The history of the Roma movement for civic emancipation in Bulgaria is inextricably linked with the name of Shakir Pashov. For presenting his personality, public and political activities over the years, in addition to the usual historical archives, we also used his rich personal archive preserved by his successors (ASR, f. Shakir Pashov), as well as the memories about him in the oral history of the community. Among the variety of historical sources, the place of the manuscript entitled History of the Gypsies in Bulgaria and Europe: Roma (Пашов, 1957) should be specially noted. This manuscript is not a rigorous scientific study in the academic sense of the word. Much of it is based on the author’s memories of events in which he was a major participant. Although not credible in some specific details and interpretations, in many other respects, Shakir Pashov’s memoirs are a unique source. They offer a perspective on the historical processes ‘from within’, from the community’s point of view. This particular perspective may be, to some extent, distorted by the vicissitudes of the time but is nevertheless an authentic and indispensable source. In this case, there is a historical narrative reflecting the spirit of the era and presenting the vicissitudes of the author’s historical destiny and the Roma community as a whole, of which he is the leading representative.
Shakir Mahmudov Pashov was born on October 20, 1898 (ASR, f. Shakir Pashov) in the village of Gorna Banya (today, a district of Sofia). In various documents from the 1920s and 1930s, his surname is also written as Pashev, including by himself. This is not a mistake, but two different forms (Pashev and Pashov) of the family name originating from the personal name Pashí, a common name among the Gypsies in Sofia at the time. He belongs to the Erli Roma group, who have lived for centuries in Sofia and in the surrounding villages, and their first documented presence there is from the 15th century in the Ottoman Empire (Marushiakova & Popov, 2001, p. 21). Probably, he came from a family of hereditary blacksmiths and ironsmiths. Throughout his life, he made his living mainly on ironwork, and these skills have helped him in difficult times of his life.
Shakir Pashov received a relatively good education, especially considering that, at the time, most Gypsies were illiterate or with very basic education. In the last decades of the 19th century, there was a Turkish school in Sofia with more than 100 Gypsy children, five of whom were even sent by the Islamic religious community to Istanbul to continue their education (Пашов, 1957, p. 80). In 1905 the Turkish school ceased to exist, and Gypsy children began to enter Bulgarian schools. After completing his primary education, Shakir Pashov graduated from a vocational school for railway workers. His father worked for many years on the construction of railways in the new Bulgarian state (Ibid., p. 30), so it can be said that Shakir Pashov was a hereditary proletarian.
In 1915, Bulgaria entered the First World War on the side of the Central Powers, and Shakir Pashov was mobilised and sent to the front in Macedonia. His participation in the War should be especially noted because this turned out to be a factor of crucial importance for his further public activity in the field of Roma civic emancipation. Shakir Pashov was well aware of this, so in the Preface to his manuscript, he included a poetic account of the time when he fought on the front with his comrades – eight other Gypsies from Sofia. After a heavy battle, they had a long conversation about the need to “organise our Gypsy minority”. During this conversation, he promised, “if I return home alive and well, I will write the history of the Gypsies in such a way that it will be retold by the generations”; and the Foreword ends with the words “I have fulfilled my duty” (Ibid., p. 6).
The essence of the changes in the civic consciousness of the Gypsies in Bulgaria because of their participation in the First World War was captured precisely by Bernard Gilliat-Smith (writing also under the pseudonym Petulengro), who, before the War, was in diplomatic service in Sofia. His narrative about the language of the Gypsies in Sofia, in fact, reflects the changes that occurred in their lives after the War:
This […] was due, I think, to the effects of the First Great War. Pashi Suljoff’s [the primary respondent of B. Gilliat-Smith, from whom he recorded language and folklore materials – authors note] generation represented a different “culture”, a culture which had been stabilised for a long time. The Sofia Gypsy “hammal” [porter] was – a Sofia Gypsy “hammal”. He did not aspire to be anything else. He was, therefore psychologically, spiritually, at peace with himself. […] Not so the post-war generation […] who could be reckoned as belonging to the proletars of the Bulgarian metropolis. The younger members of the colony were therefore already inoculated with a class hatred, which was quite foreign to Pashi Suljoff’s generation. […] To feel “a class apart”, despised by the Bulgars who were, de facto, their “Herrenvolk”, was pain and grief to them. (Gilliat-Smith, 1945, pp. 18–19).
After Bulgaria’s withdrawal from the First World War in 1918, Shakir Pashov returned home from the front. He initiated the creation of the Sofia Common Muslim Educational-Cultural and Mutual Aid Organisation Istikbal – Future, which was officially registered on August 2, 1919 (CDA, f. 1 Б, op. 8, a.e. 596, l. 69; Marushiakova & Popov, 2021, pp. 79–83). According to the founding statute of the organisation, Shakir Pashov was its Secretary, and the Chairman was Yusein Mehmedov. This assignment of the positions in the organisation is understandable, having in mind the traditional norms in the community, which mandated that the elderly members are the most respected ones, while Shakir Pashov was then only 21 years old (i.e. he had just reached the age of majority according to the legal norms of the time). In this way, a specific dualism was established in the organisation: The Honorary Chairman speaks mainly to his community and works on its internal problems; while the young and educated secretary takes over the external contacts and works with the society, particularly the state and municipal institutions.
The creation of the organisation Istikbal marked the beginning of a new stage in the development of the movement for Roma civil emancipation. As this new stage did not come in a void, we need a short flashback to the first steps in this direction.
After the Russian-Turkish War (1877–1878) and the subsequent San Stefano Peace Treaty, Berlin Congress and the adoption of the Constitution of the Principality of Bulgaria (known as the Tarnovo Constitution) in April 1879 in Tarnovo, the new Bulgarian state was created. The Tarnovo Constitution recognised Bulgarian citizenship for all residents of the country (i.e. including Gypsies) and their civil equality: Art. 57 (“all Bulgarian subjects are equal before the law”) and Art. 86 (“voters are all Bulgarian citizens who are over 21 years of age and who enjoy civil and political rights”) (Конституция, 1945). Only two decades later, however, it became clear that the new state did not consider all its citizens as equal, as stipulated in the legislation. On May 3, 1901, the 11th National Assembly (at its 61st extraordinary session) discussed and voted on the Law on Amendments to the Electoral Law, which contained essential amendments and additions directly related to the electoral rights of the Gypsies. The government coalition between the Democratic Party and the Progressive Liberal Party, led by Petko Karavelov, proposed the amendments. According to the new edition of the provisions of this law under Item 2 of Art. 4 and Art. 7 (People forbidden to vote), the text reads as follows: “In that number the non-Christian Gypsies, as well as all those Gypsies without any fixed abode” (
The reaction of the Gypsies, however, surprised Bulgarian society. Immediately after the adoption of the amendments to the Electoral Law, an improvised Gypsy conference was held in 1901 in Vidin in protest against the restriction on the electoral rights of the Gypsies (Marushiakova & Popov, 1997, p. 29). Even more surprising was that the Gypsies launched a real campaign denouncing the amendments. They were supported by Dr Marko Markov, an ethnic Bulgarian, a lawyer, a famous and eccentric public figure at that time. He was born in Tulcea (now in Romania), studied at Robert College in Istanbul, and continued law studies at the Universities of Bern and Zürich in Switzerland. Subsequently, he defended his doctoral thesis at the University of Liege in Belgium. In the 1880s, he was one of the forerunners of the future communist movement in Bulgaria (Стоянов, 1966, p. 213–220).
The idea for the civic emancipation of the Roma and their struggle for equal civil rights, however, can not not be considered to have been imported “from the outside”, by non-Roma. Along with Dr Marko Markov, leaders of the protest initiative were Gypsy men – Ramadan Ali, a Muhtar (representative of the Mayor for the Gypsy mahala, appointed by the municipal authorities) in Sofia and Ali Bilyalov, his assistant (second Muhtar). Initially, they drew up a petition demanding equal voting rights for the Gypsies. They presented the petition to the Speaker of the National Assembly, and since no response was received, they decided to hold a Gypsy Congress in order to make the Gypsy demands more convincing (
In the newspapers, the Congress in Sofia was referred to as ‘Tsiganski’ (‘Gypsy’ in Bulgarian). At the same time, the organisers spoke of it as a ‘Coptic’ congress, and the speakers called themselves ‘Copts’ and ‘Coptic population’. This is easy to understand, considering the dominant idea in the Bulgarian society (among Roma as well) at that time that the Gypsies originated in Egypt as the descendants of the ancient Copts, which is directly related to the most commonly used designation of Gypsies as ‘Kıpti’ (i.e. Copts) in the official records from the Ottoman Empire (Marushiakova & Popov, 2001).
The Congress was held in the San Stefano pub, in the centre of Sofia, on December 19, 1905 (see the published materials in Marushiakova & Popov, 2021, pp. 33–56). According to the organisers, the Congress was attended by “40 to 50 delegates” who came from “all major cities of the Principality” (in fact, apart from the participants from Sofia, the only other delegation present was from Plovdiv). The organisers had previously sent letters to about 20 cities and small towns in Bulgaria, but during the Congress, supporting telegrams arrived also from other locations (Vidin, Silistra, Varna) who had learned from the newspapers about the Congress (an indication that there were already people among the Gypsies in Bulgaria, who read the press). Dr Marko Markov was the elected Chairman of the Congress and presided over its meetings. Ali Bilyalov from Sofia, Ali Mutishev from Plovdiv, Iliya Uzunov, Ali Mola, Riste Mustafa, and Evtim Ikonomov participated in the leadership of the Congress. (
The development of civic consciousness among the Gypsies in Bulgaria is only one aspect of the process of their social integration. However, to finish this long process successfully, a move in the same direction from the other side is also necessary. Bulgarian society also needed to open up for the Gypsies and their aspirations for equal status within the Bulgarian nation. In the case of the violated civil rights of the Gypsies, the reaction of politicians, the media, and the Bulgarian public opinion pointed to something quite clear – the legitimate citizenship demands of the Gypsies were not only rejected but also ridiculed. That is why there was no response from state institutions (National Assembly and the Prince) either to the Congress petition or to the telegram sent to the Palace.
This reaction of the Bulgarian public opinion to the Gypsy Congress and to the subsequent public campaign for the restoration of their voting rights once again confirmed the lack of desire on the part of Bulgarian society to accept the Gypsies and their legitimate civil demands. The materials published in the press at the time are a typical illustration of the Bulgarian (and Balkan) contemptuous attitude towards the Gypsies. The main (and, in fact, the only) discourse in the press regarding the Gypsy Congress is the irony. Simeon Radev, a famous public figure, publicist and editor-in-chief of one of the most popular newspapers at the time, Vecherna poshta (Evening Mail), set the tune within the first article on the topic. He begins his article with a fictional quote by Karl Marx about the role of the Gypsies in the Russian and world revolution. He sarcastically presents the international dimension of the forthcoming Congress in Sofia (
All other press reports on the Congress were dominated by the same ironic discourse; some of them even resorted to deliberately distorted language in the presentation of speeches by Gypsies participating in the Congress. To the personal appeal on the part of Dr Marko Markov to Simeon Radev for helping the Gypsies regain their civil rights, the latter responded with “irresistible laughter” (
The public reaction to the Gypsies and their aspirations for civil equality in the instance of the Electoral Law is a typical illustration of the attitude towards the Gypsies in Bulgaria (and, in general, on the Balkans). The perception of the Gypsies as a part of the Bulgarian nation has already been permanently established in the public consciousness, with a specific position attributed to them in categorial and axiological terms. The Gypsies are still perceived as a collective unity with a defined categorial status, but with new axiological dimensions – in the eyes of the Bulgarian masses, the Gypsies are not equal citizens. Moreover, this inequality is of a different order compared to the attitude towards other ethnic communities – even though all others are ‘foreign’ and some are even ‘enemies’, they are still comparable as a category to the Bulgarians. The Gypsies, on the other hand, are a community of another kind, known a priori to be inferior and not comparable to the Bulgarians. Insofar as the Gypsies are subjected to any value assessments at all, the opinion towards them is often rather disparaging (at least, as far as they know “their place” in Bulgarian society and do not seek to move away from it). That is why the civic aspirations of the Gypsies remained without serious consideration, and nobody cared to discuss whether or not their constitutional rights to vote were truly violated. To put it in brackets, the best illustration of this initial inequality could be found in Simeon Radev’s memoirs about his childhood in the town of Resen (today in the Republic of Northern Macedonia):
There were some wealthy people among the Gypsies. The Zizovtsi family lived not far from us. At Easter, we sent them red eggs; on St George’s Day, we used to receive from them a piece of roast lamb. This put my mother in great difficulty. We, the kids, didn’t want to eat meat sent by the Gypsies. My mother used to say that it was a shame and a sin to throw it to the dogs (Радев, 1994, pp. 222–223).
In the new national context of the independent Bulgarian State, some forms of the community’s public life, inherited from the Ottoman Empire, were preserved and developed. Since the time of the Ottoman Empire, the Gypsies have entered into the system of ethnically distinct guilds (professional associations, called here with the Turkish term esnaf) and created their own, Gypsy esnafs (see Marushiakova & Popov, 2016a for more details). After establishing the new Bulgarian State, the Gypsy guilds changed their forms and social functions according to the new conditions. This is not just about their legitimation under the conditions of the independent Bulgarian State, such as the transformation of the old Porter’s Esnaf in Lom into a professional association in 1896 (Тахир, 2018), but also about the creation of new associations, such as the Porter’s Association Trud (Labour), founded in Kyustendil in 1901 (the flag of the Association is still preserved), and the First Sofia Flower-selling Association Badeshte (Future) headed by Ali Asanov, founded in Sofia in 1909 (Тахир, 2018). Moreover, this period saw the creation of officially registered public organisations for the defence of the Roma social positions as an ethnic community in Bulgarian society.
