Chapter 62 4. "Reexamination Conclusion on Comrade Ding Ling's Rightist Problem"

In late February, Ding Ling was admitted to the high-ranking ward of Friendship Hospital for a comprehensive physical examination.The acquaintances hospitalized there included Xiao San, Chen Yi, Zhang Panshi, etc. They had plenty of time to talk, reminisce about the past, and ask about their health, but they were more concerned about rehabilitating politically wronged cases and solving the problems of a small number of people. Yes, most are still in progress. On March 15, the third issue of Shanxi's literary journal "Fenshui" published Ding Ling's "Letter to a Young Amateur Writer". .That was an ordinary private letter, not for publication, and the significance lies not in the work itself, but in its author.Later Ding Ling said: "When they published this text message, they had to say that they took a small risk and rushed into the restricted area. I am very grateful to them."

Ding Ling was discharged from the hospital on April 6. According to the arrangement of Feng Wenbin, the person in charge of the General Office of the Central Committee, she temporarily lived in Suite 7217, Unit 2, Northeast District, Friendship Hotel. The conditions there were much better than those in the Ministry of Culture Guest House. On May 3, the Review Office of the Chinese Writers Association made the "Review Conclusion on Comrade Ding Ling's Rightist Problem". The first draft of this conclusion was written on February 3, and the fourth draft (draft for review) was rewritten on April 4. On April 27, Zhang Xi and Li Ji studied the manuscript at Liu Baiyu's office, revised it according to Liu Baiyu's opinion, and then sent it to Zhou Yang and Lin Mohan for review and finalization.

"Conclusions on the Review of Comrade Ding Ling's Rightist Problem" stated: "1. About a period of history in Nanjing after being arrested by the Kuomintang in 1933. After review, the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee made a statement on October 24, 1956 about Comrade Ding Ling's arrest in 1933. The conclusion of the review was made, which is a political mistake made in front of the enemy. On May 19, 1975, the Office of the Central Special Review Team made a new conclusion and determined that he was a traitor. However, the facts based on this conclusion did not exceed The basis for the conclusion in 1956. Therefore, we believe that the Central Propaganda Department's "Conclusion on the Examination of Comrade Ding Ling's Historical Issues" issued on October 24, 1956 should be maintained, and the May 1975 issue should be revoked. On September 19, the Office of the Central Special Investigation Team published the "Conclusion of the Review of the Traitor Ding Ling".

"Second, on the issue of anti-Party cliques. In December 1955, the central government wholesaled the "Report on Ding Ling and Chen Qixia's Small Anti-Party Clique Activities and Their Opinions on Handling" by the Party Group of the Writers Association. In late 1956 Half a year later, Ding Ling lodged a complaint. The office meeting of ministers of the Central Propaganda Department decided to review Ding Ling’s issue. At the beginning of June 1957, the leading comrades of the Central Propaganda Department and the leading party members of the Writers’ Association announced at the enlarged meeting of the Writers’ Association’s party group that ‘Ding and Chen opposed the party. The "group" cannot be established, and Ding and Chen will be removed from the title of "anti-party group".

"Three, on the issue of the rightists. Regarding the secret collusion between Ding Ling and the Jiangfeng anti-Party clique and the rightists of Wen Wei Po in the spring of 1957, after review, Ding Ling had no contact with Jiang Feng ('Jiangfeng Anti-Party Clique' is A wrong case was re-examined and corrected by the Ministry of Culture). As for the reporter from Wen Wei Po who interviewed Ding Ling and asked her to talk about the Ding and Chen issues, she was rejected by Ding Ling at that time. Therefore, this issue should be denied. Regarding the June 1957 Writers Association Party Group Meeting During the enlarged meeting aimed at solving the Ding-Chen problem and strengthening the unity within the party, Ding Ling once said to individual comrades: "If the problem is not resolved this time, I will withdraw from the Writers Association." The work was a conspiracy to openly split the literary and artistic circles. When Ding Ling was in Yan'an in 1942 when she was editor-in-chief of the literary edition of the "Liberation Daily", she published Wang Shiwei's anti-Party articles, and she herself wrote other erroneous articles. Comrade Ding Ling has already written about this many times. Check. To sum up, Comrade Ding Ling's words and deeds are not anti-Party and anti-socialist in nature. Designating her as a rightist is a misclassification and should be corrected.

"1. Revocation of the "political conclusions about the rightist Ding Ling" of the leading group of the Chinese Writers Association's Rectification Movement on May 27, 1958; "2. Revoke the 1958 General Branch of the Chinese Writers Association of the Communist Party of China's "Resolution on Expulsion of Rightist Ding Ling from the Party" and restore Comrade Ding Ling's party membership; "3. Restore Comrade Ding Ling's original salary level (administrative level seven), and suggest proper work arrangements; "Fourth, the materials related to this issue in the files of Comrade Ding Ling's relatives and children should be destroyed."

