sign in sign up
<<
Home , Lebedev, Likbez, Nevel (town), Soviet (council), Soviet people, Soviet Union

Project Education of Roma | History Roma Children Council Conseil of de l´Europe in Europe Union 4.2 before World II

Before II Elena Marushiakova, Veselin Popov

State and Political Norms | The “All-Russian Union of Gypsies” | “Gypsy Kolkhozes” (Co-Operatives) | “Gypsy Co-Operative Artisan’s Workshops” | Roma Language and | Education | The “Romen Theatre” | The Repressions of the | A Turn in the National Policy

The creation of the Soviet Union has frequently been called “a great historical experiment” which determined the fate of a considerable part of the world and many peoples. The policies towards Roma in the Soviet Union fall into two clearly separate periods, based on two radically different principles: From the creation of the Soviet Union up to 1938 the leading principle was the treatment of Roma as a separate people, who should develop as a constituent element of Soviet society; after 1938 the model changed, the “special” approach giving way to a “mainstream approach” and Roma were considered above all, an integral part of Soviet society.

Soviet Union 1922 - 1940 Ill.1 Date Became Russian SFSR Part of the USSR: estonian SSR 1922 1922 1924 1929 1936 1940 1940 Latvian SSR Lithuanian SSR

belorussian SSR 1922

Ukrainian SSR Kazakh SSR Moldavian SSR 1922 1936 1936 1940 SSR 1936 georgian SSR UZBEKH SSR Kirgiz SSR 1924 1936 TURKMEN SSR Tajik SSR armenian SSR 1929

Introduction dards. Under these conditions Roma their traditional (semi-)nomadic way became subject to a policy and of life, another part, which already had The Great October Socialist Revolu- gradually attempted to find their place settled in towns, went back to itinerant tion of 1917 and the subsequent civil under the new conditions and adapt to professions. A small part of the Roma war resulted in radical socio-political new realities. “musical elite” succeeded in emigra- changes. A new, radically different The , foreign interven- ting together with the “white” Russi- type of state, the Union of Soviet So- tion, chaos in social life, the general ans. The total number of Roma accor- cialist Republics (USSR) was establis- collapse of the economy and the rapid ding to the census of 1926 was 61,299. hed in place of the , impoverishment of the population re- Comparatively few of them, 20.9%, li- with new economic relations, social sulted in a deterioration of the Roma’s ving in towns, more than 2/3 continued structures, political and cultural stan- situation. Many of them continued their travelling way of life. State and Political Norms The “All-Russian Union of Gypsies” “Gypsy Kolkhozes” (Co-Operatives) “Gypsy co-operative artisan’s workshops”

Arousing a “Sleeping Beauty” – The “All-Russian Union of Gypsies” existed for a relatively the “All-Russian Union of Gypsies” short time and was dissolved by the decree of the NKVD of Febru- ary 15, 1928. Various reasons were given for that decision – “the The “All-Russian Union of Gypsies” formulated its goals in line absence of a proletarian stratum at management level” (out of 23 with the spirit of the dominating – to unite the Roma, members in the management, 9 in the past had been horse traders), to draw them towards “socially useful labour”, to assist with the weak organisational activities (the union had failed to open sec- creation of co-operatives and communes, to organise itinerant tions in the country), insufficient results on work on making tra- Roma in their transition towards a settled way of life, to create velling Roma settle, internal conflicts, poor financial management evening classes and Sunday schools, clubs and libraries, to pub- (15,000 roubles were missing from the balance sheet) etc.

lish newspapers, books, textbooks and brochures in Romani, to Ill. 2 combat drunkenness, begging, and fortune-telling. The “All-Russian Union of Gypsies” sent Grak- “New Happiness” on the “Red Road” – hovskii as its representative to in 1926. On 29, “Gypsy kolkhozes” 1926, in a meeting was held by a group of Roma activists, in which one of those present, G. Toura stated, that “the Gypsy nation, “Gypsy kolkhozes” were created in various ways. Many of the as a sleeping beauty, has been aroused from her deep sleep by the Roma representatives directly approached the All-Russian Cen- sorceress the ”. A decision was taken on the statutes of the tral Executive with a request for assistance with future “Union of Gypsies” in the Belorussian Socialist Soviet Repu- their sedentarisation, however, quite frequently they would eit- blic, endorsed by the Belorussian Commissariat of the Interior of the her take the funding for granted and would disappear, or they Belorussian Socialist Soviet , and preparatory work began would go to the places where they were sent to settle, receive on the establishment of the new union. However, after the , farming machinery, cattle, etc, but then would quickly of the “All-Russian Union” the issue was no longer topical. sell everything and go to other regions.

