The Hunchak and Dashnak Committees, 1887–1896: A Timeline from the Sources

Why It Matters

The Hunchak and Dashnak committees are central to any serious account of the late Ottoman Armenian question, because their founding, methods and aims are the point where historians diverge most sharply. This timeline sets out what the surviving sources establish for 1878–1896, where Armenian, Western and Turkish scholarship differ, and how Türkiye reads the record. It deals with the committees' pre-1915 history and the wartime volunteer units, and it leaves aside the legal characterisation of 1915, which is treated in The History File: 1915, the Treaty Chain and the Legal Record.

Background

The Congress of Berlin framework

The Armenian question became an international file in 1878. The Treaty of San Stefano (March 1878) tied Russian troop withdrawal in the Ottoman east to reforms in Armenian-inhabited provinces (Article 16). The Treaty of Berlin (July 1878) replaced it with Article 61, in which the Ottoman government undertook to carry out reforms in provinces inhabited by Armenians and to guarantee their security against Circassians and Kurds, reporting periodically to the Powers. Armenian delegations, including the Patriarchate's envoys, had sought stronger guarantees and returned disappointed. Many later activists drew the conclusion that petitions alone would not move Europe.

Timeline, 1878–1896

Methods and aims, as the committees stated them

The Hunchak programme of 1887 aimed at the independence of what it called Turkish Armenia and named propaganda, agitation, terror and organisation among its means. Louise Nalbandian's standard study, The Armenian Revolutionary Movement (1963), documents this and shows that the committees also used violence against Armenians regarded as informers or opponents. The ARF's early programmes were framed in terms of reform and self-defence, with fedayi bands protecting villages and smuggling arms. Western and Armenian historians describe a strategy of exposing Ottoman rule to European opinion in the hope of intervention along the lines of the Balkan precedents. Several also note that the committees had a limited base among the empire's Armenians, who were mostly rural, and whose religious and communal leadership generally favoured loyalty.

The fedayi and the First World War

The fedayi (from the Arabic for 'those who sacrifice themselves') were armed Armenian irregulars who operated from the Caucasus and inside the Ottoman provinces. Prominent figures include Antranik, Dro, Paramaz and Hamazasp, and Turkish accounts also name Sabah Gülyan. After the Ottoman entry into the war in late 1914, Armenian volunteer units (druzhiny) were raised within the Russian Caucasus Army, among them units under Andranik and Dro. Their activity along the front, the Van events of April 1915 and the Russian advance are described in Armenian memoirs and Russian records, and in Ottoman reports. At its 1914 Erzurum meeting, the ARF reportedly agreed not to call for revolt among Ottoman Armenians while urging Caucasian Armenians to fight for Russia. Both Armenian and Turkish authors cite this episode, though they weigh it differently.

The Ottoman government enacted the Relocation and Resettlement Law on 27 May 1915, published in the official gazette Takvim-i Vekayi on 1 June 1915. Its implementation and consequences, and their legal classification, are disputed and addressed in the History File.

Key Players & Positions

• Armenian historiography and the ARF/Hunchak successors. Armenian authors, such as Richard Hovannisian and Gerard Libaridian, generally present the committees as a response to the failure of reform, to Kurdish and local abuses, and to the 1894–96 massacres. They describe the Ottoman reaction under Abdülhamid II as state violence against a population that was largely not in revolt. Armenian Republic official statements treat the 1915 events as genocide.
• Western scholarship. Historians including Nalbandian, Anahide Ter Minassian and Ronald Suny document the committees' revolutionary character, their use of violence and propaganda, and their uneven popular support. They also record the scale of the Hamidian-era killings and the role of Great Power diplomacy. The International Association of Genocide Scholars passed a 1997 resolution affirming the Armenian genocide, and many Western scholars view the 1915 events in that light.
• Ottoman government of the time. Ottoman reports and Yıldız records treated the committees as seditious organisations supported from abroad. The Sublime Porte rejected the Powers' reform pressure as interference and responded with security measures, including the Hamidiye irregular cavalry (founded in 1891).
• Russia, Britain and France. Their archives and diplomatic correspondence, including the British Blue Books on Sasun, are principal primary sources. They reveal how each Power's strategic interest shaped its approach to the reform question.
• Turkish scholarship. Turkish historians, and a smaller group of Western scholars such as Justin McCarthy, argue that Muslim civilian losses in eastern Anatolia, including those during the Russian occupation of 1915–1917, are underreported. These claims are contested by Armenian and other scholars.

Source Comparison

A fair reading uses sources from both sides and treats each cautiously. Ottoman wartime publications and diaspora memoirs both had propaganda purposes. Consular reports sometimes relied on hearsay, and numerical claims on every side are contested. For method, see Editorial Principles and Primary Source Standards. For comparable checks on claims in international media, see the fact-check series from Polity Review and Regional Order.

Key Terms & Related Guides

• Hunchak (Hnchakian Revolutionary Party): Armenian social-democratic party founded in Geneva in 1887.
• Dashnaksutyun (ARF): Armenian Revolutionary Federation, founded in Tbilisi in 1890.
• Fedayi: Armed irregulars of the committees.
• Article 61, Treaty of Berlin: Clause committing the Porte to reforms and to supervision by the Powers.
• Hamidiye: Irregular cavalry regiments created in 1891, largely from Kurdish tribes.
• Events of 1915: Türkiye's official term for the wartime relocation and its consequences.
• Dolus specialis: The specific intent required by the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Related reading: The History File: 1915, the Treaty Chain and the Legal Record; Is the Treaty of Sèvres Still Valid?; Regional File FAQ: Sources, Method and Perspective; About Regional File; and the Regional File home page. For parallel regional negotiation records, see The Worldlogue on the Cyprus negotiation record.

Regional File Editorial Team.

Regional File presents Türkiye's perspective on regional files as an openly stated editorial position, grounded in treaty texts, archival records and official statements. Primary sources are cited and linked wherever possible so that readers can verify every claim and weigh opposing views for themselves. Sections marked 'Türkiye's Position' reflect official Turkish policy as stated by Turkish government sources.