Katolikus Magyarok Vasárnapja, 1983 (90. évfolyam, 1-50. szám)

1983-02-06 / 5. szám

­. oldal DR. JUDITH PATAKI Hungarian Reactions to the Treatment of Ethnic Hungarians in Romania Hungarian intellectuals have called on the government to protest to the Romanian authorities about the crackdown on Hungarian intellectuals in Transylvania.1 The protest was ap­parently signed by 71 intellectuals, of varying views, indicating that the common cause was strong enough to overcome ideologi­cal barriers. The protest was sent to György Lázár, the President of the Council of Ministers, to the Hungarian Writers’ Union, and to the Hungarian PEN Club. The text reads as follows: “On November 6 and 7 the Romanian state security agencies arrested several young Transylvanian Hungarian intellectuals. Their apartments were searched and documents dealing with political conditions in Hungary and Transylvania were confis­cated. The exact number of those arrested is not yet known. The names of the following are known: Attila Ara-Kovács, writer; Attila Kertész, actor; Géza Szőcs, author; and Károly Tóth, teacher. Several people were questioned during the week. Those questioned included Lóránt Kertész, agricultural engineer, and his wife, Éva Kertész; Márta Józsa, Éva Bíró, and András Keszt­helyi, students of philosophy; and Mrs. Károly Tóth. Some of them — like Géza Szőcs, Károly Tóth and his wife — suffered serious physical mishandling. Attila Ara-Kovács and Károly Tóth were released after a couple of days on the condition that they would not leave their place of residence, Nagyvárad (Oradea). To this day there is no news about the whereabouts of Géza Szőcs, an excellent poet well known in the entire Hungarian speaking area.2 Not even his closest relatives know about his whereabouts for sure. There is a well-founded suspicion that the political police have not released him to this day. We call upon everybody whoever is able to do so to protest against the pro­cedure of the Romanian authorities. We ask our Romanian friends as well to intercede on behalf of the release of Géza Szőcs. We demand the release of all those who might still be imprisoned, and ask that harassment by the police is stopped. Budapest, 20 November 1982.” Some of the best known individuals who signed the state­ment are András Balczó, pentathlon world champion; Miklós Béládi, literary historian; Tibor Cseres, author; Sándor Csoóri, author; Gábor Demszky, sociologist; Mátyás Domokos, literary historian; Péter Hanák, historian; Miklós Haraszti, writer; Miklós Jancsó, director of motion pictures; Miklós Mészöly, author; László Rajk, architect; Imre Sinkovits, actor; and Mihály Vajda, philosopher. The question was raised why the celebrated poet Gyula Illyés, who has just celebrated his 80th birthday, did not sign the protest.3 But then on November 26, only a few days after the protest had been signed by the Hungarian intellectuals, Gyula Illyés gave an interview to the French AFP stating that he con­sidered the position of the Hungarian minority in Romania “un­bearable.” He accused the Romanian authorities of “making a mockery of humanitarian principles” and taking an “outrageous” attitude toward the Hungarian minority in Transylvania. Ac­cording to AFP, Illyés regards the situation of the Hungarian minorities as the country’s biggest problem at present. How the Hungarian minority views its own situation is re­vealed to some extent by a Hungarian-language samizdat pub­lication Ellenpontok, which has been published fairly regularly in Romania since the beginning of the year. The third issue is devoted almost entirely to the discussion of a book, A Word on Transylvania, by the Romanian author Ion Lancranjan, which contains a strong attack on the minority policy of Hungary, and a veiled attack against Hungarian party leader János Kádár.4 Ellenpontok branded Lancranjan’s book as an “extreme, fascist work,”5 full of one-sided presentations of historical facts. The Hungarian writers in Romania turned to both the RCP Central Committee and to Ceausescu himself to protest the content of the book. Since they received no reply to their protest notes, they felt that Lancranjan’s book actually reflected Ceausescu’s ideas about the nationality question. The eighth issue of Ellenpontok contains a memorandum and a program proposal written by its editors to the participants of the Madrid conference reviewing the observance of the agree­ments of the Helsinki Final Act. The memorandum describes the attempts at what it calls the Romanianization of the Hungarian minority of Romania. The authors of the memorandum claim that the fact that international conventions do not take a stand on the collective rights