armenia, which leaves the country with
only way to Europe – via Georgia, Minasyan said.

In this respect, it is important for Armenia that the EU makes efforts
and puts pressure on Turkey to open the border without preconditions
so that the country is able to increase its trade and integrate with
Europe more closely, the member of the parliament said.

There are currently no diplomatic relations established between Turkey
and Armenia: official Ankara closed the border in 1993. The uneasy
relationship between the countries is caused particularly by Ankara’s
support to Azerbaijan on Karabakh problem and Turkey’s overreaction
to international recognition of the 1915 Armenian genocide in Ottoman
Empire.

Some reconciliation in the relations started in autumn 2008 initiated
by Armenia’s president Serzh Sargsyan. Foreign ministers of Armenia
and Turkey signed protocols about establishing diplomatic relations
in Zurich on October 10 2009 to be ratified by the parliaments.

On April 22 2010 Armenia’s president Sargsyan suspended the
ratification process saying the political majority in the National
Assembly considered statements from the Turkish side unacceptable,
“specifically those by Prime Minister Erdogan, who has again made the
ratification of the Armenia-Turkey protocols by the Turkish parliament
directly dependent on a resolution over Nagorno-Karabakh.”

In a statement issued on February 16, president Sargsyan said he had
asked parliament speaker Galust Sahakian to return the protocol to
him since “the Turkish government has no political will, distorts
the spirit and letter of the protocols, and continues its policy of
setting preconditions.” –0–

From: Baghdasarian

JUDGE ASKS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIM IF SHE STAYED WITH HUSBAND “FOR A PIECE OF BREAD”

03.18.2015 09:57 epress.am

Yesterday, March 17th, after the Court of Appeals heard the appeal of
domestic violence victim, Gavar resident Hasmik Khachatryan, the three
judges, Ruzanna Barseghyan, Sergei Chichyan, and Gagik Avetisyan, asked
various questions to clarify the reasons for Khachatryan staying in
her former husband’s home after being continuously subject to beatings.

“The court wonders why you didn’t divorce earlier,” “You did leave
in the end, didn’t you? You should’ve left on time,” “Did you stay
for a piece of bread?” “Did they tie your hands up for you not to
leave the house?”, asked the judges Hasmik Khachatryan, who answered
stating the reason was fear. According to the woman, she was afraid
because her husband, Sargis Hakobyan, threatened her; in the case
of her leaving, he would have deprived her from the possibility of
seeing her two children.

Note, that Sargis Hakobyan was found guilty by the Gegharkunik Court
of First Instance for torture and sentenced to 1.5 years imprisonment;
however he was granted amnesty and was set free from the courtroom.

Hasmik Khachatryan’s side appealed the Court of First Instance’s
verdict to the Court of Appeals stating that the court did not take
into consideration that Hasmik Khachatryan was subject to beating
by an individual who she was dependant on and for that reason he was
given a lesser punishment.

According to Khachatryan’s lawyer Tigran Muradyan, the woman’s
dependency has been confirmed by various instances present in the
case; for example, once, when noticing one of the children had fallen
and was injured, Sargis beat Hasmik, in another episode the husband
pulled his wife from the hair, while Hasmik pleaded for Sargis not
to beat her. The third incident was when Sargis asked whether Hasmik
doubted if he was a “good guy” and if he had any doubts that Hasmik
was being disloyal to him, he would “take her eyes out.”

During the hearing in the Court of First Instance, Khachatryan had
explained that she had fled her husband’s home to take shelter at
her parents’ house. Hakobyan went after her, with the intention
of bringing her back, however, Khachatryan refused. Since she had
physical injuries, her father took her to the hospital the next day
and from there they appealed to the police.

During yesterday’s hearing, the Court of Appeals’ judges stated that
it was especially surprising that Hasmik stayed at Hakobyan’s home
for the past two years, because Hasmik and Sargis did not live a
“married life” for the duration of that time.

Since there is no opportunity to direct questions to the court, those
present at the court were left to assume what the court meant by
“married life.” Tigran Muradyan assumed the court’s understanding of
“married life” was sexual relations.

“You, yourself, admitted in your preliminary testimony that you did
not live a married life,” said the presiding judge Ruzanna Barseghyan,
without clarifying what “married life” means.

Hasmik Khachatryan noted that during the last two years Sargis lived
in Yerevan for the most part, and would come home once or twice a week,
but would say that he would find work and the whole family would move.

“As to having a mistress, Sargis’ parents used to say that all men
have mistresses, but that I was his wife,” noted Hasmik Khachatryan.

