This article presents a critical analysis of the activities and developments of the Armenian Revolutionary Committee (Hayheghkom) during the period from December 1920 to February 1921. The study explores the historical background that led to the establishment of Hayheghkom as a governing body during a highly volatile period in Armenian history. It focuses on the committee’s administrative structure, ideological rhetoric, and the complex relationship with the Bolshevik central authorities in Moscow. The paper highlights how the revolutionary committee was both a product and an instrument of Sovietization in Armenia, tasked with implementing a new socio-political order modeled on Bolshevik principles. Despite its declared mission to represent the proletariat and peasantry, Hayheghkom faced significant challenges due to lack of broad popular legitimacy and widespread resistance among various social strata, especially rural populations wary of land nationalization policies. The ideological narrative promoted by Hayheghkom employed classic Bolshevik slogans and rhetoric aimed at mobilizing workers and peasants toward socialist transformation. However, this ideological messaging often clashed with entrenched national sentiments and social realities, leading to considerable skepticism and hostility from segments of Armenian society, including intellectuals and former political elites. Moreover, the article discusses the direct control exerted by the Bolshevik center over the Armenian committee’s decisions and operations, which limited the autonomy of local leaders and intensified the perception of Hayheghkom as a Moscow proxy. The centralized control extended to economic and military spheres, reinforcing the committee’s dependence on external support and supervision. The analysis culminates in examining the outbreak of the February 1921 uprising, which reflected deep-seated social grievances and political discontent with the new regime’s repressive measures and lack of popular engagement. The uprising underscored the inherent contradictions within the Sovietization process and revealed the limits of revolutionary authority imposed from above. Ultimately, the article argues that the period under study represents a critical phase in Armenia’s transition to Soviet rule, illustrating the complexities of imposing ideological and political change in a society marked by traditional structures and nationalist aspirations. This case study contributes to a broader understanding of early Soviet republics’ formation dynamics and the interplay between local conditions and central directives.
A. Nersisyan (Sat,) studied this question.