of minorities — concentrating only on human rights in general — deeply affects the prospect of any change in the situation of the Hungarian minority. This approach, the authors claim, overlooks the traditional values of a national minority. The memorandum was followed by a detailed 10-point pro­posal to ensure that the Hungarians were treated as equal part­ners by the Romanian authorities. The following is a short sum­mary of these 10 points: 1. The Hungarian minority of Romania should be considered an indissoluble part of the entire Hungarian ethnic body. On this basis, and as Romanian citizens, they want to be allowed to cultivate ties with Hungary both on an institutional and a personal level. 2. Hungarians in Romania should be guar­anteed institutionalized self-protection and cultural autonomy as an ethnic community. 3. There should be self-administration for the regions overwhelmingly populated by Hun­garians and an equitable share in the leader­ship of Romania. 4. An immediate end should be put to the artificial alteration of the ethnic composition of Transylvania where the majority of the Hungarian minority is concentrated. 5. Opportunities should be created for the formation and development of the Hungarian identity of the Hungarians living in Romania. 6. The Hungarian language should be co­equal with Romanian in official and everyday usage in every region of Transylvania. 7. Hungarians should be ensured equal career opportunities with the Romanians. 8. The preservation of the environment linked to the historical and cultural past of the Hungarian minority should be guaranteed. 9. The Csángós (a designation of Hungar­ians living in Moldavia and Bucovina), who still speak their Hungarian mother tongue, should be able to declare themselves Hungar­ians and become engaged in Hungarian cul­tural life. 10. An impartial international committee (including Hungarians and Romanians) should be formed that would examine the situation of the Hungarians and decide all contentious questions concerning their fate.6 It is not unlikely that some of the recent detentions by the Romanian authorities were somehow linked to the drafting of this proposal. The protest of Hungarian intellectuals against these deten­tions was already the second of its kind addressed to govern­ment officials this year. The first letter of protest dated 20 Feb­ruary 1982 and signed by 107 persons was sent to the Hun­garian Minister of Finance, István Hetényi. It was directed against a regulation of the Hungarian National Bank that reduced the amount of presents that could be sent out of Hungary with­out authorization. According to the protesters, this limitation imposed an additional hardship on Hungarian minorities in neighboring countries since Hungarians could no longer send food packages to their needy relatives in Romania and Czecho­slovakia. The letter asked that Hungarians be allowed to send between 1,500 and 2,000 forint worth of food, medication, and money to needy relatives in the socialist countries. The finance minister refused the request.7 It is not known how the Hungarian government views these protests and the increasing public concern about the fate of the Hungarian minority in Romania. On 30 November 1982, how­ever, shortly after the detention of the Hungarian minority mem­bers, György Aczél, member of the HSWP Politburo and CC Secretary in charge of cultural affairs, and Péter Várkonyi, CC Secretary responsible for interparty relations, visited Bucharest at the invitation of the Romanian Communist Party. They had discussions with Nicolae Ceausescu, Secretary-General of the RCP, and with Petru Enache and Miu Dobrescu, alternate mem­bers of the Political Executive Committee of the RCP CC and CC Secretaries. According to Hungarian sources, apart from international affairs, the question of the Hungarian minority was also discussed, and the talks will continue in Budapest. There was clearly a lack of agreement since the two parties decided to issue separate communiqués. The Romanian one ig­nores the question of minorities entirely and does not say any­thing about the continuation of the talks in Budapest. The texts of the relevant parts of the two communiqués read as follows: The Hungarian Communiqué The politicians reviewed Hungarian- Romanian relations, discussing with special emphasis the meeting of János Kádár and Nicolae Ceausescu. In order to promote co­operation between the Hungarian and Ro­manian peoples, and to strengthen mutual understanding and respect, it is indispensable to develop continuously the political, economic, scientific, educational, and cultural relations and the communication of the citizens of the two countries and