Center for Documentation and Information

on Minorities in Europe - Southeast Europe (CEDIME-SE)

MINORITIES IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE

Roma of Romania

Acknowledgements
This report was prepared in cooperation with the Ethnocultural Diversity Resource
Center (EDRC). It was researched and written by Cathy O’Grady and Daniela
Tarnovschi, and updated by Tibor Szasz, Researchers of CEDIME-SE and EDRC. It
was edited by Panayote Dimitras, Director of CEDIME-SE; Nafsika Papanikolatos,
Coordinator of CEDIME-SE; and Caroline Law and Ioana Bianca Rusu, English
Language Editors of CEDIME-SE and EDRC. CEDIME-SE and EDRC would like to
express their deep appreciation to the external reviewers of this report, Gabriel
Andreescu, program director of “National Minorities and Religious Freedom,”
member of Romanian Helsinki Committee, Istvan Haller, program coordinator of Liga
ProEuropa, Florin Moisa, Executive President of the Resource Center for Roma
Communities, and Julius Rostaş governmental expert at the Department for Protection
of National Minorities -National Office for Roma. CEDIME-SE and EDRC would
also like to thank all persons who generously provided information and/or documents,
and/or gave interviews to their researchers. The responsibility for the report’s content,
though, lies only with CEDIME-SE. We welcome all comments sent to:
office@greekhelsinki.gr.

1
 MAJOR CHARACTERISTICS
Updated: November 2001

State Romania

Name (in English, in the dominant language and, if different, in the minority
language)

Roma (English), Ţigani, or sometimes Romi (Romanian), Rom (the language of the
minority).

Is there any form of recognition of the minority?

Yes. The government Department for the Protection of National Minorities has a
National Office for Roma. As a recognised national minority Roma are afforded
protection under the constitution and the domestic legislation adopted with national
minorities in mind. They are also guaranteed rights under the international agreements
signed by Romania. In addition, since 1990 a significant number of Roma associations
have been formed (see Addresses).

Category(ies) (national, ethnic, linguistic or religious) ascribed by the minority

and, if different, by the state.

National.

Territory they inhabit.

Very scattered. Communities exist countrywide.

Population

According to the 1992 census, 409,723 (1.8 per cent). Other estimates; up to 1.8
million (7.9 per cent). Some organisations have put the figure as high as 2,5 million
(Minority Rights Group, 1997: 240). The Research Institute for Quality of Life
estimates a number between 1,452,700 and 1,588,552 (hetero-identified) in 1998,
among them there are 922,465 to 1,002,381 (self identified) (The Research Institute
for Quality of Life, 2000).

Name of the language spoken by the minority (in English, in the minority and, if
different, in the dominant language).

Romani, spoken by approximately 60 per cent.

Is there any form of recognition of the minority’s language?

Romania signed and ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National
Minorities in 1995 in which it is stipulated that “every person belonging to a national
minority has the right to use freely and without interference his or her minority

2
language, in private and in public, orally and in writing” (Article 10, 11 and 14).
Romani is the language of instruction in some classes in an increasing number of
schools.

Dominant language of the territory they inhabit.

Mainly Romanian. In some areas of Transylvania the Hungarian language is dominant

(Harghita, Covasna, and isolated areas in other counties).

Occasionally or daily use of the minority language.

Depending on the area, Romani is either used occasionally (i.e. in communities where
Roma are not a majority and do not have regular contact with other Roma) or daily
(i.e. by children in schools).

Access to education corresponding to the needs of the minority.

The institutional school system is not responding satisfactorily to the needs (see
section 6) (Florin Moisa, 2000).

Religion(s) practiced.

Orthodox (83.5 per cent), Catholic (4.7 per cent), and Protestant (4.3 per cent)
depending on the area in which they are located and the dominant religion in that area
(Census from 1992, Vol. I, 1994: 784).

Is there any form of recognition of the religion(s)?

Yes. All are recognized officially.

Communities having the same characteristics in other territories/countries.

Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic,

Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia,
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey. Ireland and the U.K. have populations of
‘Travellers’ (not to be confused with ‘New-Age Travellers’ or ‘Gypsies’). There are
also people who refer to themselves as ‘Roma’ in the U.K.

Population of these communities in the other territories/countries of Central and

Southeast Europe.

All of the following are from the World Directory of Minorities (Minority Rights
Group, 1997) except where stated otherwise.
• Albania – 1989 census no figure returned. Estimated up to 100,000 (2.9 per cent)
• Bosnia-Herzegovina – Estimated pre-1992 at 100,000 (2.3 per cent)
• Bulgaria – (1992 census) 312,000 (3.7 per cent)
• Croatia – thought to be as high as 18,000 (0.37 per cent)

3
• Czech Republic – 33,500 (0.3 per cent). Other estimates; up to 300,000 (2.9 per
cent)
• Cyprus – 500 – 1,000 (0.07 – 0.13 per cent)
• Federation Republic of Yugoslavia – 137, 265 (1.3 per cent). Other estimates;
500,000 (4.8 per cent)
• Greece – official estimates: 160,000 – 200,000 (1.5 – 1.9 per cent); MRG-G
estimates around 350,000
• Hungary – (1990 census) 143,000 (1.3 per cent). Other estimates; 250,000 –
800,000 (2.4 – 7.8 per cent)
• Macedonia – No census figures. Other estimates 200,000 (10.3 per cent)
• Moldavia – 20,000 – 25,000.
• Poland – 15,000 (0.03 per cent)
• Slovakia – 80,600 (1.5 per cent). Other estimates; up to 350,000 (6.6 per cent)
• Slovenia – 2,293 (0.11 per cent). Unofficial estimate; 7,000 (0.35 per cent)
• Turkey – approx. 50,000 (0.08 per cent)

4
 PRESENTATION

1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

o Important historical developments

Early accounts of the existence of Roma people in mediaeval Europe are scant. It is
believed that these first Roma came to Eastern Europe from India. Over the course of
centuries they moved westward through Persia, Armenia and the Byzantine Empire
towards Europe. They were mentioned in the year 1000, when they reached the
Byzantine Empire (Timeline of Romani History, 2000). It is difficult to find consensus
on when Roma first entered Wallachia and Moldavia (the two Romanian historic
provinces). According to Jonathan Fox (Fox, 1995) it is clear that they arrived by the
11th century from what are today’s Northwest India and Pakistan as part of a great
migration. Bogdan Petriceicu Haşdeu translated and analysed (between 1867 and
1877) some documents from Tismana monastery’s archives. One of these, from 1387,
signed by Mircea the Great, indicates that Gypsies had been in Wallachia for almost a
century before that. The other document, dated 1385, was in a form of a receipt for
forty families of Gypsy slaves presented as a gift (Hancock, 1999).

The issue of Roma slavery is very controversial. Jirechek, Potra and Chelcea (cited by
Hancock, 1999) have suggested not only that slavery was an inherent condition of
Roma, originating in their pariah status in the Sudra caste in India, but also that they
were slaves from the very time of their arrival in south eastern Europe, since they were
brought in as such by the conquering Tatars. Another possibility is that they were
forced to sell themselves into slavery in order to pay off debts. Soulins and Gheorghe,
(cited by Hancock, 1999), challenged this. As Gheorghe mentioned (cited by
Hancock, 1999), the first Roma who reached the Romanian principalities were free
people. They found there an economic niche favorable to the skills they brought from
India or had learnt in the Byzantine Empire: metalworking, carpentry and entertaining.
Due to the depleting effects of the Crusades in earlier centuries, the Wallachian
society first encountered by the Roma was technologically backward and
agriculturally centered. However, when the peasant economy gradually shifted to a
market-oriented one, it became dependent more and more upon the artisan skills of the
Roma (Hancock citing Gheorghe, Roma Slavery, 2000).

Nicolae Gheorghe (a Roma specialist, presently Senior Advisor on Roma and Sinti
Issues for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) argues that the
slavery was the result of the increasingly stringent measures taken by the landlords,
the court and the monasteries to prevent their Roma labor force from leaving the
principalities. Roma people had already started to leave the Romanian principalities in
order to get rid of the ever more burdensome demands upon their skills, and from the
shift of their “limited fiscal dependency upon the Romanian princes” to an “unlimited
personal dependency on the big landlords of the country, the monasteries and the
boyars” (Hancock citing Gheorghe, “Roma Slavery,” 2000). Under slavery the
treatment of the Roma was extremely harsh. They had fewer rights than the native
serfs, with landlords having the right to sell individuals or give them away as gifts
(Kenrick, 1998: 138). The Civil Code stated that Roma arriving from abroad were the
property of the state. In addition, every Roma born was automatically classified as a

5
slave (Liegeois, 1968: 110). The Code of Basil the Wolf of Moldavia, dated 1654,
contains references both to the treatments and punishments that the slaves had to
endure.

According to Gheorghe, the process of enslavement of the Roma by the feudal

landlords lacked any legal base. The outsider’s status Roma had at the time surely
emptied them of the power to resist. Thus, the Roma also qualified for the Islamic
world-view of the occupying Ottomans, for whom dominated non-Muslim
populations were “fit only for enslavement” (Sugar, 1964, cited by Hancock, Roma
Slavery, 2000).

Throughout the Middle Ages historical upheavals dictated the treatment of the Roma,
and others, in the region. In 1503 Wallachia and Moldavia finally succumbed to the
Turks. This meant that payments had to be made to the Ottoman Empire, although
both provinces retained control over their internal affairs. Under Turkish influence
social and economic life changed, with the division of urban society into guilds
representing certain skills. Roma slavery became increasingly integrated with the
turning of the peasants into serfs. The Roma, however, were significant in the region
for their skill as craftsmen, and they began to be categorized both by who owned them
and the type of work they did. Thus, there were distinctions made between those who
worked in houses (ţigani de casă) and agricultural workers (ţigani de ogor). Similarly,
those slaves owned by the crown or state were categorized according to whether their
owners were nobles (sclavi domneşti), the Court (sclavi curte), or rural landowners
(sclavi gospod). The Romanian Orthodox Church owned sclavi mănăstireşti who, in
turn, were categorized as vatraşi (households), or lăieşi (artisans). Those slaves
belonging to the Crown were classified according to their particular trade. For
instance, bear trainers were known as ursari and spoon carvers as lingurari (Crowe,
1991: 63). This latter categorization remains even today, with the forty Roma tribes
represented in Romania retaining these titles. The position of both Roma and peasants
declined so far during the ensuing decades that it was “impossible to speak of the
enslaved Gypsies without mentioning at the same time the enslaved peasants” (Crowe,
1995: 109).

Laws were passed at this time to render slavery even harsher, with death becoming a
not uncommon punishment. By the end of the fifteenth century any non-Roma who
got a Roma woman pregnant and married her was forced into slavery himself. Stealing
resulted in cruel punishment and, according to a law of 1652, “a slave who rapes a
woman shall be condemned to be burnt alive” (Crowe, 1995: 109-110). Legislation
was also enacted to prevent illegal slave trading. Roma slaves were valuable due to
their skill as craftsmen, and those who tried to escape faced harsh punishment (Crowe,
1991: 63).

By the 1500s, the terms “rob” and “ţigan” had become synonymous with “slave,”
although the latter was originally a neutral ethnonym applied by the Europeans to the
first Roma.

Roma under Hungarian rule in the province of Transylvania fared no better. During
the era of the Austro-Hungarian Empire a policy of forced assimilation was begun,
which echoed what would come later under Communism. Roma were forbidden to

6
speak the Romani language or to practice their traditional trades (Helsinki Watch,
1991: 10). The punishment for those caught speaking Romani was twenty-five lashes.
Traditional styles of clothing and the practice of nomadism were also prohibited
(Liegeois, 1986: 106). Even referring to oneself as a Roma was forbidden, and Uj
Magyar (new Hungarian) was the term adopted instead. Anti-Roma feeling was
widespread, and Roma rapidly became scapegoats for crimes ranging from petty theft
to cannibalism and vampirism. The punishment for the latter crimes was particularly
brutal. In one instance, forty Roma were put on the rack and then cut into pieces in
1782, accused of roasting and eating a number of Hungarian peasants, a charge later
proven to be false (Hancock, 1987: 51).

The beginning of the nineteenth century saw a change in attitude. Throughout Europe
a new order was emerging and new ideas were coming to the fore. Among them was
the assertion that slavery was barbaric and should be stopped. By the middle of the
century several slave owners had set an example in Romania by freeing their own
slaves (Helsinki Watch, 1991:10). In 1842 this began in Moldavia, and in 1844 the
church there did the same. The Wallachian church followed suit in 1847, but the laws
held firm. It did appear as though change was imminent in 1848, when a radical
provisional joint leadership succeeded to the central government in Bucharest and
issued a proclamation deploring the barbarism of slavery and announcing the
immediate freedom of all Gypsies. This was too short-lived however, as in December
1848 the two principalities were invaded by Russians and Turks who reinstated many
of the laws, and the nobles took possession of their slaves once more. The invaders
chose two new individuals to serve on their council - Alexandru Ghica and Barbu
Stirbei. This they did until 1855, when Grigore Ghica, Alexandru’s cousin, and Stirbei
were given control of Moldavia and Wallachia respectively. Grigore, while
denouncing slavery, was slow to actually abolish it, but he eventually capitulated
under pressure from his advisor and eldest daughter. On December 23, 1855, the
Moldavian Assembly voted unanimously to abolish slavery within the Principality.
The Wallachian Assembly did likewise on February 8 the following year (Hancock,
1987: 34-35). Complete legal freedom came in 1864. Prince Ioan Couza, ruler of the
now-united principalities, reinstated the Roma as free people to the estates they had
worked at. It is estimated that at the time the number of slaves was about 600,000
(Romani Culture and History, 2000).

Once slavery had been abolished many Roma left Romania for Western Europe and
North America. Those who remained soon found that their situation had not improved
a great deal. They were set free, but they were not given any land. This pushed them to
specific occupations that maintained their condition of poverty and discrimination.
They developed auxiliary occupations such as metalworking and carpeting. They also
started to use low resources (with a low economical potential) such as procuring and
selling empty bottles or marginal exploitation of the public (divination, begging)
(Zamfir, Zamfir, 1993: 29). Having been dependent upon their ‘masters’ for so long
they had no way of supporting themselves, and many ended up returning to where they
had been enslaved and offering themselves for sale once more. This is believed to
have affected demographic patterns of Roma in Romania up until the Second World
War (Hancock, 1987: 37).

7
The First World War and the peace treaties that followed increased Romania’s
minority population by over 18 per cent, from 10 per cent before the war to more than
28 per cent after it. Of these, 133,000 were Roma, comprising 0.8 per cent of the total
population. In return for the acquisition of new territory Romania was obliged to
commit itself to international agreements relating to human rights and it was therefore
hoped that the situation of the Roma would improve. The government, however, had
visions of a homogenous nation state, nationalism dictating that the minorities should,
at the very least, be integrated. Industrialization began in earnest and many people
found themselves crippled by the taxes levied by the government in order to achieve
this. Worsening conditions dictated the need for a scapegoat, a role that Roma have
played continually in Romania and elsewhere. Authorities harbored the belief that, as
Roma did not possess a culture or a history that was defined in written terms, they
were therefore not entitled to the same rights as other minorities in Romania (Crowe,
1991: 68-69).

A change occurred at that time, when Roma began to organize themselves collectively
(Helsinki Watch, 1991:11). Nineteen thirty-three saw the founding of the General
Association in Bucharest, and in the same year a journal, Glasul Romilor (Voice of
Roma) was established and published for six years. Other newspapers followed this
lead, and organizations were already being set up throughout the country. The first had
been in Calbor in 1926. A conference was held in 1934 to establish the General Union
of Roma in Romania. Between 1934 and 1939 the Union worked to promote equal
rights for Romanian Roma, but the growth of fascism and the eventual outbreak of the
war put an end to that (Kenrick, 1998: 139).

Adolf Hitler’s opinion of Roma is well known. In Romania, Marshall Ion Antonescu’s
pro-Nazi government was vehemently anti-minority, and especially anti-Roma. Mass
deportation of Roma began, particularly of nomadic Roma who were primarily
thought to be criminals. Some 25,000 Roma were thus sent to land captured from the
Soviet Union (Transdniestria), in 1942. Approximately 19,000 died (Kenrick, 1998:
140). The Romanian People’s Court set up a War Crimes Commission in the
aftermath of the war. According to the Commission, 36,000 Roma died in Romania
during the war, the highest number from any European country (although as a
percentage of the Roma population it was far lower than in countries such as Poland
and Germany) (Helsinki Watch, 1991: 13).

According to Iulius Rostaş, just before the deportation of nomadic Roma, a census
was made by the Romanian Jandarmery in order to register Roma criminals. The
people taken away from their homes were not only criminals, as the Romanian
Government at that time implied, but normal people that did not belong to the
criminals’ category. (Rostaş, 2000).

During the Communist regime, especially in the 60’s, nationalism became a first class
ideological tool as a counteracting strategy against the Kremlin policy and a proof of
its independence. From that moment on “nobody could be a patriot or a nationalist
besides within the party” (Pons, 1999: 27). The consolidation of national unity, of the
idea of a homogeneous Romanian society, was introduced. Under the pretext of a
unique pattern of the socialist worker, the regime tried to complete the process of

8
assimilation. The target was to gradually eliminate national differences but actually
they were trying to eliminate ethnic minorities (Pons, 1999: 28).

Roma were considered to be foreign elements that had to become Romanian, their
culture being considered as one of poverty and underdevelopment (Pons, 1999: 29).
Because of that something had to be done in order to destroy the specific culture of
Roma and their distinct pattern of living – the most important element that has made
them different for centuries. The state by eliminating any references to it from its
discourses denies the specificity of the Roma community within Romanian society.
According to the principles of the communist regime “private” occupations had to
disappear. Therefore all privately owned factories were confiscated by the state. The
state also confiscated the tools and the materials used for traditional occupation of
Roma (metalworking, carpentry, jewelry making), especially the gold used by Roma
for jewelry. At the same time, Roma were integrated in agricultural activities by the
agriculture production cooperatives. Those who were good in processing metals were
recruited by the metallurgical cooperatives. Until the collapse of the communist
regime, 48-50 per cent of Roma workers worked in agriculture. Trade was a
prohibited activity for them. Those who had continued to practice their traditional
occupations were not considered as authentic workers anymore. But the law
proscribed them, considering them to be “social parasites” being at a high risk to be
punished (imprisoned or put forcibly to work) (Pons, 1999: 34).

Mainly after the beginning of the 60’s the Communist regime, in order to assimilate
the Roma population, pursued various policies and measures regarding Roma – such
as settling them forcibly and later ignoring their very existence. They did not have the
right to represent themselves as an ethnic minority, free to promote its own cultural
traditions, compared with Hungarians and Saxons. Socialism or communism
destroyed many of the traditional occupations and elements of their life style, and
Roma had started to get integrated into the imposed life style. For the Roma, as for all
Romanian citizens, under communism jobs were provided on state farms and in
factories. Even if many of these effects had been obtained by coercion, though, many
families benefited with a certain economical and social security from this
sedentarization and forced work integration politics. In that way they were able to
have the possibility to support their families (they were force to work) and also to
have a place to live (the state gave them apartments) (Pons, 1999; 34).

Until 1956, as Trond Gilberg mentioned (cited by Pons, 1999: 37), the Roma
population had the lowest rate of educated people. They were not present in the high
schools and especially in the universities. After the stated assimilation policy Roma
families were forced to register their children in schools. On one hand this was a good
thing because in this way the children had the same opportunity as the rest of the
population. Beginning with 1966 many Roma had a basic education; some of them
started to attend professional schools and technical ones. However, it also had bad
consequences because many of them started to deny their ethnicity, being afraid of
discrimination and motivated to get higher positions in the social structure. Even if
there was a high tendency of school abandonment among Roma children, the
educational system “had to” provide them with a graduation certificate, thus
producing unskilled workers, which were not able to qualify for employment and
therefore ended up being unemployed. Iuluis Rostaş argues that “these factors have

9
violated the equal opportunities principle in education and contributed to the
consolidation of negative features: a low level of school frequency, a high level of
school abandonment, a low percent completing the primary school” (Rostaş, 2000).
Because of these, the prejudices have continued. Police raids against Roma were
allegedly a common occurrence, during which jewelry and other possessions were
seized, the authorities claiming that they were the proceeds of black-market dealing
(Kenrick, 1998: 140).

In 1977, when the Ceauşescu’s ‘personality cult’ was emerging, a new assimilation
program began, which was not publicly announced. Roma who continued to practice
their traditional occupations were forced by the police to go back to their work in
factories or on the construction sites. There were some Roma who continued to
practice their trades, especially those which were more discrete and more difficult to
be checked out by the communist regime, like those of traders, white washers, bucket
makers. Roma people were also the “beneficiaries” of systematization politics of the
territory by force. Districts where they lived were destroyed, and they had to move
into new buildings that were not necessarily better but in which Roma need more time
to get used living in different conditions from their way of life. They also “benefited”
from the deal made between Romania and the former Federal Republic of Germany.
Starting with the beginning of the 80’ the Saxon could emigrate to the Federal
Republic of Germany if that state paid a tax for every man, woman and child. This
deal was known under the name of “selling the Saxon population.” The state also
confiscated the Saxons’ houses and it forced Roma people to live there (Pons, 1999:
36; Zamfir, Zamfir, 1993: 157).

During the last years of the Communist regime social disorganization and the
economical crises stopped the process of “modernization” (the state provided them
with places to live, with jobs and with opportunity for the children to attend school)
and assimilation of the Roma people. This also led back to the traditional strategies
(living at the edge of society in conditions of poverty and isolation) of getting used to
difficult situations of living in a new context. Because many Roma lost their jobs and
also the employment privileges (such as children’s allocation, pension right or the
right to have a house) some turned to illicit activities, which recycles marginalization,
delinquency and poverty. It also justifies negative stereotypes about the Roma and
enhances hostile attitudes by the majority population (Zamfir, Zamfir, 1993: 159).

The execution of Ceauşescu in 1989 brought new hope for Romania’s citizens but, as
in the case of the abolition of slavery, Roma discovered that their situation did not
improve very much or at all and, in many cases, became markedly worse. Roma have
been the most affected by the transition to a market economy because of the lack of a
qualified labor force, which leads to a high rate of unemployment within that
population (see section 1.2). Those who worked in the state-owned agricultural
households have no jobs anymore, since these lands have been given back to their
owners, so most of them own no land though the law (Law on Land and Estate, No.
18, February, 1991 has stipulated that each family has to get a piece of land) (Pons,
1999: 50).

