The Transnational Roma Networks Ad-hoc Collection at CNSAS reflects the cultural opposition of Roma people to the Romanian communist regime and the role played by transnational connections in supporting this opposition. Of the five fonds of the archives of the former Securitate, the documents in the Transnational Roma Networks Ad-hoc Collection can be found in three: the documentary, informative, and network fonds. The communist regime began to reconsider the “Roma question” after the results of the 1977 population census were published. In comparison with the previous survey of 1966, the 1977 census recorded a spectacular increase of over 80% in the number of the Roma population. In the meantime, the Romanian state had pursued a pronatalist policy, which at least partially explains the results. However, the high percentage of the Roma community as recorded by the 1977 census deeply worried the communist authorities. This was because additional research studies revealed that a large part of this population continued to live in poverty, and outside the social, cultural, and economic framework. The future perspectives of improving their social and economic situation were undermined by high rates of illiteracy and criminal offences, and poor sanitary conditions. The conclusions of these studies underlined that the Roma represented above all “a social problem” and thus the best solution to their problems was their assimilation into Romanian society. This entailed an assault against their traditional forms of lifestyles, which ultimately would have threatened the existence of Roma people as a distinct ethnic group.
The files in the documentary fonds that the Romanian secret police, the Securitate, created under the label of “Gypsies – Contacts,” “Gypsies – Facts and Events,” or “Gypsy Nationalism” testify to the interest shown by the communist authorities in Roma people. Consequently, a consistent part of these documents is represented by the research reports about “the social-economic situation of the Gypsy population.” They underlined the main reasons of concern for the Romanian authorities and contained a programme of measures that would solve the problems of the Roma through their assimilation into mainstream society. The lack of information about local Roma communities influenced the Securitate to collect additional information about them. As a result, the files contained reports of its county branches about the number of Roma, their occupations, the number of criminal offences committed by them, and how many of them lived a nomadic lifestyle (ACNSAS, D 144 vol. 15, ff. 1–36, 113–141, 221–223, 312–314, 111–112 f–v, 335–359; D 144 vol. 13, ff. 36–65, 135–154, 167–170 f–v).
The files in the documentary fonds also recorded the reaction of the Roma leaders regarding the policy of forced assimilation implemented by the communist regime. Among them two figures distinguish themselves, the sociologist Nicolae Gheorghe and Ion Cioabă, the traditional leader (bulibașa) of Roma people in Sibiu County and its surroundings. These two leaders had the courage to protest against the policy of forced assimilation of Roma people. Thus, they signed alone or together memorandums that were sent to the Romanian authorities in which they pleaded for the recognition of the Roma as a national minority and drafted sets of measures for their integration into mainstream society. Copies of these memorandums are included in the documentary files regarding the “Gypsy problem” (ACNSAS, D 8685, ff. 292–297, 263–265 f–v). Given his professional background, Nicolae Gheorghe also carried out sociological research about the situation of the Roma. His research reports can also be found in the files in the documentary fonds, and they pointed out at integration as the best solution for solving the problems of Roma people (ACNSAS, D 144 vol. 15, ff. 67–73; D 144 vol. 13, ff. 28–35 f–v).
A distinct part of these documentary files reconstructs the transnational networks that Ion Cioabă and Nicolae Gheorghe established with foreign academics and Roma international organisations. These relations were forged mainly due to their activism in support of Roma people’s rights. Additionally, Nicolae Gheorghe had contacts with important foreign researchers (sociologists and anthropologists) interested in Roma issues and aspects of the socialist development of Romania. Both of them used their international contacts with researchers and leaders of transnational Roma organisations not only to raise the awareness of public opinion about the discriminatory treatment of Roma people in Romania. They also hoped transnational interventions would pressure the Romanian communist regime to officially recognise the Roma as a national minority and observe their cultural rights. Ion Cioabă and Nicolae Gheorghe’s networks and connections with international activists for the rights of Roma people can be reconstructed using mainly the correspondence intercepted by the Securitate. The files in the documentary fonds contain copies and originals of the letters received by them from their French, German, Yugoslav, and Indian counterparts. It is important to mention that the relations between the Securitate and the two Roma leaders, Ion Cioabă and Nicolae Gheorghe, were very different. This influenced the way in which the secret police collected documents about their transnational relations. While Ion Cioabă became a so-called “source” of the Securitate from the 1970s, Nicolae Gheorghe came under the informative surveillance of the same Securitate at the beginning of the 1980s.