corroborate the many-sided cooperation of the two neighboring socialist countries. An important incentive role is played by the Romanian nationality in Hungary and the Hungarian nationality in Romania. The parties agreed to settle still open questions at further discussions in Budapest. György Aczél and Péter Várkonyi returned to Budapest Tuesday night.8 The Romanian Communiqué During the talks, information was ex­changed on the course of socialist construction in Hungary and Romania as well as on current international questions. Questions were also approached related to the evolution of the many-sided Romanian-Hungarian links on a political, economic, social and cultural plane in the spirit of the top level understandings between Nicolae Ceausescu and János Kádár. It was agreed that both sides should further act with a view to strengthening the relations of mutually advantageous collaboration, for the benefit of the two peoples, of the cause of socialism, general progress, and peace in the world. The talks passed in a comradely atmos­phere of sincerity, of mutual esteem and re­spect, reflecting the determination to expand further Romanian-Hungarian friendship, the international solidarity between the RCP and the HSWP, between the two neighboring and friendly countries and peoples, builders of socialism.9 Western papers speculated that Ceausescu and Aczél probably talked past each other, the differences between the two sides were too great, and that the Hungarian minority’s situation was not likely to improve.10 Since Aczél’s and Várkonyi’s visit, the Romanian press has been full of articles praising Romania’s nationality policy and stressing the unity of the national minori­ties with all the working people of Romania. KATOLIKUS MAGYAROK VASÁRNAPJA HJPI, 22 November 1982 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 25 November 1982; Financial Times, 2 December 1982. 2Géza Szőcs (some sources spelled his name Szőts) was born in 1954 in Maros­­vásárhely (Tirgu-Mures), where he lived until his arrest. His first volume, a book of poetry entitled Did You Cross the River?, was published in 1975 by the Kri­­terion Publishing Company in Bucharest. He was last known to have been work­ing on a novel. 3Five years ago, in a two-part article in the Patriotic People’s Front daily Magyar Nemzet, Illyés called attention to the problems of ethnic Hungarians living abroad, including Romania. Illyés was promptly attacked in an extensive article published in the Romanian Writers’ Union weekly that accused him of “an anti- Romanian obsession” and of allowing himself to be used in the service of “hate­ful nationalistic agitation of the fascist circles of émigré Magyars.” See Alfred Reisch and Judith Pataky, "Hungarian-Romanian Polemics over Transylvania Continue,” RAD BR/238 (Hungary),RFER. 15 November 1982. 4Ion Lancranjan, Cuvit Despre Transilvania (A Word on Transylvania, (Bucha­rest: Editura-Turism, 1982). A detailed Hungarian reaction to the book is given in “Hungarian-Romanian Polemics Over Transylvania Continue,” ibid., No. 238, 15 November 1982. 5No. 3, May 1982. For more information about Ellenpontok, see Wochenpresse, 17 August 1982, and Gegenstimme. 9 October 1982. 6The complaints of the Hungarians in Romania as well as their proposals to the Madrid conference have received considerable publicity in the Western press __/ Cleveland kertvárosában élő magyar házaspár KERES MAGYAR HÁZVEZETŐNŐT bentlakással. Fizetés megegyezés szerint. Középkorú hölgy előnyben. Referencia szükséges. Válaszokat ,,Állást keresek jeligére a Vasárnap szerkesztőségébe kérek. since they tie in with the newly passed Romanian Education Decree as well. Under the new Romanian decree, emigrants (most of them members of a national minority group: Germans, Jews, Hungarians) have to compensate the Romanian government in hard currency for the cost of their education and other govern­ment services before receiving a passport. The 13th semiannual report of the American President to the US Commission on Security and cooperation in Europe on the Implementation of the Helsinki Final Act 1 June 1982—30 November 1982 said that complaints of ethnic discrimination in Romania are difficult to verify but Romania’s approximately 1,700,000 Hungarians, the largest minority, have had to contend for years with a regime that emphasizes Romanian nation­alism and pushes economic development policies which, at least indirectly, have weakened the cohesiveness of the Hungarian communities (p. 25). 7Beszélő No. 4, September 1982, pp. 125-127 (samizdat publication from Buda­pest). This same number also has an article about Ellenpontok, the Hungarian samizdat publication in Romania. 