In the appeal suit, the plaintiff’s side is also demanding to
overturn the decision to grant Sargis Hakobyan amnesty. According to
Khachatryan’s lawyer, an act of amnesty could not be implemented if he
is also involved in another civil suit currently in the investigation
stage. The case pertained to a civil suit where Hasmik Khachatryan is
demanding moral compensation. The prosecutor also appealed the Court
of First Instance’s verdict demanding 5 years imprisonment, while
Hasmik Khachatryan’s side demanded 7 years imprisonment for Hakobyan.

During yesterday’s hearing, Sargis Hakobyan’s (currently imprisoned
on different charges) supporters, one male and a few women, accused
the journalists covering the case, stating “Do you know how much
money they get to cover this?” One of the women kept commenting on
Hasmik’s answers, saying “He didn’t do enough; he should have smashed
your head.”

From: Baghdasarian

NAGORNO KARABAKH: THE BENEFITS OF BEING IN THE MARGINS

European Leadership Network
March 18 2015

By Laurence Broers

Caucasus Programme Associate at Conciliation Resources and Research
Associate at London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies

Wednesday 18 March 2015

As Russia consolidates what Alexander Cooley has called a new
semi-sovereign space embracing secessionist entities in eastern
Ukraine, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria, there is one such
entity that looks on with great interest, but from a certain distance.

The Nagorno Karabakh (NK) conflict was the first of the secessionist
conflicts accompanying the collapse of the Soviet Union; in terms of
scale and numbers of casualties it was second only to Chechnya. Ending
in 1994 with an Armenian military victory and the seizure of wide
Azerbaijani territories beyond that originally under dispute, the
conflict has lingered in the margins of Eurasian politics ever since.

Mediating the peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan is the
OSCE’s Minsk Group, which has since the mid-1990s generated no less
than five peace plans. Yet to date the political fallout from the
likely compromises involved and the top-down nature of the process
has prevented progress.

Since a much anticipated but ultimately unsuccessful meeting of the
Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents in Kazan in 2010, escalation and
uncertainty have dominated the NK conflict, reflecting both local and
regional dynamics. Escalation has been the main short-term dynamic
along the 160-mile Line of Contact between Armenian and Azerbaijani
forces. The type, intensity and range of ceasefire violations have
significantly increased over the last 18 months. Last year, skirmishes
in July-August and the shooting down of an Armenian helicopter in
November grabbed the headlines. Constant strafing and sniper fire
across the de jure Armenia-Azerbaijan border in the Tavush/Tovuz
areas, and exchanges in the area of Azerbaijani exclave Nakhchivan,
have also extended the geographical range of violations.

Over the medium to long-term, the arms race between Armenia and
Azerbaijan has become a much-reported aspect of the conflict, pitting
Azerbaijani petro-dollars against Armenia’s deepening alliance (and
reliance) on Russia. In September 2013 Armenia was effectively coerced
into turning its back on an association agreement with the European
Union in favour of accession to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s
Eurasian Union integration project. Yet as Russia has strengthened
its grip over Abkhazia and South Ossetia with new boundary-dissolving
treaties, there are reasons to believe that the de facto entity in NK
may be able to keep some distance from Russian integration. Russia
has no direct border with Armenia or NK. Neither does it have
“passportized” citizens to “protect”, nor peacekeepers on the ground.

Russia’s influence over NK is largely indirect, via the deep
penetration of Armenia’s economy, infrastructure and security
architecture. Armenia’s accession to the Eurasian Union has however
raised the possibility of a customs point at the border between
Armenia and NK. Unlikely in practice, this still adds to Russian
leverage over Armenia.

Over the last year Azerbaijanis have looked at the situation in
Ukraine as vindication of their argument with Armenia, claiming that
there is no essential difference between Russia’s actions in Crimea
and eastern Ukraine in 2014 and Armenia’s actions in NK in 1988-1994.

Yet while Armenia’s growing integration with a Russian-controlled space
may be a source of short-term validation of Azerbaijani positions,
there is little doubt that neither side desires an increased Russian
presence in the theatre of conflict. Although the current peace
proposal, the Madrid Principles, envisages the deployment of an
international peacekeeping operation in NK, conversations on all
sides of the conflict reveal consensus on apprehensions regarding
the composition, mandate, location and duration of any such
force. This negative consensus, serves as a reminder of an easily
forgotten feature of the NK conflict: the relative sustainability
of a self-regulating ceasefire. Recent escalations detract from
this aspect of the Armenian-Azerbaijani truce, which until 2014 had
seen no major escalations comparable to those disrupting ceasefires
in the Georgian-Abkhaz (in 1998) and Georgian-South Ossetian (in
2004 and 2008) contexts. Reprehensible though the lapses in the
Armenian-Azerbaijani ceasefire are, it is still a ceasefire that is
managed by Armenians and Azerbaijanis, by themselves, for themselves,
on their own.