After Ion Cioabă was elected a member of the Presidium of the International Romani Union (IRU) in 1981, a large part of his correspondence was with its leaders. The IRU was an international organisation created at the beginning of the 1970s as a joint effort of Romani and non-Romani activists and scholars. Its main purpose was to support the cause of Roma people who were discriminated against and regarded by the state authorities as second-hand citizens. Another objective of the IRU was to raise the awareness of international public opinion about the forgotten Holocaust of the Roma and to receive the deserved compensations from West Germany (Bunescu 2014, 83–87). Because Ion Cioabă was a so-called “source” of the Securitate, he probably willingly offered to the secret police copies of his correspondence with the IRU. Despite his privileged relations with the Securitate, one cannot rule out the possibility of his correspondence being intercepted by it. Thus, the files in the documentary fonds contain not only his exchange of correspondence with the IRU but also his detailed accounts, signed under the conspiracy name of “Florescu,” of his many meetings with Sait Balici, the president, and Rajko Duric, the secretary of the IRU (ACNSAS D 144 vol. 13, ff. 79–84, 126–127; D 8685, ff. 35–44, 340).
The most intense correspondence Gheorghe had was also with IRU, but mostly likely the letters found in the documentary files were illegally intercepted by the Securitate. It is important to mention that as the informative surveillance of Gheorghe intensified in 1986, the Securitate cut off any form of communication between him and other Roma activists. As a result, the documentary files contained letters, newsletters, and copies of magazines that Gheorghe never received as the secret police intercepted them (ACNSAS, D 144 vol. 13, ff. 263–265 f–v; D 144 vol. 11, ff. 1–10, 41–45, 49–53, 65–66; D 144 vol. 15, ff. 63–66, 89–101, 150–210).
The documents in the documentary files describe the collaboration of Nicolae Gheorghe and Ion Cioabă with the IRU on various issues including their activism in support of Roma people, their opposition to the measures taken by the communist regime for the forced assimilation of Roma people, and their efforts to convince the Romanian state to officially endorse their actions for obtaining compensation for the deported Roma during World War II from West Germany. To some extent, the Romanian actions for the recognition of the Roma as a national minority reflected similar international trends, driven by the creation of the IRU, with which Nicolae Gheorghe and Ion Cioabă had close relations of cooperation. Ion Cioabă also joined the international campaign mounted by various transnational Roma organisations to pressure the government of Federal Germany to recognise the Roma Holocaust and pay compensation to the persecuted Roma. Thus, the files labelled “Gypsy nationalism” and “Gypsies – Contacts” contain copies of the letters that Ion Cioabă sent to the International Court of Justice in the Hague and to the German Chancellor Helmuth Kohl in the context of the fortieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War. In his letters, Ion Cioabă mentioned that the deportation of Roma to Transnistria was the result of a “racial hate” policy and he denounced the German government for failing to recognise the Roma Holocaust and to compensate the Roma people deported on racial grounds (ACNSAS, D 8586, ff. 228–229; Marin 2017, 97). Another example of how the transnational connections stimulated Cioabă’s activism was the publication of an article about his deportation in Transnistria in the Italian magazine Lacio Drom. He wrote the piece on the advice of Mirella Kaprati from the Centro di Studi Zingari in Rome (ACNSAS, D 8586, ff. 116–118; D 144 vol. 12, f. 164 f–v). The same Mirella Kaprati advised him to send a copy of his article to Pope John Paul II, asking him to support the legitimate requests of the deported Roma for compensation from Federal Germany, which he actually did (ACNSAS, D 8586, ff. 236–240). The issue of compensation and their activism for the rights of Roma also brought Ion Cioabă and Nicolae Gheorghe into close relations of collaboration with other Romani organisations such as the Association of Roma and Sinti in West Germany and Romani Yekhipe in France. Their leaders, Romani Rose and Vania de Gila Kochanowski, meet Ion Cioabă and Nicolae Gheorghe in person and invited them to their events. Thus, the files contain reports about these meetings and copies or originals of the invitation letters, conference and seminar programmes, and personal letters sent to both of them or only to Nicolae Gheorghe. Another trace of their connection with international Romani organisations consists in the newsletters and magazines that they received from the Gypsy Lore Society, an international organisation interested in promoting the culture and research into the culture of Roma people (ANCSAS, D 144 vol. 13, ff. 84, 263–265, 268–272 f–v; D 8685, ff. 201–207, 340 f–v; D 144 vol. 15, f. 210 f–v; D 144 vol. 11, ff. 1–15 f–v, 41–45, 49–53, 56–62, 65–66, 79, 84–98, 102 f–v).