An essential historical source for this process is the Statute of the Egyptian Nation in the Town of Vidin, published in the form of a booklet (Устав, 1910; see also Marushiakova & Popov, 2021, pp. 69–76). This historical document referred to the Roma as Egiptyani (‘Egyptians’ in Bulgarian), which directly correlates with Kıptı (i.e., Copts, as in the Ottoman Empire), and the Congress in 1905 used this designation too.
The creation of this organisation is a significant step forward in developing organisational forms in the process of Roma civic emancipation in Bulgaria (Marushiakova & Popov, 2017a, pp. 42–46). The Statute describes already-known practices for selecting a Chair (called Muhtar), his assistant, and his councillors. This practice continued as part of the local administration in other places in the country too. Such an example is provided in Sofia, where Ramadan Ali held this post for almost two decades, since 1888, when he was unanimously elected (by 230 votes) by the Gypsies in the Gypsy mahala as their leader, having served previously as deputy of the former Muhtar, Ibrahim Mustafov (DA Sofia, f. 1 К, op. 2, а.е. 1848, l. 1–15). In addition to the already established matters in the Statute, there are several new and meaningful points. The first thing to note here is the name itself – this was already not just about one Gypsy mahala but the entire “Egyptian Nationality” in the city and the region, i.e., the Gypsies are represented in it as a collective entity on an ethnic basis. The Statute promotes the “Egyptian Nationality” representatives in charge of communicating with the authorities on behalf of the community. Starting with Art. 1, the primary function of the Statute is as follows: “In respect of the old custom” (that is, following the norms which remained since the time of the Ottoman Empire), the organisation establishes and regulates not only “its rightful relationships in the society” (i.e. the public positions and attitudes of the Gypsies in the new realities), but also “among themselves” (i.e. within the community itself, which is undoubtedly a new moment in its development).
Moreover, in Art. 2, it is explicitly highlighted that the rules and regulations of the Statute concern “all the Gypsies in the neighbourhood”, and if there are no other alternative formations, it applies to the whole constituency. There is an evident desire for the new organisation to be set up on a large scale and to include the entire “Nationality” in the region. It envisages organisation on a hierarchical, vertical structure in which the leaders (the so-called Tseribashi) of individual urban Gypsy neighbourhoods and rural Gypsy communities will coordinate their activities with the ‘Muhtar of the township’. However, for its part, the Muhtar shares its power functions with those of the Supreme Council, which is the “supreme body” (i.e. the original formula of parliamentary democracy and the separation of powers are evident). In doing so, the governing bodies (the Muhtar and the Supreme Council) assume specific responsibilities and obligations, such as to protect the “common moral and material interests of their compatriots”, to solve internal problems in the community, etc. (Устав, 1910, pp. 6–7).
The Statute has an interesting stipulation that the voters and those who run for election shall “preferably” be included in the voter registers for the municipal elections (in other words, voting is allowed for the unregistered ones as well). At first glance, this requirement is discriminatory against the Muslim Gypsies who were deprived of voting rights by the amendments to the Election Law of 1901 (see above). The actual situation, however, is noticeably different from the legal norms. As demonstrated by the founders’ names, most of them were Muslims, including Gyulish Mustafa, the Chair of the Constituent Commission of the Vidin organisation (recorded as a “reserve sergeant,” i.e. he was previously on regular service in the Bulgarian army). His deputy had two names, a Muslim and a Christian (Ahmed Neyazimov and Tako Munov), which is an indication of his recent baptism. Notably, among the 19 members of the Commission, the members with Muslim names, who were listed in the Statute, were significantly higher in number than those with Christian names (Ibid., p. 15). It would have been illogical for the founders to set such a restrictive criterion themselves if they were indeed deprived of suffrage. Hence, it is clear that the law stipulations do not always apply in reality (at least in the local municipal elections).
Regarding the above-mentioned Statute of the Egyptian Nation in the Town of Vidin, it is impressive that some of its specific formulations sound quite up-to-date, as if they were written by our contemporaries. For example, Art. 10 shows that one of its main goals is to “awake civil consciousness among the people” (the emphasis on the civic awakening comes to underline their position as an equal part of the Bulgarian society and the Bulgarian civil nation). As one can see from the Statute, it uses the terms ‘Tsigani’ (Gypsies) and ‘Egyptyani’ (Egyptians) synonymously and interchangeably. The preference for the appellation ‘Egyptians’ is obvious, and this is not only because it signifies their Egyptian origin (based mainly on the Holy Scripture) – so well-known and spread in Bulgaria, but also because it would be much more prestigious for them and their social status to be recognised in society as the heirs of an ancient civilisation and high culture. That is why the Statute pays so much attention to the stamp with its iconography. The Gergyovden (St George Day) is the organisation’s annual holiday, and the organisation’s seal depicts the image of St George “on a horse with a spear in his hand, stuck in a crocodile, and behind his horse the royal daughter” (Ibid., pp. 11–12). It reveals connections with Ancient Egypt and emphasises relationships with Christianity which is the “dominant religion” in the new Bulgarian state, according to the Tarnovo Constitution.
In this case, we see an indication of the standard processes that went on in the emerging nations in Central and South-Eastern Europe. It is a common feature that the basic national narratives about the origins of the nation were created and reproduced at the artistic-pictorial level with symbolic significance (in this way, a new ethnonational symbolism is created).
The Statute of the Egyptian nationality in the city of Vidin is the only known historical evidence of the existence of this organisation. We can assume that it existed only for a relatively short period. The organisation probably ceased to exist soon after its establishment, when the period of military conflicts in the Balkans began, which included the two Balkan Wars (1912 – 1913) and the First World War, and the State mobilised many Roma as part of the Bulgarian army.
Concerning the practice of the municipal authorities to appoint Roma representatives promoted by the community itself in the Gypsy mahalas (which can be considered as a rudimentary form of internal national autonomy), this legacy of the Ottoman era was actively practised in the first decades of the new Bulgarian State.
The situation changed in the 1920s and 1930s when city mayors started appointing their deputies in the Gypsy neighbourhoods without holding internal elections. We can provide an illustration from Ferdinand city (today Montana), which was preserved in the local archive. After the election of a Cheribashi in 1927, in response to the Gypsies’ request, the municipal council adopted a decision according to which the appointment of a ‘mayoral deputy’ (this is the new term in the Bulgarian language, which replaced the Turkish Cheribashi in new Bulgarian state) to their neighbourhood, “a person from the mahala, with Mohammedan faith”, should be done only following the mahala representatives’ recommendation (DA Montana, f. 3 К, op. 1, a.e. 25, l. 61). Despite this decision, over the next two years, the city mayor fired three mayoral deputies and appointed new ones in their place (DA Montana, f. 79 К, op. 1, a.e. 32, l. 15; а.е. 34, l. 20; а.е. 35, l. 30).)
In this way, the mayoral deputy institution became hostage to political strife (each new authority appointed its own deputies), and its functions gradually diminished. In fact, the transition to a Gypsy civic movement after the First World War was made by the younger generation, who wanted to replace the old Muhtars (or Cheribashis) with new civil committees to take over their functions and were looking for other forms of community representation in the municipal and central government authorities.
In this socio-political context, the emergence of the Sofia Common Muslim Educational-Cultural and Mutual Aid Organisation Istikbal – Future was a logical event revealing the transition to a new, crucial stage in the Roma civil emancipation process. In this new stage, the primary aspiration of the community was for an equal position in society. The early attempts to realise a real (not existing on paper only) Roma emancipation relied on the existing institutions which were inherited from previous eras, preserved and developed in the new social conditions (as in the case of the muhtars). In the new stage, the old forms changed according to the conditions and requirements of the new historical realities and they were filled with new content. The main reason for this development is contextual, namely, the complete and significant changes in the socio-political realities after the First World War, which inevitably affected the Gypsies, an ethnically distinct segment of society. The participation of the Gypsies in the wars (the two Balkan Wars and the First World War), along with all other Bulgarian citizens, developed and strengthened their sense of belonging to the Bulgarian civil nation. The new realities after the war, when the Roma became “second-class citizens” once again, prompted them to launch an organised struggle for changing the position of their community in the larger society, as Shakir Pashov explicitly emphasises more than once in his manuscript. Thus, it turns out that the inclusion of the Gypsies in the Bulgarian army (for more details, see Иванова & Кръстев, 2014) has led not only to the strengthening of their national civic identity but also to the development of the civil emancipation processes among them. This is not a specific Bulgarian phenomenon but a common development in the region of Central and South-Eastern Europe. Similar processes in one form or another occurred with the Roma in other countries (see more details on similar processes and phenomena in the region Marushiakova & Popov, 2021).
When studying this new and extremely important stage in the development of the Roma civic emancipation, one must consider a characteristic feature of the source base. Shakir Pashov’s memoirs, as one of the main sources for this period, need further verification through comparison with other sources dealing with the described events. These memoirs were written in the 1950s (dated 1957), during the period of communist rule, after the end of his political career. Logically, he strived to attune his memoirs to the new, ideological reading of history, leading to the creation of a new historical narrative. Even excluding the other factors (such as fear of new repressions, striving for political rehabilitation, etc.), which undoubtedly (at least to some extent) influenced him in the preparation of the manuscript, it is unconditionally clear that without conforming to the dominant new historical discourse, he could not hope to have the manuscript published (despite his best efforts, however, the manuscript was never printed). For these reasons, in his memoirs, he nowhere mentions the creation of the Sofia Common Muslim Educational – Cultural and Mutual Aid Organisation Istikbal – Future, which was created on his initiative, and he was a leading figure in its activities. As one can learn from the archival documents (CDA, f. 1 Б, op. 8, a.e. 596, l. 69), the organisation Istikbal was defined as ‘Muslim’ and although the membership was open to all Bulgarian citizens (Art. 4) its primary purpose was “to organise the Muslims in one common organisation which helps the poor in times of illnesses, accidents, death and others” (Art. 2). At first glance, the organisation Istikbal could be a typical Muslim charitable organisation, at least according to its Statute. At the same time, the Statute revealed that the organisation originated from already existing professional organisations and charitable associations (Art. 8), including, in addition to the old forms of community life, also new elements of civic activities, such as “To fight for their moral, material and educational-cultural upbringing” (Art. 2). Moreover, although the Statute does not mention the word ‘Gypsies’ even once, it explicitly emphasises that it is “strictly non-partisan” (Art. 6). At the same time it envisaged facilitating the contacts of the members with the official administration (Art. 26). This means that the new organisation had ambitions not only to solve the problems within the community (Art. 27), but also to function as its representative within the Bulgarian Society, and to develop (among other things) also as a modern Roma civic organisation.
The most crucial goal of the organisation Istikbal, stipulated in its Statute and made evident by its subsequent actions, was to secure the participation of the Gypsies in the governance of the Muslim religious community in Sofia as well as in the management of Islamic properties. At that time, after the Russian-Turkish war and the expulsion of Turks from Bulgaria, only a small number of ethnic Turks were left in Sofia, but they did not allow the inclusion of the Gypsies in the governing bodies of the local Muslim community. This struggle for Gypsy participation in the Muslim religious communities (respectively, participation in the management of Islamic properties) has its historical roots. As early as 1895, the new Bulgarian State adopted Provisional Rules for the Election of the Boards of Trustees of Muslim Municipalities. The Rules explicitly stated that “Gypsies cannot be voters, nor can they be elected because, according to the Sharia rules, they shall not take any participation in the governance of the Muslim religious affairs” (Вълков, 2020, p. 349).
During the Gypsy Congress in 1901, in his speech, the delegate from Plovdiv, Ali Mutishev, made a vague attempt to distinguish between ‘Copts’ and ‘Gypsies’. In his opinion, there was a difference between the two groups. Later on, he went on saying that ‘Gypsies’ were poor ‘Copts’ (
The circumstances that led to the creation of the organisation Istikbal become clear if the processes are viewed precisely in this Muslim religious (and property) context. In the same year, 1919, immediately before its establishment, the Bulgarian State adopted a new Statute for the spiritual organisation and governance of the Muslims in the Kingdom of Bulgaria. With this Statute, the management of the waqfs (Muslim religious endowment) was assigned to the elected boards of the Muslim religious communities. In addition, the Gypsies “who have a permanent residence and are literate in Bulgarian and Turkish” were granted electoral rights (Вълков, 2020, p. 349). The direct consequence of these legal changes is clearly stated in the Statute of the organisation, in which the desire “to give a new life to the Muslim religious community” is stated as a particularly important goal (Art. 25). Although, according to its Statute, the organisation Istikbal is formally a Muslim charitable organisation without clearly expressed ethnic dimensions, in practice, its activity over the years (it existed until the Second World War) was primarily oriented in the field of Roma civil emancipation. The struggle for participation in the governance of the Muslim religious communities and their properties can be interpreted as an expression of this aspiration.
According to Shakir Pashov, the first public appearance of the new Gypsy civic movement was the meeting of the “progressive youth” (progressive here implies attachment to the communist ideas) in 1921. They elected a delegation and managed to meet with Prime Minister Aleksandar Stamboliyski, the head of the Bulgarian National Agricultural Union. In addition to Shakir Pashov himself, this delegation included the Chairman of the organisation Yusein Mehmedov, Yusein Bilalov, Rashid Mehmedov, Redzheb Yuseinov, Muto Bilalov and Bilal Osmanov (Пашов, 1957, p. 101). At this meeting, the delegation raised the issue that the Gypsies were stripped of voting rights in 1901, and the prohibition against voting remained in force despite amendments to the 1919 Election Law which introduced mandatory voting for all Bulgarian citizens (
Prime Minister Stamboliyski promised to restore their voting rights and, according to Shakir Pashov’s statement, at the next session of the National Assembly, he tabled a “proposal for the restoration of the voting rights of the Gypsies, and with the support of the Communist MPs, the law was passed”. The debates in the Bulgarian Parliament on this amendment to the Electoral Law are instructive. Prime Minister Aleksandar Stamboliyski, in response to a remark made by the opposition, justified the voting rights of the Gypsies with their participation in the Bulgarian army during the two Balkan wars and the First World War (Дневник, 1923). Eventually, the Electoral Law was changed, and the electoral rights of the Muslim Gypsies were restored. The only ban that remained was on the vote of the Gypsies who did not have a permanent domicile (i.e. the nomadic Gypsies).