On June 5, Zhang Xi brought the review conclusion to Ding Ling. In this conclusion, the historical issue maintains the review conclusion of the Central Propaganda Department in October 1956, that is, "it belongs to making a political mistake in front of the enemy", and writing the statement "is actually a traitorous act"; in 1955' The issue of "anti-party bloc" had already been taken off its hat in 1957; there was only one issue of the right wing left, which "belongs to a misclassification and should be corrected". Obviously this conclusion is unfair.Needless to say about historical issues, the issue of "anti-party groups" was said to be in June 1957 when the "leading comrades of the Party group of the Central Propaganda Department and the Writers Association" took off their hats. However, these "leading comrades" arrived at the enlarged party group meeting in July Didn't they just retort, saying that Ding and Chen wanted to overturn the case, and based on this, they were labeled as rightists.

Ding Ling is naturally dissatisfied with this conclusion. She only focuses her main opinion on "historical issues". No matter what you say about "anti-Party groups", don't you always admit that you have made a mistake! On June 8, Ding Ling wrote her opinion: "(1) I agree with this conclusion except for the first historical part. I hope to add the words 'recovering his political reputation' after 'restore Comrade Ding Ling's party membership'. (2) Regarding the first historical I cannot agree with the part that says 'The Central Propaganda Department's "Conclusion on the Review of Comrade Ding Ling's History Issues" dated October 24, 1956 should be maintained. Because: (1) For this conclusion in 1956, due to the situation at the time, I was in this Signed the conclusion, but at the same time stated, "My account quoted in the conclusion is not accurate enough to match the facts", and made three fundamental reservations. In the summer of 1957, the fourth party group meeting of the Writers Association At the meeting, Comrade Shao Quanlin, chairman of the meeting and Secretary of the Party Committee of the Writers Association, announced in public that it was well known that this conclusion was not accepted by the Organization Department of the Central Committee and was returned. That is to say, this conclusion was not finally established. (2) In Yan'an in 1940, Comrade Chen Yun of the Organization Department of the Central Committee presided over it personally. Comrade Ren Bishi personally reviewed this period of my history and made a written conclusion. He believed that there was no problem. The conclusion was approved by Chairman Mao. The facts I supplemented at the Party School in 1943 did not overturn my previous explanation. The fact that it has not changed the nature of the matter; there is no basis, and there is no reason to deny or modify the correct conclusion of the Central Organization Department in 1940 with this supplementary explanation. (3) Therefore, now I once again request the organization to rely on historical facts, Considering the complaint I submitted in the historical materials of the Organization Department of the Central Committee in November 1978 and the request made in the letter I submitted to Comrade Song Renqiong recently (June this year), I made a clear and realistic decision: (1) revoke the May 19, 1975 The Office of the Central Special Review Team's "Conclusion of the Review of the Traitor Ding Ling"; (2) Confirmed that the "Conclusion of the Review of Comrade Ding Ling's Historical Issues" issued by the Central Propaganda Department on October 24, 1956 cannot be established; (3) Confirmed that the Central Organization Department in 1940 The conclusion is correct and should be maintained."

On March 23 and 25, when she was still in the Friendship Hospital, two old comrades brought her the same news: Hu Yaobang said that Ding Ling's historical conclusion should stick to the conclusion of the Central Organization Department in 1940. In May, Ding Ling approached Liao Jingdan, Deputy Minister of the Central Propaganda Department. Liao Jingdan said: The historical conclusion does not need to be redone at all, it was in 1940, because the Central Organization Department did not ask questions, and the Central Propaganda Department’s conclusion in 1956 was not batch.He also said that it has been decided that historical issues will be handled by the Organization Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, so Ding Ling can rest assured. In June, Ding Ling wrote another letter to Song Renqiong, head of the Organization Department of the Central Committee, requesting that the 1940 conclusions of the Organization Department be maintained.At the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee of the Party in December 1978, Hu Yaobang was appointed as the head of the Central Propaganda Department, and Song Renqiong was appointed as the head of the Central Organization.

However, the Review Office of the Chinese Writers Association still insisted on its own opinion, and soon issued the "Review Report on Comrade Ding Ling's Arrest in 1933".The conclusion is: "After reexamination, we believe that the Central Propaganda Department's "Review Conclusion on Comrade Ding Ling's Historical Issues" on October 24, 1956 is realistic, and the Central Propaganda Department's "On Comrade Ding Ling's Historical Issues" on October 24, 1956 should be maintained. Conclusions of the review".The report was signed on June 9, the day after Ding Ling made her comments, and the response was extremely quick.

Since then, the differences between Ding Ling and the Review Office of the Chinese Writers Association have focused on historical conclusions—whether the conclusions of the Organization Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in 1940 or the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in 1956 should prevail. The conclusion of the Chinese Writers Association is the opinion of some leaders of the Chinese Writers Association and the literary and art circles: "doubts" can be eliminated, and "stains" cannot be erased.The power of life and death is in the hands of these people, and Ding Ling is still in a weak position.