The Transnational Roma Networks Ad-Hoc Collection at CNSAS also includes the personal files of Nicolae Gheorghe and Ion Cioabă. These files shed a new light on the forging of the transnational relations highlighted in the files in the documentary fonds. The Romanian secret police, the Securitate, became interested in Nicolae Gheorghe in 1982 as he not only started to be very vocal about respect for of the rights of Roma people but also had contacts with foreign researchers without official approval. The reading at Radio Free Europe of a press article that described the persecution of the Roma by the Romanian authorities intensified the Securitate’s surveillance of Gheorghe as he was suspected, with good reason, of being its author. His surveillance created a consistent corpus of documents relating to his research activity regarding the fate of Roma people and his contacts with foreign researchers and international Roma organisations. As Nicolae Gheorghe was a member of the Romanian Communist Party, the Securitate had to secure the approval of the local Party organisation in order to begin informative surveillance of him. Consequently, in March 1982 the secret police opened an informative surveillance fileon him under the conspiracy name of “Ganea.” The plan of measures accompanying the official decision to begin surveillance had two interconnected objectives: the monitoring of Nicolae Gheorghe’s contacts with foreigners, including researchers and representatives of international Roma organisations, and in-depth knowledge of his research agenda and actions in favour of granting Roma people the same rights as other minority groups in Romania. In order to gain information about these topics, the Securitate used so-called Operative Techniques (telephone wire tapping, intercepting communications via microphone), checking and censorship of correspondence, and stakeout. Additionally, the Securitate put a great effort into creating a network of informers involving Gheorghe’s colleagues at the Centre of Sociological Research, and persons close to him (his godfather and his friend, Ion Cioabă) (ANCSAS I 234356, ff. 1–2, 7, 320 f–v). The two directions of informative surveillance developed simultaneously and thus the documents regarding these topics are to be found intermingled in the files.