As demonstrated in this case as well as in many other instances (both before and after), the main argument that the Roma used in the process of their civil emancipation was their participation in the wars. This is the most convincing proof of their national civil identity and the most serious challenge of the stereotype that the Gypsies (in a new time Roma) do not have a homeland, which is widespread until today, including the academia.
The reasons why Shakir Pashov apparently “omitted” mentioning the early activities of the organisation Istikbal are quite clear. It stands to reason that in his memoirs, written at a time when the struggle to limit the role of religion (and especially of Islam) was an essential element of state policy, Shakir Pashov did not want to associate his past with this organisation. The easiest way to do this was not to mention its creation and existence in the 1920s. That is why he indicated May 7, 1929, as the date of its creation. He attributed the struggles for “civil and political rights of the Gypsy minority” in the 1920s to the Society Egipet (Egypt), which according to him, was linked with the Communist movement in Bulgaria at that time. In Shakir Pashov’s words, the Society Egipet was founded in 1919, after he returned from the front. Its members were “a major part of the Gypsy intelligentsia and all the progressive youth”. The aim of the association was “to raise its members and the entire Gypsy minority in cultural and educational terms, and, above all – to work for the political and civic awakening of the Gypsy minority”. It is difficult to answer definitively the question of whether this Gypsy organisation really existed. On the one hand, we could not find any other historical evidence to confirm its legal registration (except Shakir Pashov’s memories). Still, on the other hand, a youth association with the name ‘Egypt’ could have existed without legal registration.
However, in another autobiographical document, written in 1946, about the influence of communist ideas among the Gypsy youth in Sofia, Shakir Pashov did not mention the Society Egipet. In this document, he asserted that the young communists in the Gypsy neighbourhood had their own flag, “red, under the name Napredak [Напредък – ‘Progress’ in Bulgarian]” (CDA, f. 1 Б, op. 6, a.e. 235, l. 6), but the name of youth society that existed at the time was actually Napred (Forward). The popularity of communist ideas among the Gypsies in Sofia (or at least among some of them) at that time is beyond doubt. Representatives of the Gypsy youth were actively involved in political struggles, and there were victims among them. During the so-called Socialist era, there was a commemorative plaque in honour of Ibrahim Kerimov (or, according to other data, Ibraim Kyamilov), who was shot dead by the police on the street in Sofia during a demonstration organised by the Communist Party in 1919 (
Shakir Pashov himself, at this time, was actively involved in the Communist movement. He was a member of the Communist Party (at that time named the Bulgarian Workers’ Social-Democratic Party – narrow socialists) since 1918 (or since 1919 according to other data) (CDA, f. 1 B, op. 6, a.e. 235, l. 6; ASR, f. Shakir Pashov). The Gypsy Communist Society (regardless of whether it was formally registered, under what name, or whether it existed informally) had about 50 members in its initial composition. A few months after the establishment of the Society Egipet, its members decided to join the newly transformed (and renamed in 1919) Bulgarian Communist Party. According to Shakir Pashov, the merging of the Society Egipet into the Party was carried out in a solemn setting, in the Club of the society, on 51 Tatarli Street. At the merger, the management of the society consisted of the following nine members: Asen Totev, Shakir Pashov, Yusein Bilalov, Mancho Shakirov, Mustafa Saydiev, Demir Yasharov, Mancho Arifov, Ali Yasharov and Ramcho Shakirov. Very soon after its creation, the society already included more than 50 members. The flag of the Society Egipet was kept in Yusein Bilalov’s home, and it was used in the May 1st demonstrations in 1920. In 1924, the Society Egipet organised the mass participation of Gypsies (including Gypsy women dressed in their traditional suit, the shalwars) in the mourning procession at the funeral of Dimitar Blagoev, the founder of the socialist (later communist) movement in Bulgaria, and laid wreaths on his grave.
At the end of 1919, Shakir Pashov, who at that time was working as a railway worker in the Bulgarian State Railways, became actively involved in the transport workers’ strike, organised by the Bulgarian Communist Party. He was fired because of that (Но
However, we should note that in some cases, Shakir Pashov deliberately “decorated” his autobiography (written in the late 1960s) with additional details highlighting his leading position in the communist movement. For example, his claim that in the parliamentary elections held in 1924, he was elected a Member of Parliament from the United Front (a political coalition between the Bulgarian Communist Party and the left-wing of the Bulgarian Agricultural People’s Union) cannot be valid because, in 1924, no parliamentary elections were held.
The political situation in the first half of the 1920s in Bulgaria was characterised by intense, even fierce political struggles, which had an impact on the Gypsies. The left-wing Bulgarian Agricultural People’s Union, led by Aleksandar Stamboliyski, implemented an agrarian reform thanks to which many Gypsies living in the rural areas received their own land. After the military coup, which took place on June 9, 1923, some of the Gypsies became involved in the armed resistance of the Bulgarian peasants in defence of the legitimate government. As a result of the suppression of the resistance, the Gypsies Asan Lalchov from the village of Dragor; Ali Durakov and Muto Asanov from the village of Karabunar, Pazardzhik District, were killed (Генов et al., 1968, pp. 22–24). Gypsies from North-Western Bulgaria also joined the September uprising in the fall of 1923, which was organised by the Bulgarian Communist Party and the left-wing of the Bulgarian Agricultural People’s Union. Seven Gypsies were killed in the attack on the army barracks in Lom (
On April 16, 1925, the military wing of the Bulgarian Communist Party organised an assassination attempt at the St Nedelya cathedral. The purpose of this terrorist attack was to liquidate the country’s military and political elite, and it left many casualties among the ruling elite. Authorities responded with massive brutal repressions against their political opponents and killed hundreds of Bulgarian Communist Party and Bulgarian Agricultural People’s Union activists and some prominent left-wing intellectuals. Shakir Pashov was arrested immediately after the attack and spent several months in various police stations and military barracks. After his release, he remained under surveillance by the police, who repeatedly searched his house. That is why he decided to immigrate. He crossed illegally the border to Turkey, where he lived on various types of unskilled labour in Istanbul and Izmir and did not return to Bulgaria until 1929. However, the organisation Istikbal did not cease its activities after Shakir Pashov’s immigration. By participating in the elections for the leadership of the Sofia Muslim religious community, and in particular of the Waqf Board of Trustees, the Gypsies from Sofia hoped to “take it over” from within and have the chance to control and use the Muslims’ real estate (waqf estates) in order to solve the problems of their own community. As early as 1923–1924, the Chief Mufti (the religious leader of the Muslims in Bulgaria), Suleiman Faik, repeatedly pleaded with the Bulgarian authorities not to allow Gypsies in the elections into the Boards of Trustees of Muslim municipalities, using various arguments. He claimed that the Gypsies were “deprived of any culture” and “unfit for any creative work”, so “with their negligence and disregard for religious canons and dogmas, they lose the right to be guardians of other Muslims and the handing over of waqfs and Lord-pleasing establishments to them is clearly inadmissible”. He stressed that the Gypsies were fewer in number than the Turks but were concentrated in important Muslim centres such as the cities of Sofia, Plovdiv, Vidin, and Stara Zagora, where they constituted a majority. If they were eligible to run in the board elections, they “would win the most important Muslim [religious] communities … and thus would ruin these properties in the shortest possible time” (Вълков, 2020, p. 349).
In 1925 (before Shakir Pashov’ immigration), the Muslim religious community of Sofia held elections for a Board of Trustees of the school that was governed by it. A school board consisting of Muslim Gypsies was elected, including Rashid Mehmedov, Chair; Redzheb Yuseinov, Vice- Chair; Shakir Pashev, Secretary; and Members – Mustafa Enkekov and Malik Omerov. This Board of Trustees was affirmed by the Sofia Municipality, but the Muslim religious community, which was supposed to provide guarantees for it, refused to do it). The Gypsies from Sofia overcame various obstacles in their effort to take control of the school (and other Islamic properties); some of them even managed to show official documents issued by the Sofia municipality that they were Muslims and ethnic Turks (i.e. they were ready to declare another ethnic identity in public), but encountered opposition from the leadership of the Sofia Muslim community.
These struggles resulted in the opening of a dossier by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Religious Denominations in 1926 and a lawsuit against the Ministry of Justice in 1927 for the Sofia Muslim community’s refusal to hold elections for a Board of Trustees of the Sofia mosque (
In this situation, after his return to Bulgaria, Shakir Pashov resumed the active work of the organisation Istikbal. According to his memoirs, this happened on May 7, 1929, when “the first organisation of the Gypsy minority in Sofia was founded, which unites all former societies (londzhi) in the organisation Istikbal”. Shakir Pashov asserts that the organisation numbered 1,500 members, a significant number for that time. The Chair was Yusein Mehmedov (the old Chair when the organisation was registered in 1919); Shakir Pashev, Secretary; and Yusein Bilalov, Member.” In this case, however, there was no setting up of a new organisation but a renewal of the old one, which preserved not only the name and the governing body but also its seal, which (as will be discussed later) was used until the end of 1930.
As it is obvious, the new generation in the civic movement relied on the existing, older forms of community organisation in the Gypsy neighbourhoods, namely the so-called londzhi. The londzhi originated from the Gypsy guild’s (esnaf) associations (and preserved their terminology); they have lost their former professional bases but retained the functions of mutual aid. The organisation Istikbal tried to take on some of their functions, particularly the charitable work and the support of members in emergencies (especially in funerals which involved many expenses), but this was not enough for the community. That is why some of the londzhi began to function as charitable, civic associations and sought formal registration (how many of them managed to do so is difficult to say). The institution of the londzhi has proved to be highly sustainable over the years, although the Communist regime has restricted their activities. In Sofia, the londzhi continue to exist to this day while their actions are already entirely controlled by women.
In the same year, another Gypsy organisation was founded, the Association Vzaimopomosht (Mutual Aid), chaired by Rashid Mehmedov. It also included some of the londzhi. In addition to these two large organisations, the Gypsies in Sofia maintained professional guilds of blacksmiths, tinsmiths, and small traders (junk dealers). They (at least according to Shakir Pashov) were also members of the organisation Istikbal, together with the Youth Cultural and Educational Association Naangle (Forward) and the Sports Association Egipet (Egypt); in our opinion, Shakir Pashov was probably confused about the names of the two organisations because the name ‘Naangle’ is associated with the sports organisation in many other sources. In 1930, the two major Gypsy organisations and all others merged under a common name, Istikbal (Future). The new (actually old, but with a new format) organisation was headed by Shakir Pashev, two Vice-Chairs (Redzheb Yuseinov and Rashid Mehmedov), two Secretaries (Ahmed Sotirov and Ramcho Shakirov), and Members – Yusein Bilalov, Emin Eminov, Raycho Kochev, and others (Пашов, 1957, pp. 103–104).
In the 1930s, the organisation Istikbal, already headed by Shakir Pashov, developed its activities in the two main directions defined at its inception. These activities were provisionally differentiated as religious and civic ones, but in fact, they intertwined and complemented each other over the years.
Religious activities were not successful. The struggle for the admission of the Gypsies into the governance of the Muslim community and, respectively, of its religious properties continued for a long time. In 1930, a lawsuit against the non-admission of Muslim Gypsies in the governance of Muslim religious institutions was filed with the prosecutor at the Sofia District Court on behalf of the Muslim Gypsies in Sofia. The case was eventually lost at the Supreme Administrative Court. It is indicative that in his article, Hyusein Bilalov, who described these struggles (
However, the activities of the organisation Istikbal were by no means limited to the struggle for a place for the Gypsies in the Muslim religious community. The State Archive in Sofia keeps a poster entitled: Moods and Truths. To the Attention of our State, the Sofia Municipal Administration, and the Society. It is signed by the Sofia Common Muslim Educational-Cultural and Mutual Aid Organisation Istikbal – Future (i.e., we see here the old name from 1919) (DA Sofia, f. 1 K, op. 2, a.e. 831, l. 625–625об); see Annexes 1). The poster is dated March 6, 1930 and was prepared in response to the publications in the press about the forthcoming displacement of the inhabitants of the Gypsy neighbourhood in Sofia (80–100 families). In response to this “lawlessness”, the organisation stated that the Gypsy neighbourhood could not be considered a “nest of infectious diseases” (as described in the press) because “no resident of the neighbourhood is registered in any hospital in Sofia”; that “we are the strictest observers of morality” and that in the Morality department of the Police Directorate “there is not a single Gypsy woman among the registered prostitutes”; that maintaining street cleanliness is an obligation of the city authorities, which they do not fulfil due to “criminal negligence”. The poster also notes that the people from the neighbourhood (i.e. Gypsies) make their living from “skilled labour” of “blacksmiths, basket makers, livestock dealers, musicians, porters, shoemakers, etc.”, which is beneficial for all inhabitants of Sofia.
Furthermore, it especially underlines that “we, as equal citizens of our equally dear for everybody homeland Bulgaria, participated with honour and courage in the wars [the two Balkan Wars and the First World War – authors note], in which Bulgaria was involved, on an equal footing, and we all made dear sacrifices”. The organisation quotes the paragraph from the Constitution: “all Bulgarian citizens are equal before the laws of our country”, and “property rights are inviolable”. Further it requests the establishment of a joint commission with representatives of the neighbourhood to identify the illegal settlement of “comb-makers, sieve makers, beggars, and others, who arrived from the countryside” (Ibid.).
We should note that the poster’s text uses both terms, ‘Muslims’ and ‘Gypsies’ (with the predominance of the former), without opposing them. In this way, for the first time, the organisation Istikbal de facto declared itself a representative of the Roma community in the public space and thus became a political subject in the struggles for the civic emancipation of the Gypsies.