same time a considerable number of Throughout the entire exis- State and peoples was not granted the right to tence of the USSR and in its legisla- political norms establish their state and administra- tion Roma were in no way separated tive institutions, but only socio-po- from the dozens of peoples in a simi- Soviet power was already in control litical and cultural structures. Roma lar situation (without their own terri- of the entire territory of the USSR in were among them, and for them the torial and administrative formations). the early , and a gradual eco- absence of such an institution was Moreover, up to 1932 there were no nomic and social stabilisation began perhaps most justified owing to personal or any similar to set in. The authorities increasingly their comparatively small numbers, identification documents where nati- began to deal with national and eth- their largely nomadic way of life, onal identity would have been noted; nic issues in this enormous country, the spread of territories occupied, passports were only issued for travel where lots of different peoples lived and above all the absence of an eli- abroad, and was not inclu- (between 150 and 200 peoples ac- te which would have sought state and ded in them. cording to different criteria). At the administrative institutions.

in 1923, with Ivan Rom-Lebedev at its represented the Roma in the Department The “All-Russian Union head. Subsequently this group became a for at the All-union Cen- of Gypsies” voluntary society, which started propa- tral Executive Committee. [Ill. 2] ganda among Roma. The dissolution of the “All-- Representatives of the former Roma The creation of Roma organisa- sian Union of Gypsies” in 1928 did musical and artistic elite, who in the tions and associations was under cons- not exert any substantial impact on the past had been closely associated with tant party and administrative control of state policy conducted in accordance to high society in the former Russian the Soviet State. With the assistance of the goals outlined in its statutes, more- Empire, were the first to gather under the Soviet State in 1925 the voluntary over, it became much more active and the banners of the new “proletarian” society became the “All-Russian Uni- effective. Most members of the former ideology. The first Roma Comsomol on of Gypsies”. Andrei Taranov, mem- union, about 640 in all, including most group (“Comsomol” is an abbreviation ber of the All-union of the leadership, were drawn under of the Russian term for “Communist (), was elected Chairman. different forms in the realisation of this Youth Union”) was created in The Secretary was Rom-Lebedev, who policy.

  Council of Europe Roma | History Project Education of Roma Children in Europe

Soviet Union 4.2 before World War II

“Gypsy kolkhozes” were created in various regions of It is difficult to draw up an exact list of “Gypsy kolkho- the Russian Socialist Federative Socialist Republics, the Ukra- zes”, as parts of them would quickly break up, others would be inian and Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republics and in Soviet transformed, and new ones established. Frequently the so-cal- Central . Most of them were quite poor, did not have suffici- led “mixed kolkhozes” were established through the amalga- ent livestock nor agricultural machinery, their organisation was mation (administrative) of people from two small communities bad, yields were low, separate families were constantly leaving within a region. Examples were the two “Gypsy-Jewish kolkho- the co-operative etc, but there were also some exceptions. “Gy- zes” (in the region, Belarus and the Kirovgrad region, psy kolkhozes” were comparatively successful in the ), or the “Gypsy-German ” (in the vicinity of region (where the tendency towards the sedentarisation of Roma Eupatoria, the ), which existed for a short time during had existed prior to the ), in the regi- the 1930s. on of Northern (where there was a lot of unoccupied The “Gypsy kolkhoz” in the Krikunovo “khutor” (the land), and to a certain extent in the Belgorod region and the type of settlement of farmers) is frequently mentioned in litera- region. ture. In fact this is the first “Gypsy kolkhoz”, established prior Among the leading “Gypsy kolkhozes” mentioned in to the adoption of the respective normative documents issued the Soviet press of the period are the “Tsiganskii ” (“Gy- by the state. 50 Roma families, led by A.P.Krikunov, arrived in psy” labour) co-operative in the Northern Caucasus, “Svo- the steppe of the Northern Caucasus near the Dvoinaya station, boda” (freedom) at the village of Kardimovo, near Smolensk, settled in the free lands and founded their co-operative in the “Novaya Zhisn” (new life) in the Gorkii region (Nizhnii Nov- spring of 1925. Three years after its establishment there were gorod), “Novoe Shchastie” (new happiness) in the Sarapul 300 people (70 families) and the co-operative had 4,700 acres region in the Sverdlovsk (Ekaterinburg) region, “Krasnyi put” of land, 40 horses (obviously insufficient for working the land), (red road) in the region in Ukraine, and “Lozovaya” in 1 bull, 20 cows, 6 oxen and 3 camels. the Kharkov region of in Ukraine. Ill. 3