The documents regarding Nicolae Gheorghe’s connections with foreigners are included in the informative surveillance file on him and in several other files in the documentary fonds that the Securitate created under the label of “Gypsies – Contacts,” “Gypsies – Facts and Events,” and “Gypsy nationalism.” Thus, the secret police chronologically recorded Nicolae Gheorghe’s contacts with foreigners. Based on the results of stakeouts and informative notes, the Securitate was able to reconstitute the complex network of connections that he had with foreign researchers (sociologists and anthropologists) interested in Roma issues and aspects of the socialist development of Romania. They usually came to Romania with Fulbright scholarships and as part of intergovernmental Romanian–American academic exchanges but the secret police always suspected them of doing espionage instead of research work. As a result, Gheorghe’s contacts with foreign academics and researchers, such as Sam Beck, Steven Sampson, Gail Kligman, Irina Livezeanu, Claude Karnoouh, Larry L. Watts, and other doctoral students who came to Romania for fieldwork, were very well documented by the Securitate through informative notes, transcriptions of telephone conversations, and personal discussions in various contexts. Moreover, the informative surveillance file against the conspiracy name of “Ganea” also contained photographs taken by Securitate officers of Nicolae Gheorghe during his meetings with Western academics, such as Claude Karnoouh and Steven Sampson. The Romanian secret police were also interested in the correspondence between Nicolae Gheorghe and foreign researchers. Although most of his foreign correspondence is to be found in the files in the documentary fonds, the informative file on him also contained copies and originals in English, French, German, and Romani of the letters received by Nicolae Gheorghe. They not only deal with personal matters but they also contained valuable information about the academic exchanges and the difficulties faced by foreign researchers in doing their fieldwork in communist Romania. Apart from his contacts with academics, the secret police also closely monitored Gheorghe’s visits to the American Library and Embassy in Bucharest and his encounters with Western journalists (ACNSAS I 234356, ff. 3 v, 8 f–v, 13, 29–33, 47–54, 66, 113, 140–143, 148, 157, 162–163, 202, 242–243 f–v).
The second objective of the Securitate in the informative surveillance of Nicolae Gheorghe was to document his research agenda. In fact, the secret police was interested in how the results of his fieldwork were instrumentalised to support his actions to promote the recognition of Roma people as a national minority or “co-inhabiting nationality.” The informative notes from the informative surveillance file on him indicate that after 1982 the Securitate started to dig into Gheorghe’s past as it questioned former faculty colleagues about him and the circumstances in which he began his studies regarding the Roma. The same informative notes taken this time from his colleagues at the Centre of Sociological Research describe how Nicolae Gheorghe’s behaviour and outfit changed after he rediscovered his Roma identity (he left his moustache grow and began to speak Romani). The Securitate also gained detailed information from the same informers about Gheorghe’s fieldwork done in local Roma communities, the research papers he wrote about “the social and political situation of the Gypsies,” and the use of his contacts with foreign academics to present the dramatic situation of the Roma and their lack of social, cultural, and political rights (ACNSAS I 234356, ff. 3, 19, 35–48, 56, 98, 222–223, 242–243). The “Ganea” informative surveillance file also recorded Nicolae Gheorghe’s first direct contact with the Securitate. A few months after the reading of an article at Radio Free Europe about the persecution of Roma people in Romania, the Securitate identified Nicolae Gheorghe as its author. During his questioning, he denied that he had written that article under the pseudonym of “Danciu Alexandru,” but the investigation extended to his wife, Georgeta. The informative notes provided by Gheorghe’s colleagues and line manager and by his godfather, and analysis notes regarding the progress of the surveillance record how the Securitate investigation strained the relation between the spouses. Moreover, in their informative notes, Gheorghe’s line manager and godfather record step by step how their “positive influencing measures” deflected his attention from problems of Roma people (ACNSAS I 234356, ff. 60–62, 230, 259–275, 286, 292, 301, 308 fv).
The documents in the “Ganea” informative file and those included in the “Gypsies” thematic files of the documentary fonds describe the complicated relation between Nicolae Gheorghe and Ion Cioabă, the traditional leader of Roma people in Sibiu county. From close friends united by the purpose of easing the situation of the Roma, Ion Cioabă and Nicolae Gheorghe became enemies, as the latter suspected the former of giving information about him to the Securitate. Indeed, from the 1970s Cioabă was a so-called “source” of the Securitate and this collaboration helped him maintain his leadership position, travel abroad, and maintain contacts with foreign Roma activists and journalists. Despite these strong relations of collaboration, there is no indication that he had given information about Gheorghe to the secret police before their conflict. Aware of the fact that by acting together Ion Cioabă and Nicolae Gheorghe could put additional pressure on the Romanian authorities to grant the Roma the status of a “co-inhabiting nationality,” the Securitate manipulated the bulibașa Cioabă to cut off any relations with his former friend. Thus, documents from the documentary fonds show how during his regular meetings with the Securitate, the officer deliberately misinformed Cioabă about Gheorghe’s actions, thus straining even more the relations between them. The transcriptions of the telephone conversations and other personal discussions between Ion Cioabă and Nicolae Gheorghe are also to be found in the latter’s informative surveillance file and in files in the documentary fonds (ACNSAS I 234356, ff. 254–280 f–v). The combination of so-called “positive influencing measures,” personal problems (divorce from his wife, the prospect of losing custody of his children), and conflict with Ion Cioabă influenced Nicolae Gheorghe to give up his studies regarding the Roma. As a result, in April 1989 the secret police decided to close their informative surveillance of him and even considered recruiting him as an informer (ACNSAS, I234356, ff. 320 f–v, 321).