In his Autobiography, Shakir Pashov described how, after returning from Turkey, he became a member of the Workers’ Party (a legal, political structure of the Bulgarian Communist Party, established in 1927 after the banning of the Bulgarian Communist Party in 1924) and formed a “Gypsy Party group”. In 1931, he became “Chairman of the Gypsy Cultural and Educational organisation in Bulgaria” and founded the “first Gypsy newspaper in Bulgaria” Terbie (Upbringing), which “fought for the cultural and educational uprising and political consciousness of our tobacco workers in Bulgaria” (ASR, f. Shakir Pashov, a.e. Autobiography). The actual course of events, as it appears in other historical sources, however, reveals a more or less different picture. The newspaper Terbie, which would have been an invaluable source, was not preserved in the Bulgarian libraries, and copies were not found elsewhere. According to known data, the newspaper was published between 1932 (or 1933) and 1934 (the latest one being No. 7 from May 6, 1934), in 7 editions with 1,500 copies each. Issue No. 2 from February 27, 1933, states that Shakir M. Pashev is the Editor-in-chief, and the newspaper is published by the Mohammedan National Educational and Cultural Organisation. Issue No. 6 states that the newspaper is an organ of the Common Mohammedan National Cultural and Educational Union in Bulgaria, and its Editorial committee includes: Shakir Mahmudov Pashev (Editor-in-chief), Asen Gotov and Demir Yasharov (Иванчев, 1966, Vol. 2, p. 398; see also Marinov, 2021, pp. 51–56).
To put it in brackets, the newspaper Terbie was not the first Gypsy newspaper in Bulgaria. In the 1920s and 1930s, the following newspapers were published: Светилник (Candlestick), Bulletin of the Gypsies’ Mission in Bulgaria: Народът, който се нуждае от просвета чрез Eвангелието (Bulletin of the Gypsies Mission in Bulgaria. A Nation that needs Enlightenment through the Gospel), and Известия на Циганската евангелска мисия (News of the Gypsy Evangelical Mission). The first of them was published in the town of Lom in 1927, and the other two in Sofia in 1932–1933, and their Editor-in-chief was Pastor Petar Minkov (Иванчев, Vol. 1, 1962, p. 363; Vol. 2, 1966, p. 264; Vol. 3, 1969, p. 6; see also Marinov, 2021, pp. 37–51). All of them are related to the so-called New (Evangelical) Churches which started spreading among the Gypsies in Bulgaria at that time (for more details, see Славкова, 2007; Marushiakova & Popov, 2021), and their activities led to the establishment of the Gypsy Evangelical Baptist Church in the village of Golintsi (today Mladenovo neighbourhood in Lom) and the Gypsy Women’s Christian Society Romni (Roma Woman) (Ibid.). At the beginning of the 1930s, when the newspaper Terbie was already in print, the society in Bulgaria was shaken by a big public scandal connected with the propaganda of the evangelical church among the Gypsies in Bulgaria. Henry W. Shoemaker, a famous American folklorist, was appointed extraordinary plenipotentiary minister (i.e. ambassador) of the USA to Bulgaria (1930–1933). In this position, he became the ‘Honorary Patron’ of the Gypsy Evangelical Mission established in 1932 (CDA, f. 264 K, op. 2, a.e. 9385). However, the activities of the Mission met with opposition from the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. In a letter to the Holy Synod, dated May 25, 1933, Neophyte, Metropolitan of Vidin, stated:
We are surprised by the fact that this Gypsy mission was allegedly under the auspices of the American plenipotentiary minister, Mr. Shoemaker! Because we did not know until now, and even now, we do not allow the possibility that a political representative of great power can put himself at the service of reckless propaganda and openly patronise it. (Ibid., l. 3).
It seems unlikely that Shakir Pashov was unaware of the existence of Gypsy newspapers published by Evangelical churches; moreover, in 1947, in his capacity as a Member of Parliament, he visited Golintsi to quell the scandals among the Gypsy population there (see below). Presumably, when he wrote his book in the 1950s, he did not want to publicly advertise the presence of followers of the Evangelical churches among the Gypsies because of the atheist policy of the authorities in Bulgaria at that time.
Information about the contents of the newspaper Terbie is available, apart from Shakir Pashov’s memoirs, from only two other independent historical sources. One of them is the already quoted article by (H)Yusein Bilalov, From the Life of the Sofia Muslim Confessional Municipality – Sofia (
It is obvious that the Roma historical narrative at that time continued to be dominated by the “Egyptian version” of their origin; it began to give way to the “Indian version” only in the 1950s, when the Gypsies became aware of the latter and under the influence of the first wave of Indian films shown in Bulgaria. The Indian version is already prevalent in Shakir Pashov’s manuscript. The newspaper Terbie covers the strategic plans and concrete actions aimed at advancing the Roma civic emancipation movement to a new, national level. Indicative in this respect is the call to the Sofia Gypsies “to self-organise as soon as possible in order to give pace to all Bulgaria, so that […] we have representatives of our interests” (Ibid.), which can be interpreted as a desire for political representation of the Gypsy community. The newspaper reflects the specific attempts in this direction, such as the organisation of a fair in the village of Dolna Kremena, Vratsa region, as well as the effect of these activities, revealed in letters from the cities of Sliven, Vratsa, the village of Galiche, etc. (Ibid.).
New moments in the development of the civic consciousness of the Gypsies were also their appeals to the Bulgarian State for an active policy for the social integration of the Gypsies. The main argument was the realities in other countries worldwide: “Why Gypsies in Turkey are not at such a low stage as we in Bulgaria? […] In Europe, especially in Austria, Hungary, Romania, Poland […] and in Soviet Russia, legislators undertook to create a series of laws assisting [the Gypsies], both materially and in terms of culture and education” (Ibid.). These statements are propaganda which does not correspond to reality because, in other countries, the situation of the Gypsies was no different than that in Bulgaria. At that time, there was no affirmative policy towards the Gypsies, except in the USSR (see Marushiakova & Popov, 2021).
According to Nayden Sheytanov, the newspaper Terbie cooperated with the “Romanian and Hungarian Gypsies” (Ibid.). In fact, from today’s point of view, we cannot be sure whether such cooperation took place or whether this was a mere propaganda trick. Nevertheless, it shows a clear consciousness of the cross-border unity of the Gypsy community. In his memoirs, Shakir Pashov devoted much space to the newspaper Terbie and the critical role it played in the “upbringing and cultural and educational enlightenment of the Gypsy population in Bulgaria” as well as generally, in raising the civic consciousness and national civic identity of the Gypsies. In his words, “the newspaper Terbie truly raised the national and patriotic feeling of the Gypsy minority, but it fought resolutely against its chauvinistic feelings […] [and] was working towards an enlightened patriotism, and against uneducated fanaticism and chauvinism” (Ibid.). The newspaper was circulated throughout the country. For that purpose, many people were organised in Vratsa, Lom, Oryahovo, Pleven, Plovdiv, Kyustendil, Stara Zagora, Ruse, Shumen, Burgas, Pernik, Sliven and many villages.
The first step for organising the Gypsies in the country and creating a national Gypsy civil organisation was the Conference, which took place near the Mezdra Station on May 7, 1932. The Conference was organised on the initiative of the Gypsy organisation in Vratsa. The organisers were Nikola Palashev and Sando Ibrov. The Conference was attended by delegates from the whole Vratsa region, including from the villages Montana, Oryahovo and the villages around it, Byala Slatina, Pleven, Lom, and Cherven Bryag. The Sofia delegation was headed by Shakir Pashov and included Emin Eminov, Naydo Yasharov and Ali Yasharov. According to Shakir Pashov, the Conference decided that the common Organisation Istikbal should lead all Gypsies in Bulgaria, and its newspaper Terbie “would penetrate as an enlightening beam to the last hut of the entire Gypsy minority in Bulgaria” (Пашов, 1957, p 105).
In several autobiographies, written at different times, as well as in the manuscript published in this edition, Shakir Pashov wrote neutrally “the Gypsy Cultural and Educational Organisation” without giving the exact names of the organisations he has in mind, i.e. Sofia Common Muslim Educational-Cultural and Mutual Aid Organisation Istikbal – Future, Mohammedan National Educational and Cultural Organisation and Common Mohammedan-Gypsy National Cultural-Educational and Mutual Aid Union in Bulgaria. This “omission” of the exact names was made deliberately – to avoid mentioning their definition as ‘Muslim/Mohammedan’ and all religious activities. Nevertheless, when he wrote about the 1930s, he noted his ties with the organisation Istikbal whose connection with Islam is not so visible by its title.
This is the reason why in his memoirs, Shakir Pashov consciously linked all activities in the field of Roma emancipation in the early 1930s with the organisation Istikbal, including the publication of the newspaper Terbie. In fact, the leading organisation in these processes was the new organisation established in 1931 and led by him, which in various sources is called ‘Mohammedan National Educational and Cultural Organisation’ (Иванчев, 1966, Vol. 2, p. 398) or ‘Common Mohammedan National Cultural and Educational Union’ (Мир, 1934, p. 3). No documents about its registration have thus far been discovered. Still, in 1933 this organisation was restructured, and Shakir Pashov tried to register it, a fact that he also consciously “omitted” in his memoirs.
The minutes from the meeting for the establishment of the organisation with the name ‘Common Mohammedan-Gypsy National Cultural-Educational and Mutual Aid Union in Bulgaria’ have been preserved. From the minutes, it became clear that on December 25, 1933, in Sofia, a Constituent Assembly was held with Chair Ramcho Shakirov, Vice-Chair Demir Yasharov, and Secretary Slavi Iliev, at which the Board of Directors of the new organisation was elected with members: Shakir M. Pashev (living at that time on 80 Konstantin Velichkov Street), Rashid Mehmedov, Bilyal Osmanov, Slavi Iliev and Mehmed Skenderov; and Substitute Members – Ramcho Shakirov and Mladen Spasov. The management board elected the President of the Union – Shakir M. Pashev, Secretary of the Union – Slave Iliev, and Treasurer of the Union – Mehmed Skenderov. Control Commission, Enlightenment Council, and Religious Council were also elected (CDA, f. 264, op. 2, a.e. 8413, l. 27–28; Marushiakova & Popov, 2021, pp. 86–93). At this Constituent Assembly, the Statute of the Common Mohammedan-Gypsy National Cultural-Educational and Mutual Aid Union in Bulgaria was discussed and adopted. (CDA, f. 264 К, op. 2, a.e. 8413, l. 7–12, 15–20, 21–26 [3 copies]; see also Marushiakova & Popov, 2021, pp. 86–94). In the Statute of the new organisation, there are many new and important elements compared with the Statute of the organisation Istikbal. The name itself explicitly emphasises that it was a union of the Gypsies in Bulgaria, i.e. it already had the ambition to work on a national scale along with separate sub-divisions in the country and to be representative of the whole community. This was explicitly stated in the beginning of the Statute, in the chapter about the purpose of the Union, “to organise all Gypsies (Mohammedans and others) in their national belonging in Bulgaria” and “to create an organisation for the preservation of the material and spiritual interests of this nation in the country, but also a mutual aid institute through self-help” (Art. 1), as well as to work “for the cultivation of civil virtues in the motherland – Bulgaria” (Art. 2). The new Union had ambitions to unite all existing forms of Gypsy organisations (civic, mutual aid, sport, etc. including the professional associations), without infringing on their independence (Art. 3).
Moreover, the Union even left its door open for international participation, allowing the inclusion of “our co-nationals” from other countries (Art. 3). This possibility remained at an abstract level, however, it reveals the emergence of a Gypsy trans-border identity (or at least indicates the presence of such aspiration). The tasks that the Union defined for itself go far beyond those of the organisation Istikbal. By its very design, it was, to a much greater extent, a modern Gypsy civic organisation with three directions – cultural and educational, religious, and urban development.
The interesting point is that the Statute of the Union envisages, “if the laws permit, the opening of private schools” (Art. 2). Apparently, this article presumed the successful completion of the long struggle for control by the Gypsies over the Islamic religious community in Sofia and its properties. According to the legal norms at the time, only religious communities had the right to open their private schools, and the control over the Islamic religious community would have made it possible for the Gypsies to establish a private Gypsy school (perhaps several ones in the future).
It is worth noting that the new Union declared St Gheorghe’s day as its patron saint’s day (although almost all of its founders were Muslims). This fact continued the tradition of ethno-national symbols, which started at the Vidin organisation (see above). Having in mind the dichotomy community – society, such symbols did not contradict the national civic identity of the Gypsies, which was clearly expressed in the Statute itself.
In April 1934, the Common Mohammedan-Gypsy National Cultural-Educational and Mutual Aid Union in Bulgaria submitted documents for registration with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and National Health as required by law (CDA, f. 264, op. 2, a.e. 8413, l. 1). Following the military coup on May 19, 1934, a new government headed by Kimon Georgiev, came to power. It banned all political parties and organisations and their newspapers. On that occasion, Shakir Pashov wrote a new letter to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and National Health, emphasising that the Common Mohammedan-Gypsy National Cultural-Educational and Mutual Aid Union in Bulgaria unites legally registered organisations such as the Blacksmiths’ association, the Tinsmiths’ association, the Society Egipet, the organisation Istikbal, the Mutual Aid association. It is an organisation “without any party affiliation”, and its goals “do not contradict any law in our country”. Therefore, he asked for approval and legalisation of the Statute (Ibid., l. 14). The Ministry sent the Union’s documents to the Department of Religions with the request for an opinion. The Department returned a resolution: “this Statute SHOULD NOT BE AFFIRMED because the organising of the Gypsy Muslims in our country is influenced by foreign factors” (Ibid., l. 14). Thus, finally, the registration of the Common Mohammedan-Gypsy National Cultural-Educational and Mutual Aid Union in Bulgaria was rejected (Ibid., l. 2).