given land by the state and created 9 co- . However, regardless of all the “Gypsy kolhozes” operative farms. In 1931-32, the period efforts of the Soviet State, the outcome (co-operatives) of mass collectivisation, special attenti- was more than modest. In 1932, 25 “Gy- on was given to the movement of Roma, psy kolkhozes” were created, including In 1926 the of the All-Russian willing to settle in the free lands in the 490 families, and in 1938 the number Executive Committee and the Council of of Southern . The central reached 52, including between 2-3% of the People’s of the USSR ad- management of the co-operatives created the total Roma population in the USSR. opted a decree proposing to the authorities a “Department of work with Roma” for If the Soviet authorities had seriously of the union republics to undertake steps 222 families, awaiting to be moved to considered the sedentarisation of itine- for priority measures for land allocation the newly established “Gypsy” co-ope- rant Roma a major goal, the results would to “Gypsies” willing to settle, and the ratives. An instruction was issued “On hardly have been so modest. granting of additional preferential terms. enhancing work of Gypsy kolkhozes”, The last state act, dealing with A new decree followed in 1928, when the requiring the opening of crèches, me- “Gypsy kolkhozes” was the decree of respective bodies were obliged to ensure dical centres and schools under the co- 4, 1936 on “Measures for employ- that there was land for “Gypsies” willing operatives, at the same time “clearing the ment of itinerant (Gypsies) and impro- to settle as a matter of priority, and each ‘Gypsy kolkhozes’ of ‘’ elements” vement of the economic and cultural and “Gypsy” family was to be given from (wealthy landowners; there were no “ku- living standards of working Gypsies”. 500 to 1,000 roubles. A commission was laks” among the Roma). [Ill. 3] According to this decree, measures were created for allocation of land to itinerant Soviet (including the to be taken for the subsequent inclusi- “Gypsies”, also including representatives Roma press) presented the process of sett- on of itinerant “Gypsies” in “Co-- of the “All-Russian Union of Gypsies”. lement and creation of “Gypsy kolkho- tive Artisan’s Workshops, “kolkhozes”, Measures were taken in to zes” as a voluntary process, arising natu- “sovkhozes” (state farms), industry, as create “Gypsy kolkhozes” (co-operative rally among the itinerant Roma. In spite well as for the improvement of living farms). By the end of 1927 a total of of the pompous and clearly false tone of conditions in their transition towards a about 500 Roma families in Ukraine were propaganda, this was to a certain extent settled way of life.

Another line of realisation of the sta- Workshops” (“artels”) in towns. Their “Gypsy co-operative te policy towards Roma was the crea- establishment at its inception, howe- artisan’s workshops” tion of “Gypsy Co-operative Artisan’s ver, aimed not only at including Roma