Romania’s law allows them to form associations and publish newspapers, but they
also became the scapegoats for the rest of the population as the country struggled with

10
the transition to a market economy. Violence against Roma, which had not been a
feature of communist Romania, became more widespread and even tolerated. It began
in March 1990 when the miners were called to Bucharest to ‘defend’ the government,
after which they went to Roma neighborhoods and carried out indiscriminate attacks
(Kenrick, 1998: 140). The same month saw inter-ethnic clashes in Târgu-Mureş, in the
aftermath of which a disproportionate number of Roma were arrested and tried,
despite evidence that they had not even been present (see section 2.3.1.).

Throughout the course of this decade the pattern of discrimination against Roma has
become increasingly worse, on numerous occasions reaching the level of physical
violence on the part of communities. Roma have had their houses burnt to the ground
and been driven away from their villages. Some of these attacks have even resulted in
the deaths of members of certain Roma communities (Szente, 1996: 9). The European
Roma Rights Center conducted a fact-finding mission to Romania in 1996 and
discovered that this pattern was changing and that police raids on Roma communities
were gradually replacing community violence against Roma. The decrease in mob
violence has left many cases as yet unresolved with non-Roma perpetrators still to be
brought to justice. Unfortunately those who commit crimes against Roma are seldom
if ever, made to answer for them.

1.2. Economic and demographic data

Demographic data: There has always been controversy surrounding the number of
Roma in Romania.
According to the research conducted by the Research Institute for Quality of Life in
1998 the following numbers were provided:
1930: 242,656 (1.70%)
1956: 104,216 (0.60%)
1966: 64,197 (0.37%)
1977: 227,398 (1.05%)
1992: 409,723 (1.76%)
1998: 1,452,700 – 1,588,552 hetero-identified; between 922,465 and 1,002,381
among them self-identify as belonging to the Roma minority (Research Institute for
Quality of Life, 1998).

A huge discrepancy can be noticed between 104,216, the numbers registered in the
1956 Census (soon after Roma deportation to Transnistria, where 19,000 died) and
those registered in 1998. This decrease has no other explanation than that of statistical
manipulation (Pons, 1999: 45).

In 1977 (at the census) the figure given was 227,398, and three years later there were
officially said to be 260,000 Romanian Roma. Even then, however, the real number
was an estimated one million, although when the World Congress of Roma challenged
the Romanian government on the subject they were told that there were no Roma at all
in the country (IHF, 1989: 37-38).

The 1992 census recorded 409,723 Roma in Romania although the actual figure could
have been far higher (Minority Rights Group, 1997: 242). This was an 80.2 per cent
increase on the 1977 figure (Bugajski, 1995: 197). Despite this, the actual number of

11
Romanian Roma is estimated to be over two million, which would make them the
largest minority in the country (Helsinki Watch, 1994: 3). Gauging the population
accurately is extremely difficult as many Roma report themselves as Romanian or
Hungarian, etc. on census forms, and that happened, as Florin Moisa explained to us,
because of the negative connotation associated with the ethnic identity of the Roma
(Moisa, 2000). In addition, many do not complete the forms at all due to high levels of
illiteracy. Research conducted by sociologists from Bucharest University in 1993
estimated that the number of Roma still living the ‘traditional Romani life,’ or close to
this way of life, was approximately 1,010,000 or 4.6 per cent of the total population
(Zamfir, 1993: 8). The current Roma population has not been accurately measured. In
1998, the Research Institute for Quality of Life initiated a project on studying,
stocking and spreading information that the Roma population is confront with. An
estimation of the Roma population was done for this project. It came out that there are
between 1,452,700 and 1,588,552 individuals that were hetero-identified, as Roma at
the national level and 63.5 per cent was self-identified. Vasile Gheţău (Ghetau, 1996:
78) in a prospective demographic study believes that the Roma population in Romania
numbers between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000 persons.

Roma are present in all regions of Romania. According to the 1992 census they were
most numerous in Transylvania where they made up 2.8 per cent of the population.
The next highest concentration of Roma was in Crişana-Maramureş in the north of the
country where they comprised 2.6 per cent. The population of the Banat in western
Romania was 2.1 per cent Roma, while Wallachia, south east of Transylvania, and
Oltenia in the south were found to have 1.9 per cent and 1.5 per cent respectively. The
lowest concentrations of Roma were found in Moldavia in the northeast (0.8 per cent)
and Dobrudja, on the Black Sea (0.7 per cent) (Abraham, 1995:60).

Looking at the urban and rural populations as a whole, in 1992 Roma comprised 1.4
per cent of the former and 2.3 per cent of the latter (Abraham, 1995: 61). It should be
noted that figures from the 1992 census are quite possibly no longer accurate.

According to The Research Institute for Quality of Life in a study carried out in 1998,
the following results were obtained: the Roma population is a young one (the average
age in the sample is 25.1; also, a proportion of 33.9 per cent of the population is aged
between 0-14 years old; and, 4.3 per cent of the population is over 65 years old), and
its fertility rate is double that of the majority population (The Research Institute for
Quality of Life, 2000).

A major factor affecting demography is health and access to medicine. Health

education is uncommon among the Roma. Marriages, especially in the communities
that are living in a traditional way of life (Moisa, 2000), tend to be far earlier than
among the non-Roma population, resulting in a higher birth rate (double the national
rate) and, subsequently, high rates of premature births and infant mortality. 33.7 per
cent of the women in the sample aged 15 to 19 years old have already gotten married;
the average age of the first marriage is 19 years old. (The Research Institute for
Quality of Life, 2000).

Childhood illnesses also pose problems as many Roma prefer not to send their
children to the hospital and the importance of inoculations is not understood.

12
Respiratory and cardiac illness is widespread amongst Romanian Roma, and smoking
is endemic, even among children. Substandard living conditions also contribute to
health problems. Life expectancy for Roma in Romania is between 15 and 20 years
shorter than the norm, averaging between fifty and fifty-five years (Braham, 1992:
19). More recently, in a study conducted by the Research Institute for Quality of Life
(The Research Institute for Quality of Life, 2000), the Roma stated as the most
frequent diseases those of the digestive and cardiovascular system.

Economic data: Economically the Roma population is the most disadvantaged in

Romania. Prior to the events of 1989 employment was compulsory and all jobs had to
be sanctioned by the government. Under communism, the majority of Roma were
employed in agriculture, forestry, building and construction, and food processing.
Since the collapse of the centralized economy, unemployment has grown unchecked.
The active population proportion of Roma is very close to the entire Romanian
population proportion (60.2 per cent compared to 63.3 per cent for Romania in 1998 –
National Board on Statistics, 1998). In spite of this, the occupational percentage for
Roma is significantly lower. Only 47 per cent of the entire Roma population is
attending school compared to 59.6 per cent, the percentage for Romanians. It is
interesting to notice that the unemployment rate is very low - 0.5 per cent compared to
6.3 per cent, the rate for the entire population of Romania in 1998. There are at least
two factors that could explain the discrepancy between the level of occupation and the
unemployment rate. The first one deals with their education. Only a few Roma have
completed their education and are used to having a job and work cards that permit
them be officially registered as employees. The second one deals with the fact that
only a small proportion of the active Roma population was employed, and because of
that now it is now officially registered as unemployed (The Research Institute for
Quality of Life -Sorin Cace-, 2000).

Traditional trades are now declining in the current climate of political change. But a
reinvigoration of the traditional occupations can be noticed -3.9 percent in 1992 and
10.3 percent in 1998. Sorin Cace explained to us this reinvigoration using the
Romanian economical evolution from 1992 to 1998. During this period many Roma
lost their jobs being forced to return to their traditional occupations (at least that is
what they declare). Another explanation, given by the same researcher, is that many
Roma organizations have insisted recently on the reinvigoration of the traditional
occupations. The current trend is toward new occupations because of a higher
proportion of qualified people. On the other hand, a 27 per cent decrease of those
individuals that have no occupation can be noticed. There is another specific aspect of
Roma population. Men represent 65 per cent of the entire active population. That
means that the Roma still keep the traditional pattern of the male breadwinner (The
Research Institute of Quality of Life, 2000).

The collapse of Communism led to lower living conditions for Roma (Rostaş, 2000).
The results are reflected by poor living conditions – an average number of
individuals/living place double than the assembly of Romania population, a living
place/individual two times smaller than others are and an average number of
individuals/room two times higher than others are. Besides a quarter of those who
were part of the sample have no certificates for the land on which they built their

13
houses. More over, their houses do not have proper kitchens or sanitation or plumbing
(Research Institute for Quality of Life, 2000).

According to the constitution, discrimination is forbidden, regardless of ethnicity or

religion. Despite this, employment discrimination is rife, and legislation in this area is
severely lacking. One of the most problematic aspects currently in evidence is
newspaper advertisement for jobs specifically excluding Roma applicants (Weber,
1998: 221). This situation is monitored by the Roma associations (political and civic)
and is sanctioned immediately (Moisa, 2000). Another is the fact that when employers
deem it necessary to downsize staff, Roma are the first employees to lose their jobs,
despite the fact that they have the same constitutional rights as other Romanian
citizens. Those Roma who do secure employment tend to work in unskilled, manual
jobs such as street sweeping. Others are self-employed and are skilled craftsmen and
tradesmen. Although figures are not available for these, a small number are regarded
as “living very comfortably.” Over 60 per cent however, are considered to be living on
or near the poverty line. Some Roma cooperatives have been formed with
considerable success to raise crops or produce tools and other metal products, but
these tend to be the exception rather than the rule (Braham, 1992: 15).

o Defense of identity and/or of language and/or of religion

Rather than defend their identity, many Romanian Roma tend to deny it, preferring to
adopt the language and religion of the majority population in the area in which they
live. Discrimination is prevalent throughout the country, however, and has been
particularly pronounced since 1990. The Democratic Union of Roma in Romania
(DURR) was established in February 1990, and rapidly became an umbrella
organization for various Roma parties and organizations. The purpose of the DURR is
the protection and promotion of the culture and language of Roma in Romania, and of
their political freedom. To these ends it set up the Ethnic Federation of Roma, civil
rights NGO, and has been effective in establishing ties with Roma groups outside
Romania. Since then, numerous additional Roma organizations have been formed
throughout Romania. As most are regional they tend to be competitive, this lessening
their effectiveness and obstructing the establishment of a more united Roma front
(Bugajski, 1995: 223). The Roma representative from the National Office for Roma is
pessimistic about the effectiveness of Roma organizations to defend Roma identity
and rights. Moreover, the fact that the European Roma Rights Center (ERRC) is
involved in so many cases in Romania is a clear indication that outside help is needed.

Iulius Rostaş argues that the Roma have obtained a considerable number of rights.
Vasile Ionescu has disputed this aspect. Considering the Ministry of Foreign Affairs –
2000 Report, he underscores the following idea: “During the ten years of existence,
there was no legislative initiative of this group (the parliamentary political group of
the deputies of those organizations formed by individuals that belong to the national
minorities, other than the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania - DAHR).
Roma deputies such as Gheorghe Răducanu till 1997 or Mădălin Voicu till 2000 have
been obedient to the majority parties. The later joined the Party of Social Democracy
in Romania in 1999, and he was elected president of the Minority Board of PSDR.”
(Ionescu, 2000).

14
There is also a discrepancy between what Iulius Rostaş wrote about certain amounts of
money granted by the budget for minority protection and Vasile Ionescu’s point of
view. “There are three main funding sources from the State budget for NGOs of the
national minorities in Romania; here there are a few numbers, only for Roma NGOs
(in ROL thuds):
Year Partida National against anti-Semitism Common projects and
Romilor and campaign racism, programs
xenophobia and intolerance
Total for Roma Total for Roma
1997 530,000 274,000 154,000 102,780 22,000
1998 1,489,000 700,000 435,745 880,000 465.487
1999 4,600,000 835,000 697,678 3,030,300 2,606,991
2000 9,200,000 900,000 3,500,000

For the 2000 budgetary year there is also 1,2 billions lei for participating in the
programs with external financial support. There is also a Counterpart Fund of 3
billions lei for improving the situation of Roma.” (Rostaş, 2000).

Vasile Ionescu asserts the contrary: “the Roma associations have not benefited from
any financial support for “common projects or for financing the national campaign of
combating the racism and intolerance” in 1998.” (Ionescu, 2000).

Florin Moisa on the other hand has a different opinion. While he was presenting the
Resource Center for Roma Communities, which he heads, he said that many NGOs
have been recently created. “These organizations set out to improve the life situation
of the Roma communities as well as to obtain certain rights by means of political
action. On the one hand, due to the lack of interest of the Roma community in the
political (electoral) processes, and to their difficulty in making political decisions;
and, on the other hand, due to the inability of Roma political leaders to elaborate a
joint agenda, politics has led to few concrete positive results wherever the Roma
communities are concerned. Parliamentary and local government representation is
well under the threshold of the percentage of the population the Roma represent. As a
consequence of the somewhat modest success of the political initiatives, after 1993,
all across the country were created several non-governmental organizations, founded
by persons belonging to the Roma minority; these organizations aimed at offering
educational support, expressing Roma culture and traditions, community and
economic development, research and social intervention, combating the prejudices
and stereotypes.” (Moisa, 2000).

2. ETHNIC OR NATIONAL IDENTITY

2.1. Describing identity

2.1.1. Cultural characteristic(s) differentiating it from the dominant group

Iulius Rostaş claims that “being marginalized and oppressed, subject of forced
assimilation and discrimination for centuries, the Roma have developed their own
strategy of survival which differentiates them from the non-Roma. The experience of

15
Porrajmos - the equivalent of Holocaust in Romani language - has given to the Roma
a sense of belonging to the same community everywhere they live.” (Rostaş, 2000).

The historical experience of different groups has generated a variety of historical

characteristics. Being a minority wherever they lived, the Roma had to adapt to a
changing environment. This led to differences in culture, customs and language. They
can be differentiated according to their traditional trades and dialects they are using.
Many different groups live in Romania. Even though there is a relative distance
between groups, there is a sense of belongings to the same community, strengthened
by the adversity of non-Roma.

Romanian Roma constitute approximately forty different groups including Căldări

(tinsmiths and coppersmiths), Fierari (blacksmiths), Ursari (bear trainers), Grăstari
(horse dealers) and Lăutari (musicians). Many have foregone the more traditional
nomadic lifestyle under duress rather than by choice. Cultural amalgamation has also
been widespread among the various groups, yet the divisions still exist and are
extremely important within the communities themselves (Helsinki Watch, 1991: 7).

Language marks many Roma communities as distinct. As mentioned in Section 3,

approximately 60 per cent of Romanian Roma speak some dialect of Romani. The
majority population, however, tends to respond unfavorably to the different customs
observed by Roma and the values held by them, which are often misunderstood. For
instance, family life is strictly regulated, with the male as the head of the family, the
breadwinner. Kalderash Roma, living in a traditional way of life and strictly keeping
their rules and habits (Moisa, 2000), are particularly strict, with girls above the age of
eight forbidden to keep the company of boys unsupervised, which sometimes makes
school attendance problematic. Marriages tend to be at a young age - fifteen years, and
even younger, is not unusual - and girls live with their parents until they are married.
The non-Roma community (Remmel, 1993: 201, 212) generally criticizes such young
marriages.

An extremely important aspect of Roma culture is its music, something apparently

recognized by the communist regime as they forbade singing in Romani - Romanian
was the language to be used - and many Roma musicians were removed from folk
bands. In fact, Roma music was banned outright in much of Romania prior to 1989
(Helsinki Watch, 1991: 21). One of the tribes of Romanian Roma are known as
Lautari (musicians), thus indicating that music is more than a tradition to Roma; it is a
way of life. As illiteracy is so widespread it has been supposed that Roma are unable
to read musical scores. This makes their musical fame throughout Europe all the more
remarkable. Roma are equally renowned for their dancing talent, although often the
character of the dances is taken to be lascivious, although it only appears so to non-
Roma. Yet this provides another reason for non-Roma to view Roma as ‘immoral’
(Clebert, 1963: 144, 152).

As regard religion, outwardly at least Romanian Roma tend to follow the majority
population in its beliefs, and the religion to which they subscribe therefore depends on
the demography of the area in which they live. Traditional Roma also live by a very
strict code of beliefs, which affects every area of life from marriage and relationships,
as mentioned above, to the hierarchy within the home (Remmel, 1993: 216). All of the

16
arguments above mark Roma as ‘different’, often causing them to be singled out for
maltreatment.

2.1.2. Development of the minority’s awareness of being different

Romanian Roma have long been treated as ‘different’ by members of the non-Roma
community. As described in other sections, self-preservation often causes them to
deny their identity when dealing with non-Roma because of the discrimination they
were exposed to.

An important proof is the difference between self-identified individuals – those who

declare that they belong to the community and therefore assume their identity – and
the individuals who are identified by others as belonging to a certain ethnic group.
Comparing the data of the two researches: the one in 1992 (Zamfir, Zamfir, 1993: 60)
and the one in 1998 (The Research Institute for Quality of Life, 2000) it can be
noticed that the self-identification level decreases while the main ethnic group level
increases.

Self-identification 1992 1998

Rom 76.5% 63.5%
Romanian 11.7% 34.2%
Hungarian 6.6% 1.8%
Turk 1% 0.5%
Nothing 4.2%

Considering the self-hetero-identified relationship of Roma, Cătalin Zamfir and Elena

Zamfir (Zamfir, Zamfir, 1993: 57) set several ethnic levels:
a) Roma who show all traditional ethnic characteristics and who self-identified as
Roma under any circumstances (officially – administrative and informal);
b) Roma who show all traditional ethnic characteristics, that are also identified as
Roma by others who see their lifestyle, but who do not self-identify as Roma in
official-administrative circumstances;
c) “modernized” Roma who change their lifestyle, being more modern now, and who
don’t show any visible marks of their traditional lifestyle, but who self-identify as
Roma in both circumstances (ethnic militants, businessmen);
d) “modernized” Roma who tend not to identify as Roma anymore or to do it only
from time to time, and whom the others can or cannot identify as Roma;
e) “former Roma” who have integrated into the majority population and don’t have
any traditional features left, and who have given up to self –identify as Roma even
for themselves.

According to Nicolae Gheorghe (former coordinator of Romani CRISS and a member

of the PER Romani Advisory Council and presently Senior Advisor on Roma and
Sinti Issues for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe), Roma are
passing through a process of “ethnogenesis” - building a new Romani group identity
as other groups had done in the 19th century. He says that the present goal, especially
in Romania, is to upgrade the status of members of the community from “ţigan” (a
word that inherently involves pejorative connotations) to “Roma.” In other words, a

17
symbolic move from “slaves” to equal status as citizens in a state governed by the rule
of law with the right to identify themselves as belonging to the Romani minority is
tried to be done (Images and Issues: Coverage of the Roma in the Mass Media in
Romania, 1997).

Within Roma communities however, their identity is strong and asserts itself in
numerous ways: language, music, traditional dress and, in fewer and fewer instances,
traditional crafts, and especially their way of life.

2.1.3. Identifying this difference as ethnic or national

As we already mentioned above (1.1), the Roma ethnic group was not recognized as
such by the State. Even if they had to be registered in the Census, it was not seen as a
real ethnic group (Pons, 1999: 29) before 1989. Roma in Romania are recognized as a
national minority, under the auspices of the governmental Department for National
Minorities, where there is a separate office dedicated to working for Roma. Ethnic
identity is very strong among the majority of Romanian Roma, although as previously
mentioned, self-preservation often causes members of the minority to subdue this
identity, at least when in contact with non-Roma communities.

2.2. Historical development of an ethnic or a national identity

As slaves, Romanian Roma were defined by whom owned them; church, Crown, or
individual. They were then categorized according to where they worked and what their
skills were (Crowe, 1991: 63). As mentioned previously, even after slavery was
abolished, many Roma found themselves forced to return to their old masters, unable
to survive in any other way. Self-organization, so vital to minority identity, did not
begin amongst the Romanian Roma until the 1930s, when increasing anti-Roma
sentiments and a government who did not believe they deserved the same rights as
other minorities moved them to act. The first Roma organisation was formed in
Clabor in 1926 and members of the minority began to enter universities. 1930 saw the
establishment of the journal Neamul Ţiganesc (The Gypsy Family), and three years
later the General Association of Roma in Romania was formed. The latter was only in
existence for a year, but during that time it produced two publications; the
aforementioned Glasul Romilor (Voice of Roma) and another newspaper, O Rom. The
Association also advocated the adoption of a national holiday to celebrate Roma
emancipation, and plans for a library, hospital and university for Roma were
discussed, although none ever came to fruition. The Gypsy World Congress of 1933
was also partially planned by the Association. The Congress advocated a program for
raising ethnic awareness among Roma and demanding greater minority rights (Crowe,
1991: 69-70). In 1934 the General Union of Roma in Romania (Uniunea Generala a
Romilor din Romania) was created in Bucharest. Led by Gheorghe Nicolescu, it
pressed for an end to nomadism. The Second World War, however, ended the rise of
Roma organizations throughout Europe (Liegeois, 1986: 146). The advent of
communism in Romania ensured that Roma did not have another chance to establish
organizations until after the fall of the regime in 1989.

The ethnic identity of Roma in Romania can be seen, among some groups at least, in
their wearing of traditional dress and pride in their music and traditional trades. Many

18
Roma, however, prefer to deny these aspects of their identity so as not to prejudice
employment prospects or their children’s chances of an education. The specter of
violence, prevalent in Romania since 1990, is another reason for the seeming
reluctance of many Roma communities to assert and organize themselves. This is by
no means universal throughout the community, however, as can be seen by the
number of Roma organizations that have emerged since 1990.

Conversely, Donald Kenrick cites discrimination, or the refusal of the majority

population to accept them, as the principal reason their identity has not been
destroyed. Even attempts at forced assimilation by various East European
governments failed, because the societies into which they were to be assimilated
would not accept them (Kenrick, 1998: 56). Therefore, the treatment of Roma at the
hands of the non-Roma population may be one of the principal reasons for the
continuation of their identity and culture.

