peer-reviewed article 51 The communist authorities’ refusal to recognize the Roma as a national minority by Viorel Achim A moment in the history of the Roma in Romania, 1948 –1949 abstract he Roma in Romania were recognized as a national This paper deals with the moment in 1948–1949, when the represen- minority only in 1990. During the communist regime, tative organization of the Romanian Roma unsuccessfully tried to although they were important in numerical terms,1 obtain for them from the communist authorities the status of a national and in the censuses, they were registered as a separate minority. For the Romanian Communist Party, the Roma represented a ethnicity, the Roma were not among the “coinhabiting nationali- population that had to be brought into its sphere of influence. Discus- ties” (in Romanian, naţionalitate conlocuitoare, the name used in sions on the establishment of the People’s Union of the Roma lasted that era for minorities). The Romanian Communist Party (PCR), for several months but eventually led to the rejection of the request which took over all state power on December 30, 1947, — the day of the Roma leaders. The institutions involved in these discussions when King Mihai was forced to abdicate and the Romanian Peo- created documents, some of which are kept in the archives and allow ple’s Republic (RPR) was proclaimed — established the founda- us to study this moment in time. An archival document of particular tion of its policy towards minorities in 1948. Policies in the field importance for understanding what happened in those years and for changed over the next four decades of communist rule in Roma- understanding the motivations behind the communist authorities’ nia, but the overall lines remained roughly the same. In 1948, decision not to grant the status of a national minority to the Roma is most minorities obtained the status of “coinhabiting national- the study titled The Gypsy Problem in the Romanian People’s Republic, ity,” which assured them certain rights, first of all of a cultural which was drawn up by the Department for the Issues of Coinhabiting nature, and in the early years political rights as well.2 Nationalities in the context of the negotiations in the first months of Because they did not benefit from coinhabitant nationality 1949 between the ministry’s leadership and the Roma leaders in con- status, the Roma were not represented as a minority at the level nection with the recognition of the Roma as a national minority. of party and state administration, and there were no political KEY WORDS: National minority, citizenship, Roma people, communism or other kinds of bodies or institutions that — within the limits in Romania. of the communist state, of course —promoted their collective Baltic Worlds 2018, vol. XI:2–3 Special section: Roma in the Balkan Peninsula 52 peer-reviewed article what happened in those years and for understanding the motiva- tions behind the communist authorities’ decision not to grant the status of a national minority to the Roma is the study titled The Gypsy Problem in the Romanian People’s Republic, which was drawn up by the Department for the Issues of Coinhabiting Na- tionalities in the context of the negotiations in the first months of 1949 between the ministry’s leadership and the Roma leaders in connection with the recognition of the Roma as a national minority.4 This eight-page document, taken from the collection of The Central Committee of the Romanian Communist Party in the National Archives of Romania, will be published in the appendix of the above-mentioned book.5 In this article, I will present this document, which will be prefaced by a discussion of the essence of the Roma policies in Romania in the years 1945—1949, and I will resume some ideas and summarize some paragraphs from an article I published in 2009.6 After August 23, 1944, when the government led by Marshal Ion Antonescu was overthrown and Romania returned to a A group of semi-nomadic Roma in Romania in a photograph dating democratic regime, the persecution of the Roma, which meant from before the deportation. the deportation of certain categories of Roma to Transnistria in 1942—1944, came to an end.7 For the Romanian government and generally for the Romanian authorities, the Roma returned interests or took special care of the problems of this population. to what they had been before the dictatorship of Antonescu — a Among other things, the Roma did not have cultural institutions, population representing a marginal social category rather than schools, or publications, and there were no subsidies for their an ethnic minority. Beyond the economic problems of that pe- artistic activities, etc., as was the case for the recognized minori- riod, which affected many Roma, and the very difficult situation ties. The specific social, economic, and cultural problems faced of the Transnistria survivors, and especially of the nomads, who, by large segments of the Roma population under the conditions with their deportation, had lost all of their possessions, the first of modernization in the years of communism were not effec- postwar years saw the reactivation of some of the Roma orga- tively addressed by the Romanian authorities because the Roma nizations from the interwar period and the emergence of new were a population that officially did not exist as a minority.3 organizations. The most important was the UGRR, an organiza- The Roma were in a position to obtain the status of coinhabit- tion founded in 1933 and that was relatively active throughout ing nationality in the years 1948—1949. The General Union of the 1930s.8 The UGRR resumed its activity in the beginning of Roma in Romania (UGRR), which was a representative organiza- 1945 under the leadership of the old committee headed by Gheo- tion for this population, tried in those years to obtain the status rghe Niculescu, a flower merchant from Bucharest. The main of coinhabitant nationality for objectives they set were the the Roma, but ultimately the “THE ROMA RETURNED TO material and moral support of decision of the authorities was WHAT THEY HAD BEEN BEFORE the Roma, especially those who unfavorable to the Roma. had been deported to Trans- THE DICTATORSHIP OF nistria, and the appropriation I WILL DEAL IN DETAIL with the ANTONESCU – A POPULATION of the Roma participating in moment in 1948—1949, when the war, under the agrarian the representative organization REPRESENTING A MARGINAL reform that was announced at of Roma unsuccessfully tried SOCIAL CATEGORY RATHER that time. to obtain for them the status of The government with a a national minority, in a book I THAN AN ETHNIC MINORITY.” communist majority chaired am currently working on about by Petru Groza, which was set the situation of the Roma in Romania in the early postwar years. up on March 6, 1945, took some economic and social measures In the book chapter on the issue of the coinhabiting nationality that were favorable to the Roma. Under the agrarian reform of status, my work is built almost exclusively on archival docu- 1945, 19,559 Roma were granted small parcels of land.9 Local ments, which is only natural as there are no memories remain- measures were also taken to help the poor Roma. The authori- ing among the Roma leaders or others regarding what happened ties had a dialogue with Roma organizations and leaders, just as in those years, and this sensitive issue was not addressed in the they did before the war. It seems that the measures taken by the press of the time, which was under government control. An government and the left-wing messages of the communists archival document of particular importance for understanding were attractive to some Roma. After 1948, the egalitarian policies peer-reviewed article 53 of the Communist Party were even more favorable to the Roma, which were generally poorer elements of society and among whom the communist regime recruited activists and militiamen in its first years. A close collaboration between the Groza government and the UGRR can only be seen starting in August 1947. The Roma lead- ers had noticed the direction of events in Romania, where the PCR was about to seize all political power, and they understood that the only way they could maintain their organization and promote their interests was through collaboration with the com- munists. Some of these leaders, as well as ordinary Roma, then joined the PCR or the communists’ satellite parties and organiza- tions. For the PCR, the Roma represented a population that had to be brought into its sphere of influence. Gaining power over this population required a unique Roma organization at the na- tional level, as was the case with the UGRR, which had a certain infrastructure at the national level and enjoyed some prestige among the Roma population. SOME OF THE WRITINGS of the Roma leaders clearly show the contractual relationship they believed they had with the govern- ment authorities. For example, in his petition of March 3, 1948, to the Minister of the Interior, Grigore Nucu, the president of the UGRR branch in Timiş-Torontal County and inspector for Tran- sylvania and Banat of the UGRR writes that “we have no other purpose than to raise the Roma from the millennial darkness and make them citizens who are peaceful, loyal and useful to the country, controlling closely their moral, cultural and economic behavior, hoping that through our work we will greatly help the High Government in carrying out its work.”10 Beyond his lan- guage, which is characteristic for that era, Nucu expresses here the reality of the cooperation between the UGRR and the Com- The manifesto To all Roma and Roma women in the Romanian munist government.