  Roma Language and Literature Education

A “New Lifestyle” – “Gypsy artels” from Tifliski”, etc. The frequent names Romanian, Serbian, Greek indicate that these Roma (mainly Kalderaš) had come from these After NEP was stopped “Gypsy Artisan Workshops” continued to countries in the past and often had retained their foreign passports. develop, and also new forms of production emerged. Three new big The largest “Gypsy artel” was “Natsmenbit” (the way of “Gypsy artels” were created in Moscow in 1927 – “Tsigchimprom” life of national minorities) in Leningrad created in 1934 where (“Gypsy” chemical industry), “Tsigchimlabor” (“Gypsy” chemical about 200 people were working, turning out copper boilers, iron laboratory) and “Tsigpishcheprom” (“Gypsy” food industry”). The barrels and other metal wares. However most “artels” were smal- grand names should not be misleading – in fact these were small co- ler and they were created in connection with the sedentarisation of operatives, producing various types of paint, chemical detergents and itinerant Roma. Thus in December 1936, 12 families of Kalderaš packaging for food products. In Moscow alone in 1931 there were wanted to stay in the town of Yoshkar-Ola, the capital of the Mari 28 “Gypsy artels” uniting 1,351 members (and with their families Autonomous SSR and created their own “artel” for the production 3,755 people) – “The Transport” (a state enterprise for the of metal utensils. The “Flame of the revolution”-artel production of ball bearings), “Romanian Foreigner”, “First-Ser- in was similarly created in 1936; the local executive bian Romanian”, “The Red Transbaikalian”, “Greek-Romanian”, committee endorsed 464 roubles free assistance and loans for the or- “Serbo-Romanian”, “Stalin”, “New Lifestyle”, “The ganisation of production and the improvement of living conditions. Emigrant”, “II Serbo-Romanian”, “International”, “The Tin-smith Ill. 4

Romani Publications from 1927 to 1938

A journal “Romani Zorya” (Roma daybreak) began to come out related to production; popular science; fiction (of Roma authors in 1927. From 1930 up to 1932 it was replaced by “Nevo Drom” and translations into Romani). Between 1931 and 1938, 292 va- (new way). The “Butyaritko Roma” (working Roma) journal was rious titles were published in Romani. Many of these publications issued once in 1932. The journals, mainly in Romani, brought out bore the character of Soviet propaganda of the period, judging various material, including Roma folklore and literary works. from their titles which are sufficiently eloquent, for example: The quantity of published literature in Romani is impressive. “ is our banner”, “The new Gypsies are coming”, “Women Published literature fell in several main categories: social and workers, don’t believe in god”, “What did Soviet power give to political, Marxist-Leninist; on “kolkhoz” issues; technical and Gypsy women” etc.

living in towns, but also at drawing cow, largely with the membership of to undertake special measures for the part of the itinerant Roma towards a Kalderaš Roma; “Gypsy artels” for support and expansion of “Gypsy ar- settled life. The first Roma “artels” copper work were registered in Khar- tels” and their production base; to or- were established several years before kov and Leningrad as well. The last ganise the preparation and training of the state had begun a policy for their state legislation, dealing with “Gypsy their members; to improve living con- support. A “Tsiganskaya artel” – “Gy- artels” was a decree of 1936, accor- ditions, to enhance cultural and educa- psy Co-operative Artisan’s Workshop” ding to which “Vsesojuspromsovet” tional activities among Roma working – already existed in 1923 in Mos- (the All-Union Industrial Council) was in “artels”. [Ill. 4]

and Nina Dudarova. The Decree “On the Sergeevskii’s study “On the Lan- Roma language and lit- Creation of a Roma ” was issued guage of Russian Gypsies” was publis- erature on 10, 1927, by Anatolii Lunacharskii, hed in 1929 and his Romani grammar Head of the “Narkompros” (the People’s came out in 1931, the Romani-Russian The second main line of an active realisa- Commissariat of Education) and a meeting dictionary, compiled by Mikhail Ser- tion of the state policy towards Roma was was held with representatives of the Chief geevskii and Alexei Barannikov, edited the development of Romani, the language Department of Science, the Council for Na- by Nikolai Pankov, in 1938. of the Roma, and Romani literature. tional Minorities and the All Russian Union The considerable amount of lite- Serious efforts began after the of Gypsies. A decision was taken to create rature published in Romani until 1938 publication of an article in the “” a Romani alphabet (based on the Russian no doubt exerted its influence on the newspaper “On samples of Gypsy letters”, alphabet) and a commission was elected development of the “Gypsy” communi- that is on the version of the Romani alpha- to prepare a draft for a standard Roma ty. Nevertheless this influence fell in a bet and its , based on the language, including Professor Mikhail comparatively limited circle, mainly in of the Ruska Roma, created by the Sergeevskii, of the Moscow State Univer- Moscow and several towns in the USSR. well-known Roma activists Nikolai Pankov sity, Nikolai Pankov, and Nina Dudarova. [Ills. 5-7]