The communist regime, with its policies of forced settlement and mandatory education
and employment, shielded the Roma from the ethnic hatred felt by many non-Roma
towards them. Since 1990 they have no longer been afforded this protection and now
face isolation within communities and discrimination in education and employment
(Braham, 1992: 28).

Yet Roma identity still persists. It has been observed that cultural differences are so
important in Eastern Europe due to communist attempts at assimilation and the
subsequent re-enforcement of cultures in response. Given the extremely harsh nature
of the Romanian regime pre-1989 and the multi-ethnic structure of the society there,
members of minorities were that much more determined to hold onto their identities.
For Roma, the problems inherent in this were compounded by their lack of a
homeland. This has rendered them more likely, in many instances, to have more in
common with members of the majority population then with other groups of Roma
elsewhere. A certain amount of distance from the non-Roma population is therefore
important to enable Roma to maintain their identity (Stewart, 1997: 95).

Some NGOs, for instance Rromani Criss, partially or primarily staffed by Roma, are
working to prevent discrimination and facilitate understanding between Roma and
non-Roma. There is obviously much work still to be done, but Roma need to lose their
dependence on a state which cannot, or will not, support them as it did in the past.

2.2.1. The minority’s resistance to or acceptance of assimilation

While Roma have a tendency to adopt the language and even religion of the area in
which they live, sometimes reporting themselves as ethnicity other than Roma on
census forms, this is probably motivated more by self-preservation than by any other
factor.

While many Romanian Roma have ‘abandoned’ certain aspects of their traditional
culture, others have been maintained. The Romani language, for instance, lives among
60 per cent of the population. Certain tribes also maintain traditional dress.
Conversely, in order to obtain employment or become educated, Romanian Roma are
often forced to conform to non-Roma practices.

19
During the communist period attempts were made to assimilate Romania’s minorities,
Roma included. That this failed can be seen in the 1966 census results concerning
language. These figures show significant areas in which minority languages were
being used at the time instead of the dominant Romanian language. According to the
census, 42.5 per cent of Romanian Roma adopted Romanian, while 46.2 per cent
maintained the Romani language and 8.7 per cent (resident in Transylvania) were
Hungarian speakers (Gilberg, 1980: 214-5).

In the 1970s the official policy regarding Roma changed. They were simply to be
ignored (Helsinki Watch, 1991: 18). Towards the end of the decade however, the
Romanian Communist Party (RCP) obviously realised that they could not merely look
the other way and pretend that the Roma did not exist. In 1977 fresh attempts at
assimilation were made although these were not terribly successful, probably because
by then Ceauşescu’s ‘personality cult’ was emerging, and the government was
becoming increasingly nationalist. Culture became a target of this feeling and Roma
culture paid dearly for the actions of the regime. Roma are famous for their musical
talent, and this was as true in Romania as elsewhere. As the government increasingly
emphasized Romanian culture at the expense of that of the minorities, Roma
musicians began to be excluded from folk music groups. The Romani language was
also forbidden, which meant that those Roma who did sing could only do so in
Romanian (Helsinki Watch, 1991: 20). Such policies could only have a detrimental
effect on a culture that was already looked down upon by the majority.

Examination of the relations between Roma and non-Roma in Romania, particularly

the authorities (section 2.3) indicate clearly that assimilation has not been an issue
since 1989.

2.2.2. The minority’s resistance to or acceptance of integration

Living as they do on the outskirts of society, integration is not something that has
affected many Romanian Roma and has not been attempted since the communist
period (See section 1.1.). The specter of community violence has resulted in many
Roma losing their homes and being forced to leave areas in which they may have
spent their whole lives, due to the fear of further attack.

This fear has caused many Roma to leave Romania and seek asylum elsewhere.
Immediately following the fall of the Ceauşescu regime several thousand Roma left,
France and Germany being the most popular destinations. Between 1990 and 1992,
179,676 Romanian Roma traveled to the latter to claim political asylum. The three
principal causes for this were defined as a ‘natural nomadic tendency’, economic
necessity or desire, and ethnic discrimination. The first of these has always been
attributed to Roma, despite the fact that nomadism was outlawed under communism
and by the time the regime fell less than 5 per cent of Romanian Roma were nomadic
(see Section 1.2). Poverty is certainly a feature of the lives of most Roma in Romania
and, indeed, in other countries also, but the very real fear of ethnically motivated
violence prompted many to make the journey (Braham, 1992: 23-24). More recently
Ireland has been the recipient of Roma asylum seekers from Romania.

20
Far from being integrated, the vast majority of Roma in Romania are outcasts.
Stereotypes abound, and the media does nothing to stem the tide of discrimination.
There is the tendency within state structures to view the Roma as a social problem and
treat them as such (Rostaş, 1998: 2). As long as this continues, Roma will never really
be accepted by or integrated into non-Roma communities in Romania.

2.2.3. Awareness of having an ethnic or a national identity

The current self-perception of the Roma community tends to be similar to the

perception of Roma held by the majority (Save the Children, 1998: 16). Research
conducted by Helsinki Watch would seem to support this theory: ‘Not only do
Romanians look down on Gypsies, but Gypsies frequently approach other Gypsies
with the same stereotypes’ (Helsinki Watch, 1991: 74). Of course one cannot claim
this for every individual. It depends upon the particular community and the area in
which that community is based. Discrimination within schools, as discussed in section
6, ensures the self-perpetuation of this vicious cycle.

However, there is currently movement within the Romanian Roma community

towards the development of a Roma identity within the political arena. If the average
Romanian Roma person denies their identity in public, intellectuals within the
minority are no longer hiding behind an identity allied with the majority population.
Before 1989, the latter group would not admit to being Roma, yet now they lobby
openly for recognition for the entire community. This awareness of their ethnic
identity has grown out of the social identity prevalent during centuries of slavery. A
strong proof is represented by the many parties set up soon after 1989 (Democratic
Roma Union, the Ethnical Federation of the Roma, The Roma Party and the Roma
Union etc.). The individuals belonging to the Roma ethnic group, after 1993 set up
more than one hundred non-governmental organizations. They were aimed at offering
educational support, expressing Roma culture and traditions, community and
economic development, research and social intervention, and combating the
prejudices and stereotypes (Moisa, 2000).

According to Nicolae Gheorghe, the process of nation building in Europe did not
affect the Roma in the same way that it transformed the identities of other groups from
social to national, due to the exclusion of the Roma from the political process. Only
now is the community moving towards changing its stigmatized identity. A popular
means of achieving this is the promotion of the Roma as a national minority. In
Romania this means that they have a seat in parliament, along with all of the other
recognized national minorities. Yet such a national identity may not be the best thing
for the Roma community as it reinforces the nation-state. In addition, states promoting
themselves as containing ethnic minorities do so in order to underline that the state
does, in fact, belong to an ethnic majority (Gheorghe, 1997: 158).

The growing use, therefore, of political structures by this class of Romanian Roma is a
clear indication that the minority is aware of its status as a national minority. The fact
that those emerging onto the political scene no longer hide their identity reinforces the
‘ethnic’ nature of being a Rom in Romania.

21
Vasile Ionescu has a different opinion: “As the Roma were recognized as a national
and/or ethnic minority, in 1990, the self awareness of the Roma was divided between
contempt and self-esteem. The self-contempt (as the effect of stigmatization and its
internalization) leads to ethnic dissociation, to an extension of the assimilation
politics. This is also stressed by the absence of some minimal programs for preventing
and eliminating racism; programs that should focus on this liberty. Roma associations
involved in emphasizing the self-esteem of Roma cultural communities campaign
underscore the spiritual “desalinization” and the cultural ethnocentrism deconstruction
importance.” (Ionescu, 2000).

2.2.4. Level of homogeneity in the minority’s identity

During the Communist era Roma were not even recognized as a minority, and the
forced assimilation attempts described above were designed to erase any trace of
‘difference’ that the Roma may have felt. There are other opinions concerning this
government policy however. Nicolae Gheorghe told Helsinki Watch that he believes
the Romanian government had basically good intentions in doing this.

“Every time the government wanted to do something good for Gypsies they started
with settling them. The basic assumption in European cultures among sedentary
people is that being settled is the best way. Still, the premise was perhaps wrong, and
even the intentions were sometimes bad, but basically the government was trying to
improve the living conditions for Gypsies” (Helsinki Watch, 1991: 17). This naturally
had a deep and lasting effect on the Roma community, many of who lost their identity
during this period.

The end of the repressive Ceauşescu regime provided hope for Romania’s minorities
that they would finally have a chance to assert themselves in a democratic society. For
Roma the changes meant that their situation became even worse than before. Under
the socialist system there had been discrimination against Roma, but it tended to be
subtle. The vast majority of Roma interviewed by Helsinki Watch asserted that their
situation was better under Ceauşescu than afterwards (Helsinki Watch, 1991: 32).
Following the events of December 1989, incidents of violence against Roma became
alarmingly common. This could help to explain the discrepancies between the number
of Roma as stated in the 1992 census and the number as claimed by Roma
organizations and others.

Mr. Gheorghe’s observations, as mentioned in the previous section, clearly indicate a

separate class of Roma in Romania, a minority within the minority, who are distanced
from the mainstream Roma community by virtue of the fact that they are far more
integrated into non-Roma society. Nevertheless, their acknowledgement of their Roma
identity, and their will to work for the Roma community as a whole, would suggest
that these Roma intellectuals are not so distanced from the community as it might
appear.

Though, as the Human Rights Watch World Reports for Romania since show, the
government has not done enough to stop discrimination of Roma that starts in schools,
then continues in the process of looking for a job and ends with the way they are
treated by the policemen. (Human Rights Watch, 1998, 1999, 2000).

22
2.3 Actual political and social conditions

2.3.1 Relations with the state

Community violence and the search for employment meant that previously settled
Roma communities have been forced to abandon their homes. In cases of community
violence they are, of course, denied the choice of returning. Many communities have
therefore ended up settling on the outskirts of towns and cities in makeshift
accommodation (ERRC, 1998: 26). Contact with authorities tends to be limited to
local and regional health and educational services and, of course, the ever-present
police. Amnesty International has documented cases in which Roma have been
assaulted by police in public, actions which reinforce the belief that violence against
Roma is not a crime (Amnesty International, 1995:25).

Since 1990 there have been over 30 conflicts in Romania in which Roma have been
either injured, sometimes fatally, or driven from their homes. Such incidents typically
begin as an argument between one or several Roma and one or several non-Roma and
often escalate to the point where whole communities are involved. Romanian
authorities have consistently denied the inter-ethnic nature of such incidents, but the
fact that no one has been seriously punished for committing such a crime against a
Rom clearly shows the attitude of the state (Weber, 1998: 221). Research conducted
by Helsinki Watch in 1991 found that not only was there a lack of protection for
Roma communities under threat of attack, but one of the most pressing human rights
concerns at the time was the absolute failure of state authorities to prosecute non-
Roma for crimes perpetrated against the minority (Helsinki Watch, 1994: 6).

At the beginning of the 1990s, Helsinki Watch claimed that there was no political will
in Romania to combat racial violence against Roma and to afford sufficient protection
to Roma victims of crime (Helsinki Watch, 1994: 5). They also observed several cases
in which authorities displayed overtly anti-Roma sentiments, such as the assertion that
the burning of Roma homes is “in the public interest.” Statements such as this make
the racial prejudice of authorities quite clear (Helsinki Watch, 1994: 8).

Action taken by authorities since 1990 has also reflected this attitude. Following the
violence in the Transylvanian town of Târgu-Mureş on March 19 and 20, 1990,
Helsinki Watch observed that the prosecutor’s office seemed to be attempting to make
scapegoats of the Roma who were present at the time. According to the prosecutor’s
office, of the thirty-one individuals under investigation following the violence (which
began as an inter-ethnic clash between Romanians and Hungarians), twenty-four were
Roma. A further number of Roma were arrested for offences such as the possession of
weapons and disturbance of the peace. The latter were tried under Decree 153, dating
from 1970, and directed against “‘parasites’ of the socialist order.” In addition to the
fact that this decree was considered an extremely abusive tool invented by the
Ceauşescu regime, its use violates due process. The legal counsel representing seven
of the Roma defendants stated that their trial began the day after they were arrested. In
addition, there were witnesses present who testified to the innocence of the
defendants, while one of the witnesses for the prosecution nullified his earlier
statement by saying that he had been drunk and could remember nothing of the events

23
of March 20, and then it emerged that the second witness had a long history of
convictions and was himself in jail for his involvement in the violence. The Roma
themselves gave testimony that contradicted their statements, which they had been
unable to read due to a lack of education. One of the defendants also claimed that he
had signed the statement under duress. Despite all of this, the defendants were given
sentences ranging from three months of work with a penalty to five months in prison.
The legal counsel attested to the fact that she was threatened after agreeing to
represent the Roma and that the other Roma arrested after March 20 were not
represented by counsel at all. They all received the maximum sentence of six months
(Helsinki Watch, 1990: 7).

Instances such as this underline the need for change in the attitude of authorities
toward Roma. In a 1993 report, the International Helsinki Federation for Human
Rights (IHF) observed that Romanian authorities tended to brand groups of Roma as
“criminals,” thus ensuring that the issue of attacks on Roma communities became,
instead, a debate about crime committed by Roma. IHF was also told that rebuilding
Roma houses, which were destroyed, was contingent upon the non-filing of charges
against the guilty parties. The IHF found this, coupled with the legitimization of
crimes against Roma by stereotyping Roma communities as inhabited by criminals, as
particularly worrying, as such sentiments expressed by individuals in authority serve
to encourage racist violence (IHF, 1993: 3-4).

The situation is further exacerbated by the fact that the Romanian police publish crime
statistics imputing specific offences to Roma. The only other group to be singled out
is foreigners who commit crimes in Romania. The authorities also tend to make
general comments about the criminal activity of the Roma minority as a whole, which
fuels anti-Roma feeling and heightens the possibility of community violence. The
Roma Association of Romania has spoken out against this practice, but it continues. In
the public arena extremist politicians expound racist rhetoric against Roma without
censure. On 16 August 1998, Corneliu Vadim Tudor, leader of the Greater Romania
Party (PRM) issued a statement outlining a ten-point program to be carried out if his
party is victorious in the elections in the year 2000. Part of the program proposed the
isolation of ‘Roma criminals in special colonies’ in order to ‘stop Romania being
transformed into a Gypsy camp’. In response to those countries that are critical of
Romania’s human rights record concerning Roma he promised to ‘open the borders of
Romania and expel Roma criminals precisely to those countries which pretend to care
about their fate’ (Institute of Race Relations, 1999: 35-36).

Local law enforcement officials have facilitated attacks against Roma communities,
both by encouraging the violence as it occurs, and by remaining silent and allowing it
to happen. Local government has been known to frequently support acts of vigilante
violence, such as that which occurred in Hădăreni in Mureş County in 1993. The
incident was sparked when an argument between an ethnic Romanian and two Roma
ended with the fatal stabbing of the former. Two Roma later died at the hands of a
mob, while a third burnt to death when the same crowd prevented him from leaving a
burning house. The houses of other Roma were destroyed (APADOR-CH, 1997: 46).
A Helsinki Watch report claimed that approximately 170 Roma were forced to flee the
village (Helsinki Watch, 1994: 24).

24
In 1998 in Valea Largă, Mureş County, the Téglás family formally complained against
the Harkó family. Since the police refused to get involved in the argument between
two Roma families, a violent conflict took place on January 31, 1998, between the two
families: one member of the Harkó family was killed, the Téglás family was expelled
from the village and their houses were burned.

Those in authority have perpetrated actual attacks on Roma. One such incident
occurred in Bucharest in 1992 when Roma were attacked at a market, by military
police. The Roma were beaten and property was damaged in revenge for a fight
between a Sergeant Major from the military police and a Roma individual, which had
occurred two days before, as a result of which the former had to be hospitalized.
Following the incident, none of the policemen were disciplined, and no compensation
was paid for the damage to property as it was ruled as ‘unintentional’ (Helsinki
Watch, 1994:18-19).

The period 1995-1996 saw many instances of police raids on Roma settlements. There
were raids, for instance, in Acîş and Mihăieni, Satu Mare County, on August 25,
1995; Colentina, Bucharest, several times during the summer of 1996; Pata-Rât, Cluj
County, on June 23, 1995; Bonţida, Cluj County, on February 25, 1995 and February
23, 1996; Bălteni, Dîmboviţa County, on several occasions in 1996. Several people
were beaten, and some were forced onto trucks and taken to police stations to be used
as cleaners there. Usually they were released after a few hours at the police station,
with the warning not to speak with anybody about what had happened to them.

Roma are usually afraid to speak in public about these raids. The police, however,
invited TV crews to some of the raids, and millions of viewers saw the commandos as
they broke into houses with the help of axes without any prior warning. They saw how
half-naked Roma were trying to put on some clothes, and how they were thrown on
the floor and handcuffed.

The European Roma Rights Center noted in 1996 that such attacks by authorities had
become commonplace and in many cases had replaced the vigilante violence so
prevalent in the early 1990s. This was exacerbated by a 1993 agreement between
Romania and Germany under the terms of which the latter deported Roma to
Romania. Potential victims of racially motivated violence were therefore sent to a
state in which the authorities were often the aggressors (Szente, 1996: 10). The
alleged purpose of police raids is to ‘prevent’ Roma from committing ‘anti-social
acts’. However, they serve to frighten rather than achieve anything practical (Weber,
1998: 221).

APADOR-CH has observed that in cases of vigilante violence against Roma, local
authorities tend to establish the manner in which the violence occurs, but not the
perpetrators. According to the organization (a legal association which established a
Legal Defense Bureau for the Roma Minority in 1996), the habitual lack of action of
local authorities in these instances adds to the adage that Roma are violent criminals
and that communities are therefore justified in taking the law into their own hands
(APADOR-CH, 1997: 4).

25
Violence is not the only way in which the Romanian State has shown its opinion of
Roma since 1990. According to a 1995 Reuters report the Romanian government
officially replaced the name “Roma” with “Tigan,” despite the fact that the latter is
seen as a distinctly pejorative term. The change was justified as necessary to bring
Romanian terminology into line with that used by such organizations as the United
Nations (Szente, 1996: 11). Another explanation was apparently given as avoidance of
any confusion between the terms “Roma” and “Roman” meaning a Romanian man
(Kenrick, 1998: 141). A Ministry of Foreign Affairs disposition changed this situation
at the beginning of 2000. It has stipulated that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not in
charge to establish the denomination of the Roma minority and proposes the use of
terms consecrated in international relations. The 1996 change in government made
many of those working in the field of human rights hopeful for positive change. In the
local elections the Roma organisations obtained places in local and county councils
(Rostaş 2000):
- in 1992............. 104 seats and 2 deputy mayors;
- in 1996............. 173 seats and 1 mayor;
- in 2000............. 164 seats.

Nevertheless, these changes haven’t brought a considerable improvement in Roma

lifestyle. The use of hate speech and negative stereotypes continued in mass media
even after the nationalistic-extremist political parties entered the opposition. There are
many studies that can provide examples of hate speech against Roma community. The
Roma people are presented as being dirty, violent, thefts (Andreescu, 2000).
According to the Human Rights Watch report for 1998 and 1999, Roma continued to
be the victims of police violence during that year. Both the European Roma Rights
Center and the Romanian Helsinki Committee urged investigation into such cases and
the prosecution of those suspected of having committed crimes on racial grounds. The
government has tended to respond to such requests slowly and with inaccurate
information, or sometimes not at all (Human Rights Watch, 1999). According to
Vasile Ionescu (Ionescu, 2000) there is no mechanism to provide the Roma minority
“the proper legislative frame that would assure individuals belonging to the national
minorities the right to preserve, develop and express their ethnic, cultural, linguistic
and religious identity.”

Another important aspect regards the position of the state concerning Marshall Ion
Antonescu’ rehabilitation. In June 1991 and also in 1992, the Romanian Senate paid
homage to Antonescu on the anniversary of his death. In July 1991, the U.S. Congress
passed a resolution condemning this act as one of anti-Semitism and intolerance. After
six years, in 1997, the General Prosecutor of Romania recommended to the Supreme
Court that it approve the posthumous rehabilitation of members of wartime (1940-
1945) Antonescu Government who had been convicted of war crimes. Again, the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe protested and these cases were
terminated. However, on October 14, 1999, the Romanian Chamber of Deputies
approved a law on the rehabilitation of and compensation for those who used military
means to resist the Communist regime. Some of these anti-Communist guerrillas of
the late 1940s and the 1950s were Iron Guard members or sympathizers, who
persecuted and killed Jews and Roma (Helsinki Commission Releases Letter to
Secretary Albright on Romania, November 22, 1999) (see section 1.1).

26
A. Discrimination and Racial Violence

Communal Violence

In several countries, victims encounter significant obstacles in their efforts to secure

legal redress for these attacks. A notable example is Romania, where Romani
communities were victims of a considerable number of serious incidents, in the course
of which some Roma were killed while the homes of many others were burned, in the
period between 1990 and 1996. There have been prosecutions in respect of only a few
of these. In those cases, only some of the people believed to have been involved in the
attacks were ever charged; fewer still have been convicted.

One case, in which there have been convictions, is the well-known case of the
Hădăreni ¦ a case the Romanian official may have had in mind ¦ that exemplifies the
point. On 23 September 1993, three Romani men were killed by a mob of ethnic
Romanians and Hungarians in Hădăreni, a village in Mureş County. The immediate
provocation was the stabbing to death of an ethnic Romanian by one of the three
Romani men earlier that day. This Rom’s crime became the collective crime of
Roma, and a pogrom ensued. After clubbing to death the two Romani brothers who
had been involved in the fatal stabbing and burning a third Rom in his home, a group
of villagers set fourteen Romani houses ablaze and damaged others. That night, 175
Roma, whose families had lived in Hădăreni for some seventy years, were chased out
of the village. An appeals court reduced the sentences of two of those convicted from
seven to six years. According to Romanian NGOs, the government now asserts that
the statute of limitation prevents further prosecutions in most of the cases from the
early 1990s.