As can be seen from these materials, the reason for the refusal to register the Union was not because it is a ‘Gypsy’ organisation, but because it is a ‘Muslim’ one, and as such, it can be used as a channel of “foreign influence” (foreign in this case means Turkish – authors note). Paradoxically, Nayden Sheytanov used the same argument in his article mentioned above, in which he explicitly warned the “competent and responsible” (i.e. the authorities) that the Common Mohammedan National Cultural-Educational Union in Bulgaria was meant to become a centre attracting the Gypsies in a “common front” of the Muslims in Bulgaria (Мир, 1934, p. 3). Nayden Sheytanov’s interpretation, in fact, gave an argument to the authorities to reject the Union’s application for registration, despite the fact that the Union’s Statute introduced the term ‘Gypsy’ and its goals extended beyond the religious dimension, compared to the Statute of the First Union. The historical irony is that Sheytanov used this insinuation to call on the Bulgarian authorities for greater attention to the Gypsies and their problems. The outcome, however, had been contrary to his intention (i.e., we have once again evidence that scholars must be cautious in their texts because it is possible that they will be used against the subject of their research). The implication of the Gypsies in general anti-Muslim (actually anti-Turkish) discourse of the state policy was not new for Bulgaria. This approach is characteristic of the entire history of the new Bulgarian State. Its most striking manifestation is the so-called Revival Process in the 1980s, when the Communist regime forced all Muslims, including the Gypsies, to change their Muslim (Turko-Arabic) names with Christian (Bulgarian) names. The Gypsies were renamed not because they were Gypsies but because they were Muslims (in fact, the changing of names for the Gypsies began as soon as the 1960s).
Shakir Pashov has repeatedly written that after the coup of May 19, 1934, the organisation Istikbal was banned by the authorities and ceased its activities (see published here manuscript of Shakir Pashov;
In 1934, Shakir Pashov worked as a machine mechanic in the municipal technical workshop. He was fired on January 1, 1935, because he participated in the strike organised by the Workers’ Party (ASR, f. Shakir Pashov, a.e. Autobiography). After his dismissal, he made his living in his small ironwork workshop located in the area of Positano Street. At that time, he lived with his family in the largest Gypsy mahala in Sofia, known as ‘Konyovitsa and Tatarli’ on Klementina Boulevard (today’s Alexander Stamboliyski Boulevard), across the Jewish mahala. In 1943 (or 1944), the family moved to the so-called Boyana mahala, known also as Tukhlarna (Brick Factory), pronounced Tu’la mahala, which was located around today’s Gotse Delchev Boulevard.
During this period, Shakir Pashov actively worked among his community. In his memoirs, he paid particular attention to the struggles of the organisation Istikbal against some traditional customs of the Gypsies in Sofia. He devoted a whole chapter of the manuscript in the present edition, entitled Habits and Customs, and the Fight against the Harmful Ones. In this chapter, he focused on the customs and rituals of paying for the bride; the circumcision of boys; and the wearing of shalwars by the women, all of which Shakir Pashov described as harmful to the Gypsies. We cannot avoid the fact that these customs are linked (including in the eyes of the surrounding population) with Muslim traditions. Clearly, the emphasis on these aspects of the work of the organisation was influenced by the spirit of the time in which he wrote the memoirs. However, this was not the author’s primary approach because he raised no single concern (not to mention disagreement) about other Muslim traditions, such as those at funerals, which were very strong at the time (including the obligatory presence of an Islamic cleric).
The apparent need to support Gypsy families in organising funerals is reflected in the Statutes of the Sofia Common Muslim Educational-Cultural and Mutual Aid Organisation Istikbal – Future and of the Common Mohammedan-Gypsy National Cultural-Educational and Mutual Aid Union in Bulgaria. It also was one of the reasons for the establishment of other organisations, for example, the Gypsy Cultural-Educational and Posthumously-Charitable Association Butlaches (Virtue) in 1939 (CDA, f. 264, op. 5, а.е. 1109, l. 3–5). Moreover, Shakir Pashov himself mentioned in his memoirs as an important fact that the organisation Istikbal owned a funeral car and that it helped poor Gypsy families in need to cover the funeral expenses. So, it is logical to assume that Shakir Pashov truly believed that the customs and rituals he mentioned were “harmful” as they created obstacles to the development of the community, as well as to its successful social integration and civic emancipation, and therefore fought against them.
It is clear that the development of the leading Gypsy Organisations (the Sofia Common Muslim Educational-Cultural and Mutual Aid Organisation Istikbal – Future and the Common Mohammedan-Gypsy National Cultural-Educational and Mutual Aid Union in Bulgaria) during the interwar period constantly oscillated between the ethnic and the religious dimensions. We should keep in mind that these two dimensions often overlapped in the Balkans, and hence, they were interchangeable. The Gypsies were not an exception in this respect; moreover, these processes were most pronounced among them, which leads to the so-called preferred ethnic identity (communities of Gypsy origin publicly demonstrate or actually experience a Turkish ethnic identity) (Marushiakova & Popov, 2015a, pp. 27–33).
In any case, regardless of the specific circumstances, these ethnic and religious identities were superimposed on the Bulgarian civic national identity. This multidimensional identity is reflected in the names of the organisations – most of them are in Bulgarian, with fewer words in Turkish (Istikbal, Terbie) and in the Romani language (Naangle, Butlaches). The identity negotiation is especially visible in the Gypsy activists’ struggle against the shalwars described above. On the one hand, by rejecting Gypsy traditions, which were interpreted as Turkish, the Gypsies aspired to establish a Bulgarian civic national identity in the public space. On the other hand, as Shakir Pashov himself wrote in his manuscript, the shalwars remained as a “valuable asset” and as a Gypsy national symbolism, which was demonstrated publicly only on certain special occasions. For example, many photos from the time show that during public celebrations until circa the 1960s, the Gypsies from Sofia walked in front of the officials’ tribune dressed in festive shalwars (ASR, f. Photos, see also Illustrations in this book).
Another important event in the second half of the 1930s, to which Shakir Pashov paid special attention in his memoirs, was the organisation of a Gypsy Ball held at the City Casino, located in the centre of Sofia. It featured art scenes from The Thousand and One Nights, authored by himself. The director was Emin Eminov and ballet master Hyusein A. Bilalov. The Gypsy ball was attended by many people, very well received by the audience, and widely covered by the press in Bulgaria and abroad. From the descriptions, one can learn that the Gypsy Ball was opened by a mixed choir, which performed the Bulgarian national anthem, followed by traditional Gypsy songs; the dancer Anushka and the famous Gypsy singer Keva also took part in the Ball (Observer, 1937). The singer Keva sang in the popular At Keva’s cabaret, located in the then-Gypsy neighbourhood. The place was frequently visited by the city’s bohemians, and according to rumours, by members of the royal family as well (Тенев, 1997, pp. 225–227, 233–235). Keva had several phonograph records in the 1930s for the Balkan Records Company, which included the song Telal Avel (She Comes from Downside), performed in the Romani language. This was the first record of a song in Romani in Bulgaria (
At the Gypsy Ball, the Bulgarian Tsar Boris III was also invited, but while he did not personally attend it, he had sent money in an envelope for the poor Gypsies (ASR, f. Shakir Pashov). For obvious reasons, Shakir Pashov himself did not mention anything about this in his manuscript. In the memoirs, he also made a small factual error. According to him, the Gypsy Ball happened on 3 March (a national holiday of Bulgaria) in 1938 (see Shakir Pashov’s monograph published here;
In his memoirs, Shakir Pashov described how on 6 March 1938, the Gypsy neighbourhood was sealed off by the authorities due to press publications about the spreading of typhus among the Gypsies. The committee, set up on his initiative, made an address to the authorities demanding the end of the blockade as well as compensation from the state for workers’ lost wages. However, he skipped the fact that on this occasion, it was the organisation Istikbal that set up the committee and issued a public declaration entitled Clarification in Relation to the Publication in the Dnevnik Newspaper of False and Inaccurate Information About the Occurrence of Typhus Fever among the Gypsies on 16 March 1938 (DA Sofia, f. 1 K, op. 4, a.e. 531, l. 5). It is clear from this declaration that such manipulations in the public space were not accidental but were part of an organised campaign, ongoing “for years” (Ibid.). In this case, the declaration pointed to a series of complaints to various institutions from the Bulgarian population in the neighbourhoods around the Gypsy quarter in 1937–1938 against the allegedly illegal settlement of Gypsies, violation of public order, poor sanitation, etc. (DA Sofia, f. 1 K, op. 4, a.e. 531). The petitioners demanded that the municipal authorities evict the Gypsies and “relocate and isolate them in the Gypsy mahala near the Faculty [of Agriculture of the Sofia University St Kliment Ohridski], where they can live in the same way as their fellow countrymen, and where they will be further away from us” (Ibid., l. 2). The purpose of this campaign is very transparent – to evict the Gypsies from the Gypsy neighbourhoods Konyovitsa, Tatarli and Batalova vodenitsa into the emerging new Gypsy neighbourhood Fakulteta (at that time in the outskirts of the city), and to buy their plots for little money. The declaration of the organisation Istikbal ends with an appeal to the Bulgarian authorities:
We are Bulgarian citizens with Bulgarian spirit, we have left the bones of our fathers and brothers on the battlefields in the two wars, and today we are ready to make sacrifices for our homeland Bulgaria in which we were born, we live and enjoy all freedoms (Ibid., l. 5).
In the end, some of the residents of the Gypsy neighbourhoods Konyovitsa and Tatarli moved to the new Fakulteta neighbourhood, but the majority remained in their old homes.
To say in brackets, the attempts of the authorities to push the inhabitants of the Gypsy neighbourhoods Konyovitsa and Tatarli as far as possible from the city centre continued in the subsequent historical periods. In 1959, the communist regime decided to evict the Gypsies from there to the newly built dwellings next to the village of Filipovtsi (at that time outside Sofia). On this occasion, residents of the neighbourhood sent a complaint, addressed personally to the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party, Todor Zhivkov, in which they wrote:
Who made this decision and chose the village of Filipovtsi as the most suitable place for us? The houses there are just a little better than henhouses. Why is this being caused to minorities? Is this why we rejoiced and clapped our hands, and the fascists hated us until the last moment? Should they [fascists] return to power, they would slaughter us, the minorities, like chickens. We, the Gypsies in Bulgaria, have no country, no one to care about us, and no one to complain to. If comrade Georgi Dimitrov were alive, would this be the situation with the minorities? (CDA, f. 1, op. 28, a.e. 6, l. 3).
In the first years of our century, the Sofia Municipality began once again the preparations (accompanied by a public campaign in the media) for the eviction of the Gypsies in the Batalova Vodenitsa neighbourhood (without making provision for alternative housing). Human rights and Roma organisations took the issue to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in 2012. After the court decision, the eviction was stopped (at least for the time being).
In 1937, the Gypsy issue attracted public attention on another occasion. An article in the yellow press, entitled The Gypsies will Organise Themselves, reported that two young Gypsies, Ahmed Seizov and Petar Ivanov, were touring the country and trying (without much success) to organise the Gypsies into a union to become a member of the International Gypsy Union based in Hungary (
The last written statement of the organisation Istikbal, for which historical evidence is preserved, is an official letter to the Police Directorate dated 18 July 1939, signed by Shakir Pashov and stamped with the seal of the organisation. Notably, in this letter, the Gypsy organisation demonstrated awareness of its obligations towards the Gypsy community as well as expectations for active state policy towards the Gypsies as part of the society and explicitly emphasised that the intervention of the state was crucial for the future of their people. This letter calls on the police to “take the most stringent measures against all Gypsy men and Gypsy women who roam in the night without any reason, especially those who are in an intoxicated state”, and “do what you need to do to close down the Gypsy cabarets – the nests of immorality, that demoralise the Gypsy population and have a bad influence on the upbringing, especially of the youth and of the children in the neighbourhood” (DA Sofia, f. 1 К, op. 4, a.e. 683, l. 93).
There is no reliable historical evidence of Shakir Pashov’s political and civic activities during the Second World War. Although Bulgaria was an ally of Nazi Germany (although Bulgaria did not send its army to the Eastern Front), partisan groups in the country launched an armed struggle led by the Communist Party. Shakir Pashov asserted that during this period, he was actively involved in the anti-fascist resistance, and his iron workshop, located at that time on 28 Serdika Street (in the centre of Sofia), was used as a communication point for the transmission of illegal materials and weapons (ASR, f. Shakir Pashov, a.e. Autobiography). However, there is no other historical evidence for these allegations, nor for the plan for a conference of the Gypsy minority prepared by him (with the approval of the illegal communist activists with whom he was in constant contact) to be held on September 5–6, 1944 (Ibid.).
At the beginning of September 1944, the political situation in Bulgaria radically changed. At that time, the Soviet army had already reached the Bulgarian border, and on September 5, the USSR declared war on Bulgaria; on September 9, a new government led by the Fatherland Front (a political coalition dominated by the Communist Party) came to power. According to Shakir Pashov, the very next day, he, together with several other Gypsy activists, appeared before the new authorities, from whom they received an order to establish a Gypsy organisation as part of the Fatherland Front; such an organisation was created, and it was headed by Shakir Pashov himself (Ibid.). There is also no other historical evidence for these events, and it seems highly unlikely that only a few hours after taking power, the creation of a Gypsy organisation was a matter of importance for the communist leadership. What is certain, however, is that Shakir Pashov, in the first days after September 9, supported the new government and organised mass public events with the participation of Gypsies.