  Council of Europe Roma | History Project Education of Roma Children in Europe

Soviet Union 4.2 before World War II

Ill. 5 First issue of the journal “Romani Zorya” (Roma daybreak), Moscow, 1927 (from Djurić, Rajko et al. (1996) Ohne Heim - ohne Grab. Die Geschichte der Sinti und Roma. : Aufbau Verlag, p. 184b)

Ill. 6 Page from the Romani journal “Nevo Drom” (New road), 1931, nos. 4-5). The journal ran some stories specifically for Roma, but many pages were taken up by translations of general propaganda from Russian into Xaladytka Ro- mani. This page tells of “ancient customs” that oppress women: the title above reads, “Women in the East”, and the one below exhorts “Ro- mani daughter-worker, write about your new life.” Courtesy of the Lenin Library. (from Lemon 2000, p. 135)

Many books were published, aiming to acquaint Roma with ores”. Fiction translations contain quite a number of translations agriculture and co-operatives, factory organisation and various of classical works into Romani, for instance works by Alexander crafts. A large number of publications were devoted to practical Pushkin (novels, stories, the poem “Gypsies”), Lev Tolstoy, Maxim problems of family life, such as “First in emergency situations”, Gorki (including the story “Makar Chudra”), Michail Sholokhov. “What to do when your child has diarrhoea”, “Hygiene for women”, Forty seven works by Roma authors (verses and prose), Maxim Bes- etc. Other publications are of a general knowledge nature, and some ljudsko, Alexander German, Ivan Rom-Lebedev, Nikolai Pankov etc. probably would hardly have interested Roma as future readers, for were published, too. instance, “On mammoths”, “On monkeys”, “Digging minerals and Ill. 7

vel of the adult Roma through the and at two boarding schools and four Education so-called “” (abolition of illi- kindergartens Roma groups were teracy) courses, evening classes etc. opened. began during the second half of the Text books and teaching To a great extent this intensive publi- 1920s. Roma schools and kinder- materials written in the dialect of shing activity was connected with the gartens, which were not officially Ruska Roma were used in Roma state’s policy in the area of educa- separate educational establishments, schools. In some cases however, tion. The “Izvestia” newspaper dated started to exist as parts of other ins- Roma from the other groups found June 8, 1925, published an article, titutions. this dialect difficult, therefore there citing “Gypsies” among the peoples, The number of existing were attempts to adapt the teaching entitled to an education of their own. Roma schools varied at times, as new of Romani, by selecting another di- “A Primer for Gypsy Schools”, pub- ones were constantly being opened alect. lished in 1929 by Nina Dudarova, as (for instance at “Gypsy kolkhozes”), On December 21, 1931, the well as “A Primer for Semi-illiterate while at the same time others were Central Committee of the All-Russian People”, compiled by Nikolai Pan- dissolved or closed (owing to bad Communist Party (Bolsheviks) opened kov, were among the first editions conditions, the absence of trained a special “Gypsy Party” school, who- for Roma of this kind in the world. teachers, or no interest by Roma se first graduates included 18 men By 1938 a total of 13 textbooks in children). Generally, during the 1926- and 2 women. The duration of the Romani were published, the last one 1938 period, 86 Roma schools existed school was 10 months, those who being “Lylvari Piro Romany Chhib” for various lengths of time or classes graduated were sent to work as or- (a textbook in Romani) by A. V. Ger- with such a status. In 1938, there was ganisers and to take on the responsi- mano, as well as other textbooks and one basic school (up to the 7th grade) bilities of functionaries in propagan- teaching materials. and 25 primary schools (up to the 4th da activities in “Gypsy kolkhozes”, Active work to increase li- grade), as well as one Roma boarding schools, and even at Roma nomadic teracy and raise the educational le- school (at Serebryanka, at Smolensk) camps. [Ill. 8]