The leader of an extremist opposition party has made racist statements. On August 16,
1998, Corneliu Vadim Tudor, leader of the Great Romania Party and Senator in
Romania’s Parliament, reportedly announced a ten-point “program to run the country”
which included “isolat[ing] the Roma criminals in special colonies” in order to “stop
the transformation of Romania in[to] a Gypsy camp.” In another meeting, an official
in Romania’s Ministry of Interior stated, when asked about authorities’ responses to
pogroms against Roma in the early 1990s, that “these conflicts [were] a reaction of the
majority to the behaviour of the Roma minority”; the Roma were not, therefore,
victims of racist violence. These assertions capture in microcosm the phenomenon of
racial stereotyping that has long afflicted Roma. The official’s remarks apparently
were based upon the behavior of specific individuals, whose conduct was generalized
to describe that of the group to which they belong. This form of ethnic stereotyping is
not only misleading, it is dangerous (Max van der Stoel, 2000: 44).

On August 11, 1997, five witnesses saw how the Roma man, Cioc Liviu, was beaten
by four police officers and a civilian, and then taken in a car and left in a forest in a
critical condition, only because he had been confused with another Roma person who
had robbed the civilian. Mr. Liviu was hospitalized in the period August 12-22, 1997.
According to the medical record provided by the Institute for Court Medicine, Cioc
Liviu needed 22-24 days of medical assistance. His complaint to the Mureş Military
Prosecutor’s Office was not even considered. On April 9, 1998, the Human Rights
Office of the PRO EUROPA League sent a letter to the Military Prosecutor to obtain

27
information about the case, and the cassette, which Cioc Liviu had recorded while
policemen and mayors from Idiciu and Ibăneşti were trying to make him repeal his
complaint.

Following the letter, and on the basis of the cassette - accepted as evidence - the case
was reopened. Despite all of the evidence, in 1999 - after two years of investigation -
the Military Prosecutor’s Office ruled that the police officers had only made a
‘mistake’ by allowing the civilian to beat Cioc Liviu. In the version of the prosecutors
the police officers had not participated in the beating. Neither did they offer any
explanation as to how Cioc Liviu had been forced into the car and was subsequently
left in the forest. On the basis of this ruling, the policemen involved were absolved of
any criminal responsibility. The police of Mureş County punished two of the four
police officers with five extra workdays without pay.

Apart from that, some Roma are excluded from public health care by virtue of the fact
that they lack birth certificates, identification cards, or other official proofs of
registered residence. The Romanian daily Ziua reported on September 7, 1999 that
Roma without either the means to pay for health services directly or proof of state
medical insurance had been banned from the Iaşi County Hospital. State health
services are provided for all citizens who are employed and pay social security
benefits, and for those who are officially registered with the State as unemployed.
Apparently, many Roma in the area are not registered with the government and
therefore, in the eyes of the local Fund for Social Security and Health, were not
eligible for state health care (Max van der Stoel, 2000: 122).

Oftentimes, Roma women are unaware of the need to modify their lifestyle during
pregnancy, including in terms of food, vitamin intake, physical effort and work. This
was shown in a joint UNICEF/Rromani CRISS local primary health care project in
Balta Arsa, Romania. Roma women are less likely than others to seek prenatal and
antenatal care; a trend that is influenced by factors affecting access to health care
generally, such as the lack of funds or mistrust of non-Roma medical institutions, as
outlined above. In addition, women may not prioritize their own need to seek medical
care and support. Studies suggest that many Roma women do not conceive of their
own health as being a significant factor in making decisions (Max van der Stoel, 2000:
124).

A number of positive developments have been witnessed in the last few years. A
government decision adopted in 1997 established the Council of National Minorities
to advise the Department for the Protection of National Minorities on issues relating
to minorities. The Council is composed of “representatives of all the organisations of
the citizens belonging to the national minorities that were legally founded up to
September 27, 1992” (Max van der Stoel, 2000: 142).

To assist Romania in meeting the EU’s accession criteria, including in particular the
political criterion of protecting minorities, the European Commission made available
to the Romanian government a PHARE grant totaling ECU 2 million. In August 1998
the government established an Inter-Ministerial Commission on National Minorities,
chaired by the head of the Romanian Government’s Department for the Protection of
National Minorities (DPNM), to elaborate a national strategy. In November 1998, the

28
government created an Inter-Ministerial Sub-Commission for Roma Issues, which is
co-chaired by the head of the DPNM’s Office for Roma and a representative of the
Working Group of Roma Associations (Max van der Stoel, 2000: 148).

This PHARE program is now running, according to Florin Moisa (Moisa, 2000),
having MEDE European Consultancy and Minority Rights Group International
implementing agencies. First the government elaborated, in close partnership with
Roma representatives, a national strategy to improve the situation of Roma. The
second stage entailed the design and implementation of innovative pilot projects,
again in close consultation with Roma representatives (Max van der Stoel, 2000: 148).

Some representatives of Romania’s Roma community maintain that government

officials responsible for developing the initial EU proposal or terms of reference for
the PHARE did not consult them. To address concerns about their exclusion from this
process, representatives of thirty-six Roma NGOs met in Mangalia, Romania, on
January 22-23, 1999, and decided to form a Working Group to negotiate with the
government on the elaboration of its national strategy. At this meeting eight Roma
experts were elected to represent Roma on an ad hoc basis during a meeting with
government officials that took place on January 28-29, 1999 (Max van der Stoel,
2000: 148).

This meeting was organized and mediated by the U.S.-based Project on Ethnic
Relations (PER), in the hope that it could contribute to the resolution of outstanding
issues. At this meeting, which was also attended by representatives of the European
Commission and the Council of Europe, the Roma negotiators proposed a plan for
ensuring Roma participation in various stages of elaborating the national strategy
(Max van der Stoel, 2000: 148).

At another meeting in Sibiu, Romania in February 1999, a broad coalition of Roma

leaders elected a fifteen-member Working Group of Roma Associations to represent
them in further discussions with government representatives. This group, in turn,
developed a list of twenty-seven Roma specialists in areas relevant to the national
strategy, of whom eight would, they hoped, be able to participate in the meetings of
the government’s Sub-Commission on Roma Issues. In mid-March, 1999, the
government agreed to their participation in meetings of the Sub-Commission, and this
commitment was formalized through a protocol signed by the Working Group and the
DPNM on 3 May 1999 (Max van der Stoel, 2000: 148).

Roma representatives have participated in recent meetings of the Sub-Commission,

whose other members include representatives from key government ministries. As
noted, this body has essentially advisory powers; it will make recommendations to the
Inter-Ministerial Committee, but it is the latter body that will make final decisions in
respect to the elaboration and implementation of the government’s national strategy
on Roma. The Roma leaders are participating in the decisions made by the
government in order to develop a national strategy (Rostaş, 2000). While Roma
representatives have thus succeeded in their efforts literally to get a seat at the Sub-
Commission’s table, the ultimate effectiveness of this consultative process will turn
on the degree to which their views are reflected in Romania’s national Roma policy
(Max van der Stoel, 2000: 149).

29
The Government of Romania adopted on April 25, 2001 Resolution no. HG 430/2001
on the Strategy for the Improvement of the Situation of the Roma Population, the most
important document ever in Romanian history concerning the country’s Roma
minority. The official version of the text is available in Romanian and English at
www.rroma.ro/gov_whitepaper.htm.

The document was adopted in order to fulfill the political requirements of the EU
accession. The objective is to make it the basis for a social and economic program, to
be undertaken in the next 10 years jointly by the Government and Roma
organizations. The Minister of Public Information, Vasile Dincu, originally estimated
that the implementation of the strategy would require 100 million euros, out of which
68% of the funds would be allotted to Romania from the European Union, the United
Nations and the World Bank. Nevertheless, Ivan Gheorghe, Deputy State Secretary at
the National Office for Roma, declared recently that the budget of the program should
be doubled to ensure smooth implementation.

Eugen Crai, project manager at MEDE, the consulting agency for the implementation
of the strategy, stated that the commission that is to be evaluating the projects’ for
strategy implementation has not yet been created. As he explained, “There is no
budget, therefore, there is no strategy.” Rupert Wolfe Murray, PHARE Roma project
coordinator briefly argued that, “it is too early to say anything yet.” (Inforrom, October
2001).

However, some of the envisaged health projects are underway (vaccination campaigns
and information programs on public hygiene) and identity documents have been
issued for about 3,150 ethnic Roma.

The elaboration of the draft of a Law against All Forms of Discrimination, which the
Romanian government plans to submit to the Parliament, is now pending signature
from the relevant Government ministries (Max van der Stoel, 2000: 53). In the
meantime, Romania has developed mechanisms for conflict mediation, with
apparently positive results in at least some regions. The Romanian initiatives were
triggered by a surge in mob violence against Roma communities between 1990 and
early 1996 and the failure of police to provide protection. In most of these cases, the
Romanian police “were seen as contributing, through direct or indirect means, to the
severity of these incidents and the consequences for Roma citizens” (Max van der
Stoel, 2000: 55).

The Ministry of Education initiated at the beginning of academic year 2001/2002 a

positive discrimination program, a support program for education in the mother
tongue as well as training programs for Roma educators. (More on this only in
Romanian at: http://www.edu.ro/invrrom.htm.) The PHARE program and the
European Commission allotted 2 million euros for programs initiated by various
Roma organizations, which aim primarily at contributing to the development of local
partnerships. The European Union published on July 4th, 2001 the results of the
evaluation process carried out under the Partnership Fund for the Roma, which
resulted in 40 projects selected with a total value of 899,999 Euro. (More information
at: http://www.rroma.ro/grants.htm.)

30
With the assistance of the Project on Ethnic Relations and the U.S. Department of
Justice Administration, University of Louisville, the Romanian General Inspectorate
of Police developed a program to improve relations between Roma and police and to
enhance the capacity of the police to respond effectively in situations of tension
between Roma and non-Roma communities. The first step taken by national police
authorities was to organize meetings between police representatives and Roma leaders
so that they could “identify the problems that [the Roma] have and . . . build together a
social peace and stronger community.” A hallmark of the program was to develop
regular meetings between police and representatives of Roma, as well as non-Romani
communities, at both the local and national levels (Max van der Stoel, 2000: 55).

Roma leaders are not uniformly enthusiastic about the Government’s initiatives.
Some regard as ominous the fact that the umbrella for the Government’s program,
which began as a “Mob Violence Prevention Program” within the General
Inspectorate of Police of the Ministry of Interior, was later renamed the “Institute for
Research and Prevention of Criminality.” In their view, this signified that a program
initially conceived to enhance police protection of Roma was now more concerned
with “Roma criminality” (Max van der Stoel, 2000: 56).

Still, the very fact that the General Inspectorate of Police has established a framework
for communicating with Roma leaders makes it easier for the latter to raise and
address these and other concerns. In 1997, Roma associations negotiated a protocol
with the Inspectorate to address concerns about the manner in which police dealt with
Roma communities; the protocol entered into effect in 1998. Some Roma leaders
involved in this initiative and others familiar with it believe that there have indeed
been improvements in relations between Romanian police and Roma communities.
They cite in particular the situation in the city of Sibiu, where representatives of police
and of both Roma and non-Roma communities meet regularly and seek to negotiate
joint methods of problem solving (Max van der Stoel, 2000: 56).

According to Florin Moisa, “Partida Romilor,” the main political association of the
Roma signed protocols with the Police Inspectorates in order to prevent criminality
within the Roma communities and avoid possible abuses by the police (Moisa, 2000).
Vasile Ionescu estimates that “there were 2,500 criminal grievances in 1998 against
the senator Corneliu Vadim Tudor. He proposed to imprison Roma in a camp. Roma
associations requested State institution to get involved in this problem, but their
request received no answer.” (Ionescu, 2000)

Interestingly enough, when Mr. Ion Rotaru Mayor of Piatra Neamt (eastern Romania)
launched the idea at the beginning of October 2001, of transforming a former chicken-
farm building just outside Piatra Neamt into a two-storey block of flats for Roma,
generously called a “housing project,” emotions were stirred up, reminding some of
the above-mentioned “camp” and hate speech.

According to Mr. Rotaru, the idea behind the housing project was that most of the
Roma moving there do not have any source of income, they generally refuse to work
and they have already destroyed housing provided to them by the welfare authorities.
He claimed that the compound would be a “modern district, with a church, a school, a

31
medical center and a sports hall.” And he added: “The Roma will be put to work and
will be forced to learn; and they will be completely separated from the rest of the
town. We are just trying to discipline them.” (Marian Chiriac, 2001)

The truth is that such a generous plan would have implied extensive investment that
none of the local or central authorities could support. In addition, Roma NGOs said
that the so-called housing project was just a well-orchestrated act of discrimination
and segregation. They argued that none of the promises will be kept.

Romanian leaders also criticised the mayor of Piatra Neamt. The President, Ion
Iliescu, said that the solution proposed by Rotaru is “unwise,” because it serves
segregation of Roma rather their integration. His position was probably influenced by
the circumspection not to shed a bad light on Romania’s struggle for European
accession. The Prime Minister, Adrian Nastase, argued that solutions leading to
ghettoization should not be used to speak of integration.

Eventually the Mayor of Piatra Neamt relented and he announced that places in the
planned compound would only be offered to those in need. So far (November, 2001)
construction works have not yet started at the alleged site of the future compound.

2.3.2. Relations with the dominant ethnic/national group in society

Since the fall of communism in Romania there has been a considerable increase in
nationalism and ethnically motivated incidents. While several minorities have been
targeted as a result of this, Roma, as the weakest members of society, have been
singled out as scapegoats by authorities and the majority population alike (Helsinki,
1994: 7).

Between 1990 and 1995 community violence against Roma was a feature of life in
Romania. The problem has not been one-sided. While attacks have generally been
sparked by a crime committed by a Roma against a non-Roma person, the reaction has
typically seen whole non-Roma communities turn against the local Roma population
(Braham, 1992:17), as happened in Hădăreni, as mentioned above, and in several
other towns and villages in Romania. Non-Roma individuals are rarely, if ever,
brought to justice for these attacks, even in cases where Roma have been fatally
injured.

The earliest episodes of community violence were not reported in the national media.
In Virghiş, Covasna County, villagers killed two Roma and destroyed two houses on
December 24, 1989; in Turulung, Satu Mare County, one child disappeared and 36
houses were burned on January 11, 1990; in Reghin, Mureş County, locals set five
houses on fire on January 29, 1990; in Lunga, Covasna County, the non-Roma
population killed four Roma and set six houses on fire on February 5, 1990.

From June 13-15, 1990 coal miners from the north, brought in by special trains to
break up anti-Iliescu demonstrations in the capital, took time off from their dubious
assignment and, together with policemen, rampaged through Roma settlements on the
outskirts of Bucharest, allegedly destroying flats and houses, severely beating many
Roma men, and raping Roma women. Many detained Roma males returned home,

32
uncharged with any crime, only weeks later. More violence followed: in Cuza Vodă,
Constanţa County, an angry mob of locals set 34 houses on fire on July 10, 1990, and
in Caşinul Nou, Harghita County, villagers burned 29 houses on August 12, 1990.

The first case, which reached the wider public occurred in Constanţa County, in the
village of Mihail Kogălniceanu on October 9, 1990, where a furious crowd set 36
houses on fire and rendered another four uninhabitable. The authorities did nothing to
identify the perpetrators, and the official reaction to such “social conflicts” was that
they were “understandable from an emotional point of view.” Roma throughout the
country began to be subjected to threats that if they did not “behave,” they would end
up similarly to those from Mihail Kogălniceanu.

These threats were followed by action: in the spring of 1991, Roma inhabitants in
several neighboring settlements in Giurgiu County were chased out from their homes.
In Bolintin Deal, Giurgiu County, a town with 7,000 inhabitants, 150 of whom are
Roma, villagers set 22 houses on fire and destroyed another two houses during the
night of April 7-8, 1991.

On Orthodox Easter Sunday, April 7, 1991, shortly before midnight, a non-Roma man
named Cristian Melinte set off for Bucharest in his car. Ion Tudor stopped the car and
asked Melinte to give him a lift. The refusal was followed by an argument, after which
Tudor stabbed Melinte, who died immediately. The police caught and arrested Ion
Tudor two hours later. On the next morning --Easter Monday-- at 9 a.m., unnamed
individuals set off a siren and approximately 2,000 inhabitants of the village gathered
in the center of the village. The police informed the Roma that they had better flee.

Soon after, the non-Roma crowd went from one Roma house to another --the houses
were scattered throughout the village-- looted the houses and then set 22 of them on
fire. When thirty-four of the expelled Roma attempted to reoccupy one of their houses
a month later, two thousand non-Roma gathered once again and burnt that house and
two other houses belonging to Roma to the ground.

On May 17, 1991, following the stabbing of a bartender by a Roma man, three
thousand residents in the village of Ogrezeni, Giurgiu County, gathered and destroyed
seven houses belonging to Roma. Villagers in the neighbouring village of Bolintin
Vale subsequently gathered to express their solidarity with the villagers of Ogrezeni
by setting on fire thirteen Roma houses on May 18. In Găiseni, also in Giurgiu
County, villagers set three houses on fire and destroyed another six houses on June 5.

In Plăieşii de Sus, Harghita County, a town with 3,200 inhabitants, 200 of whom are
Roma, villagers burned 28 houses and killed a Roma man on July 9, 1991. This
violence had been triggered by the July 6, 1991 incident when four Roma men beat
Ignác Daró, a night guard, because he had interfered while they were beating up their
horse. Shortly after the incident, the crowd beat two innocent old Roma men as
revenge. One of the old men, Mr. Ádám Kalányos, later died of the injuries he had
sustained.

In the meantime the police had arrested the four Roma men. Two days later a warning
sign appeared on the outskirts of the settlement where the houses of the Roma families

33
stood, informing the inhabitants that on June 9, Sunday evening, their houses would
be set on fire. The Roma informed both the police and the village municipal
authorities, but all was in vain. Nobody intervened. On Sunday in the afternoon they
fled to the stable of the local cooperative farm. An organized group of villagers then
cut the electrical wires leading to the Roma settlement --to avoid a short circuit that
would leave the whole village without electricity - knocked down the telephone pole
connecting the village with the neighboring village of Miercurea Ciuc and then set all
of the 28 Roma houses on fire. Other pogroms followed in Vălenii Lăpuşului,
Maramureş County, on August 13, 1991, where villagers burned eighteen houses, and
in Cărpiniş, Timiş County, on March 17, 1993, where five houses were destroyed. At
that point, however, the media had already lost interest in the topic.

The Hădăreni pogrom in Mureş County brought anti-Roma violence to the attention of
the general public once again. Three Roma were killed, fourteen houses were set on
fire and four houses were destroyed — all on September 20, 1993, the day Romania
became a member of the Council of Europe. Hădăreni is a town with approximately
900 inhabitants; about 125 of them are Roma.

On September 20, 1993, a group of Roma was waiting at a bus stop to get to the
neighbouring village of Luduş. The Roma had an argument with the ethnic Romanian
Gligor Cheţan who approached them with a whip. After throwing Cheţan on the
ground, the Roma, fearing retribution by his three sons and others nearby, tried to
escape. During the scuffle that followed, the Roma Rupa Lupian Lăcătuş stabbed
Crăciun Cheţan with his knife. He immediately fled the site with his brother Pardalian
Lăcătuş and their brother-in-law Zoltán Mircea into the nearby house of a local Roma
who was not at home at the time. A crowd subsequently gathered in front of the house.

The police officers that arrived at the scene failed to break into the house and arrest
the Roma men inside. The impatient crowd then set the house on fire and beat to death
two of the Roma as they attempted to escape the smoke and flames. The third man,
Zoltán Mircea, was later found burned to death inside the house. When more
policemen arrived in the village, the crowd broke into smaller groups. These groups
then set another thirteen houses on fire and razed to the ground another four, while the
policemen allegedly did nothing to stop the destruction. They stood by, watching to
make sure that there were no traffic accidents, since the village is located on the two
sides of a major road.

The government promised swift action after that incident. For a while it seemed that
the government would be able to stop further incidents of community violence.
However, optimism did not last long. In Racşa, Satu Mare County, on May 29, 1994,
villagers set nine houses on fire; in Bâcu, Giurgiu County, on January 7, 1995, locals
burned four houses, and seriously injured two Roma individuals. Throughout
Romania, houses of Roma in approximately thirty settlements have been set on fire
since the fall of the Ceauşescu regime, with mobs applying collective punishment to
local Roma communities.

Research published in 1995 found that 40 per cent of the non-Roma population had
“very unfavourable” feelings towards Roma and a further 34 per cent had
“unfavourable” feelings. In all regions of the country feelings regarding Roma

34
inclined towards “unfavourable,” although some groups, such as Hungarians, were
weakly positive in their attitudes (Abraham, 1995:15). However this research also
claims that these feelings are not inspired by Roma ‘ethnicity,’ but rather by the ‘way
of life’ of the minority and the manner in which they assert themselves (Abraham,
1995: 16).

In an opinion poll conducted by the Center for Urban and Regional Sociology as
recently as December 1997, 67 per cent of those questioned declared an unfavorable
attitude towards Roma. Moreover, the age groups most likely to claim “unfavourable
feelings” towards Roma are those in their mid-thirties or younger. The fact that the
younger population is manifesting these opinions means that the situation could easily
become worse as time passes if, as is likely, these individuals maintain their negative
attitudes and pass these on to future younger generations (Rostaş, 1998: 4).

Mădălina Voicu and Monica Şerban (The Research Institute for Quality of Life -M.
Voicu, M. Serban-, 2000) analyzed the research and the surveys done from 1993 to
1999. They were looking to see if there was any change in the level of prejudice
against Roma. They noticed that there is considerably less prejudice than there used to
be. A high level of prejudice against the Roma population could be noticed in 1993.
Then it decreased. An explanation of this diminution could be the fact that the
Romanian society is involved in a process of democratization, and therefore its
population has started to be more tolerant towards “alterity.” In spite of all these
findings, according to Ethno-barometer 2000 May-June, the rejection degree of Roma
still registers a high level (There is still a significant percent of Romanians who would
not allow Roma population to live in Romania: (38.8 per cent) – “I would not allow
Roma in the country.” (The Research Center of Interethnic Relations, 2000).