In this light, the escalation in the range, breadth and severity of
Line of Contact clashes, which are driving calls for an increased
international presence in the area, is not only worrying, but also
puzzling. Azerbaijani frustration with a status quo that over time is
normalising the occupation of large swathes of its de jure territory
is understandable. There is a clear benefit on the Azerbaijani side
of countering perceptions of a “frozen”–and hence in some sense
acceptable– conflict. Yet there is a common Armenian-Azerbaijani
interest in preserving the exceptionality of NK against the wider
canvas of the incorporation of de facto space into Russian-controlled
semi-sovereign space. The treaties concluded between Russia and
Abkhazia and South Ossetia respectively have further embedded the
asymmetry in this process for de facto entities, and leave little
doubt as to the fate that would befall NK were it to become part
of this space. Whatever outcome might eventually issue from an
Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiation would be averted and this conflict
would become entangled and submerged in entirely different dynamics
on a Eurasian scale.

The “proxification” of Armenia i.e. the depiction of Armenia as a
proxy already entirely under Russian influence, and hence the absence
of a real interlocutor, is popular in Azerbaijan. Yet local agency and
bilateral scope remain much greater in this conflict than others in
Eurasia. The dynamic of escalation and the appearance of diminishing
control over the Line of Contact area are contracting this scope. In
the face of accelerating centripetal pressures that could reshape the
NK conflict beyond recognition, Armenia and Azerbaijan need to act
to avoid local instability converting into metropolitan opportunity.

The opinions articulated above represent the views of the author(s),
and do not necessarily reflect the position of the European Leadership
Network or any of its members. The ELN’s aim is to encourage debates
that will help develop Europe’s capacity to address the pressing
foreign, defence, and security challenges of our time.

From: Baghdasarian

‘ARMENIANS HAD POWERFUL TRADE CONNECTIONS’

Businessworld
March 18 2015

Jonathan Gil Harris, Author, The First Firangis: Remarkable Stories
of Heroes, Healers, Charlatans, Courtesans And Other Foreigners Who
Became Indian (Aleph)

by Sanjitha Rao Chaini

How did the idea of writing The First Firangis come to you?

The book is a work of history, but it is also an oblique autobiography
– told through the lives of others – about my own experience as
an immigrant to India. In the years I have been living here, my
identity has transformed a great deal: my body has been colonised and
transformed by Indian matter, be it desi food, clothes, weather,
landscapes, or germs. I had been deeply impressed by William
Dalrymple’s White Mughals. But Dalrymple’s White Mughals were largely
powerful men who assumed high offices within the machinery of British
colonialism. By contrast, I was interested in the lives of poor
foreign migrants from several centuries earlier who came to India
with much humbler ambitions — to escape poverty and persecution,
and to find a better life here. I was interested in tales of foreign
migrants who were not conquerors or colonialists.

Who do you think were the most fierce businessmen among the firangis?

Few rivalled the Portuguese for fierceness and cruelty at this time:
they were looking to take possession of the lucrative spice trade
by any means necessary, and Vasco da Gama and his successors came
to India armed to the hilt. But the most successful firangi business
community in the 16th and 17th centuries were probably the Armenians,
who were invited to Mughal Hindustan by Akbar in large part because
of their powerful trade connections from Central Asia to the Levant.

You have lived in the US, and in England and now settled in India.

What are your views on the Indian society?

It’s hard to generalise about Indian society. This is a land of rigid
tradition but also of constant transformation. If there’s one way
in which I have experienced change in New Delhi differently from
elsewhere in the world, it is that the pace of modernisation here
is both bewilderingly fast yet also agonisingly slow. Entire new
city skylines can materialise in Noida, Gurgaon or Sonepat seemingly
overnight. Yet vital old infrastructure takes forever to be repaired
or improved. Kyaa karein? Hum toh aise hain!