  The “Romen Theatre” The Repressions of the 1930s A Turn in the National Policy

Training Roma Teachers

The overall education at Roma schools and classes was planned to be in Romani, which rai- sed the acute problem of trained teachers. Roma educational courses were created in 1927 where Nina Dudarova and Nikolai Pankov taught and trained the first Roma teachers. Roma pedagogi- cal courses were begun in Moscow in 1931, the first course enrolling 30 students out of 80 after a . These courses worked parallel to the intensive summer courses at (Kali- nin region), ( region), Serebryanka (near Smolensk), at Kharkov, Ivanovo, Saratov, Sverdlovsk, Leningrad, and elsewhere. Roma pedagogical courses in Moscow were reorganised into pedagogical colleges with a Roma section in 1932, where until 1938, between 120-140 Roma students graduated. The graduates left for the Ill. 9 country, where they were to work in Roma schools. Meeting of the “Russka ” with Anatolii Lunacharskii in 1930 to Nevertheless, the very teachers frequently prefe- establish the “Moscow Romani Theatre”. After meeting Anatolii Lunacharskii rred to be appointed to “normal” - mixed - schools, on October 4, 1930, at a meeting of the activists of national arts of the “Nar- instead of establishing new Roma schools. kompros” a decision was taken for the establishment of a Studio for “Indo-Ro- Ill. 8 men Theatre”, and on , 1931, the theatre was opened. (from Lemon 2000, p. 131)

THE “Romen Theatre”: Promoting the Values of “New Life”

The idea for a Roma theatre was put forth by a group of activists of However the first real premiere was on of the same the dissolved “All Russian Union of Gypsies”, united in the “Loly year, when Alexander Germano’s “Life on Wheels” was performed, Cheren” () “Gypsy” club. The first performance was in May giving the name to the theatre “Romen”. In the 30s the “Romen 1931 – a performance in two parts, a propaganda sketch “Atasya i Theatre” quickly found its place in the musical and cultural life of the dadyves” (“Yesterday and Today”) and an “ethnographic sketch”. USSR and became very popular both with Roma and Soviet society in

concentrated in Moscow and Leningrad) the Roma musical elite (which in fact The “Romen Theatre” in the new Soviet reality. At first it was was changing in that period, beginning difficult for this elite to find its place in to include representatives of groups new Soviet society. Hence Roma joined other than Ruska Roma). In many lar- The creation of the “Romen Gypsy the new Soviet structures providing the ge cities in the USSR various musical Theatre” throughout the 1920s and the funding for musical organisations. Thus ensembles were created with a state 1930s was an exceptionally important the “Gypsy Choir” of Nikolai Kruchi- subsidy, under different Soviet cultural event in the state policy towards “Gyp- nin, was registered in 1920 in the “Nar- institutions or under local cultural cen- sies”, which with time acquired a sym- kompros” Musical Department by the tres. In 1932 in Moscow, for instance, bolical significance. The theatre was the name “Studio for Old Gypsy Art”. there were also a “Gypsy State Theatre conclusion of the process of the incorpo- The “Theatre Romen” was not Studio” and a “Touring Gypsy Thea- ration of the Roma musical elite (largely the only possibility for realisation of tre”. [Ills. 9, 10]

victim to these repressions. They were, The first wave of repressions The Repressions however, not based on a racial or nati- was in 1932-1933, after the introduc- of the 1930s onal ground, but were in line with the tion of identity cards and obligatory general official Soviet ideology of the registration according to the place of The Stalinist policy of mass repressions period. In this case Roma were treated residence (combined with the provi- began in the 1930s. Many Roma fell on a par with all Soviet citizens. sion of ration books) on December

  Council of Europe Roma | History Project Education of Roma Children in Europe

Soviet Union 4.2 before World War II

Roma Victims of Mass Shootings suffering they succeeded in leaving the places where they had been deported to and renewed their earlier way of life, largely Roma were deported without any sentence. In they were in the European part of the USSR. The authorities obviously did generally not placed in camps, but rather exiled in separate not take them seriously and in many cases turned a blind eye settlements and they were under relatively free administration. when Roma left the places they had been sent to. The fact that At the same time about 3 to 5 million peasants (the estimates Roma turned to a itinerant way of life or frequently left their vary), declared “”, were deported in the course of en- residence was not viewed as a particular problem by the autho- forced collectivisation, together with their families. Unlike the rities, as long as the Roma did not get close to large cities and peasants, the Roma did not remain in their new settlements. In stayed in the periphery of rural regions. the course of several years, overcoming great difficulties and Ill. 11