8MTI in English, 30 November 1982. 9Agerpres in English, 30 November 1982. 10For example. Süddeutsche Zeitung, 8 December 1982; Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 1 and 2 December 1982. 1983. február ÚTITÁRS írja dr. Szépe László, dr. FÉLELEM NÉLKÜL „Óh, ti vésztjósló madarak! Károgó hollók! Milyen gyak­ran elrontjátok vigalmunkat sötét prédikálástokkal!” — hal­lom néha az ilyen megjegyzéseket, néha szemben, néha a hátam mögött. S ilyenkor kicsit irigylem azokat, akik nem papok, s nem kénytelenek hangoztatni az igazságot és rontani a hangulatot. Akad persze köztünk, lelkipásztorok között is olyan, aki csak a szépet, a jót mondja, ami kellemes a fülnek, s nem rontja a vigasságot. De a lelkiismeretünk nem hagy nyugton, és ösztönöz, hogy közbe-közbe szóljunk a bajokról, veszélyek­ről, melyek körülvesznek minket, s olyanról is szóljunk, ami nem kellemes. És mostanában több a veszély, és nagyobb a kötelességünk szólni. Ma arról kell szólnunk, hogy szinte beteges tünet lett bennünk a félelemérzet, bár igyekszünk azt mindenképpen takarni, tagadni. Pedig minél inkább el akarjuk hallgatni és szórakozással elnyomni félelmünk nyomát, annál inkább bizo­nyítjuk annak létezését, és annál nagyobb kárt okozunk lel­künknek és idegeinknek az elnyomott félelemérzetekkel. Valljuk be őszintén: ma majdnem mindenki fél. Fél va­lamitől, aggódik valami miatt. Fél attól, hogy elveszíti állását. Fél, hogy megbukik a nyugdíjalap. Fél a megöregedéstől, a betegségtől, bénulástól, ráktól és az óriási kórházi számláktól. Fél, hogy egyedül marad. Hogy meghal az életpárja, vagy gyermekei hagyják el. És a mostani szokatlan időjárásban az emberek félnek hóvihartól, árvíztől, tornádóktól, földren­géstől. Félnek. Alig van valaki, aki ne félne valamitől. Nézzünk tehát szembe a kérdéssel! Természetes, józan dolog az, hogy félünk? Arra teremtett minket az Isten, hogy életünk nagyobb részén félnünk kell valamitől? — A felelet erre az, hogy először is kétféle félelem van: józan és szer­fölötti félelem. A józan félelem tulajdonképpen szervezetünk védőberendezése. Amikor például át kell mennünk egy kes­keny hídon, nagy forgalmon, vízen tűzön, zivataron, akkor bizonyos fokú félelem alakul ki bennünk, mert látjuk a ve­szélyt. Ha ez a félelemérzet elővigyázatosságot vált ki ben­nünk, akkor ez természetes, egészséges érzés. De ha ebből az érzetből engedünk magunkban pánikot, szerfölötti félelmet kialakulni, akkor ez már lelki vagy testi gyöngeség, betegség. Lelki egyensúllyal, lelki egészséggel bíró emberen az óvatosság nem válik ijesztő félelemmé. Mert látja, tudja ugyan a veszélyt, de nem lesz a félelem áldozata. Tudja és érzi, hogy a bajt elkerülheti, vagy lesz ereje azt elviselni. Ha hivő ember, akkor az a tudat is erőt ad neki, hogy Isten vele van, és átsegíti, erőt ad neki. Ezért olyan óriási kincs, ha valaki hisz, és bízik Istenben. Van azonban itt egy probléma, melyre felelet, magya­rázat kell. Miért van az, hogy hivő és mélyen vallásos ember is fél, néha nagyon is fél? Nem ad neki Isten elég lelkierőt a félelem legyőzésére? Gyakran előfordul ilyen eset, és sokan kértek rá magyarázatot. Gyakran kérdezik: Én hiszek Istenben, gondviselésében, és mégis, miért félek néha? Félek, ha va­lami fontos ügyet kell elintéznem, félek, ha orvoshoz, fogor­voshoz kell mennem, félek néha az éjszakától, félelemérzet van bennem rossz időben, a tömegben, zárt helyen stb. Talán nem elég erős a hitem? Megnyugtatásul erre a választ az orvosi, lélektani szak­könyvekben találjuk meg. Nem a hittel van baj, hanem öre­gedő, gyengülő szervezetünkkel. Amíg fiatalok voltunk, addig nem jutott eszünkbe, hogy féljünk valamelyik nehezebb hely­zetben. Egészséges szervezetünk alkalmazkodott a körülmé­nyekhez. Most, idősebb korban testünk, tüdőnk, szívünk nem tud minket ellátni a többletenergiával, ami szükséges lenne a nehezebb helyzetben. Vannak betegségek is, amelyek auto­matikusan állandó félelemérzetet váltanak ki bennünk külső körülmények nélkül is. Az asztmás ember, az anginás, a máj­beteg szinte állandó félelemben él, mert az oxigén- vagy vér­hiány vészjeleket ad az agyunknak. Nem lelki gyöngeség, nem a hit hiánya ez, hanem szervezetünk feszültsége, kín­lódása. Jó, ha ezt tudjuk, mert ez megnyugtatóan hat lelkünkre és idegeinkre. Amikor ilyen szervezeti félelem van bennünk, ajánljuk azokat Isten gondjaiba, és igyekezzünk bizakodók, optimisták lenni. Ez gyógyítólag hat a beteg testre is. Lelki erősítésül gondoljunk többször arra a bibliai jele­netre, ahol Jézus lecsendesíti a háborgó tengert, és a csó­nakban aggódó tanítványaihoz így szól: Mit féltek, kicsiny­­hitűek? Nincs földi élet félelemérzet nélkül. Mindenki fél. De Istenbe kapaszkodva mindez könnyebben elviselhető.

Next