Similar to the case of Nicolae Gheorghe, the opening of an informative surveillance file on Ion Cioabă was due to his foreign contacts and his involvement as a traditional leader of nomadic Roma, bulibașa, in solving their problems (ACNSAS I 172057 vol. 1, ff. 2 f). The file was opened on 27 June 1989 and coincided with the Securitate’s decision to abandon him as an informer (ACNSAS R 248933 f. 31 f–v). The informative surveillance of Ion Cioabă revealed his good collaboration with the IRU and its leaders. Thus, a great part of the documents consists of letters (in the original or in translations from Romani) that Cioabă received from and send in reply to the IRU, especially on the issue of compensation for Roma deported during World War II. At the same time, his direct contacts with the IRU were also closely monitored by the Securitate. As a result, the file contains informative notes and also copies of his speeches at IRU meetings, the transcript of an interview granted to Yugoslav national television about the fate of Roma people in communist Romania, and detailed accounts of his discussions with IRU leaders during their visits to Romania. On the same subject of the deported Roma, the file contains copies of his letters sent to the International Court of Justice in the Hague and to the German Chancellor Helmuth Kohl regarding the Roma Holocaust and compensation-related issues (ACNSAS I 172057 vol. 1, ff. 4–5, 7–14, 27–29, 34–41, 70–71, 74, 115–120, 143–147). It is important to mention that some documents from Ion Cioabă’s informative surveillance file are also to be found in copies in the thematic files about “Gypsies” in the documentary fonds.
A small part of the informative file relates to Ion Cioabă’s activity within Romania as an activist for the rights of Roma people. Thus, among the documents resulting from the Securitate’s informative surveillance of him there are copies of his memorandums sent to the Romanian authorities about the fate of Roma, his proposed measures for solving their social and economic problems, and requesting permission for the organisation of the traditional celebration of Roma people at Costești, Vâlcea county. One of these memorandums was illegally photocopied after a Securitate officer broke into his hotel room in Bucharest (ACNSAS I 172057 vol. 1, ff. 133–138, 54). Although Ion Cioabă acted as a “source” of the Securitate from the beginning of the 1970s, the network file was officially opened in April 1989 and closed after few months at the end of June 1989. Thus, the few documents included in his network file are the reports of the Securitate officer about the preliminary contact with Ion Cioabă, a detailed report of their conversations about his recruitment, the confirmation of Cioabă’s status as an informer and his subsequent abandonment by the Securitate as its informer (ACNSAS R 248933).
After the fall of the communist regime, the files included in the Transnational Roma Networks Ad-Hoc Collection were inherited by the SRI (Romanian acronym for the Romanian Intelligence Service), the Securitate’s successor institution. From 2000, the SRI began the transfer of the Securitate documents to the newly created CNSAS (Romanian acronym for the National Council for the Study of the Securitate Archives). The Securitate’s files in the Transnational Roma Networks Ad-Hoc Collection have been accessed by researchers, journalists, and Roma activists. Documents from these files were partially published in 2017 in the volume Romii și regimul comunist din România: marginalizare, integrare și opoziție (Roma and the communist regime in Romania: marginalisation, integration, and opposition), edited by Manuela Marin.