Mass deportations of Roma Sandomorkh, 27 of them from the Ruska Roma, who had earlier worked on the construction of the Belomor-Baltic channel (done Originally, Roma in the 1930s were sentenced to imprisonment in by in concentration camps). camps, but in 1937 mass “clearance” of camps from “anti-So- The total number of Roma, who died throughout the viet elements” began, with quotas of the number of camp inmates 1937-1938 campaign, according to from the which were to be shot, according to additional charges. Roma Association, was 52 shot at Sandomorkh, Smolensk, , Ma- were also among the victims of these mass shootings in the camps. rii-El, and elsewhere. Of course the data is incomplete, and very Thus in the Solovki camp, in a total of 13 Kalderaš from probably the total figure is much higher. Mass purges almost did two large families (Stanesco and Mihai) were shot in 1937. The- not affect the new Soviet “elite” of the Roma, unlike other peop- se mass executions were carried out in the Sandomorkh locality, les in the USSR, where almost the entire intelligentsia and party where in total over 9,000 people were killed throughout the 1937- activists were killed in the period of mass repressions. 1938 period. Besides the 13 Kalderaš other Roma were shot at Ill. 12

general. Its repertoire inevitably included plays with a propaganda dances) produced by its director V.N. Vsevolodskii-Gerngross, there character, promoting the values of “new life” among Roma (most was serious criticism in the Roma press, that they had not succeeded of them written by Roma activist authors). When the “Ethnographic in showing the transition from a travelling way of life to the life in Theatre” in Leningrad staged two plays in 1932, “Romano Drom” “Gypsy kolkhozes”. (Roma way) and “Gilya i Khelibena Romen” (“Gypsy” songs and Ill. 10

27, 1932. Moscow, Leningrad, , The second wave of repressi- the . Another frequent , Minsk, Kharkov, and others ons, which also involved Roma, was against Roma was the charge of fell into the categories of “closed ci- in 1936-1937, when it was no longer in favour of a foreign coun- ties”, where registration was more dif- a matter of deportations, but of “court try, the justification usually being the ficult, and the possibilities of earning sentences”. In fact, this is hardly the presence of foreign passports among a living much greater. Many people most suitable name for the decisions many Roma, who had recently settled would come to these cities, including of the so-called “troika” (NKVD tribu- in towns (most often Kalderaš), some travelling Roma; the authorities re- nals). Roma were also victims of these of whom were unfortunate to register acted with raids to catch “de-classed repressions, the charges against them their “artels” with foreign names. De- elements”, who were exiled (chiefly were generally along several lines. claring Roma foreign spies was absurd, to Siberia) without any court hearing Most often the grounds for the sen- of course, but it was not unusual in the or sentence. Evidence of mass depor- tence was “ with currency”. Soviet Union at the time, on the back- tations of Roma comes largely from Horse theft went from being a crimi- ground of the discovery of “foreign Moscow and other big cities in the nal offence to being declared a politi- spies”, even among the highest eche- USSR. [Ill. 11] cal crime, and to be “sabotage” against lons of party nomenclature. [Ill. 12]

A radical change in state policy towards Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) A Turn in the the Roma was set out in 1938. A “note” gave instructions to close down 18 nati- National Policy of the Central Committee of the All onal classes in the educational system as

