PM Pashinyan Questions Diasporan Armenian Identity

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s recent interview with Public TV has sparked a strong reaction across Armenia and the global Armenian Diaspora. His remarks touched on sensitive topics such as national identity, the role of the Republic of Armenia, and the relationship with Western Armenia, the ancestral homeland of many Armenians now living abroad. The comments have ignited strong reactions from citizens, former officials, and members of the Diaspora.

During the interview, Pashinyan emphasized the importance of the Republic of Armenia as the foundation of Armenian identity. “I say our identity depends on the Republic of Armenia. I have no other identity,” he said. He argued that in the modern world, identities are closely tied to nation-states. Addressing criticisms from Swiss-Armenians who accused his government of undermining Armenian identity, Pashinyan pointed out that the only way to ensure identity is through having a nation-state.

A reporter challenged Pashinyan, asking whether this perspective excluded the Diaspora, which often holds on to the idea of returning to Western Armenia, a homeland lost during the Armenian Genocide. In response, Pashinyan stated, “A person lives in Australia and dreams of one day returning to the birthplace of his grandfathers. Let him return. What does the Republic of Armenia have to do with this?”

These comments have drawn sharp criticism, particularly from those who view them as dismissive of the historical and emotional significance of Western Armenia to the Armenian identity.

The backlash has been swift and intense. Arman Tatoyan, the former Human Rights Defender of Armenia, accused Pashinyan of sacrificing national identity and historical memory for political survival. Writing on Facebook, Tatoyan said, “Decades of international and Armenian efforts are being eliminated exclusively for one goal: to maintain power.”

Vicken Sosikian, a longtime diasporan Armenian advocate, expressed his outrage, telling The Armenian Report, “This is an insult to not only at least 10 million Armenians but to every single person who struggles to have a state in correspondence with an identity they value. He is insulting every Kurd, Assyrian, Armenian—everyone who has been deprived of their homeland. Basically, Artsakh Armenians in his logic can’t feel Armenian because they don't have a homeland. Palestinians can’t feel Palestinian if they don’t have a Palestine. This is an absurd and insulting statement against all those who have been deprived and had their country taken away wrongly.”

Arthur Ghazaryan shared similar concerns, claiming that Pashinyan’s vision for Armenia involves creating a new type of citizen who renounces historical memory and prioritizes the state over the nation. He pointed to the loss of Artsakh as an example of Pashinyan’s leadership failures.

Astghik Galeyan, a grieving mother who lost her child in the 2020 war, expressed her outrage by criticizing Pashinyan for disregarding the Armenian Genocide and the symbolic significance of Mount Ararat. “Ararat is our mountain, the genocide is the burden of the Turks,” she declared, calling Pashinyan a “glutton” for power.

Bedros Hajian, a Diaspora member, called for Pashinyan to be denied entry to the United States, labeling him as a liberal aligned with foreign interests. He suggested that Pashinyan’s policies align more closely with Turkey than with the aspirations of the Armenian people.

Lida Arushanyan, another bereaved mother, gave a scathing critique of Pashinyan’s leadership, accusing him of selling Armenia’s lands to Turkey and failing to uphold the legacy of the Genocide survivors. She criticized the government’s inaction and what she perceived as a passive populace, stating, “You will not have another homeland. There was one Artsakh, and you denied it too.”

The controversy shows the growing divide between Pashinyan’s administration and segments of Armenian society, both within the country and in the Diaspora. While some may argue that his pragmatic approach aims to stabilize Armenia in a challenging geopolitical environment, others see it as a betrayal of the core values and historical struggles that define the Armenian people.