Nationalist organizations also use inflammatory rhetoric directed against Roma. Vatra
Romanească (Romanian Hearth) is an extremist nationalist group that began in Târgu
-Mureş shortly after the fall of communism, and is believed to have been instrumental
in the inter-ethnic violence, which occurred there in March 1990. Vatra singles out
Roma in its objective of “a bloody struggle against Gypsies and other minorities.” The
organization claims, “the holy ground of Romania has been spoiled by the feet of
Asiatics, Huns, Gypsies, and other vagabonds.” The current treatment of Gypsies in
Romania and other countries in the region is seen by Donald Kenrick as “not so much
genocide as ethnic cleansing, an attempt to persuade the Gypsies to emigrate en
masse” (Kenrick, 1998: 60). The balance between freedom of speech and protection of
minority groups against racism is a delicate one, but it is vital for the survival of Roma
populations in Eastern Europe. Examination of cases involving violence against Roma
since 1990 clearly indicates both the attitude of the population towards Roma and the
lack of willingness of the government to do anything to change this attitude.

Though Iulius Rostaş argues that “after 1996 there was not communal violence against
the Roma,” the Report for Romania prepared by “Human Rights Watch” contradicts
this statement (Rostaş, 2000, Human Rights Watch, 2000).

The media are also active in promoting anti-Roma stereotypes. Some titles in the
period of May-July 1998 from two national newspapers show this attitude very
clearly. “A Bloody Settlement of Accounts between Two Gypsies” (Adevărul, May

35
20, 1998), “The Trial of Fane Căpăţână — Confrontation between Gypsy Mafias”
(Adevărul, June 24, 1998), “The Gypsies from Căzăneşti Fight for the Stolen
Aluminium” (Adevărul, July 13, 1998), “The Fights Between Gypsy Mafias take a
Break — The Perpetrators of ‘Assault from Străuleşti’ Were Arrested” (Ziua, July
14, 1998), “Two Groups of Gypsies, Armed with Baseball Bats, Fought in the Zone
of Ştrandul Tineretului” (Ziua, July 29, 1998).

By doing this, according to Vasile Ionescu (Ionescu, 2000), the Constitution

stipulations, referring to all forms of discrimination, (the 30th Article, Romanian
Constitution, 1991) are broken. In August, the Romanian government took some
measures with a governmental decree in order to combat all kinds of discrimination.

Apart from the distorted and biased articles, which create negative stereotypes, there
are articles that are pure fabrications. This was the case with an article published in
Transilvania Jurnal (a regional newspaper) on July 25, 1998 and signed by Oana
Patricia under the title “The Tragedy of a Family from Arad — ‘They Blinded Him
to Make Him a Beggar.’” The journalist presents the story of a non-Roma person
who had been beating a group of Roma. The non-Roma person explained in a half-
page account that his son had been stolen by Roma, then was made blind and used as a
beggar. After he found his son, he swore to beat up every Roma he sees. “They had
taken my son’s eyes with a hot iron rod. They cut the hand of another person and took
another one to the railway to cut his legs, so that they use him as a beggar. Tell me,
are there any laws to save me from this? And I am happy, because I at least found my
child, even though he is blind. How about other parents?.”

The PRO EUROPA League sent a letter on July 28, 1998 to the Timişoara Police
Chief with a request for information on the event described in the article. The Police
Chief of Arad said that there was no such case registered. Thus it was proven that the
article was only a fabrication, a ‘good story’ for good sales of the newspaper.

2.3.3. Relations with other minorities if any

Community violence against Roma has been a feature of relations between Roma and
Hungarians in Romania just as it has been with the majority population. At times both
Romanians and Hungarians have joined force in attacking local Roma communities
(Weber, 1998: 220). One such incident occurred in 1990 in Casinul Nou, a
predominantly Hungarian town in Harghita County. On August 11 of that year the
entire Roma population was chased from the town and their houses destroyed by arson
or other means. The police did nothing to prevent the violence, and the vast majority
of the Roma did not return to the town, but went instead to the neighbouring village of
Plaesii de Sus, or to Bucharest. A Rom who witnessed the event from a distance was
not asked to make a statement by those investigating the events. Those Hungarians
whose evidence was included by investigators cited past crimes committed by
members of the Roma community as justification for the attack. All denied
involvement and claimed that it had been too dark to see who had been responsible.
According to the Romanian legal defense organization, APADOR, those Roma who
did not return to the town ever received any compensation for their loss of property
(APADOR, 1997: 15-16).

36
Roma are faced with prejudice from all of the other minorities in Romania. Research
conducted in 1995 showed that they are rejected by 100 per cent of the German
minority, 50 per cent of the Hungarians, 63 per cent of the other nationalities
(Ukrainians, Jews, Lipovan Russians, etc) and, perhaps most shocking, by 24 per cent
of themselves. Only 5 per cent of the individuals surveyed failed to respond to the
questions regarding Roma, a clear indication that the Roma issue is at the forefront of
public consciousness. Rural populations were found to view Roma more favorably (22
per cent) than urban (16 per cent), according to the research (Abraham, 1995:103).
Ethnobarometer 2000 May-June shows that the negative attitude of Hungarians
towards Roma (I would not allow Roma in the country) has been also diminished. It
has reached the same level as Romanian’s attitude (40.7 per cent) (The Research
Centre of Interethnic Relations, 2000).

2.3.4. Relations between the regions inhabited by the minority and the central
authorities

Roma in Romania do not inhabit one specific region and their presence cannot be
defined in geographical terms. They reside in every region of Romania and move
frequently, often because of community violence (Weber, 1998: 221). Therefore one
cannot talk about ‘relations between Roma-inhabited areas and central authorities’ in
the same way in which this can be applied to other minorities.

As outlined in Section 2.3.1., Romanian authorities do discriminate against Roma,

both directly, by failing to punish those who commit crimes against members of the
minority, and indirectly by the non-introduction of sufficient legislation to protect the
rights to which Roma are entitled.

• LANGUAGE

3.1. Describing the language

3.1.1. Linguistic family

In addition to speaking the language of the area in which they happen to be, be that
Romanian, Hungarian, or something else, many Roma in Romania speak the Romani
language. It has a limited vocabulary and is very closely related to the language
spoken in modern-day India. It is widely believed that Roma are descendants of low-
caste Indians, part of the Dome caste who were musicians and rope-makers (Moss,
1993: 138).

In eighteenth century Hungary, a study was carried out comparing the Romani
language with Indian languages, which seemed to indicate that there was a strong link
between the two. Linguists subsequently confirmed this link and more recent research
shows that these findings were already chronicled by Persian and Arab historians
(Liegeois, 1995: 7).

Structurally it is an inflected language, meaning that word ending change to reflect

concepts such as case and gender, as in Latin (Kenrick, 1998: 68). There are five or

37
six cases, two genders (male and female) and a number of tenses (Kenrick, 1998:
137).

3.1.2. Dialects and unity; linguistic awareness

Linguists claim that although Romani probably entered Europe in a unified form, it
has since split into numerous dialects, many of them influenced by the majority
languages of those states inhabited by Roma. Estimates ranging from 13 to 30 dialects
have been made, and it is thought that over 80 per cent of the European Roma
population speak one of these (Kenrick, 1998: 68). These dialects can, however, be
placed in two major groups; ‘Vlah’ and ‘non-Vlah.’ The former predominates in
Romania and has consequently been influenced by the Romanian language (Remmel,
1993: 226).

In the current climate in Romania, however, it is difficult for Romani to flourish. It is

not forbidden to speak it in public and in a very small number of schools it is one of
the languages of instruction, but due to the high level of discrimination against Roma
in Romania, both subtle and overt, many deny their ethnicity and therefore their
language. Often the younger generations have never learnt Romani and instead speak
the majority language of the area in which they live.

3.1.3. Instruments of knowledge: description of the language and norms (history

of the written form and of its standardization)

Prior to 1990 there was no standard form of Romani. It was written in different forms
in each country, primarily using the alphabet of the majority language. In 1990 the
Fourth World Romani Congress was held near Warsaw. A decision was made at the
congress to unify the various dialects with a standardized form of the language. The
Congress accepted the system of spelling proposed with few abstentions, but it is yet
to win wide acceptance (Kenrick, 1998: 68).

3.2. The history of the language

3.2.1. Origins

It is difficult to find consensus on the origins of Romani, but it is thought to be related

to Punjabi and Hindi and to have come from India with the initial migration (Kenrick,
1998: 68). Various studies carried out would seem to support this theory (see Section
3.1.1.). Studies carried out by a Hungarian pastor studying in the Netherlands during
the 1700s and later research in England around 1780 support the theory (Kenrick,
1998: 137).

3.2.2. Evolution

On the way from India, Romani borrowed words from various other languages. For
instance the word baht (luck) came from Persian, while Greek provided drom,
meaning a paved road (Kenrick, 1998: 68).

38
Once the Roma entered Europe and dispersed to various states the language developed
dialects (see Section 3.1.2.), which were largely influenced by the languages of the
majority populations and were often written in the alphabets used by speakers of the
majority language. Examinations of the various dialects used within Romani indicate
the paths taken en route from India. Similarly, examination of the vocabulary and,
more specifically, the number of local words found in Romani, indicate the length of
time the Roma stayed in any one place (Liegeois, 1986: 36).

3.2.3. Cultural production in the language (literature, oral tradition)

Roma have a rich oral tradition in their native language. Romani writers are beginning
to emerge, but no such person of note has come to the fore in Romania thus far.
Literary production in the Romani language did not actually begin until the 1920s,
when a number of magazines were published in Eastern Europe. The genocide of
Roma during the Second World War brought about a lull in this, but literature began
to be produced once more when the war ended. Since then, several novels,
autobiographies, and legends have been published, in addition to collections of poetry
and short stories. Newspapers and magazines have also emerged. Theatre companies
in several countries have performed plays in Romani, both original works and
translations. The New Testament has also been translated (Kenrick, 1998: 68).

o Actual sociolinguistic data

! Territory in which the language is used

Roma are present in every region of Romania. They no longer tend towards nomadism
in the territory, but discrimination and fear of community violence are reflected in a
constant movement of the Roma population. It is therefore impossible to pinpoint
precisely the territory in which Romani is used, particularly when one considers the
fact that only 60 per cent of the Roma in Romania are competent in Romani.

! Number of persons using this language (in territory and among

emigrants)

Sixty per cent of the Roma in Romania speak Romani, usually in addition to
Romanian. Smaller groups speak Hungarian, German, Turkish or Bulgarian (Minority
Rights Group, 1997: 242). Due to policies of assimilation many Roma have lost their
own language, something that has had a resounding effect within the minority itself.

There are approximately 2.4 million people worldwide speaking one of the various
dialects of Romani. All of the following approximations are conservative. These
include the Vlah dialects, widespread in Europe, particularly Romania, and spoken by
710,000 individuals. Erlia, a Balkan dialect concentrated in Bulgaria, the countries of
the former Yugoslavia and Greece, has 570,000 speakers, while 500,000 speak
dialects of the Baltic States. Those dialects spoken in the Balkans, which are ‘non-
Vlah’, have 110,000 speakers, members of clans who have become settled since the
turn of the century. 40,000 Roma in Poland, Hungary, southern Slovakia, Burgenland,
Transylvania and Ukraine speak Carpathian or Rumungro dialects, while 400,000
Roma in the Czech Republic and Slovakia are also Romani speakers. In Italy 2,000

39
Roma in Calabria and Abruzzese have their own distinct dialect, while 7,000 Roma in
Finland and Sweden speak Kaalo. Western Europe is home to 30,000 Roma speaking
Sinti and Manouche dialects, concentrated in Germany, France, Belgium and the
Netherlands. Population movement in recent years has meant that speakers of the
Balkan Romani dialects can now be found in most parts of Western Europe (Kenrick,
1998: 138).

o Freedom of expression in the minority language

! Level of acceptance or resistance to the minority’s language

The extent to which Romani is accepted is directly linked to the level of acceptance of
the members of the minority themselves. As Roma are marginalised and many have
been driven from their communities there is, as already discussed, a tendency among
the Roma to try to integrate by speaking the majority language in the area in which
they live.

! Ways in which the state protects or impedes use of the minority language

The state clearly accepts the Romani language as legitimate as it is now a language of
instruction in a number of schools throughout the country. Discrimination within the
system and the classroom itself, however, ensures that the actual numbers studying in
Romani are very low.

The Ministry of National Education has consented to an experimental program that

aims at training Roma students for being educators, teachers – individuals who know
which are the educational and cultural needs of Roma children by communicating
with them in the Romani language. The program started in 1990-1991. This program
collapsed in 1998 because of the lack of information of the beneficiaries (Roma
population) and because of the inappropriate preparedness of the teachers (Ionescu,
2000). In 1993 the Didactical and Pedagogical Printing House printed a textbook in
5,000 copies for this category, and Kriterion Printing House printed a Romanian-
Romani dictionary conceived by Gheorghe Sarău (Pons, 1999; 59).

Article 127 of the Romanian Constitution stipulates: “Citizens belonging to national

minorities, as well as persons who cannot understand or speak Romanian have the
right to take cognizance of all acts and files of the case, to speak before the Court and
formulate conclusions, through an interpreter; in criminal trials, this right shall be
ensured free of charge”(Romanian Constitution, 1991). There is also a law concerning
local public administration modified after 1996 that stipulates that in localities where
the citizens belonging to national minorities represent over 20 percent of populations,
they can use their mother tongue in relations with authorities, the denominations of
localities and institutions shall be also in their mother tongue, the laws of local
authorities shall be published in their mother tongue (Public Administration Law No.
69, October 1991, No. 24, April, 1996).

4. RELIGION

40
The majority of Romanian Roma are followers of the Orthodox faith. Those who are
not, tend to worship according to the area in which they live (Romanian Human
Rights Institute, 1993: 93). Vasile Ionescu points out the following aspect: churches
that have sermons in Romani have no financial support from the State Secretariat for
Cults (Ionescu, 2000).

4.1. Identifying a religious minority

4.2. Religious freedom enjoyed
4.3. Relations with the dominant religious community and the other communities
4.4. Ways in which the state protects or impedes minority religious activities

5. GENERAL LEGAL STATUS

5.1. Past

As slaves, Roma in Romania had no legal rights at all. As described in section 1.1.,
they could be bought and sold upon the whim of their ‘owner.’ The earliest legal
documentation in which Roma are referred to as slaves dates back to 1331. Within the
Austro-Hungarian Empire treatment was also extremely harsh. Roma were enslaved in
Transylvania too, and under Maria Theresa attempts were made to forcibly assimilate
them. It was therefore forbidden to speak Romani, wear traditional clothes, or refer to
oneself as Roma. Discrimination and anti-Roma feeling were widespread, with
incredibly harsh punishments meted out, often to innocent victims, as in the case
(mentioned in section 1.1.) of forty Roma broken on the rack and cut into pieces in
1782 after they were accused of roasting and eating several dozen Hungarian peasants
- a charge that was later found to be groundless (Hancock, 1987: 16, 51). Many Roma
children were taken from their families and were given to be raised by Romanian,
Hungarian or German families. The objective was to educate them and to assimilate
them. But many of them succeeded to run away and find their parents (Pons, 1999:
14).

Following the abolition of slavery their situation did not improve and many offered
themselves for resale to their previous owners. This can be seen reflected in the
demographic pattern of Romanian Roma until the Second World War (Hancock,
1987: 37).

In the aftermath of the First World War Romania gained a significant amount of
territory and with it a large minority population. Minorities therefore comprised 28 per
cent of the total post-war population, where they had comprised just 10 per cent
beforehand. The Romanian government was forced to sign several agreements
guaranteeing minority rights and it was therefore hoped that the situation of the Roma
would improve. However, the new government wished to ‘Romanize’ its new
population and thus create a truly homogenous state. Roma suffered as a result of this,
particularly due to the redistribution of land that they were ill equipped to make proper
use of. Increased taxes also became a burden, worsened by the Depression of 1929. As
government policies became more oppressive, traditional anti-Roma attitudes were
strengthened. Officially the minority was not considered to have a history or a culture
or civilization due to their oral tradition, so there was nothing in writing to support
their claim to minority rights. Their status in the inter-war period in Romania was

41
therefore similar to that of the Jews - second-class citizens shunned by the population
and whose rights were ignored (Crowe, 1991: 68-69).

The war itself proved to be devastating for Roma throughout Eastern Europe. It is
estimated that between a quarter and half a million died, which in terms of percentage
of the population is comparable to the losses suffered by the Jewish community. The
Romanian government expelled tens of thousands of Roma to land seized from
Ukraine (Transdniestria) where many succumbed to starvation, cold, and diseases
such as typhus (Fraser, 1992: 268). It is believed that the official policy was never to
annihilate the Romanian Roma completely, but to rid the Romanian nation of them.
Most of the Roma who were transported across the Dniester were taken from
Bucharest and its environs in 1941-2. In addition, as part of the same policy all of the
inhabitants of one village in what is now Moldova were taken to a camp in Ukraine
where many of them died. No other large-scale actions are documented against
Romanian Roma during the war, and the remainder managed to live in comparative
freedom, with some serving in the Romanian army (Kenrick, 1995: 109-111).

Those Roma still present in Romania after the war suffered under varying communist
policies of forced assimilation interspersed with attempts to simply ignore the Roma
population. The regime did not consider them to be an ethnic or national minority at
all, and therefore any policies formulated with minorities in mind did not apply to
Roma. The period before 1989 most books fail to mention Roma at all. For instance, a
1977 publication, Romania’s Population, stated that Romanians, Hungarians and
Germans constituted almost 90 per cent of the total population, with the remaining
percentage comprised of various named minority groups in addition to ‘etc.’. Failure
to recognize the minority officially gave the state license to ignore their problems
(Helsinki Watch, 1991: 16-17).

5.2. Present

During certain political periods since 1990, nationalistic rhetoric has been a feature of
Romanian politics. This led to the submission of some draft bills that became
legislation, which ran contrary to the provisions of the constitution and restricted
minority rights on various levels. Certain articles were also in contravention of some
of the international agreements signed by Romania in which the government had made
a commitment to protect minority rights. It is interesting to note that nowhere in
Romanian legislation is the term ‘national minority’ defined, despite the fact that the
constitution employs the term several times (Weber, 1998: 199, 212).

In addition, a Council for National Minorities was formed to fulfill Romania’s

obligations as a member of the Council of Europe (Dianu, 1997: 2). This proved
ineffective from the outset however, and was radically altered with the establishment
of the governmental Department for National Minorities after the 1996 election.
Including a National Office for Roma, the department is still in its early stages, but
there are high hopes for its effectiveness (Weber, 1998: 246).

The current constitution, adopted in 1991, contains several articles, which guarantee
the rights of minorities within Romania. All articles refer to individuals and collective
rights are not a feature of the constitution. The right to identity (Art. 6) and protection

42
from discrimination regardless of race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion,
sex, opinion, political adherence, property or social origin (Art. 4 (2)) are provided
for.

Changes have occurred in the area of domestic legislation since 1990, mainly in
education and local public administration, two areas, which do not tend to affect
Roma directly. There is no domestic legislation making specific reference to Roma.
Since 1990, the area of law and jurisprudence has been a problem for those Roma who
are charged with committing criminal acts. As mentioned in section 2.3., crimes
against Roma have been commonly used in retribution for criminal acts by members
of the Roma community. In cases where Roma are victims of crime, the police do not
tend to take action, and state prosecutors rarely take Roma cases. The majority of
Roma lack the financial means to procure legal representation, and there is no legal
aid system in Romania. The legal system, it seems, is swift to mete out punishment to
Roma, but not so quick to defend them (Braham, 1992: 22). In addition, access to
legal recourse is extremely difficult to obtain in cases of police ill treatment, which
affects Roma disproportionately. The military prosecutor has jurisdiction over such
complaints and tends to show reluctance to indict police officers for abuses. There is
no other recourse in cases of maltreatment by police (Human Rights Watch, 1999: 2).

The problems for Roma with regard to justice did not improve with the change of
government at the end of 1996, despite high hopes at the time that they might. The
Amnesty International Report on Romanian for 1998 cites cases of abuse of Roma by
police. Some of these occurred during raids of the type investigated by the European
Roma Rights Center in 1996 (Amnesty International, 1999: 2).

Internationally, Romania is a signatory to numerous documents dealing with the issue

of human rights. As a member of the Council of Europe since 1993 the state is bound
by the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, the document that lays down the basic principles of the Council. It has also
signed the documents of the Organization (formerly Conference) for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), including the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, the
first such agreement to be formulated after the fall of communism, which underlines
the need to monitor the treatment of minorities within member states and to “pledge to
improve continuously their situation.” The OSCE agreements are not legally binding,
but they do represent a political commitment by their signatories to abide by the terms
therein. As a member of the United Nations, Romania has also committed itself to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and more recent documents, including the
United Nations Declaration in the Rights of Persons Belonging to National, Ethnic,
Religious and Linguistic Minorities, adopted in December 1992.

Merely being a signatory to such agreements, however, does not guarantee that
minorities will enjoy the realization of the commitments. Examination of the current
situation of Roma in Romania, particularly with regard to relations with authorities
and access to legal recourse, would suggest that the Romanian government has a long
way to go before Roma enjoy in practice the rights they have been guaranteed on
paper.

6. AVAILABILITY OF EDUCATION FOR THE MINORITY

43
6.1. Brief history of the education system in relation to the minority

Roma are historically the least educated minority in Romania. Even those who have
received an education have very often only completed primary school. Very few Roma
succeed in completing their education and fewer still manage to get to university. The
numbers of illiterates within this community are very representative: 44 per cent of
men and 59 per cent of women are illiterate (Zamfir, Zamfir, 1993: 93).

During the Communist period, education was compulsory for all children up to the
age of fifteen (the first eight grades), a policy that may have worked for Roma had
there not been discrimination. Prior to 1989 there were numerous reports of teachers
discriminating against Roma children because of the way in which they were dressed.
Poverty was seen as being synonymous with stupidity, and many Roma were
automatically placed at the back of the classroom and ignored (Helsinki Watch, 1991:
25). Romanian was the language of instruction and while in theory pupils could study
in their mother tongue, Romani did not feature in schools until after 1990.

The study of the Romani language and literature in the Romanian schools began in
1990, together with the establishment of three forms for training of Roma primary
school teachers at the Normal Schools from Bucharest, Targu-Mures and Bacau. After
1992 it was taught also at primary school level, when the Romani language lessons
were introduced in the schools in Santana (Arad County) and Bobesti (Ilfov County)
(Rostaş, 2000).