Two photographs from September 1944 (ASR, f. Photos) documented these events. The first one shows a rally of Sofia citizens in support of the new government, with festively dressed Gypsy women in the first row carrying a poster, Long live the Fatherland Front. Death to fascism. Gypsy Mahala – Sofia (Ibid.). Another photo shows the manifestation of Gypsies in Sofia, in front of the Bulgarian Parliament, in which women dressed in festive “traditional” costumes (wearing shalwars), wear posters, Enough with Racial Differences, and the same poster as described above (Ibid.). This Gypsy manifestation is also presented in a painting by the famous Bulgarian artist Vasil Evtimov (1900–1986), dated 1944, obviously painted immediately after the manifestation (
The end of the Second World War marked the beginning of a new historical era in which, under the influence of new social and political realities, the basic ideas and approaches of the Roma civic emancipation began to radically change. On 6 March 1945, before the end of the war, at 18 Tatarli Street, the United Common-Cultural and Educational Organisation of the Gypsy Minorities Ekhipe (Unity in Romani language) was established in Sofia. The creation of the new organisation was announced as the restoration of the old, “disbanded organisation Istikbal”, with an emphasis on the continuity of the two organisations.
At the constituent assembly, the Statute of the old/new Gypsy organisation was presented, and its leadership was elected, including Shakir Pashev, Chair; Raycho Kochev and Bilal Osmanov, Vice-Chairs; Tair Selimov, Secretary; Demir Rustemov, Treasurer; and Members – Emin Eminov, Hyusein A. Bilalov, Sulyo Metkov, Resho Demirov, Ramcho Totev, Demcho Blagoev, Naydo Yasharov, Asan Osmanov (Palyacho), Asan Somanov, Ismail Shakirov, Shakir Meshchanov, Ali Mehmedov, Izet Salchov and Tseko Nikolov (Пашов, 1957, pp. 121–122).
According to its Statute (CDA, f. 1 Б, op. 8, a.e. 596, l. 50–52; Marushiakova & Popov, 2021, pp. 103–110), the organisation had the following tasks: a) to fight against fascism, anti-Gypsyism and racial prejudices; b) to raise the Gypsy nationality feeling and consciousness among the Bulgarian Gypsies; c) to introduce the Gypsy language among the Gypsy population as an oral and written language; d) to introduce the Bulgarian Gypsy minority to the Gypsy culture; e) to introduce to the Bulgarian Gypsies their spiritual, social and economic culture; f) to raise the economic status of all Gypsy strata in Bulgaria; g) to make physically fit the Gypsy youth in Bulgaria; h) to make the Gypsy masses productive; i) to consolidate and set up Gypsy institutes in Bulgaria; j) to enlighten the Bulgarian general public about the needs of the Gypsy population; k) to foster among the Gypsies aspiration for the creation of a national hearth in their own land.
The organisation had a national scope and a complex hierarchical structure and included local organisations. The Statute explicitly emphasised that the “eligible member could be any Gypsy at the age of 18 and above, regardless of sex and social status” and “all Gypsies with Mohammedan and Christian Orthodox religions without any differentiation” (Art. 2).
It is interesting to note that the very first task of the new organisation contains the wording “fighting […] antiziganism”, which raises some questions. The concept of anti-Gypsyism, which is widespread these days, is not a product of the last few decades, as is often assumed (and even written in some academic works). It arose in the conditions of the early USSR as early as the 1920s in the circles of Gypsy activists. It became a key ideologeme through which the history of the Gypsies was explained in previous (before the creation of the USSR) historical eras (see in more detail Marushiakova & Popov, 2021, pp. 832–833). The question here is how Shakir Pashov, the main initiator of the creation of the new Gypsy organisation and the author (or at least one of the authors) of its Statute, could know this concept and from where he took the term anti-Gypsyism, which was previously unknown in Bulgaria (and was subsequently not used anywhere, including in the Gypsy press). We have no satisfactory answer to this question.
Another intriguing point in the Statute of the organisation Ekhipe is the emergence of ideas about the future development of the Gypsies as an ethno-nation, or in other words, about establishing a nation-state (even if this was vaguely worded and presented as a matter of the uncertain future).
The Statute repeatedly emphasises the commitment to the “World Gypsy Movement”, the “World Gypsy Organisation”, and the “World Gypsy Congresses” (Art. 1, Art. 2, Art. 22, Art. 23), and, ultimately, as a distant perspective, the creation of an independent Gypsy state: “To create an aspiration in the Gypsies to build a national hearth in their own land” (Art. 3). At that time, a “World Gypsy Organisation” did not exist anywhere in the world, and it is unclear how Shakir Pashov and the Gypsy activists came up with these ideas, which occupied leading positions in the ideological platform of the new organisation. This could have been an expression of their wishful thinking aimed at activating the mechanism of the “self-fulfilling prophecy”, or an analogy with the ideas of the world Zionism, which were especially popular at the time. Another possibility is that the Gypsy activists knew the ideas for the creation of a Gypsy state, launched publicly by the so-called Gypsy Kings from the “Kwiek Dynasty” in Poland, which was widely covered in the world media in the 1930s (see Marushiakova & Popov, 2021, pp. 599–650).
In any case, one of the leading national symbols of the future Gypsy state, the national flag, was already present in the Statute of the organisation (Art. 59). Neither its description (“The flag of the organisation is red with two white fields and with a triangle in the middle”) nor its symbolism have a clear meaning. The date May 7th was declared a holiday of the organisation. In his memoirs, Shakir Pashov explained that the celebration of this date began in 1934 when the Gypsies laid a wreath on the grave of Redzheb Yuseinov, a longtime Vice-President of the organisation Istikbal. Since then, it has become a tradition for the Gypsies in Sofia to celebrate this date. However, he intentionally omitted to mention the fact that May 7 was the first day after St Gheorghe’s day. This is when all Gypsies in Sofia (mostly Muslims) traditionally visit the cemetery to honour their deceased relatives. The fact that the Stature did not explicitly mention St Gheorghe’s day, but only the date May 7, which was declared a holiday of the organisation, reveals an unwillingness to publicly acknowledge religious affiliation in the new conditions of the communist rule.
The Gypsy organisation was established with the blessing of the new government. In 1945, the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Workers’ Party (Communists) discussed and adopted a series of reports on individual national minorities. The report on the Gypsy minority promoted the establishment of a Gypsy organisation that will “facilitate the educational, cultural … and political struggle” among them (CDA, f. 1 Б, op. 25, a.e. 71, p. 5; Стоянова, 2017, p. 40). However, this does not mean that the organisation was a creation of the Communist party because the same report explicitly stated that “the initiative to organise the Gypsies comes from themselves” and emphasised that “our Communist comrades believe that such an organisation will allow them to keep the Gypsies under their influence” (Ibid.). The organisation’s documents were probably not checked by the authorities (or the authorities did not pay much attention to them), which explains the presence in the Statute of the idea of a Gypsy nation-state and a World Gypsy Movement, which subsequently did not appear anywhere in the historical sources of that time.
The Statute of the organisation Ekhipe was to be adopted by the Second National Conference, which, however, had not been scheduled (Art. 61). Eventually, the conference did not take place, and “at a meeting” in 1946, it was decided that the mandate of the organisation’s leadership would be extended “to emphasise the trust that this committee enjoyed in the Gypsy circles” as Shakir Pashov underlined in his manuscript. This meeting also made a decision about the publication of the newspaper Romano esi (Gypsy Voice), with Shakir Pashov as Еditor-in-chief and Sulyo Metkov, Tair Selimov, Mustafa Aliev (later known as Manush Romanov), Hyusein Bilyalov and others as members of the Editorial Board.
The Statute of the organisation Ekhipe, at least formally, presented it as non-partisan and not tied to any political forces. However, Shakir Pashov himself, who re-established his membership in the hitherto illegal Communist Party (its official name at the time was Bulgarian Workers’ Party – Communists), and after September 9, 1944, repeatedly emphasised in his memoirs that under his leadership, the organisation actively supported the state policy pursued by the Fatherland Front government.
The newspaper Romano esi started with state support and its first issue was printed out on the February 25, 1946. The newspaper was declared an organ of the United Cultural and Educational Organisation of the Gypsy Minority in Bulgaria, and its Editor-in-chief was Shakir Pashov. The newspaper reported that the Statute of the organisation was approved by the Minister of Interior, Anton Yugov, and the permission for the newspaper was given by the Minister of Propaganda, Dimo Kazasov (
Indicative of the spirit of the time is the end of the article:
Long live the Fatherland Front! Long live the founder of the Fatherland Front, Georgi Dimitrov! Long live the allied peoples of the USSR, the United States and England! Long live the brave patriotic Fatherland Front’s Army! Long live the People’s Republic of Yugoslavia and Marshal Tito! Long live the Leader of the Soviet people, Generalissimo Stalin! Baxtalo tumaro Vasili! Happy St Basil’s day! (
Романо еси , 1946b, p. 1).
Active agitation in support of the Fatherland Front government continued to be a leading line in all subsequent issues of the newspaper Romano esi.
Meanwhile, the Communist Party continued to strengthen its power in the country; the parliamentary elections for the Grand National Assembly and the new constitution of the country were scheduled for October 1946. On August 4, 1946, an extended conference of the Gypsy organisation was held, which included “all chairmen representing various professional associations” (CDA, f. 1 Б, op. 6, a.e. 235, l. 5). In the minutes, the organisation was designated as the ‘United Organisation of the Gypsy Minority for the Fight against Fascism and Racism’. There is no information whether the conference had adopted such a title change (most probably not); the newspaper Romano esi continued publication until 1948 as a body of the United Cultural and Educational Organisation of the Gypsy Minority in Bulgaria, and in this period, both the new and the old names were used in different combinations. The stamp on the document with the decision of the conference had the name ‘All-Gypsy Cultural Organisation – Sofia’ and depicted a five-pointed star with 1945 written as its founding year (Ibid., l. 4).
The conference emphasised that the Fatherland Front was “the only defender of the national minorities” and the proposed inclusion of a Roma community representative as a candidate in the Fatherland Front’s election ballot for the Grand National Assembly. The delegates of the conference voted for three candidates in a secret vote. Shakir Pashev received 7 votes from 14 delegates; Tair Selimov and Hyussein Bilyalov received 3 votes each, and one ballot was declared invalid (Ibid.). It is noteworthy that the conference minutes were signed by 15 people, including a single Christian name (B. Naydenov) among all Muslim names. Presumably, a representative of the Fatherland Front participated in the conference, and the entire event was previously coordinated with the Fatherland Front (most likely on the initiative of the Gypsies themselves). The proposal for the conference was discussed in the District Committee of the Communist Party. According to the records from this discussion, Shakir Pashov’s past activity as a member of the Communist party had not been as flawless and heroic as he himself presented it. For example, the records noted that after his two arrests (in 1923 and 1925), “he became somewhat frightened”, or in 1931, when he was offered to as a Gypsy representative to become a candidate of the Workers’ Party (Ibid., l. 9) for the municipal elections in 1931, “he promised to cooperate, but subsequently became frightened” (Ibid., l. 9). Nevertheless, the District Committee concluded that, “if it comes to electing a candidate from among the Gypsy minority, there is no one more suitable than him”, and “from his inclusion in the Grand National Assembly as Member of Parliament, the Party will only benefit because this will raise the Party in the eyes of the Gypsy minority and … and will help the party strike roots [there]” (Ibid., l. 9–10).
In the Grand National Assembly elections, Shakir Pashov was placed at the bottom of the election ballot, and he was not elected. This mistake was corrected three months later, on February 28, 1947, at a meeting of the highest collective Party organ, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Workers’ Party (Communists). The issue was discussed as a second point on the agenda (usually, the items were ranked in order of importance). The decision of the Politburo on this issue reads:
2. Comrade Dimitar Ganev [who was appointed ambassador to Romania – authors note] should resign as an MP. Comrades Grigor Vrabchenski and Hristina Bradinska, who come right after him on the ballot, should quit, so that comrade Shakir Pashev (a Gypsy) could enter the Grand National Assembly. (CDA, f. 1Б, op. 6, a.e. 235, l. 1).
Apparently, the comrades in question had accepted the proposal (a possible refusal would have meant the end of their Party career), and Shakir Pashov became a regular member of the Grand National Assembly, which, at the end of the same year, adopted the new Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria (the so-called Dimitrov’s Constitution). As an MP (using the possibilities that this position offered), he started vigorous work for the development of the Gypsy movement. In this regard, he used the support (and the administrative resources) of the ruling political coalition of the Fatherland Front (de facto of the Communist Party). In 1947, the National Committee of the Fatherland Front issued Circular No. 18, which ordered: “Cultural and educational associations of the Gypsy minority should be formed in all district and city centres with the full assistance of the district and city committees of the Fatherland Front” (
Along with the work for establishing and strengthening local Gypsy organisations in the country, Shakir Pashov was tasked with helping to solve various problems among the Gypsy population in his capacity as an MP. Such was the case in Ruse, where there were tensions after the refusal on the part of the local Turks to allow the participation of Gypsies in the management of the Muslim religious community properties (ASR, f. Shakir Pashov, a.e. Autobiography). Shakir Pashov has been familiar with this problem since the 1920s and 1930s. Another problematic case that required his intervention, together with another local MP, took place in the village of Golintsi (Ibid.). The details of this case are not known, but in all probability, the problems were related to the local Gypsies, who established their own Gypsy Baptist Church in the 1920s (Славкова, 2007, pp. 78–81; Marushiakova & Popov, 2021, pp. 152–153).
The lead direction in Shakir Pashov’s work and the work of the organisation’s leadership at the time was strengthening the unity of the Gypsy community, regardless of its internal heterogeneity. The very first edition of the newspaper Romano esi, wrote in the celebration speech on the occasion of the Gypsy holiday, St Basil’s day, the following:
There are still bad manifestations and irregularities in our organisational life in the relations between Christian Gypsies and Muslim Gypsies, but we hope that the power of the Fatherland Front will help us overcome some old understandings; eliminate the obstacles created by reactionaries in our circles; and work for the cultural raising of the Gypsies and the success of Bulgaria of the Fatherland Front. (
Романо еси , 1946b, p. 1).
