Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Aintaptsi And Congress Members

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Aintaptsi And Congress Members

    AINTAPTSI AND CONGRESS MEMBERS
    Hakob Badalyan

    Lragir.am
    19/11/09

    No doubt, bringing the example of Yeghiazar Aintaptsi while turning to
    Serge Sargsyan, Levon Ter-Petrosyan put his partners from the Congress
    in a very uncomfortable situation especially those who often meet
    with journalists. They faced the most difficult problem to explain
    the significance of this example to the public. While, the feeling is
    created that the Congress leaders themselves did not fully understand
    what Levon Ter-Petrosyan meant by that example. Perhaps, this is the
    reason why each of them explains this example on their own creating
    the impression that they try to explain it first for themselves.

    "In the XVII century, there was an ambitious clergyman in Turkey by
    the name Yeghiazar Aintaptsi who managed to become the Catholicos
    of the Armenians living in Turkey through bribes and breaches posing
    to danger the unity of the Armenian Church and Armenian people. So,
    the Echmiadzin clergymen held a session and told him, "Brother,
    if you want to become a Catholicos, come and become the Catholicos
    of All Armenians but do not pose the nation to danger". Yeghiazar
    agreed and became the Catholicos of All Armenians and reigned for 10
    years. And the danger posed to the Armenian church was prevented. I do
    not remember another such a wider and wiser decision in the Armenian
    history than the one the Echmiadzin clergymen took. Which is the
    reason why Serge Sargsyan thinks the Armenian nation is not able to
    express wisdom for national purposes?"

    Levon Ter-Petrosyan seems to have expressed the example on
    Aintaptsi quite clearly. What Levon Ter-Petrosyan wants to say seems
    understandable: the problem is why he says it. While the Congress
    leaders try to show only what he says. This means that they did not
    understand what Ter-Petrosyan said, let alone understanding why he
    said so. The situation is really hard. Ter-Petrosyan in essence said
    a new thing, but his team is trying to comment on the new thing in
    the old logic saying that the leader has always thought so.

    >>From this point, the government treated this scandalous part of Levon
    Ter-Petrosyan's speech wisely and does not seem to say anything in
    this connection. Maybe the government did not understand the meaning
    either. But this seems to be a more reasonable behavior than the
    attempts to explain something without having understood. The government
    at least understands that Aintaptsi is not what Ter-Petrosyan has
    always said. Consequently, old-fashioned answers were not to be given
    to these new and not yet understood words. Razmik Zohrabyan tried to
    commit the same mistake, but the government realized and prevented
    the Zohrabyan syndrome in time and stopped the continuation of the
    "dusted" thesis on Levon Ter-Petrosyan's leaving politics. The
    government decided not to voice any version until it has a complete
    idea of Aintaptsi's life and activities.

    In this comparison, the nerves of the Congress which has always been
    famous for its patience, give way and its leaders seem to compete
    who of them will explain better the real aim and sense of Levon
    Ter-Petrosyan's speech. No one knows why, they think they understood
    it better than the society and they had understood the meaning of
    the example before the latter was voiced, before Levon Ter-Petrosyan
    wrote his speech.
Working...
X