Important in the issue of education is the fact that legally, children who have been out
of state schools for three years or more cannot return. There is currently proposed
legislation to limit this to two years. Nevertheless, without a minimum of a Grade VIII
education, Romanians cannot legally be hired by any employer and procure a work
card (Carte de Muncă), which theoretically entitles the holder to a pension,
unemployment and health insurance as well as a median wage established by the
government for that particular type of employment. But, as Florin Moisa specifies,
there are some regulations that permit getting a professional qualification and
workcards without having completed eight grades (Moisa, 2000).

Studying the Romani language is very important and only in this way the Romani
culture can be perpetuated. On the other hand, written proofs about Roma tradition
can be left for posterity (E. Pons, 1999: 59). Though, the lack of means available for
the community leads to a lack of interest for studying and teaching in school this
language. According to E. Pons and considering many Roma statements, the problem
of education cannot be solved by Romani schools, but by the achievement of an
elementary education that would allow them to get out of a vicious circle of poverty
and social marginalization. But Roma people have also a request. They consider that
Roma culture and history should be also in the textbooks children use in school.
Therefore they demand it (Pons, 1999: 61).

6.2. Availability of teaching material for the minority

44
Iulius Rostaş stresses the following idea: “the efforts made by Phoenix Foundation
that came out of some bilingual Primer Romani-Romanian and Romani-Hungarian
books.” He mentioned the following textbooks that are used to teach Romani language
and literature:
“- the textbook for Communication (Vakarimata) for grade I, published by Didactic
and Pedagogical Publishing House, Bucureşti, in 1998, translated by Mihaela
Zătreanu, Camelia Stănescu and Gheorghe Sarău;
- the Romani Primer for grade II;
- the Anthology of texts in Romani language. II-IV years of study for grade II-III,
author Gheorghe Sarău, Didactic and Pedagogical Publishing House, Bucureşti, 1995,
republished in 1999;
- the Romani language for grades of Roma pre-school teachers (author: Gheorghe
Sarău - DPPH, 1994 in grades IX-X, and the above mentioned Anthology for grades
XI-XII. In grade XIII the pupils get acquainted with the methodological and practical
aspects contained in the guide included in the Textbook for Communication. (Ministry
for National Education in Romania - The Ethos of Education for National Minorities
in Romania, 2000)” (cited by Rostaş, 2000).

Both E. Pons and Iulius Rostaş say that the “real problem is the content of the school
books. There are no references to the history, culture and traditions of minorities. The
lack of information about minorities is a source of xenophobic and racist behaviour.”
(Pons, 1999: 57, Rostaş, 2000).

Given that just 60 percent of the Roma in Romania speak the Romani language, and
very few schools include it as a language of instruction, very little effort has been
made either to produce or procure teaching materials in Romani.”

Florin Moisa (F. Moisa, 2000) argues that The Open Society Foundation Romania is
probably the most important actor in the field of funding Roma Programs. Annual
Reports of OSF Romania can give a perspective of the level of funding and main
program lines (Annual Report – Open Society Foundation, 1999).

6.3. Official position

Chapter XII of the 1995 Education Law makes provisions for minority education.
Article 118 of this law echoes the constitution in stating that, “The persons belonging
to national minorities have the right to study and receive instruction in their mother
tongue at all levels and all forms of education in accordance with the present law.”

In addition, a 1998 ordinance by the Ministry of Education specifically mentions the

Romani language as one of those minority languages to be offered for four hours per
week in grades I-IV and VI-IX, and five hours per week in grade V, a clear indication
of the state’s recognition of the language and willingness to teach it in schools.
Teaching is in classes of 15-25 pupils, or groups of 7-15. However, other numbers of
students may also be catered for. Introduction of this was planned for the academic
year 1998/99, so there has not yet been time to judge the level of implementation or
effectiveness (Romanian Ministry of Education, 1998).

45
During the last two years strategic programs were elaborated for the education of
Roma over a seven-year period. It has been aimed at forming a Roma elite by giving
them special places and different facilities when they take exams to get to the
universities or colleges (based on some decrees signed by the Ministry Of National
Education). On the other hand, the collaboration between the Ministry of National
Education and NGOs that develop educational projects for Roma is also important to
be mentioned. In May 1998, an inspector for Romani language was appointed. In
1999, 20 Roma and 18 non-Roma inspectors were in charge with the education of the
Roma (Rostaş, 2000). But this reformatory program has not aimed at solving the
problem of the rights of learning using the mother tongue (specifically Romani, in this
case). Its target has been to develop recovery scholar programs by proliferating
“special classes” that are able to discourage mother tongue studying. On the other
hand, the Roma inspectors have recorded difficulties in registering Romani language
even as an optional subject (Ionescu, 2000).

At the same time, (1999) the guidance of the Roma children towards religious and
vocational education was facilitated similarly to the school recovery of young Roma
who had abandoned their studies by issuing some orders made in 1999 and 2000 by
the Ministry of National Education (Rostaş, 2000). Vasile Ionescu denies this in the
MFA Report. He says that religious and vocational education is what they need the
most (Ionescu, 2000).

Probably more noteworthy than any provisions made for minorities within the
education system is the fact that, for many reasons, many Roma children in Romania
do not attend school at all. Discrimination by the system itself is rife. There are many
instances of Roma not being permitted to attend school due to laws demanding a
residence permit in order for a child to be eligible to register. As mentioned earlier,
community violence in the early 1990s destroyed many Roma houses and resulted in
the expulsion of whole Roma communities. These people subsequently moved to
larger towns and cities and now live in makeshift housing for which they are unable to
obtain residence permits (ERRC, 1998: 34). Birth certificates are another hurdle that
must be overcome. Many Roma children do not have these as mothers often fail to
register births.

Those Roma children who do attend school face discrimination from other quarters,
ranging from school separation to the refusal to admit Roma to school at all. In some
schools classes are formed which are predominantly or totally Roma (Save the
Children, 1998: 8-9). Discrimination is not uncommon on the part of the teachers and
other children. Roma children are often ignored by teachers and insulted by other
students. Communication between teachers and Roma parents is also very often
lacking causing even those parents who may have an interest in their children’s
education to lose patience with the system. Beating is also said to be a ‘method’ of
schooling that is resorted to by some teachers (Save the Children, 1998: 10). It is quite
understandable that children would not wish to attend school under those
circumstances.

The racial barriers encountered by Roma children in the Romanian city of Timişoara
led many parents to persuade a Roma educator, Professor Letitia Mark, to establish an
educational program in her home. With funding from the Open Society Foundation,

46
the Gypsy Women’s Association “For Our Children” inaugurated this program in June
1997. The program’s main activity is tutoring Romani children, many of whose
parents are illiterate and thus unable to help their children with homework. If it were
not for the program in Professor Mark’s home, many would have dropped out of
school in the face of racist treatment by teachers and fellow students. Other aspects of
the program are targeted at older children who dropped out of school some time ago
and are functionally illiterate. Some of these teenagers are preparing to take
equivalency exams that will enable them to obtain a diploma. Located near the
western border of Romania, Timişoara has large numbers of Roma families who
migrated abroad in the early 1990s, principally to Western European countries, and
who were forced to return home by the countries to which they had emigrated. In a
number of instances, parents encountered resistance when, upon their return, they
attempted to enroll their children in public school (Max van der Stoel, 2000: 91).

The project received funding from Open Society Foundation Romania – Roma
Program, during 1997-2000, approximately 12,000 USD each year in order to sustain
the activities in the school. There are no signs from the Ministry of National
Education of taking over these activities by now (Moisa, 2000).

Having lost several years of schooling during their years abroad, these children would
have been older than most of their classmates if they had been allowed to register.
Although this should not have prevented their enrolment, many were denied the right
to register on the grounds that they were “too old.” As these experiences suggest, there
is widespread discrimination against Roma children in Timisoara’s public schools. It
has been a common experience for them to be directed to sit in the back row of
classrooms, where teachers ignore them. Accounts of physical assaults of Roma
children by non-Roma classmates are not infrequent, and some report having been
kicked or hit by teachers. After such experiences, some Roma children have been
unwilling to return to school (Max van der Stoel, 2000: 74). Florin Moisa argues that
there are many cases in which all these “technical” problems were overcome by
school principals and teachers that understood the importance of education for Roma
children (Moisa, 2000).

6.4. Activists’ initiatives

Educational programs devised specifically to meet the needs of Roma have been
carried out with considerable success in the communities in Pata-Rât and Mangalia
(Save the Children, 1998: 12).

The Civic Alliance in Cluj also ran an intensive program finished in 1998, for Roma
children to prepare them for entry into the state school system. Over an eight-month
period the children, aged between 7 and 9, learn the alphabet and other basic literacy
and numerical skills. They were also taught about the kind of behavior that is expected
in schools, something that many Roma children tend to miss out on through the non-
attendance of kindergarten and lack of socializing with other children. Groups, in a
familiar environment like a family home, do all of the teaching and although the
program is still in it’s infancy, it has thus far met with considerable success (Bocu,
1998).

47
Just as Roma inhabit all regions of Romania, projects are being run nation-wide, many
of them in the area of education. International NGOs such as Save the Children and
UNICEF are involved in many of these. Funding also comes from abroad for locally
run initiatives.

Florin Moisa explains that Open Society Foundation Romania has, within its
educational component, a special program dedicated to School Development in
Communities with Roma and that there are involved about 28 schools all over the
country. Also, the Roma Program funded several projects coming from Roma NGOs
in the field of social and educational support for Roma children (Moisa, 2000).

With the support of the Open Society Foundation, a kindergarten located near a
garbage dump on the outskirts of Bucharest, Romania, has recently developed
innovative programs for its predominantly Roma students. A fundamental feature of
the program is the effort to engage the children’s parents, most of whom are poor and
illiterate; (according to the school’s headmistress, more than half of them make a
living by foraging for bottles in the local garbage dump). Both the kindergarten’s
social mediator and its teacher’s assistant are parents of children enrolled in the
school. Other Roma parents help supervise children in their various classroom
activities, and there is a parents’ room at the school. While a key goal of the school is
to improve the children’s Romanian language skills, Roma culture is featured
prominently in its programs. For example, the teacher’s assistant teaches Romani and
her husband, a folk musician, has performed for the children. And last, but not least,
the kindergarten’s programs are based on the principle of individualization. The
school is set up with several activity areas, and children are encouraged each day to
select the activity area in which they will concentrate that day. The teachers respect
each student’s pace of development, and downplay competition between students.
Above all, the headmistress’s approach to her students is based on the overarching
premise of respect and compassion (Max van der Stoel, 2000: 90).

6.5. Present situation at different levels:

6.5.1. Nursery school and primary education

Up until the age of 7, many children in Romania attend kindergarten. While the
emphasis is not necessarily academic in such schools they are invaluable for preparing
children for their first years in primary school. They learn how to behave in a social
group, to sit at a desk and pay attention without distracting other classmates, and
perhaps most importantly, they become accustomed to socializing with other children
of a similar age.

Research published in 1992 found that 29.9 per cent of Roma children between the
ages of 7 and 9 had never attended school. Between ages 10 and 16 the figure was
17.2 per cent. These children had therefore missed out on the development of social
and behavioral skills. Those failing to attend primary school (Grades I to IV) were
also denied the basic education in reading, writing and arithmetic provided during
those years. Furthermore simply attending school does not necessarily mean that a
child will successfully complete his or her education. Absentee rates are extremely
high, and the same research report estimated that close to half of the children studied

48
would not complete primary education (Grades I-VI) (Save the Children, 1998: 7).

The current situation is gradually getting worse, a decline that can be attributed to a
number of factors and influences both inside and outside the minority itself.

The increase in violent attacks on Roma communities since 1990 has also had
repercussions on school attendance. Many parents have claimed that they dare not
send their children to schools as they fear for their safety. Children have also
expressed reluctance to attend under these circumstances (Helsinki Watch, 1991:76).
Unfortunately the majority population has a tendency to see this as a ruse by Roma to
avoid sending their children to school, a belief that has clear overtones of the old ‘they
don’t want to learn’ stereotype.

Social and economic factors have a large part to play in the lack of education in the
Roma community. There are practical considerations in sending a child to school.
Many Roma parents do not have the money to dress their children well or to buy them
paper and pencils. The schools themselves are generally not funded sufficiently so
they are unable to help supply these basic things. Many Roma parents are unwilling to
send their children to school in dirty or old clothes. Those children who do go are
often subjected to bullying by non-Roma children or they simply feel ‘different’ from
the other children and are not comfortable in the school environment, so they become
reluctant to go back. In some cases help is supplied in the form of clothes and shoes,
but often this is badly organized, and what the children receive does not fit them.
Their parents then sell what they have been given leading the teachers to conclude that
Roma cannot be helped (Save the Children, 1991:10).

There are other problems of a logistical nature also. Very often the physical position
of the Roma community on the outskirts of a community or sometimes even further
away makes it very difficult for children to get to school, particularly under adverse
weather conditions (Save the Children, 1998: 9).

The lack of an educational tradition between Roma causes difficulties for children
wishing to attend school. The success of a child in school often depends upon having
the right home environment for study and family members who are willing (and able)
to assist the child with homework. Very often Roma parents discount the value of an
education, as they did not receive one. In addition, a child who is either at school or
doing homework is not available to help around the house or, perhaps, earn badly
needed money. The long-term benefits of an education are not terribly convincing
when compared to the short-term benefits of seasonal work that meets immediate
material needs. This can be attributed not only to attitudes within the Roma
community but also to the culture that emerges within communities severely affected
by poverty.

Very traditional Roma communities also have misgivings about allowing boys and
girls to mix in the absence of adult supervision. The modern school with its co-
educational classes arouses distrust.

Language can also cause difficulties. Roma children who speak the Romani language
at home often find that they are unable to keep up with the class because they do not

49
speak Romanian well enough (Helsinki Watch, 1991:26). Classes are large and even a
well-intentioned teacher cannot possibly give every child individual attention. Roma
children tend therefore to fall further and further behind until they eventually drop out,
often without even the minimum education needed to be employable in Romania.

Ministries of Education statistics for the academic year 1998/99 are available for all
educational districts of Romania, although they do not give separate figures for
primary and secondary schools. In comparison with non-Roma pupils, numbers of
Roma children attending school are extremely low nationwide. For instance, one
school in the Transylvanian town of Alba Iulia has a total of 608 pupils attending
grades I-VIII. Of these, just 23 are Roma. Most Roma students study in the Romanian
language, although according to government statistics, there are currently 1,680 pupils
whose language of instruction (and mother tongue) is Romani. This figure represents
twice as many pupils as the previous academic year (Romanian Ministry of Education
website).

6.5.2. Secondary education

Secondary education in Romania is comprised of Grades V to XII, the first four of that
are vital, if a child is to have a fair opportunity to secure employment. Unfortunately,
for all of the reasons mentioned above, few Roma children in Romania manage to
begin their secondary education, let alone complete it. For many the jump from Grade
IV to Grade V is too much to cope with. The former involves the basic tuition
mentioned above, with one teacher per class. The latter means a jump to eight
different subjects, each with a different teacher, making it extremely difficult for
students to establish a personal relationship with him or her. Help at home is even
more vital during these years as there is little individual attention in class. While this
is not only a problem for Roma children, they seldom receive this, and absenteeism
and dropout rates are extremely high (Krohn, 1999).

As stated above, separate statistics are not available for Roma pupils in secondary
education. They do, however, list several schools in Transylvania attended by Roma
children in which the language of instruction is Hungarian (Romanian Ministry of
Education).

6.5.3. Higher education and research

One can scarcely talk about higher education with reference to Roma in Romania as
so few succeed in reaching this educational level. Given the mixture of lack of
attention and quite often discrimination at school and a lack of interest in education at
home it is hardly surprising that many Roma children do not become well educated.
These children then pass on their own negative experiences and attitudes to their own
children and the vicious circle continues. There are, of course, also serious
repercussions in the area of employment.

As with education at other levels however, the situation appears to be changing. The
Romanian Ministry of Education statistics for the academic year 1998/99 lists 136
Roma attending universities throughout Romania, either as full-time students or
teaching/research assistants. The subjects studied are as diverse as law, sociology,

50
natural sciences, and literature. Most of these students study in Romanian, but the
University of Bucharest has a Romani language department that is attended by both
Roma and non-Roma students (Ministry of Education website).

The percentage of Roma who matriculate in university is still minuscule. Even so, the
achievements of those who have graduated from university is a testament to the
potential efficacy of efforts to increase Roma participation in higher education.
Among the younger generation of Roma leaders, some attended university with the
assistance of government programs aimed at enabling Roma to obtain advanced
degrees. These range from the use of quotas to the provision of scholarships. An
example of the former approach is a Romanian policy pursuant to which the
government has set aside places for Roma students at public universities since 1993.
The program started with ten reserved spaces for Roma students at a university for
social work in Bucharest; in 1999, the program had expanded to potentially cover
some 150-200 Roma students. The system does not necessarily ensure that every
reserved place will be filled; applicants must still pass a qualifying exam. But it does
make it more likely that Roma students will attend university (Max van der Stoel,
2000: 92). Now there are around 600 Roma studying in Romanian Universities, due to
affirmative action measures of the Ministry of National Education, according to Florin
Moisa (Moisa, 2000).

7. COMMUNICATION AND AUDIOVISUAL MEDIA

7.1. Legal situation

The National Audio-Visual Council oversees the media in Romania, a body

comprised of eleven members that came into being with the Audio-Visual Act on May
19, 1992. The government was criticized at the time due to the fact that all eleven
members of the council were ethnic Romanians. Complaints were justified, as
minorities comprise approximately 10 per cent of the total population of the country
and as such should be entitled to representation on the Audio-Visual Council
(Helsinki Watch, 1993: 51).

7.2. Press

There is very little print media produced directly by or for Roma, a handful of
publications being the sum total. Nevertheless, given the illiteracy problem within the
Roma community and the poverty, which makes things such as the purchase of
newspapers and certainly television sets a rare rather than an everyday occurance, this
is not so surprising.

The Open Society Foundation in Bucharest produces Romathan: studii despre Romii.
This is something of a research journal, written in both Romanian and Romani. It
includes academic articles about aspects of Roma culture, etc. The Resource Center
for Roma Communities Cluj-Napoca started in 2000 a publishing program in which
several materials will be produced and distributed: Romani Language Manual,
dictionaries, literature, Romani Language audiotape course, conversation guide, etc, in
order to reduce the lack of information in the field of Roma issues (Moisa, 2000).

51
Vasile Ionescu says that only one of ten Romani publications (“Asul de Treflă”) is
financially supported by the state. This does not lead to the mass media development
for the Roma community (V Ionescu, 2000).

7.3. Radio

There are some radio-programs in Romani using the national radio station frequencies.
Also, Open Society Foundation funded in 1997 a radio program in Targu Mures, a
program run by Mr. Rudolf Moca (F. Moisa, 2000). There used to be a 15 minutes
radio program in Craiova, but it doesn’t exist anymore (Ionescu, 2000).

7.4. Television

Romanian National Television (TVR) broadcasts one brief program per week for
Roma, at an off-peak time. Again, perhaps more noteworthy is the discriminatory
treatment of Roma on Romanian television. Now, as Vasile Ionescu suggests, there is
no more a television program dedicated to the Roma minority, but only sporadic
moments within a TV program “Convieţuiri.” Moreover, they are also presented in the
Romanian language (Ionescu, 2000).

7.5. Internet

Internationally produced and maintained websites containing information about Roma

abound. Within Romania the Ministry of Education maintains a section on its website
about Roma education, including names and addresses of organizations and
individuals working in the field (although many are not Roma). The website is only in
Romanian.

The Resource Center for Roma Communities Cluj-Napoca, an organization set up by

Open Society Foundation Romania started a website program that will cover its
activities in the field. Also, Mr. Vasile Ionescu is starting a project that aims at setting
up a press agency, having an Internet bulletin (Moisa, 2000).

8. CONCLUSION

Officially, according to the 1992 census results, there are 409,723 Roma in Romania,
comprising 1.8 per cent of the total population. Self-preservation and widespread
illiteracy, however, have affected this figure and Roma organizations put the real
figure at somewhere between 1.8 and 2.5 million. The actual number of Roma in
Romania at present is not known.

They inhabit all regions of the country. Due to community violence and ill treatment
at the hands of the police since 1990, many Roma have left their homes and moved to
makeshift housing in other areas, for which they cannot procure residence permits. It
is therefore impossible to accurately estimate numbers of Roma in any part of the
country.

Members of the minority face problems in virtually every aspect of life. Historically
treated as property to be bought and sold at will and then as second-class citizens, they

52
have spent centuries struggling against oppression. Living standards are low, lack of
hygiene facilities and awareness leads to the spread of disease and a high infant
mortality rate. The average marriage age remains far lower than that of the majority
population. It is not uncommon for girls to marry at 13 or 14 years of age (Helsinki
Watch, 1991: 76). Not only does this cut their childhood short, but also it leads to an
inevitable increase in the size of family groups, worsening the problems of poverty.

Poverty within Roma communities leads to other problems as well. Hygiene standards
tend to be low, often due to a lack of running water or electricity. The quality and
quantity of food tends to be worse in the winter in many Roma communities, with
meat and dairy products unavailable much of the time (Save the Children, 1998: 6). In
such conditions the sheer size of family groups and lack of health education are major
contributory factors to conditions such as malnutrition, anemia, rickets and height-
weight deficits (Save the Children, 1998: 13). Many Roma children are not
vaccinated, as their parents are not taught the importance of this.

Access to medical services is made difficult by fact that a large number of Roma do
not possess the necessary documents. Those who do are often resident illegally in an
area other than that stated on their identity card, so their medical records are not
available to health-care staff. These problems concerning permanent residence
coupled with a lack of income, which makes it impossible to pay for medical
insurance, means that many Roma families couldn’t have a family doctor under the
terms of the new law on health and social insurance (Save the Children, 1998: 15).
The purchase of medicine is also problematic as prices are often prohibitive,
particularly in cases where Roma believe that the more expensive the medicine, the
more effective it is.

The situation of Roma in Romania deteriorated sharply after 1989. In a climate of

change which left other minorities hopeful about the future, Roma have faced
discrimination, poverty and in some cases, death.

Roma in Romania are educationally disadvantaged. Discrimination, both within the

system through which one must apply for a place in a school, and within the schools
themselves, is widespread and discourages many children from attending. Education is
also affected by the chronic poverty found in so many of Romania’s Roma
communities. Those children who do manage to begin school often fail to complete
even primary level and therefore face insurmountable difficulties when seeking
employment. This in turn tends to lead to a rise in crime and a perpetuation of the
cycle of poverty.