  Council of Europe Project Education of Roma Children in Europe Roma | History

Soviet Union 4.2 before World War II

well as existing schools of 16 separate licy gave way to the “Stalinist” natio- The measures of the new natio- nationalities. The list included people nal policy. The change began with the nal Soviet policy followed various lines without state-administrative formations new constitution of the USSR, adop- and aimed at doing away with ethnic (or living beyond them) – for instance ted at the 8th of the Soviets differences in the USSR. The overall (living beyond the Arme- in November 1936. Claims have been aim was to achieve a new stage of nati- nian Soviet Socialist Republic), , made that this constitution deprived onal development – the concept of the Germans etc. finishing with , As- Roma of their status as a “national “”. This was a key term in syrians and Roma. minority”, however, the claim has no the national policy in the USSR and was The changes did not affect the substance. Nowhere in the new cons- in fact a development of the old imperi- area of education alone. Mass publi- titution or in other state documents is al idea of “Russia and ‘Rossiane’” (i.. cation of books in Romani ceased, the a list of the peoples with (or without) peoples belonging to Russia, and not performances of the “Romen Theatre” a “status of a national minority”, nor “Russkie” – the ethnic ). Con- started to be in Russian (with separate is there any mention of Roma in par- crete state policies were subordinated parts and songs in Romani). Gradually ticular. Roma were a minor issue in to this principle paradigm, for instance, “Gypsy artels” and “kolkhozes” began the context of the overall state natio- state and administrative formations, to break up. The process was a slow one, nal policy, and it was not by chance, which for practical purposes “created” and part of the Roma assumed a nomadic that in the list of peoples whose nati- a number of new peoples based on ear- way of life again. onal schools should be closed down, lier and tribal formations. State In the second half of the 1930s Roma schools were at the end of the policy concerning Roma followed this the so-called “Leninist” national po- list. paradigm.

Conclusion After 1938, the paradigm changed, The outcome of the first approach in- the “special” element in the policy cludes a very limited circle of a new, There are considerable turns and even (at gave way to the “mainstream, general Soviet Roma elite. Through the second least apparently) some contradictions in approach” and Roma were seen above approach, although cannot speak the policy of the Soviet state concerning all as an integral part of Soviet soci- of a complete and successive policy Roma. Up to 1938 the policy towards ety, without any special separation in of the state for the development of the Roma was based on their treatment as the main social areas (economy, ed- Roma community, a number of possi- a separate people, who should develop ucation, etc.); as a community their bilities were created, which guaranteed above all as an ethnic community, which development was supported in the an equal participation of Roma in pu- is part of Soviet society, by creating se- framework of an ethno-cultural plan blic life and the improvement of their parate “Gypsy kolkhozes”, “Gypsy ar- (above all in the field of music and educational background and their civic tels”, “Gypsy” schools etc. dancing). consciousness.

Bibliography

Barannikov, Aleksei P. (1931) Tsygany SSSR. Kratkii istoriko-etnograficheskii ocherk. | Bessonov, N. / Demeter, N. G. / Kutenkov, V. (2000) Istoriya tsygan. Novyi vsglyad. Voronezh: Rossiyskaya Akadyemiya Nauk | Crowe, David (1995) A History of the Gypsies of and Russia. London / New York: I. B. Tauris Publishers | Fraser, Angus (1992) The Gypsies. Oxford / Cambridge: Blackwell | Kalinin, Valdemar (2003) Zagadki baltiiskikh tsygan (Rossiya, Estoniya, Litva, Latviya, Polsha). Vitebsk | Kenrick, Donald / Taylor, Gillian (1998) Historical Dictionary of the Gypsies (Romanies). Lanham, Md.: The Scarecrow Press | Lemon, Alaina (2000) Between two Fires. Gypsy Performance and Romani Memory from Pushkin to Post-. Durham / London: Duke University Press | Marushiakova, Elena / Popov, Veselin (2003) Social Position of the Gypsies in Contemporary Russia and the Countries of the former USSR (Historical Background and Contemporary situation). In: Dvorák, Tomás (ed.) Mily Bore ... Profesoru Ctiboru Necasovi k jeho sedmdesátým narozeninám venuj í prátelé, kolegové a záci. Brno: Historický ústav AV CR, pp. 237-244

© Council of Europe. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be project Education of translated, reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic Roma Children in Europe (CD-Rom, Internet, etc.) or mechanical, including photocopying, recording http://www.coe.int/education/roma or any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior permis- Council Conseil sion in writing from the Publishing , Directorate of Communica- of Europe de l´Europe http://romani.uni-graz.at/romani tion (F-67075, Strasbourg cedex or [email protected]) http://www.coe.int