First statute of the IMRO

**The first statute of the IMRO** — the first normative act of the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization. According to available historical sources, it was adopted after the January meeting, but before March 1894.

## Creation

Due to the lack of original protocol documentation, it is not known with certainty when the first statute was adopted. Nor is it known for sure how it was named. There are certain contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the founders of the Organization themselves, which refer to the dating of the constitution, its statute, as well as the membership in the Organization itself.

Hristo Tatarčev points out that the statute was adopted at one of the following sessions, and from the letters of Dame Gruev to Nikola Dejkov dated March 9 and March 31, 1894, we learn that the statute was already in force in March 1894. Thus, in Gruev's letter to Nikola Dejkov dated March 9, 1894, he clearly states that in the interior:

> secret circles of local people are formed... they submit to a certain organization and are in mutual relations... instructions are respected only after they become a decision of the Central Committee
>
> Dame Gruev

Also problematic is the question of whether the draft statute, which was to be prepared by Petar Pop Arsov, was fully accepted or underwent changes. D. Gruev points out that they grouped together and created the rulebook-statute. The first statute of the MRO was drawn up on the basis of the statute of the Bulgarian Central Revolutionary Committee which was published by Zaharij Stojanov.

There is a common myth that the first statute is called "*Statute of Bulgaro-Macedonian-Adr-Revolutionary-committees*", but Hristo Tatarčev points out that the Bulgarian prefix was deliberately omitted from the name of the organization and its committee, but on the other hand, he says, "Bulgarians" could be members of the organization (more precisely, Macedonian Exarchists, who were called "Bulgarians" according to the church affiliation to Bulgar-millet, i.e. the Bulgarian Exarchate) because the founders came from the Bulgarian environment. However, he also points out that:

> they were not guided by any other tendency, except by the idea of the freedom and well-being of the entire Macedonian people
>
> Hristo Tatarčev

This testimony is the reason for the different views among historians. On the one hand, Bulgarian historiography denies the very Macedonian national individuality and the Macedonian revolutionary work is given a Bulgarian character.

Macedonian historians believe that with the possibility of Bulgarians being members of the organization, it was actually about Macedonian exarchists (Macedonian Christians who were under the spiritual jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Exarchate) and that the whole of the founders was first to act in the exarchate environment and then to go their own way.

An additional difficulty is the inclusion of Adrianople in the MRO constitution. Namely, Tatarchev clearly states that Adrianople was not included in the organization's program, but that it was later included because the position of the population in Adrianople was in the same position as that of the Macedonian people. It is most likely that with the inclusion of Adrianople in the Statute, the founders wanted to find a new ally in the fight against the common enemy.

## Controversy of BMARC

1. ↑ *Ванчо Ѓорѓиев, Смрт или Слобода... 135*
2. ↑ АМ. ф. 1953, Даме Груев, оп.1, а.е.5, л.158-159
3. ↑ *Memoirs of Dame Gruev.*...*11.*

4. ↑ *Once the autonomous principle was accepted, it required us to be consistent in further decisions and to avoid everything that would arouse suspicion of narrow-minded nationalism in the foreign population. For that reason, we abandoned the word Bulgarian from the revolutionary organization; so did she from the central committee. Odrinsko was not included in our program from the beginning. All our attention was then focused around Macedonia; but later the idea began to solidify in us, so that our organization would also include Odrinsko, where the fate of the Christian population, especially of the Buganese, did not differ in any way from that of the Macedonian people and where the political, social and economic conditions were almost identical to those in Macedonia. At the same time, Art. 23 of the Berlin Congress encouraged us quite a bit in that respect and we started to consider that question more extensively - whether it would be useful if Odrinsko was included in our program. Finally, we came to the conclusion that that area should also form a part of our revolutionary activity, so, in that way, we thought that a satisfactory solution to the Balkan question was being given.* Д-р, Христо Татарчев, Вътрешна македоно-одринска революционна организация като мит или реалност, Цочо Биљарски и Валентин Китанов, София, 1995
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Пандевски, Манол (1974). *Националното прашање во македонското ослободително движење: 1893-1903*. Култура. стр. 57.
6. ↑ Катарџиев, Иван (1968). *Серскиот округ од Кресненското востание до Младотурската револуција: национално-политички борби*. Култура. стр. 351.
7. ↑ Влахов, Димитар (1970). *Мемоари*. Заедница на издадени дејност при НИП "Нова Македонија". стр. 22.
8. ↑ Биролски, Крсте (1983). *Diplomatski odglasi za ilindenskoto vostanie*. Arhiv na Makedonija. стр. 122.
9. ↑ **Д-р, Христо Татарчев, Вътрешна македоно-одринска революционна организация като мит или реалност, Цочо Биљарски и Валентин Китанов, София, 1995**
10. ↑ *К. Пандев, националноослободителното движење во Македонија и Тракија 1878-1903, Софија, 1979.*
11. ↑ *Ванчо Ѓорѓиев, „Смрт или Слобода...“, 136.*
12. ↑ *Д-р Христо Татарчев, Вътрешна македоно-одринска революционна организация като мит или реалност, Цочо Биљарски и Валентин Китанов, София, 1995*