Discrimination is a problem faced by Roma in Romania in areas other than education

also, and takes the form of both physical violence and ill treatment by authorities.
Community violence, giving way to a pattern of police raids, has been regular abuses
endured by Roma since 1990. Whole communities have been branded as criminals
and expelled from areas in which they have lived for decades, their only ‘crime’ their
ethnicity. These people have been forced to move to towns and cities in search of
work. Those who are qualified and apply for jobs find that their ethnicity is often a
hindrance there, too.

53
Radical change is needed in order to improve the situation and this change is needed
both within and without the Roma community. Non-Roma authorities involved in the
field of education need to show a deeper understanding of the particular problems of
the minority and, in many cases, prejudices must be overcome. Within the Roma
community, understanding is also needed. An understanding of the long-term benefits
of education and the necessary assistance to make it possible, even if that simply
entails a change of attitude. In cases where a lack of communication exists between
teachers and Roma parents, both should make the effort to bridge the gap in the
interests of the child. Non-governmental organizations can also help by providing
educational programs specifically designed to meet the needs of Roma. If steps such
as these are not taken, the downward spiral currently evident in the area of Roma
education is set to continue, leading to worsening poverty, and rising unemployment
and crime levels, thus reinforcing one of the most consistent stereotypes of Roma.

Viewed as a whole, the problems faced by Roma in Romania are daunting, yet a
beginning could be made to find solutions to all of the above were individuals more
open to understanding the differences between the communities.

Education is clearly needed in order to overcome the prejudice and racism. Children
are not born racist - they learn racist rhetoric in the home or from outside influences.
Integration of Roma and non-Roma children is necessary at the earliest stages of
schooling so that both learn to relate to one another. Unfortunately with the
educational situation as outlined above this is almost impossible at present.

The media also has a vital role to play. Television has been accused of discrimination
similar to that seen in the press in its portrayal of Roma. On June 13, 1990, the then
director of television services, Mr. Emanoil Valeriu, announced on-air that Roma had
attacked and destroyed the television studios. Mr. Valeriu then called on the
Romanian population to protect the studios (Helsinki Watch, 1991: 88). The telling of
such a blatant untruth on television could only have been done with one purpose in
mind – to incite further anti-Roma feelings among the population. Mr. Valeriu’s
action prompted the Ethnic Federation of Roma to file a complaint against the former
for violations of the Penal Code. The Prosecutor’s office subsequently dismissed this
complaint (Helsinki Watch, 1991:89).

Current Romanian state-controlled news broadcasts involving Roma perpetuate the

most common negative stereotypes held – criminality and poverty. This has been
effectively employed for political purposes, with close-up shots of Roma participants
at political demonstrations used to compromise the opposition (Helsinki Watch, 1994:
7).

It is clear that Romanian journalists need to develop a greater sense of responsibility.

The media is one of the most powerful tools of manipulation in any state and can be
used to shape public opinion with disastrous consequences. The Romanian
government and the media itself should recognize this potential and aim for a more
balanced unbiased portrayal of Roma, and other minorities, in the interests of stability.

The emergence of an intellectual class amongst the Romanian Roma could benefit this
minority enormously. Roma who are equipped both mentally and socially to deal with

54
non-Roma at an intellectual and political level can help to increase awareness of the
problems faced by the community and promote greater understanding of the Roma
way of life.

Education is also needed within Roma communities themselves. A common anti-

Roma complaint is that they do not respect the laws of the non-Roma communities,
and it is true that this does sometimes happen. If real understanding is to be reached
then the effort must come from both sides. Putting the onus on the non-Roma
community alone is a certain recipe for failure.

55
 ADDRESSES

1. Cultural institutions and/or associations founded by the minority

• Agenţia de Dezvoltare “Împreună”

Scărlătescu St., No.44, Sector 1, 7000, Bucureşti
Tel: 01-2524250, 094-759565
Fax: 01-2524250
E-mail: imaria@dnt.ro
Contact: Ionescu Maria

• Alianţa “Casa Romilor”

Mărăşeşti St., No.26, Ploieşti, 2000, Prahova
Contact: Mihai Grigore

• Ansamblul de Cântece şi Dansuri “Roma Bahtale”

Sticlei St., No.10, Mediaş, 3125, Sibiu
Tel: 069-843002
Contact: Rezimeş Valentin

• Asociaţia “Fraternitatea”
I.L. Caragiale St., No.27, Negreşti, 6552, Vaslui
Tel: 035-457795
Contact: Romanescu Ioan

• Amare Phrala Cluj Napoca (youth organization)

Someşului St., No. 18, Ap. 2, Cluj-Napoca, 3400, Cluj
Tel: 064-139802, 094-277209
Fax: 064-139802
Contact: Doghi Dan Pavel

• Asociaţia Ansamblul de Cântece şi Dansuri al Romilor ŞATRA (song and

dance)
Iuliu Maniu St., No. 3, Bloc 33, Ap. 3, Mediaş, 3125, Sibiu
Tel: 069-824708
Contact: Mircea Ionuţ, Jucki Alexandru

• Asociaţia “Casrom”
Rovinari St., Bl 32/A, Ap.20, Târgu-Mureş, 4300, Mureş
Tel: 065-134204, 092-520502
Contact: Rudolf Moca

• Asociaţia Căldărarilor din România Than Romano

Sinteşti, Vidra, Sinteşti, Ilfov
Contact: Mihai Ion

• Asociaţia “Centrul Crestin al Romilor (the Christian Center of the Roma)

Morii St., Nr. 226, Sâmpetru, Braşov

56
 Tel: 094-843783
President: Rad Vasile

• Asociaţia “Chakro”
Gheorghe Doja St., No. 9, Târgu-Mureş, 4300, Mureş
Tel: 065-164421
Fax: 065-168573
Contact: Cristian Eparu

• Asociatia Crestina Apostolica a Romilor din Romania

Oltului St., No. 2, Târgu-Mureş, 4300, Mureş
Tel: 065-164015
Contact: Rad Petru

• Asociaţia Culturală “Barbu Lăutaru”

14 Decembrie 1989 St., No.2 bis, Room 9, Iaşi, 6600, Iaşi
Tel: 032-113506
Contact: Ion Şerban

• Asociaţia Culturala a Romilor Lautari (Cultural Association of Roma

musicians)
Gloriei St., bl.19, Ap.52, Roman, 5550, Neamţ
Contact: Rudichi Vili

• Asociaţia Culturală Ion Drăgoi

Lalelelor St., Bl.10, Ap.3, Bacău, 5500, Bacău
Tel: 034-142080
Contact: Părăluţă Ion

• Asociaţia Democratică a Romilor Liberi

Mihai Viteazu St., No.B 3/2, Ap.1, Cluj-Napoca, 3400, Cluj
Tel: 093-321925
Contact: Ioan Gorăcel

• Asociaţia Femeilor Rome din România

Colentina St., No.43, Bl.R 13, Ap.83, 7000, Bucureşti
Tel: 01-6885385
Fax: 01-6885385
Contact: Dumitru Violeta

• Asociaţia Femeilor Ţigănci “Pentru Copiii Noştri”

Dorobanţilor St., No.62, Timişoara, 1900, Timiş
Tel/Fax: 056-208929
Contact: Mark Letiţia

• Asociaţia “Infratirea”
Al. Sahia St., No.5, cartier Palazu-Mare, Constanţa, 8700, Constanţa
Tel: 041-551275, 098-618179, 041-666074

57
 Contact: Anghel Petre

• Asociaţia Naţională a Romilor din România

Parcul Mic St., No.14, Ap.11, Braşov, 2200, Braşov
Tel: 068-151434
Contact: Iftimie Victor

• Asociaţia Patronilor Ploieşti

Cornului St., No.4, Ploieşti, 2000, Prahova
Tel: 044-156076
Contact: Gheorghe Niculae

• Asociaţia Patronilor Romi din Romania

Şoseaua Giurgiului No.113-115, Bl.O, Ap.4, Sector 4, 7000, Bucureşti
Tel: 01-6853277, 3365090
Contact: Safta Gheorghe

• Asociaţia “Pod Peste Suflete”

Mihai Eminescu St., Bl. 29, Ap. 7, Slobozia, 8400, Ialomiţa

Asociaţia Profesorilor Romi “Khetanes”

Principală St., No.71, Terebeşti, Satu Martel
Tel: 065-755172
Contact: Rozalia Bondrea

• Asociaţia “Rom Star”

Mioriţei St., Bl.10, sc. A, Ap.1, Bacău, 5500, Bacău
Tel: 034-123351, 094-881569
Contact: Bălan Paustin, Dumitru Bebe, Antonache Cornel

• Asociaţia Rom-Meser
C. Porumbescu St., No.14, cartier Izvoare, Bacău, 5500, Bacău
Contact: Iorga Nicolae

• Asociaţia Romano Tolah

Aleea Parcului, No.21, 4350, Luduş, 4350, Mureş
Tel/Fax: 065-471264
Contact: Florina Zoltan, Rostaş Persida, Mailat Andrei

• Asociaţia Romilor Brazilia

Margareta St., No.24, 4783, Nuşfalău, 4783, Sălaj
Contact: Lakatoş Sandor

• Asociaţia Romilor Creştini din Romania

Mărăseşti St., Bl.16, Ap. 35, Baia-Mare, 4800, Maramureş
Tel: 062-415150
Fax: 062-415153
Contact: Berchi Gheorghe, Boldor Ioan

58
• Asociaţia Romilor din Coltău
Arieşului St., No. 269, Coltău, com. Săcălăşeni, Maramureş
Tel: 062-89081
Contact: Covaci Iosif

• Asociaţia Romilor “Espoir-Criss”

Mintia, 2733, Hunedoara
Contact: Rafi Tiberiu

Asociaţia Romilor Harghita

Revoluţia din Decembrie St., No. 28, Ap. 18, Miercurea-Ciuc, 4100,
Harghita
Tel: 066-123357
Fax: 066-172363, 066-172457
Contact: Ioni Geza

• Asociaţia Romilor Harghita – Filiala Gheorghieni

Piaţa Libertăţii St., No.10, Gheorghieni, 4200, Harghita
Tel: 066-163865
Contact: Varga Karmen

• Asociaţia Romilor “Prietenia” (Association of Roma “Friends”)

Piaţa Libertaţii St., No.10, Baia-Mare, 4800, Maramureş
Tel: 062-431970
Contact: Chereji Radu

• Asociaţia Social Culturală a Romilor Bihor (Bihor Social and Cultural

Association)
Gheorghe Şincai St., No. 1, Oradea, 3700, Bihor
Tel: 094-602547

• Asociaţia Social Culturală a Romilor din Banat - Timişoara

I. B. Deleanu St., No. 5, Timişoara, 1900, Timiş
Tel: 056-215883
Contact: Rezvimeş Cornel

• Asociaţia Socio-Culturala a Romilor Tehara

Mehedinţi St., No.17, Bl.O2, Ap.87, Cluj-Napoca, 3400, Cluj
Tel: 064-167959
Contact: Dandoş Albert

• Asociaţia Tinerilor Romi Steaua Nordului, Baia Mare (Roma Youth

association)
Mărăşeşti St., No. 16, Bl. 16, Ap. 35, Baia-Mare, 4800, Maramureş
Tel: 062-778977
Contact: Boldor Daniel

59
• Asociaţia Studentilor Romi
Episcop Radu, No.31, Sector 2, 7000, Bucureşti
Tel: 01-2123750, 094-855612
Fax: 01-2123750
E-mail: feryp@leader.ro
Contact: Cristinela Ionescu, Emilian Nicolae, Florin Risipitu

Asociaţia Studenţilor Romi Iaşi, ROMANITIM

Bucium St., No.23, Bl. B3-1bis, Ap.1; Ipsilanti St., Nr.25; Ciric St., No.54
Bl. Q6, Ap.18, Iaşi, 6600, Iaşi
Tel: 093-360824, 032-110271, 032-173514
Contact: Iulian Dinu, Gheorghe Mantu, Acojocăriţei Roxana

• Asociaţia Studenţilor Romi Romano Suno

Rene Descartes St., No.6, Cluj Napoca, 3400, Cluj
Tel: 064-194893
Contact: Doghi Dan Pavel, Etveş Alexandra

• Asociaţia “Terne Rom”

Malu Roşu St., No.126, bl. 10G, Ap.16, Ploieşti, 2000, Prahova
Tel: 044-140657, 092-685003
Contact: Mihai Vasile

• Asociaţia Romilor din Depresiunea Cisăului

Com. Cislău, 5191, Buzău
Contact: Drezaliu Nicolae

• ASTRA ŞATRA - “Aven Amenta” Asociaţia Studentilor si Tinerilor Romi

Antirasisti (Roma students and youth against racism)
Ministerul Culturii, C.P. 22-165, 7010 Bucureşti
Băiculeşti St., No.25, bl. E13, Ap.66, 7000, Bucureşti
Tel: 01-222 3314, 6682765
Fax: 01-6682765
E-mail: av.satra@mailbox.ro
Contact: Vasile Ionescu, Atena Ilie

• ASTRA ŞARTA – Aven Amentza

Obor St., No.33, Beclean, Cluj Napoca, 3400, Cluj
Tel: 094-139603
Contact: Mihaly Zoltan

• ASTRA ŞARTA – Aven Amentza

Scărlătescu St., No.44, Iaşi, 6600, Iaşi
Tel: 093-238302
Contact: Constantin Laura

• ASTRA ŞARTA – Aven Amentza

Băiculeşti St., No.25, Bl.E13, Ap.66, 7000, Bucureşti

60
 Tel/Fax: 01-6682765
E-mail: av.satra@mailbox.ro
Contact: Lavinia Olmazu, Delia Grigore, Cazacu Carmen

• Centrul Creştin al Romilor

Alba Iulia St., No.46, Sibiu, 2400, Sibiu
Tel: 069-229863, 092-712590
Fax: 069-228112
Contact: Cioabă Florin

• Centrul Creştin al Romilor – Filiala Teleorman

Eminescu St., No.36, Abatorului St., Baraci Cetate, Turnu Măgurele, 750,
Teleorman
Contact: Ştefan Marin

• Centrul de Asistenţă Socială, Economică şi Profesională – CASEP

Cartier Corniţoiu, Bl.H, Ap.20, Craiova, 1100, Dolj
Tel: 051-420043
Fax: 051-417223
Contact: Fotescu Dan, Dumitru Tatian

• Comunitatea Etniei Romilor (Ethnic Community of Roma)

Baia-Mare St., No.1, Bl.8, Ap.58, Sector 3, 7000, Bucureşti
Tel: 01-6487316
Mobile: 094-542 282

• Comunitatea Etniei Romilor - Prahova

Stânişoarei St., Bl.124, Ap.14, Ploieşti, 2000, Prahova
Tel: 044-161737
Contact: Gheorghe Niculaie

• Comunitatea Etniei Romilor - Resita

Fântânele St., No.6, Ap.6, Caraş-Severin, 1700, Reşiţa
Contact: Neveanu Coriolan

• Forumul Romilor Românizaţi din România

Beethoven St., No.7, Craiova, 1100, Dolj
Tel: 051-418467
Contact: Burtea Petre

• Fundaţia “Emanciparea şi Şcolarizarea Copiilor Romi”

Radomir, Diosti, Radomir, 1111, Dolj
Tel: 051/62 Dioşti, Radomir
Contact: Mitrică Biră

• Fundaţia “Ion Budai-Dealeanu”

Seceretoarelor St., No.8, Sibiu, 2400, Sibiu
Tel: 069-411 538, 093-534024

61
 Contact: Radulescu Iulian, Cornescu Mirela

• Fundaţia “Ion Budai-Dealeanu”

Armatei St., No.54, Bl.9, Ap.6, Tîrnăveni, 3225, Mureş
Tel: 065-443789
Contact: Demeter Zoltan

• Fundaţia “Filantropica” Dej

Înfrătirii St., No. 5, Bl. B7, Ap. 20, Dej, 4650, Cluj
Tel: 094-603592

• Fundaţia Lăuta Străbună

Ştefan Cel Mare St., No.225, Roman, 5550, Neamţ
Tel: 030-734456
Contact: Halangescu Dumitru

• Fundaţia O Del Amentza

Piaţa Unirii, No.2, Room 14, Deva, 2700, Hunedoara
Tel: 094-935146, 054-216151
Fax: 054-216088
Contact: Bologa Nicolae

• Fundaţia pentru Dezvoltare Socială a Romilor Ramses

1 Mai St., Ap.2, Room 54, Dej, 4650, Cluj
Tel: 09-3514202
Contact: Moldovan Adrian, Moldovan Gelu

• Fundaţia pentru Tineret DEL

Căpitan Buzatu St., No.43, Târgu Jiu, 1400, Gorj
Tel: 053-223228
Contact: Nelu Paul

• Fundaţia Phoenix
Independenţei St., No.202, Room 28, 7000, Bucureşti
Tel: 01-3131981, 094-542282
Fax: 01-3131981
Contact: Ion Costin Ionel

• Fundaţia Roma Umanitate

21 Decembrie 1989 St., No. 108, Cluj Napoca, 3400, Cluj
Tel: 092-350155
Contact: Pascu Aurel

• Fundaţia Romani
Nicolae Iorga st., No.7, Ap.4, Iaşi, 6600, Iaşi
Tel: 032-232580
Contact: Sava Adolf

62
• Fundaţia Romilor pentru ajutorarea Copiilor, Tinerilor si Batrinilor (Roma
Foundation for helping children, youth and the aged)
Carpaţi St., No. 73, Caracal, 800, Olt,
Contact: Păun Marian

Fundaţia Rom-Rom
Dezroborii St., No.28, Caracal, 800, Olt
Contact: Vasile Ion

• Fundaţia Sindy Humanitas

Morii St., No. 1016, Gilău, 3447, Cluj
Tel: 094-801679
Contact: Roşianu Aurel

• Fundaţia Social Culturala a Romilor “Ion Cioaba”

Alba-Iulia St., No.46, Sibiu, 2400, Sibiu
Tel: 69-229331
Contact: Luminiţa Cioaba

Fundaţia Somrom – Findaţie de Întrajutorare

Mireşului St., No.136, Şomcuţa Mare, 4866, Maramureş
Tel: 062-480803
Contact: Boldijar Gherman, Lakatoş Tudor

• Fundaţia “Wassdas”
Rene Descartes St., No.6, Cluj-Napoca, 3400, Cluj
Tel: 064-194893, 094-267132
Fax: 064-194893
E-mail: asz@mail.soroscj.ro
Contact: Otvos Geza

“Rromani Criss” - Centrul Romilor Pentru Interventie Sociala si Studii

(Documents cases of human rights abuse and acts
in some instances, trains mediators)
Buzeşti St., No.19, Sector 1, 7000, Bucureşti
Tel/Fax: 01-6597813
Contact: Nicolae Gheorghe

• “Romani Baxt”
Naţională St., No.24, Podul Iloaiei, Iaşi, 6600, Iaşi
Contact: Rotaru Maria

• Societatea Tanara Generaţie a Romilor

Marius Emanuel Buteică St., No. 2, Sector 2, 7000, Bucureşti
Contact: Costel Vasile

• Societatea Tanara Generaţie a Romilor

Îngustă St., No.14, Glina, 7490, Ilfov

63
 Contact: Costel Vasile, Nora Costache

• Uniunea Romilor
Anton Pan St., No.24, Sector 3, 7000, Bucureşti
Tel: 01-3124766, 3239237
Contact: Răducanu Gheorghe

• Uniunea Romilor – Iaşi

14 Decembrie 1989, No.2 bis, Room 9, Iaşi, 6600, Iaşi
Tel: 062-113506
Contact: Andreescu Camelia

• Uniunea Apostolica a Romilor

Maraseşti St., No. 16, Ap. 35, Baia-Mare, 4800, Maramureş
Tel: 062-7778977
Contact: Boldor Daniel

• Uniunea Asociaţiilor Creştine Apostolice a Romilor din România

Bohloc St., No.48, Săcele, Braşov
Tel: 09-2356309
Contact: Ghica Vasile

• Uniunea Crestin Democrata a Romilor din Banat

Romolus St., No.11, Timişoara, 1900, Timiş
Contact: Mihai Nicolae

• Uniunea Crestina a Romilor din Romania

Oituz St., No. 54, Bl. 5, Ap. 64, Baia-Mare, 4800, Maramureş
Tel: 062-431970
Contact: Radulescu Ioan

Uniunea Culturală a Spoitorilor Independenţi

Muncii St., No.33, Buzău, 5100, Buzău
Contact: Gheorghe Sterian

• Uniunea Democrată Liberă a Romilor – Dolj

Fata Luncii st., No. 15, Craiova, 1100, Dolj
Contact: Vâlcu Vasile

• Uniunea Democratică a Romilor

No.357, Sadova, 1180, Dolj
Tel: 03 Primăria Sadova
Contact: Nicu Tănase

• Uniunea Democratică a Romilor – Saşa

Saşa St., No.14, Petroşani, 2675, Hunedoara
Tel: 054-546923
Fax: 054-546923

64
 E-mail: adrl@comtrust.ro

• Uniunea Democratica Culturala a Romilor - Valea Jiului

Griviţa Roşie St., No. 15, Ap.2, Petroşani, 2675 Hunedoara
Tel: 054-541279
Contact: Rad Marcel

• Uniunea Generală a Romilor,

Mihail Kogalniceanu St., No. 25, Târgu-Jiu, 1400, Gorj
Tel: 053-214840
Contact: Bobu Nicolae

• Uniunea Generală a Romilor – Hunedoara

(Also runs an educational programme)
P-ţa Unirii Nr. 2, Ap. 14, Deva, 2700, Hunedoara
Tel: 054-214197

• Uniunea Generală a Romilor, Organizaţia femeilor – Hunedoara

(Women’s organization)
P-ţa Unirii No. 2, Ap. 14, Deva, 2700, Hunedoara
Tel: 054-219451
Contact: Dîtvariu Simona

• Uniunea Romilor din Judeţul Constanţa

Buciumului St., No. 11, Constanţa, 8700, Constanţa
Contact: Petrache Ivanciu

• Uniunea Romilor din Judeţul Mureş

Vulturilor St., No. 30, Ap.13, Târgu-Mureş, 4300, Mureş
Tel: 065-133520
Contact: Csurkuly Sandor

