내몽골 문화대혁명과 ‘呼三司’

Abstract

‘Husansi(呼三司)’, a representative united organization of the Red guards in early Inner Mongolia, developed the Cultural Revolution forming the close relationship with the Revolution Committee(革命委員會) in which Tenghaiqing(滕海淸) had taken the lead just after ‘8 Red Decisions( 紅8條)’. The advent and development of the comprehensive organ newspaper, Husansi(『呼三司』), reflects such situation. However, as ‘Husansi’ went through the process of criticism struggle over the Conservatives(保守派) the Ultra left(極左派) the Peripatetic(逍遙派), it underwent gradual conservatism, which prevented it from fully revealing the previous aspect as a ‘Revolutionary Rebels(革命造反派)’. The geopolitical position of the Inner Mongolia, adjacent to the Soviet Union and the Outer Mongolia, provided a backdrop for the precipitation of conservatism. Therefore, the Cultural Revolution in Inner Mongolia showed an aspect distinguished from the nationwide trend which presented a shift from confrontations between the Conservatives/the Rebels to confrontations between radicalism and moderation within Rebels. As a consequence, taken as a whole, the Cultural Revolution was reduced to a top-down mobilization movement with the activity of radical Rebels remained inconspicuous, which opposed the handling of the Cultural Revolution by military-centered the Revolution Committee. It is plausible that the Genocide of Mongols following ‘the Expulsion Movement(‘挖肅運動’)’ and the ‘Neirendang(內人黨)’ detection struggle which was aggressively fueled by Tenghaiqing can be attributed to the ‘deviation’ of the Cultural Revolution caused by conservatism of Rebels, than to the radicalization of the Cultural Revolution. Taken as a whole, Husansi cooperated with ‘the Expulsion Movement.’ However, as it extended to ‘Neirendang’ detection struggle, the objecting atmosphere in Inner Mongolia began to be reinforced. A part of ‘Husansi’ was passive to ‘the Expulsion Movement’ and took exceptional passive attitude to the ‘Neirendang’ detection struggle, and Mongol-centered ‘Liansi(聯社)’ strongly opposed to them. The fact that Hongweibing(『紅衛兵』) substituted Husnansi(『呼三司』), and propagated the ‘Neirendang’ detection struggle actively, reflected the discontent of Tenghaiqing on ‘Huansi’. If then, isn’t it possible to say that the passive resist of ‘Husansi’ was the manifestation of class line to check the ‘deviation’ of the Revolution Committee which wanted to confine the Cultural Revolution in the category of the ethnic issues? Also, during the process in which Tenghaiqing was criticized by ‘Husansi’, and Husansi substituted Hongweibing again, the previous victims were reinstated, and this is a symbolic event showing complicated interrelation between the ethnic contradiction and the class contradiction in the Cultural Revolution in Inner Mongolia. It deserved to be evaluated as one of the ‘self-purification’ endeavors against the Cultural Revolution ‘deviation’. Eventually, it cannot be said that the Cultural Revolution in Inner Mongolia which was seen by mainly paying attention to ‘Husansi’, only developed in the framework of the ethnic issues. The proper class issue of Cultural Revolution was a prominent power of the movement as well. Though it was incapable of inhibiting the genocide due to the conservatism of ‘Husansi’ which was fulfilled in the limitation of geopolitics, the limited autonomy of “Husansi” was represented as the passive resist against the ‘Neirendang’ detection struggle, and as criticism movement over Tenghaiqing.