From: Baghdasarian

YEREVAN TURNS DOWN OFFER FOR CREATING WORKING GROUP ON PEACE DEAL

AzerNews, Azerbaijan
March 18 2015

18 March 2015, 15:56 (GMT+04:00)
By Mushvig Mehdiyev

At a time when efforts have intensified in view of solving the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Armenia has officially refused an offer to
create a working group under the Great Peace Agreement, Azerbaijani
Foreign Minister reported.

Referring to the locked settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
Foreign Minister, Elmar Mammadyarov said there is no room for optimism
in view of this issue, since Armenia remains true to its aggressive
rhetoric.

“Old arguments and old issues took the stage again. Perhaps, Armenia’s
rulers attempt to play domestic audience for its purposes,” Mammadyarov
added.

As part of the active involvement of Azerbaijan to see manifest the
settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Azerbaijan’s position
remains unchanged when it comes to the Great Peace Agreement, said
Mammadyarov.

The Great Peace Agreement envisages the peaceful resolution of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict based primarily on Madrid Principles,
which includes the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied
lands as a first condition to end Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute.

Notwithstanding the handshake of top Armenian and Azerbaijani officials
on the proposed principles, no progress towards the deadline of
the withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied territories
has reportedly been achieved, mainly due to Armenia’s reluctance to
build peace.

Despite Armenian rulers’ systematic hindrances, Azerbaijani officials
have, nevertheless, exerted all-out efforts to resolve all outstanding
issues as to promote regional stability and peace, in keeping with
Baku’s commitment to its people and the region. And yet Yerevan
remains stubborn.

Earlier last week, Mammadyarov reiterated Azerbaijan’s readiness
to start active and comprehensive talks in an effort to succeed
in brokering a breakthrough agreement towards the resolution of
the conflict.

Furthermore, the OSCE Minsk Group supports calls for coming to a
consensus in regard to the kick-off of talks under the conditions
provided by the Great Peace Agreement.

Calls for an immediate start of peace talks were included in
a statement issued by the co-chairs of the Minsk Group following
their meeting with the Armenian foreign minister in Munich on March
6. But Armenia chose instead to invent numerous lies and pretexts to
feed the stalemate and shy away from the settlement process of the
20-year-old conflict.

Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized Nagorno-Karabakh territory
was turned into a battlefield and zone of aggravated tensions after
Armenia sent its troops to occupy Azerbaijan’s lands. As a result,
20 percent of Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized territory stands
under military occupation. For the past two decades, and despite calls
from the international community, Armenia has refused to withdraw
its troops and retreat within its national borders.

The two countries signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The co-chairs
of the OSCE Minsk Group, Russia, France and the U.S. are currently
holding peace negotiations.

From: Baghdasarian

SERZH SARGSYAN HAS BEEN MISUNDERSTOOD

Lragir.am
Comments – 17 March 2015, 19:01

The leader of the Heritage Party who is away from Armenia visiting his
parents has addressed the Armenian people. He expressed regret about
the informal and useless meetings of the leader of the ruling party.

He notes that the risks are deeper and broader and promises to make
a statement after returning to Yerevan.

He means the meeting of two members of the Heritage Party with Serzh
Sargsyan. The other members of the party criticized these two for
going to that meeting, emphasizing that the party had not authorized
them to go. And those who went to the meeting announced that Raffi
Hovhannisian had been informed, hence agreed.

Most probably, both sides are right. There was no decision of the
party but Raffi Hovhannisian knew about the meeting. In other words,
what happened is something typical of the Armenian “political parties”:
on the one hand, it saves its face, on the other hand, it enters into
trade with the government.

Apparently, the Armenian “political parties” have not realized
what happened on February 12, which is noticed from their behavior
after February 12. Particularly, in regard to the amendments to the
Constitution. Some of the parties who had been invited went to meet
with Serzh Sargsyan, those who had not been invited called it a proof
of their value. However, here is a situation when going or not going
is the same, and politics is measured by its results. In other words,
the results of going or not going will be the same.

The point is that February 12 and the subsequent developments were
“legitimized” by Serzh Sargsyan’s initiatives, facilitated by the
“political parties”. These groups have never been distinguished for
their political thinking and adequacy and have always followed the
government’s initiatives. On February 12 this situation was completed,
and going or not going to Serzh Sargsyan was the last finish.

As to what should have been done to prevent such a situation, the
Armenian political parties could not care less. All they care for is
if they are going to have a place in the future government, whether
inside the system or outside it in the “opposition”.

In other words, from February 12 they understood the only
comprehensible and important thing for them – the circus is over,
the masks have been torn. Apparently, the Heritage Party has failed
to understand this too.

From: Baghdasarian