Uniunea Romilor Turda

Republicii St., No.15, Turda, 3350, Cluj
Tel: 064-324169

2. Minority institutions and/or associations concerning education:

• “CERCUL ŞTIINTIFIC ROMANI” UBB Cluj-Napoca

(Roma Scientific Circle)
M. Kogălniceanu St., No. 1, Cluj-Napoca, 3400, Cluj
Tel: 064-139802, 177436

• Fundaţia “Academica Civică” Cluj-Napoca

Firiya No. 4, Bloc A3, Ap. 9, Cluj-Napoca, 3400, Cluj
Tel: 064-163426

3. Political parties and/or associations founded by the minority

65
• Alianţa pentru Unitatea Romilor
Silvestru St., No.27, Ap.1, 7000, Bucureşti
Tel: 01-2114235
Fax: 01-2103463
Contact: Tabă Marius

• Alianţa pentru Unitatea Romilor

Principală St., Iveni, Galaţi
Tel: 036-866566
Contact: Toader Săndel

• Alianţa pentru Unitatea Romilor

Simion Bărnuţiu St., No.43, Caransebeş, 1650, Caraş-Severin
Tel: 055-518124, 094-390727
Contact: Corneliu Stănculescu

• Alianţa pentru Unitatea Romilor

Buciumeni, 6320, Galaţi
Tel: 036-822703, 822721
Contact: Ioan Petrişor

• Alianţa pentru Unitatea Romilor

Aleea Nordului St., Bl.F8, Sc.B, Ap.34, Slobozia, 8400, Ialomiţa
Contact: Sandu Constantin

• Alianţa pentru Unitatea Romilor

Gheorghe Pătraşcu St., No.50, Bl.13A, Sc.1, Ap.2, Tecuci, 6300, Galaţi
Contact: Cârlan Viorel

• Alianţa pentru Unitatea Romilor – Bacău

Mioriţei St., No.10, Ap.1, Bacău, 5500, Bacău
Tel: 094-292135
Contact: Bălan Paustin, Bălan Diana

• Alianţa pentru Unitatea Romilor – filiala Arad

Sântana 2, Zefirului St., No.58, Arad, 2900, Arad
Contact: Dorot Dezideriu

• Alianţa pentru Unitatea Romilor

Găvane 2 St., Bl.D18, Ap.4, Piteşti, 300, Argeş
Tel: 048-624200
Contact: Dincă Vasile

• Federaţia Etnica a Romilor (Ethnic Federation of Roma)

Silvia St., No. 34. Sector 2, 7000, Bucureşti
Tel: 01-6882433
Contact: Pantalon Gheorghe

66
• Federaţia Etnica a Romilor din România
(Ethnic Federation of Romanian Roma)
B-dul 1 Decembrie 1918, No. 6, Mangalia, 8727, Constanţa
Tel: 041-759359, 092763220
Fax: 041-759359
Contact: Cobzaru Vasile

• Partida Romilor
Victor Eftimiu St., No.1-3, Sector 1, 7000, Bucureşti
Tel: 01-3158545
Fax: 01-3225199
Contact: Ivan Gheorghe

• Partida Romilor - Bistriţa

Loc. Vermes, No. 97, com. Lechinţa, Bistriţa-Năsăud
Tel: 063-250787
Contact: Racoti Stefan

• Partidul Alianţa Democratica a Romilor

(Democratic Alliance Party of Roma)
Cartier Goranu No. 889, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1000, Vâlcea
Contact: Stoica Octavian

• Partidul Democrat Crestin al Romilor - Cluj

(Christian Democrat Roma Party)
Morii St., No. 1047, com. Gilau, Cluj
Tel: 064-991222, 094-253437, 094-253222
Contact: Varga Rudolf

• Partidul Libertaţii si Unitatii Sociale

(Liberal and Social Unity Party)
Str. Luminei No. 2A, Sector 2, Bucharest
Contact: Madalin Voicu

• Partidul Romilor Nomazi şi Caldarari (represents two of the tribes)

Alba-Iulia St., No. 46, Sibiu, 2400, Sibiu
Tel: 069-229863
Fax: 069-228112
Contact: Florin Cioaba

• Partidul Romilor Nomazi si Caldarari - Gorj

Meteor St., No. 14, Târgu-Jiu, 1400, Gorj
Contact: Mihai Ilarie

• Partidul Unirea Romilor

Zorilor St., No. 1, Bl. 280, Ap. 57, Alba-Iulia, 2500, Alba
Tel: 058-813331, 094535851

67
 Contact: Bumbu Ioan Gruia

• Sindicatul Liber al Romilor

Cartierul Cornitoiu, Bl. H, Sc. 2, Ap. 20, Craiova, 1100, Dolj
Tel: 051-420043
Contact: Dan Fotescu

• Uniunea Democrata a Romilor

Sasa St., No. 14, Petroşani, 2675, Hunedoara
Tel: 054-546923
Fax: 054-546923
E-mail: adrl@comtrust.ro
Contact: Burtea Toader

• Uniunea Democrata a Romilor din Judeţul Galaţi

(Democratic Union of Roma from Galati county)
Furnaliştilor St., No.8, Galaţi, 6200, Galaţi
Tel: 036-441861, 426783
Contact: Goţu Viorica

• Uniunea Democrata Libera a Romilor - Dolj

(Liberal Democratic Union of Roma from Dolj)
Fata Luncii St., No. 15, Craiova, 1100, Dolj
Contact: Valcu Vasile

• Uniunea Democratica a Romilor şi Lautarilor Armeniş

(Democratic Union of Roma musicians from Armeniş)
No.8, 1662, Armeniş
Contact: Sandu Simion

• Uniunea Libera Democrata a Romilor din Judeţul Bihor

Mihai Antonescu St., No. 20, Ap.5, Oradea, 3700, Bihor
Tel: 059-134952
Contact: Baloy Gyongyi

4. Minority media

Radio Stations

Târgu Mureş

.1.1. Newspapers
None

Magazines

Asul de Trefla
Victor Eftimiu St., No. 1-3, Int. 5, Et. 5, Cam. 386,
Sector 1, 7000, Bucureşti

68
 Tel: 01-3158545
Fax: 01-3225199
Editor-in-chief: Gheorghe Ivan

• Aven Amenta
P.O. Box 22-175, 7010 Bucureşti
Tel: 01-2223310
Fax: 01-2228270

Than Rromano: studii despre Rromi

Mr. Vasile Ionescu, tel. 094-139824

Television Stations

• TVR (National station),

Calea Dorobanţilor 191, 7000, Bucureşti
Tel: 01-2307769
Broadcasts one program per week with no useful content and at an inopportune
time.

Internet Web Sites

• Resource Center for Roma Communites Cluj Napoca

Ţebei St., No. 21, Cluj Napoca, 3400, Cluj
Website: www.romacenter.ro

• RonConn Fundation owend by Liviu Gabriel Ratiu

Website: http://www.romconn.org/roma/

Publishing Houses

Editura Alternativa, Bucureşti

Tel: 01-2234966

• Editura Didactica si Pedagogica, Bucureşti

Tel: 01-6139289
Fax: 01-3122885

• Editura Kriterion
P-ta Presei Libere No. 1, 71341 Bucureşti
Tel/Fax: 01-2243628

69
 REFERENCES

Abraham, Dorel, Bădescu, Ilie and Chelcea, Septimiu (1995). Interethnic Relations
in Romania: Sociological Diagnosis and Evaluation of Tendencies. (Cluj-Napoca:
Editura Carpatica).

Adamson, Kevin (1995). “The Political Function of Ethnic Conflict: Transylvania in

Romanian Politics” in Crăciun, Maria and Ghitta, Ovidiu Ethnicity and Religion in
Central and Eastern Europe, (Cluj-Napoca: Cluj University Press).

Allcock, John B., Arnold, Guy, Day, Alan J., Lewis, D.S., Poultney, Lorimer, Rance,
Roland, and Sagar, D.J. (3rd ed., 1992). Border and Territorial Disputes. (Essex:
Longman Group UK Ltd.).

Amnesty International (1995). Romania: broken commitments to human rights -

The Roma: a catalogue of injustice. (London: Amnesty International).

Andreescu, Gabriel (2000). Romania. Shadow Report: January 2000

www.greekhelsinki.gr/pdf/fcnm-reports-romania-ngo.PDF.

Annual Report 1999 – Open Society fundation (1999). Fundaţia pentru o Societate
Deschisă.

APADOR-CH (1997). White Book. (Bucureşti: APADOR-CH).

Bălăşescu, Alexandru (1997). “Romii - Construcţie identitară. Cazul Cristian, Judeţul

Sibiu.” in Revista de Cercetări Sociale No. 3/1997 (Bucureşti: IMAS-SA).

Bocu, Liliana Maria, Civic Alliance, Cluj-Napoca. Interview with the author.
December 20, 1998.

Braham, Mark (1992). The Untouchables: a survey of the Roma people from
Central and Eastern Europe. (Geneva: UNHCR).

Bugajski, Janusz (1995). Ethnic Politics in Eastern Europe: a guide to nationality

policies, organizations and parties (2nd ed.). (London: M.E. Sharpe).

Burtea, Vasile (1996). “Marginalizare istorică şi cooperare socială în cazul populaţiei

de rromi” in Revista de Cercetări Sociale No. 3/1996 (Bucureşti: IMAS-SA).

Cashmore, E. Ellis (1988). Dictionary of Race and Ethnic Relations (2nd ed.).
(London: Routledge).

Chiriac, Marian (October 2001). “Romania: Gypsy Ghetto Controversy” Institute for
War and Peace Reporting, Balkan Crisis Report, no. 293, see also at:
http://www.iwpr.net

Clebert, Jean-Paul (1963). The Gypsies. (Paris: Penguin).

70
Colin, Clark (1998). Counting Backwards: the Roma ‘numbers game’ in Central
and Eastern Europe, www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/countingback.htm

Council for National Minorities (Government of Romania) (1994). The Legislative

and Institutional Framework for the National Minorities of Romania. (Bucharest:
Romanian Institute for Human Rights).

Council for National Minorities (Government of Romanian) (1997). The Education

system in Romania: tuition in the languages of national minorities. (Bucureşti).

Crowe, D. A. (1991). “The Gypsy Historical Experience in Romania” in Crowe, D.A.

and Kolsti, John, The Gypsies of Eastern Europe. (London: M.E.: Sharpe).

Crowe, D. A. (1995). A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia.

(London: I.B. Tauris and Co.).

Deletant, Dennis (1998). Romania under Communist Rule. (Bucureşti: Civic

Academy Foundation).

Ethnobarometer 2000 May-June. Realized by The Research Center of Interethnic

Relationship under the United States Agency for International Development’
patronage.

European Roma Rights Center (ERRC) (1998). Roma Rights: Summer 1998.
(Budapest: ERRC).

Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995,

Strasbourg), www.coe.fr/eng/legaltext/157e.html

Fox, Jonathan (1995). Roma (Gypsies) in Romania,

www.bsos.umd.edu/cidcm/mar/rumroma.htm

Fonseca, Isabel (1995). Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies and their Journey. (New
York: Alfred A. Knopf).

Fraser, Angus (1992). The Gypsies. (Oxford: Blackwell).

Gheorghe, Nicolae & Acton, Thomas (1999). Dealing with Multiculturality:

Minority, National and Human Rights,
www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/multiculturality.htm

Gheţău, Vasile (1996). “O proiectare condiţională a populaţiei României pe

principalele naţionalităţi (1992 – 2025)” in Revista de Cercetări Sociale No. 1/1996
(Bucureşti: IMAS-SA).

Gilberg, Trond (1980). “Influence of State Policy on Ethnic Persistence and

Nationality Formation: The Case of Eastern Europe” in Sugar, Peter (ed.), Ethnic
Diversity and Conflict in Eastern Europe. (Oxford: ABC-Clio).

71
Government of Romania (1991). Romanian Constitution. Adopted November 21,
1991, (Bucharest), http://www.domino.kappa.ro/guvern/constitutia-e.html

Hancock, Ian (1997). “The Struggle for the Control of Identity” in The Patrin Web
Journal, www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/identity.htm

Hancock, Ian (1999). “The Pariah Syndrome” in The Patrin Web Journal,
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/pariah-contents.htm

Hancock, Ian (2000). “Roma Slavery” in The Patrin Web Journal,

http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/slavery.htm

Helsinki Watch (1990). News from Romania: ethnic conflict in Târgu-Mureş.

(New York: Helsinki Watch).

Helsinki Watch (1991). Destroying Ethnic Identity: The Persecution of Gypsies in

Romania. (New York: Human Rights Watch).

Helsinki Watch (1994). Vol.6, No.17. Lynch Law: violence against Roma in
Romania. (New York: Human Rights Watch/ Helsinki).

Human Rights Watch, www.hrw.org/hrw/worldreport99/europe/romania.html

Images and Issues: Coverage of the Roma in the Mass Media in Romania, Sinaia,
Romania, June 27-28, 1997, www.websp.com/~ethnic/new/imgs_iss.htm

INFORROM, October-November 2001, Aven Amentza Press Monitoring and

Information Bulletin, website: www.romanothan.ro

International Helsinki Federation (IHF) (1989). Romania: enemy of its own people.
(Vienna, International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights).

International Helsinki Federation (IHF) (1993). Europe’s Gypsies: a vulnerable

minority. (Vienna: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights).

Ionescu, Vasile (2000). Annotations to the Ministry of Foreign Affaires -2000

Report “Information about legislative and other measures considered in order to have
an effect on the principles enunciated by the frame/fundamental convention for
protecting national minorities in Romania.”

Kenrick, Donald and Puxon, Graham (1995). Gypsies under the Swastika.
(Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press).

Kenrick, Donald (1998), ‘How Many Roads?’ in Index on Censorship - Gypsies:

Life on the Edge. (Index on Censorship, 4/1998).

72
Kenrick, Donald (1998). Historical Dictionary of the Gypsies (Romanies).
(London: Scarecrow Press Ltd.).

Liegois, Jean-Pierre (1986). Gypsies: an illustrated history. (London: Al Saqi).

Liegeois, Jean-Pierre and Gheorghe, Nicolae (update 1995). Roma/Gypsies: A

European Minority. (London: MRG International).

Max van der Stoel, OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (2000). A
Study on Roma and Sinti, The Hague, March 10, 2000.

Minority Rights Group (ed.) (1997). World Directory of Minorities. (London: MRG
International).

Moisa, Florin (2000). Experience, Accomplisments and Perspectives on Roma

Programs - Cluj Napoca International Seminar on Roma Issues in January 2000.

Moisa, Florin, (2000). An interview with CEDIME-SE researcher about the report on
the Roma in Romania, in Cluj-Napoca, 07.04.2000.

Naylor, Sally and Wild-Smith, Karen (1997). Broadening Horizons: Education and
Travelling Children. (Chelmsford: Essex County Council).

Pons, Emmanuelle (1999). Ţiganii din România – o minoritate în tranziţie.

(Bucureşti: Compania).

Populaţie. Structură Demografică (1994) – Census from 1992. Comisia Naţională

de Statistică (Bucureşti, Editura Comisiei Naţionale de Statistică)

Remmel, Franz (1993). Die Roma Rumaniens: volk ohne hinterland. (Vienna:
Picus).

Romanian Human Rights Institute (1993). Rights of the Persons belonging to the
National Minorities. (Bucureşti: Regia Autonomă “Monitorul Oficial”).

Romanian Ministry of Education (1998). Ordinul Ministerului Educatiei Nationale

No. 4150/13.07.1998. (Bucharest: Buletinul Informativ No. 19).

Romanian Ministry of Education website: www.edu.ro

Roma projects in Romania, 1999-2000, case studies and database of organizations

and projects, published by the Ethnocultural Diversity Resource Centre, Cluj,
available on request both in Romanian and English at info@edrc.osf.ro. The content
of the volume can also be read on the web site www.rroma.ro.

Rostaş, Iulius (1998). Social Problems of the Roma in Romania. (Bucharest:

National Office for Roma).

73
Rostaş, Iuliu, 2000. An interview with CEDIME-SE researcher about the report on the
Roma in Romania, in Bucureşti, 07.03.2000.

Save the Children Romania (1998). Rroma Children in Romania: Research

Report. (Bucharest: Save the Children).

Schöpflin, George (1990). Romania’s Ethnic Hungarians. (London: MRG

International).

Stewart, Michael (1997). “The Puzzle of Roma persistence: group identity without a
nation” in Acton, Thomas and Mundy, Gary, Romani Culture and Gypsy identity.
(Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press).

Superlex (legislative database) http://domino2.kappa.ro/mj/superlex.nsf

Szente, Veronika L. (1996). Sudden Rage at Dawn: Violence against Roma in

Romania. (Budapest: European Roma Rights Center).

Timeline of the Romani History (2000). The Patrin Web Journal in The Patrin Web
Journal, www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/slavery.htm

The Research Institute for Quality of Life. Research made in 1998 – Centrul de
Resurse pentru Acţiune Socială. (The data and the articles used are from the draft
report. The final report will be available only in November).

Weber, Renate (1998). “The Protection of National Minorities in Romania: a matter of

political will and wisdom” in Law and Practice of Central European Countries in
the field of National Minorities protection. (Warsaw: Center for International
Relations).

Zamfir, Elena and Zamfir, Katalin (coordinators) (1993). The Roma Population:
Socio-economic situation and coordinates of a support program. (Bucureşti:
Universitatea Bucureşti).

MAIN LITERARY WORKS OF DIFFERENT PERIODS

Although Roma writers of note are beginning to appear in the region, Roma in
Romania have not yet produced such an individual. Centuries of discrimination have
forced many Romanian Roma to deny their ethnicity and as a consequence their
language. Problems of illiteracy have also affected the development of a literary
tradition. Where Romani is spoken, an oral tradition is used to pass stories and history
from generation to generation.

AUDIO-VISUAL MATERIALS

Schwartz, Andrei, 1996. Auf der Kippe/Wasteland. Award winning film about the
Roma community of Pata-Răt outside Cluj. (Wüste filmproduktion).

74
GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THE MINORITY

Bíró, Sándor (1992). The Nationalities Problem in Transylvania, 1867-1940. (New

York: Columbia University Press).

Blaga, Ion (1972). Romania’s Population: A Demographic, Economic and Socio-

Political Essay. (Bucureşti: Meridane Publishing House).

Câmpeanu, Vera (1997). The Image of the National Minorities in Romania’s Press,
Balkan Neighbours Newsletter, No. 5, 1997.

Castellan, Georges (1989). A History of the Romanians. (Boulder: Columbia

University Press).

Deletant, Andrea (1985). Romania. (Oxford: Clio Press).

Fisher-Galaţi, Stephen (1985). National Minorities in Romania, 1919–1980.

Horak, Stephen M. (ed.) Eastern European National Minorities, 1919–1980: A

Handbook, (Littleton, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited).

Georgescu, Vlad (1991). The Romanians: A History. (London: I.B. Tauris).

Gheorghe, Iancu (1995). The Ruling Council: the integration of Transylvania into
Romania, 1918-1920. (Cluj-Napoca: Romanian Cultural Foundation).

Gheorghe, Nicolae (1983). Origin of Roma’s Slavery in the Rumanian

Principalities. Roma, Vol. 7, 1983.

Gilberg, Trond (1974). Ethnic Minorities in Romanian under Socialism. East

European Quarterly, No. 7, January 1974.

Giurescu, Constantin C. (1969). Transylvania in the History of Romania: an

historical outline. (London: Garnstone Press).

Giurescu, Constantin C. and Matei, Horiac (1974). Chronological History of

Romania 2nd ed. (Bucureşti: Editure Enciclopedia Româna).

Giurescu, Dinu C. (1981). An Illustrated History of the Romanian People.

(Bucureşti: Editura Sport-Turism).

Hitchins, Keith (1996). The Romanians, 1774-1866. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Horváth, István (1999). Minorităţile din România. Aspecte politice. (Cluj, Editura
LIMES).

Human Rights Watch (1991). Since the Revolution: Human Rights in Romania.
(New York: Human Rights Watch).

75
Institut de Studii Sociale, Sondaje, Marketing şi Comunicare (November 1998).
Barometrul de Opinie Publică, Româna. (Soros Open Network, Romania).

Illyes, Elemer (1982). National Minorities in Romania: Change in Transylvania.

(Boulder, CO: East European Monographs).

Kenrick, Donald and Puxon, Grattan (1972). The Destiny of Europe’s Gypsies.
(Sussex: Sussex University Press).

Köpeczi, Béla (ed.) (1994, translation). History of Transylvania. (Budapest:

Akadémiai Kiadó).

Lehrer, Milton G. (1986). Transylvania: History and Reality. (Maryland: Bartleby

Press).

MacKenzie, Andrew (1990). A Journey into the past of Transylvania. (London:

Robert Hale).

Mehedinţi, Prof. S. (1986). What is Transylvania? (Miami Beach, Florida:

Romanian Historical Studies).

Moss, Joyce and Wilson, George (1993). Peoples of the World: Eastern Europe
and the Post-Soviet Republics. (Washington D.C.: Gale Research Inc.).

Nelson, Daniel N. (1981). Romania in the 1980s. (Boulder, Co.: Westview Press).

Oţetea, Andrei and MacKenzie, Andrew (1985). A Concise History of Romania.

(London: Robert Hale).

Pascu, Ştefan (1972). A History of Transylvania (translation). (New York: Dorset

Press).

Pippidi, Andrei (1998). Culture and the Politics of Identity in modern Romania.
(Bucureşti: Fundaţia Cultura Europeană).

Podea, Titus (1936). Transylvania. (Bucureşti: Editura Fundaţiei Culturale Române).

Project on Ethnic Relations (1991). Romanian-American Symposium on

Interethnic Relations. (Princeton, N. J.: Project on Ethnic Relations).

Roucek, Joseph S. (1932). Contemporary Roumania and her Problems. (Stanford:

Stanford University Press).

Roth, Harold (1995). Minderheit und Nationalstaat: Siebenbürgen seit dem

Ersten Weltkrieg. (Köln: Böhlau).

76
Rady, Martyn C. (1992). Romania in Turmoil: A Contemporary History. (London:
I.B.Tauris).

77