This theme was present on the pages of the newspaper also in later editions, taking on distinctly ethnic dimensions. For example, in 1947, Sakir Pashov addressed the readership of the newspaper, calling “those people among our compatriots who hide under the name of Bulgarians or Turks, to take off their masks and join our organisation to raise it to a higher level, because they are Gypsies by blood, they should not hide but respond to the invitation of our organisation, because they are responsible to their conscience” (
The only exception to this leading discourse is the attitude towards the Gypsy nomads:
There are Gypsies among us, whom we despise, and who deserve despisal, and those are the nomadic Gypsies (wanderers) who do not have permanent residence and depend on their wives, who do palmistry, fortune-telling, and theft. That is why it is time for our country to deal with this issue as soon as possible and to take timely measures to limit the vagrancy (wanderings) and those [of them] wishing to settle to be provided with land and involved in useful community service. (
Романо еси , 1946d, p. 2).
This attitude towards the nomadic Gypsies should not come as a surprise. In the process of Roma civic emancipation in the period between the two World Wars, throughout the region of Central, South-Eastern and Eastern Europe, the new Roma civic elite shared a similar attitude to the problem of Gypsy nomadism. Moreover, the Gypsy activists in the USSR had been calling on the Soviet state to sedentarise the Gypsy nomads for several decades (Marushiakova & Popov, 2020c, pp. 265–276). Ultimately, this idea found its realisation through the Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Council in 1956, followed over the years by more or less similar measures in all countries in the region of the so-called “Socialist Camp” (Marushiakova & Popov, 2008b).
As an MP, Shakir Pashov also put a lot of effort into the development of education and social and cultural life in the Gypsy neighbourhoods. In 1947, he managed to get special funding of over 3 million levs for the construction of a school in the Fakulteta neighbourhood. He personally made the first sod in the construction of the new building (ASR, f. Shakir Pashov, a.e. Autobiography) of the First Gypsy School, named after the famous Soviet pedagogue Anton Makarenko (AKRDOPBGDSRSBNA, f. 13, op. 1, a.e. 759, l. 145; Стоянова, 2017, p. 157–158). The adjective ‘Gypsy’ indicates that the school educated Gypsy children, but according to its program, it provided mainstream education. In the following years, such ‘Gypsy Schools’ were open in different places in the country – Varna, Berkovitsa, Sliven, Kyustendil, Lom, etc. (AKRDOPBGDSRSBNA, f. 13, op. 1, a.e. 759, l. 145). Similarly, the Gypsy Community Clubs established in the neighbourhoods developed various forms of social and cultural life – lectures for political education, literacy courses for adults, music and dance theatre groups, etc. (Стоянова, 2017, pp. 204–205). In Sofia, in 1946, the Sports society Naangle (Forward) was established (actually re-established) with its own football team. A photo of Shakir Pashov with the team has been preserved (ASR, f. Photos). The first official match between Gypsy teams in our country was played at the Yunak stadium in Sofia in 1947, with the two Gypsy teams of Naangle (Sofia) and Boyan Chonos (Vidin) playing against each other.
At that time, there was a serious debate among Gypsy activists, for which there is almost no historical evidence. An undated photograph shows six Gypsy young men holding a large poster with the inscription “Gypsy Alphabet”. The graphics of the letters are obviously original creations of the authors, five of whom have their names written on the photograph: Tseko, Kune, Sulyo, Yashko and Yashar (ASR, f. Photos). We were able to identify with certainty only two of them, namely Sulyo Metkov and Yashar Malikov, while the rest remained unknown. In 1947, a short announcement was made on the pages of the newspaper Romano esi that the “draft of the Gypsy alphabet” would be published in the next issue of the newspaper and that grammar and dictionary of the Gypsy language were currently being developed (
Shakir Pashov was especially proud of his role in the creation of the Gypsy theatre, to which he devoted a lot of space in his memories. The theatre united several music-, dance- and theatre-groups, which were based at the neighbourhood community centres in Sofia in 1947 (ASR, f. Shakir Pashov, a.e. Autobiography). It was set up after the direct intervention of the Communist Party and State leader Georgi Dimitrov, with whom Shakir Pashov had an old friendship:
In 1923, during the elections for members of parliament, comrade Georgi Dimitrov, who was one of the candidates, visited the ballot boxes of the 3rd District Polling Station […]. In a moment, the opposition group attacked him with fists, but our party group, which was there as agitators, immediately intervened, and we took comrade Dimitrov out of their hands as other comrades also came on the spot. We accompanied them to the tram, and he said to me, “Shakir, one day, when we come to power, you will be the greatest man, and for me, from the train station to the Palace, they will lay a carpet”. When the glorious date, September 9, 1944, came and this came true, I became a Member of the Grand National Assembly, nourished by the ideas of the Party, because I had spent my whole life fighting for the victory of the Marxist ideas and in anti-fascist activities since 1919, and it is the same until today. (Ibid.).
Shakir Pashov visited Georgi Dimitrov in his office and proposed to him to create a Gypsy theatre modelled on the famous Romen Gypsy Theatre in Moscow, about which the newspaper Romano esi published a large article (
This is not the first Gypsy theatre in Bulgaria. A photo with the caption “Founders of the 1st Gypsy Theatre Group. Sliven. 24.03.1927” is preserved (ASR, f.
The activity of the Gypsy theatre in Sliven was integrated with that of the Gypsy Community Centre based in the so-called Gorna Mahala (Upper Neighbourhood) in the city of Sliven in 1928 (Andral, 2000, p. 11; 2001, p. 96). In February 1939, the community centre was named Knyaz Simeon Tarnovski (Prince Simeon Turnovski) after the Bulgarian heir to the throne (Изток, 1939, p. 1). However, this renaming should not mislead us – at the centre of both Gypsy institutions (community centre and theatre) was the same circle of people who were closely connected with the youth Communist movement in Sliven at that time (see Marushiakova & Popov, 2022).
However, there are some differences in the repertoire of the two Gypsy theatres in Sofia and in Sliven. Before 1944, the Sliven theatre presented plays with a moralising character, which were widely distributed in the repertoire of amateur theatres in Bulgaria during that era, the purpose of which was to educate the Gypsies on the basic norms of social life. The premiere play, Gypsy Rhapsody, of the Sofia theatre was with an ethnic character. It was a free dramatic interpretation of Alexander Pushkin’s famous poem Gypsies, combined with many Gypsy songs and dances (from today’s point of view, the play would probably be criticised for exoticising the Gypsies). As a side note, its screenwriter Alexander Gerginov is known for being the first Bulgarian writer who made a successful business of literary work (Бенбасат, 2016, pp. 18–26). His novel The Girl from the Gypsy Cabaret (a typical boulevard reading) has undergone several editions and is perhaps the book with the highest print run in Bulgarian literature before 1944 (Ibid.).
After its establishment, the Central Gypsy Theatre Roma performed with great success for two months in the capital, and then, in the summer of the same year, it made a tour visiting various cities – Plovdiv, Stara Zagora, Yambol, Sliven, Burgas, Shumen, Tolbuhin (now Dobrich) and Varna –, and everywhere was greeted enthusiastically by the local audience (Пашов, 1957, pp. 127–128). Despite the successful tour, due to unresolved financial issues, Shakir Pashov had to give his watch and a golden ring in a pawnshop in the city of Varna to be able to buy train tickets so that the artists and musicians could go home (CDA, f. 1 Б, op. 8, a.e. 596, l. 37; Дро
Shakir Pashov’s success in the field of Roma civic emancipation, however, had a side effect that can be understood in the spirit of the times, given the specific historical context. In the second half of the 1940s, the so-called cult of the personality of Stalin already dominated in the USSR, and this model was transferred to other countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe with Communist parties in power, in which the personality cult for the local Communist leaders appeared. Expectedly, these processes trickled down to the lower levels, which resulted in a personality cult for Shakir Pashov’s personality in the circles of Gypsy activism. This is most visible in the newspaper Romano esi, whose editor-in-chief was Shakir Pashov. The newspaper published texts (usually with solemn words and congratulations on various holidays) written by Shakir Pashov himself (
This poem gave rise to a widely known literary (and historical) mystification. In one of his books, the famous Bulgarian poet, satirist and dissident Radoy Ralin (pseudonym of Dimitar Stoyanov, 1922–2004) published a poem written by himself, the authorship of which he attributed to Shakir Pashov (Ралин, 1987, pp. 125–126). The text of Radoy Ralin’s poem is interwoven with fragments of two naive poetic texts dedicated to Shakir Pashov (passage from which is quoted above), written by Sadak Ismailov and Aliya Ismailov from the village of Popitsa, district of Byala Slatina (Ibid.). We can only make guesses about Radoy Ralin’s motives for this blatant falsification; the result, however, was a serious blow to Shakir Pashov’s public image. Moreover, nowadays, this text continues to be actively used for mocking not only Shakir Pashov himself but also the Gypsies in general (see, for example, 168 часа, 2016), i.e. its public effect remains the same.
In 1948, there was a crisis in the Gypsy movement. The first signs of it appeared in the previous year with the publication of Nikola Terzobaliev’s article Is It Necessary To Have a Minority Organisation of Gypsies in the newspaper Romano esi. The title indicated serious controversies among the Gypsy activists, not so much questioning the existence of such an organisation, but rather what it should do (
These contradictions among the Gypsy activists were reflected in the results of the National Conference of the United Cultural and Educational Organisation of the Gypsy Minority in Bulgaria, held on May 2, 1948. The conference confirmed the organisation’s commitment to the policy of the Fatherland Front, which at that time had already been transformed from a political coalition into a popular public organisation led by the Communist party. The close connection with the Fatherland Front had unexpected consequences both for the Gypsy organisation and for Shakir Pashov himself. The National Conference elected an Initiative Committee headed by Mustafa Aliev, with the mandate to lead the activities of the Gypsy minority until the First Congress of the organisation (which never took place). This change had obviously been planned in advance, as suggested by the fact that the issue of the newspaper Romano esi, published on the eve of the conference (
The immediate reason for the mutual accusations had to do with the financial and artistic problems of the Theatre Roma; however, much bigger differences in the vision about the Gypsy movement transpired behind it. According to the inspection by the National Council of the Fatherland Front, there were two currents in the Gypsy organisation, one of which was headed by Shakir Pashov, and “the other current was led by young Communists who ruthlessly and unsystematically criticised his actions” (CDA, f. 1 Б, op. 8, a.e. 596, l. 62).
These “young Communists”, affiliated with the Primary Party Organisation Saliko of the Bulgarian Communist Party, 3rd district, Sofia, sent a statement to the Regional Committee of the Party, with a copy to the Central Committee of the Party, accusing Shakir Pashov of disseminating among the Gypsies the “chauvinistic slander” that the new management of the Theatre Roma had “handed it over to the Bulgarians” (ibid.). The statement was, in fact, signed by the Secretary of the Gypsy minority’s Party Organisation Saliko, Tair Selimov, as well as by the members of its leadership Lyubomir Aliev (former Mustafa Aliev, future Manush Romanov), Sulyo Metkov, Angel Blagoev and A. Osmanov (Ibid., l. 41).
The accusations against Shakir Pashov were an integral part of the file on the two “warring groups” in the Gypsy organisation, and on this grounds the State Security began an active investigation of Shakir Pashov, under the codename ‘Durak’ (‘fool’ in Russian) (AKRDOPBGDSRSBNA, f. 13, op. 1, а.е. 774, l. 27–28). In the course of this investigation, other allegations were added to his file. The most serious one was that an inspection of the documentation at the former police directorate revealed that in 1930, after his return from Turkey, Shakir Pashov had signed a declaration of cooperation with the police, and that during the Second World War he had assisted the authorities with the forced labour mobilisation of Gypsies from Sofia, showing them which Gypsies to be mobilised (CDA, f. 2124 К, op.1, а.е. 108107, l. 2). He was also accused of leading the Muslim organisation Istikbal, which had allegedly served the interests of Turkey, according to the authorities, as well as organising the Gypsies to give homage to the deceased Tsar Boris III at his funeral, in 1943 (AKRDOPBGDSRSBNA, f. 13, op. 1, а.е. 774, l. 27). A special focus in the accusations against Shakir Pashov was given to his actions as leader of the Gypsy organisation after 1945 and Member of Parliament when he allegedly pursued a “nationalist policy among the Gypsy minority” (CDA, f. 2124 К, op.1, а.е. 108107, l. 2). In addition, his file included an allegation that as an MP he issued state secrets and handed them over to Nikola Petkov supporters (Nikola Petkov was the leader of the opposition to the government of the Fatherland Front, hanged in 1947), which was not supported by any evidence (CDA, f. 2124 К, op.1, а.е. 108107, l. 2).
Shakir Pashov’s attempts to defend himself and change the course of events were unsuccessful. He kept sending statements to various institutions (CDA, f. 1 Б, op. 8, a.e. 596) and at the same time was trying to secure the support of the Roma community; according to the State Security data, he sent over 160 letters to the Gypsy organisations in the country (AKRDOPBGDSRSBNA, f. 13, op. 1, а.е. 774, l. 30). However, these efforts proved futile. In the autumn of 1949, the City Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party excluded Shakir Pashov from the Party (CDA, f. 1 Б, op. 8, a.e. 596, l. 1; Стоянова, 2017, p. 400). In the parliamentary elections on December 18, 1949, Shakir Pashov was not included in the election ballots; Petko Kostov Yankov from Sliven was elected in the National Assembly as a representative of the Gypsies (Personal communication with Gospodin Kolev, March 14, 2004).
In his memoirs, Shakir Pashov described the subsequent changes in the leadership of the Gypsy organisation:
There were dissatisfied members of the minority, and unfortunately, young ones, pretending to have a higher culture. They undermined the general enthusiasm and planted a bomb under the feet of this activity to destroy everything that had been created so far, with so much effort. In 1950, in July, under pressure from these dissatisfied young people and to prevent a cleavage in our circles, the Sofia organisation and the Central Committee of all [local] organisations were ceded to the dissatisfied young people. The same, of course, happened with the Theatre Roma. (Пашов, 1957, p. 131).
Historical sources, however, reveal a quite different course of these events. On April 7, 1950, the Central Directorate of the Cultural and Educational Organisation of the Gypsy Minority in Bulgaria decided:
The leadership of the Gypsy minority punishes Shakir Pashov by removing him from the post of Chairman of the Cultural and Educational Organisation of the Gypsy Minority in Bulgaria for his anti-people activity before September 9, 1944, as a police collaborator and for destructive activity after that date and excludes him from the ranks of the organisation forever. (AKRDOPBGDSRSBNA, F. 13, op. 1, а.е. 774, l. 30).
The general assembly of the Gypsy National Community Centre 9th September, held on April 15, 1950, chaired by Lyubomir Aliev, condemned Shakir Pashov’s activity as “harmful” to the Gypsy minority (
After the removal of Shakir Pashov, the fate of the United Cultural and Educational Organisation of the Gypsy Minority in Bulgaria is an unhappy one. The end of the organisation was predestined by the recommendations of the Fatherland Front’s National Council representative following the inspection of the Theatre Roma in 1948. These recommendations proposed a complete structural change in the organisation involving the transformation of the Central Initiative Committee into a Minority Commission at the Fatherland Front’s National Council, “to be instructed and led directly by the Fatherland Front’s National Council”. The same transformation applied to the district and city structures of the organisation. The Theatre Roma was to be placed under the direct authority of the Minority Commission and Fatherland Front’s National Council (CDA, f. 1 Б, op. 8, a.e. 596, l. 62–63). The “young Communists” had their own contribution to the reformation (and de facto liquidation) of the Gypsy organisation, as illustrated by an extensive report written by Tair Selimov in 1950 in his capacity of instructor at the Fatherland Front’s National Council. This report almost literally reproduced the recommendations of the Fatherland Front’s National Council representative (AKRDOPBGDSRSBNA, f. 13, op. 1, a.e. 759, l. 147–148).
After the absorption of the local Gypsy organisations as Fatherland Front’s sections, the logical outcome was that they were no longer identified as local “Gypsy” organisations but rather as territorial subdivisions of the Fatherland Front. This ultimately led to the end of the Gypsy organisation itself. Symbolically, the latest issue of the organisation’s newspaper Nevo drom was the one that published the news about the removal of Shakir Pashov as leader of the Gypsy organisation.
The fate of the Gypsy theatre was similar. By Decision № 389 of November 25, 1949, the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party proposed that the Central Gypsy Theatre Roma should continue its activities (there was also a proposal to disband it), but with the status of a “semi-professional” theatre as part of the system of the neighbourhood community centres (at that time organised on an ethnic basis) (CDA, f. 1 Б, op. 8, a.e. 596, l. 1–2). Thus, the theatre was transferred to the Gypsy National Community Centre 9th September in Sofia, where his last production was The Last Camp by Vano Khrustalyov (a play from the Theatre Romen’s repertoire) in 1950 (
At that time, Shakir Pashov was under constant surveillance by the State Security (AKRDOPBGDSRSBNA, f. 13, op. 1, a.e. 759), and on September 10, 1951, he was interned in the concentration camp (officially ‘Labour and Educational Dormitory’) on Belene island, on the Danube, where he remained until August 10, 1953. (CDA, f. 2124 К, op. 1, а.е. 108107, l. 2). Despite the difficult conditions, he managed to survive thanks to his ironwork skills. According to the memories of his family, he was tasked with the maintenance of the tools used by the prisoners (mainly hoes), which secured slightly better conditions for him.
According to Shakir Pashov’s file at the Ministry of Interior, the investigation of his alleged collaboration with the police was terminated, and on August 10, 1953, he was released from the concentration camp in Belene but was not rehabilitated (Ibid., l. 1–4).
After his return to Sofia, Shakir Pashov focused on the preparation of his book History of the Gypsies in Bulgaria and Europe: Roma published in this edition. The manuscript is dated 1957. The text is divided into separate chapters, and the logic of the internal structure is not always understandable. The style of the manuscript is generally uniform, but the presence of several more or less distinct segments, each with its own specific characteristics, is clearly visible.
It is interesting to note that for the first time in Bulgaria, he used the self-appellation of the community, Roma, in the title of the manuscript (although it is not clear why he put this part of the title in inverted commas). Throughout the text, however, Shakir Pashov adhered to the term ‘Gypsies’ (‘
The first clearly visible segment of the manuscript is devoted to the origin, language and early history of the Gypsies. In this part, one can see the influence of the Bulgarian scholar Dr Nayden Sheytanov. He published the article Contribution to the Speech of the Sofia Gypsies (Sheytanov, 1932), and in 1955 submitted for review the manuscript of his book Gypsies in Bulgaria: Materials on Their Folklore, Language and Way of Life to the Ethnographic Institute with Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. This manuscript includes a Preface by Tair Selimov Tairov, who signed it as a “deputy of the working people at the Sofia City People’s Council”, i.e. representative at the municipal council of Sofia. After discussion, the Academic Council of the Ethnographic Institute with Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences decided not to publish the manuscript but to purchase it for its archive, where it can be found today (AIEFEM, No. 295 II; it was partially published in Марушиакова & Попов, 1994, pp. 18–48).
The part of the manuscript mentioned above is not entirely Shakir Pashov’s original work. A significant number of texts are a repetition or (more often) paraphrase of parts or separate pages of Nayden Sheytanov’s manuscript. They contain numerous references to scientific publications dedicated to the early history and language of the Gypsies in various foreign languages, which Shakir Pashov did not speak and could not have read independently. This fact notwithstanding, it would not be accurate to say that the manuscript is not Shakir Pashov’s author’s work. On the contrary, the entire composition of the text, with the selection of excerpts or citations from other authors, clearly shows that Shakir Pashov has thought through (in all probability in collaboration with Nayden Sheytanov himself) his author’s text.
Nayden Sheytanov’s influence on Shakir Pashov could also be perceived in another aspect. This is the radical change of Shakir Pashov’s view about the origin of the Gypsies. In the 1920s and 1930s, Shakir Pashov adhered to the Egyptian theory. It was widespread in Bulgaria among the majority population and the Gypsies at that time. As can be seen from the newspaper Terbie, the historical narrative of the Roma at that time was still dominated by the “Egyptian version” of their origin, which is why they defined themselves as “descendants of the Great King Pharaoh.” (Мир, 1934, p. 3). Gradually, the Gypsies (or at least some activists among them) became familiar with the factology of modern scientific knowledge about the Indian origin of the Gypsies. In the late 1940s, in a public speech, Shakir Pashov expressed his naive concept of Gypsy origin. It was based on etiological legends spreading among the Gypsies in Berkovitsa at the time: “Our minority lived in Bulgaria since the seventh century, where our ancestors were settled by the then world leader of the Gypsies, Berko, a dangerous opponent of the Indian Emperor Abdurrahman.” (
The second clearly noticeable segments in Shakir Pashov’s manuscript are the chapters dedicated to the traditional occupations (blacksmiths), way of life and folklore of the so-called Agupti (i.e. Egyptians) living in the Eastern Rhodopes. These parts are an almost verbatim transcript of Atanas Primovski’s extensive study that had been already published. (Примовски, 1955).
Undoubtedly, the third distinguishable segment is the most interesting. It is Shakir Pashov’s narrative about the origin and development of the Gypsy movement for civil emancipation in the first half of the twentieth century. It will not be an exaggeration to say that Shakir Pashov himself was the founder and primary driver of this process (at least from 1919 onwards). From this point of view, his book is significant not only as a historical source but also as the first attempt to understand and explain this movement from the position of an active participant in it. In this part, the book provides a reflection on historical circumstances “from the inside”, from the community’s point of view.
It is not possible to define the mechanism of cooperation between Shakir Pashov and Dr Nayden Sheytanov in the preparation of the book History of the Gypsies in Bulgaria and Europe: Roma. There is no doubt, however, that this was one of the first attempts for collaborative and reciprocal cooperation, which is very fashionable nowadays (Gay y Blasco & Hernández, 2020). It is difficult to understand Dr Nayden Shaytanov’s motives for this cooperation, while Shakir Pashov’s motives are quite straightforward. He was hoping that this book would provoke public (and political) rehabilitation of his overall activity in the Gypsy movement. Hence his attempts to create a narrative of the movement’s history (even at the cost of omitting or manipulatively interpreting some facts) that would be accepted positively by the ruling Communist regime in Bulgaria.
Shakir Pashov sent his book to the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party for evaluation and approval. There was no response (or at least it is not known), and the manuscript sank into the party archives and remained unpublished. Nevertheless, Shakir Pashov received partial rehabilitation. He started working at the Gypsy National Community Centre 9th September, chaired by Tair Selimov at the time (
Soon thereafter, however, Shakir Pashov faced serious problems once again. The newspaper Neve Roma published an article, entitled Do We Need an Organisation Now? authored by Demir Shankov from Lom, a medical student in Sofia. The newspaper’s Editorial Board proposed a meeting to discuss the article with the Gypsies at the grassroots level (
The newspaper Neve Roma was discontinued, and in 1959 a new Gypsy newspaper, Nov pat (New Way), published by the National Council of the Fatherland Front, began to be issued instead. On the one hand, this undoubtedly increased the status of the Gypsy newspaper. On the other hand, the newspaper lost its independence and came under the direct control of the authorities. The newspaper has been published for 30 (sic!) years, even during the so-called Revival process (the forcible change of the “Turkish” names of Turks, Muslim Bulgarians and Roma with “Bulgarian” in the mid-1980s). Thus, it was the longest-running Roma periodical worldwide to date.
Following a letter from the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party, the Ministry of Interior started investigating Shakir Pashov in connection with this case. In 1959, the work on the case was terminated, and his file was finally closed (CDA, f. 2124 К, op. 1, а.е. 108107). However, he and his wife were expelled from Sofia to the village of Rogozina, in Dobrudzha, without the right to move to another place.
Shakir Pashov and his wife lived in the village of Rogozina for three years, from 1959 to 1962. A photograph of their stay there has been preserved, showing that they lived in a small, poor house, apparently in difficult conditions (ASR, f. Photos). According to the memories of Shakir Pashov’s heirs, during this stay, his good command of the Turkish language and his ironmonger’s skills greatly helped him. He made beds with iron springs, which he sold to the local Turks, who paid him with gold coins, and the family returned to Sofia with significant savings.
After Shakir Pashov returned to Sofia, he retired. In the late 1960s, due to the expansion of the capital city, the Gypsy mahala Boyana (neighbourhood Brick Factory) was eliminated, and its inhabitants were compensated with new apartments. Shakir Pashov moved to live in the newly built Druzhba Housing Complex (then Station Iskar). At his new residence, Shakir Pashov continued to be socially active, and for many years, served as a chairman of the local Fatherland Front organisation (ASR, f. Shakir Pashov, a.e. Autobiography).
At the same time, he fought for rehabilitation from his Party. In 1967, Shakir Pashov’s membership in the Bulgarian Communist Party was restored (ASR, f. Shakir Pashov). However, the book The Gypsy Population in Bulgaria on the Path of Socialism (one of the authors of which is Tair Selimov Tairov), published in 1968, does not mention his name (
Shakir Pashov died on October 5, 1981, shortly before his 83rd birthday. There were no media reports about his death, and according to the memories of his relatives, only his relatives and a small number of close friends were present at his funeral; in front of his grave, Manush Romanov (Mustafa/Lyubomir Aliev) publicly asked forgiveness from the diseased. However, in his report, Gospodin Kolev, an instructor in the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party, reveals a different picture of Shakir Pashov’s funeral. He wrote that there were about 130–150 Gypsies from all neighbourhoods of Sofia at the funeral. In the ritual hall, a representative of the Bulgarian Communist Party neighbourhood organisation, in which Shakir Pashov was a member, delivered a speech emphasising his merits in the fight against fascism and capitalism and for the happiness and prosperity of all his proletarian brothers, without mentioning his ethnic origin. In his speech, Mustafa Aliev called the deceased “Our Father”; he stressed that his life as a communist and a fighter for the happiness of the people would be an example for the living and that his work would live on. Before the body was laid in the grave, there was a ritual according to the dogmas of Islam – the corpse was washed, and at the grave, a hodja (imam) performed the appropriate prayer. Tair (already re-named Tihomir) Tairov also spoke at the grave, outlining Shakir Pashov’s activities as the founder of the progressive movement of the Gypsies in Bulgaria and emphasising that throughout his life, he was faithful to the work of the Bulgarian Communist Party and worked actively for the happiness and prosperity of all Bulgarian people (CDA, f. 16, op. 89, a.e. 139, l. 44–45).
One year after Shakir Pashov’s death, a memorial obituary was published (according to the customs in South-Eastern Europe, such obituaries are displayed in public places). The obituary depicts a drawing of Shakir Pashov with clear symbolism – he is depicted sitting behind a desk, with a pipe in his mouth, behind him a bookshelf, on the desk in front of him a telephone, the manuscripts of four newspapers (Terbie, Romano esi, Nevo drom и Neve Roma), and the inscription History of the Gypsies. In contrast to customary practice, the obituary does not indicate on whose behalf it was issued, and this mystery remains unsolved to date. Supposedly, it was done by some of his closest collaborators. The text on it is as follows:
Today, November 5, 1982, marks one year after the death of SHAKIR MAHMUDOV PASHOV. Let everyone remember the organiser of the Gypsy cultural and educational organisation in Bulgaria, the creator of the newspaper Romano esi. For the founder of the Central Gypsy Theatre Roma. For the communist-anti-fascist and fighter against capitalism and fascism. For the first Gypsy MP in the Grand National Assembly. For the man with the big heart.
A bow! (ASR, f. Shakir Pashov).
Shakir Pashov lived a long and eventful life; he had passed through many vicissitudes and sometimes even oscillated in different directions. Invariable remains only the leading pillar in his social and political activity – the work for his community and the strife to steer and lead the community to its complete civic emancipation.
Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov