[RESUMO] Unknown document to which Folha had access to the collection of Rubem Fonseca indicates that the writer resigned from his post at Ipês, a business organization that supported the 1964 coup on April 9 of that year, a few days after the military seizures. At that date, the institutional act number 1 was instituted, which allowed the revocation of opposition mandates. Two decades later, Rubem Fonseca said he had integrated a democratic wing of the organization and that he walked away after the coup, which is contested by historians. The writer, one of the largest in Brazil, would complete a hundred years this Sunday (11/5).
April 9, 1964 was a tumultuous day to say the least. The military had just taken power and, on that date, with the suspended numerous democratic guarantees. In the list of revoked then, names were such as, and. It was the beginning of one.
On the same day, writer Rubem Fonseca – Light’s executive, but in the first steps of his literary career – wrote a letter to the president of Ipês (Institute of Research and Social Studies), a business organization that had participated in.
“My dear [Haroldo] Poland, “the author beat the machine,” I come from the present request of my resignation from the Executive Committee of the Institute for Research and Social Studies. They lead me to this particular reasons I can’t help but meet. “
In the document, the author also argues that Ipês continues to be dedicated to a “base reforms” agenda.
The mass is among the hundreds of papers in. The material, today in about 60 boxes, was found by the daughter of Rubem Fonseca, Bia Corrêa do Lago, in her father’s apartment.
Apparently, the document is only preserved there. The report searched the Ipês archives, in the National Archives, but did not find a copy of the correspondence.
The letter adds a new element to a controversy that marked the biography of, one of the most notorious victims of censorship in the military regime. In the 1980s, research revealed that he had integrated the Ipês summit-which, as a result, could make it complicit in the 1964 coup.
Participation in Ipês, by the way, was one of the few subjects about which Rubem Fonseca spoke in the press. in Sheetfor example, he said that there were two groups within the institute: a scammer and another reformist and democratic to which he belonged. He also said he had moved away from the organization after the coup.
The dismissal letter seems to give ballast to the writer’s version of his departure. “The letter did not surprise me, but I was happy to have found it,” says Bia Corrêa do Lago, adding that the document reinforces what she heard in private conversations with her father.
It was in 1981 that the participation of Rubem Fonseca at Ipês, then as director of Light, the energy distribution company that funded the institute, came to light for the first time. That year came the book “1964 – The Conquest of the State”, by the Uruguayan political scientist, a pioneer by revealing the businessmen’s performance to overthrow the João Goulart government – sustaining that Ipes played a crucial role in this process.
By Dreifuss’s analysis, the institute performed in public as harmless, only a Think Tank willing to assist the country in renovations. However, he was involved in secret actions and produced advertising pieces to influence public opinion.
Ipês even had the participation of the military. General Golbery do Couto e Silva, one of the dictatorship’s most influential military, was one of the entity’s leaders. Golbery not only helped to trace the organization’s strategy, but also coordinated the survey of data on Brazilians considered subversive.
When Dreifuss’s book came out, Zé Rubem, as friends called him, was already a famous writer. No wonder, of so many names cited in the work, yours has attracted attention.
Dreifuss discovered that he had coordinated the editorial core of Ipês, but, as the research is not specifically about the writer, he does not extend in detail of his trajectory – to mention an eventual removal of the entity.
Shortly after the book’s publication, Rubem Fonseca published an article in Jornal do Brasil (a copy of the text is preserved in his collection). In it, it develops for the first time the argument of the reformist and conservative wings of Ipês and minimizes the role of the organization in the coup.
The writer also points out that when the military took power, it was not a position in the federal government because it did not want to. He says that when the government bought Light, it was one of the first directors to be fired. And he recalls the rumor case of censorship of his book “Happy New Year” in 1975 – the volume of short stories would only return to bookstores with reopening.
The historian, who was Dreifuss’s guideline and even research the ipês in Minas Gerais, says he skepticism the author’s explanation.
In her new, still unprecedented book, she dedicates a chapter to the business entity. In the work, he maintains that the final phase of the Institute’s plan – raised to a faction of the Armed Forces – was to occupy the state.
“Ipês is the corporate arm of the coup, there is no democratic wing there. It’s like what we see today, they used the discourse of democracy to subvert democracy. But I don’t think Rubem Fonseca was interested in the occupation of the state,” she says.
“Several people actively participate and then repent. The effects of institutional acts may have worked as trigger for a greater understanding. We can put on the dead shoes in this.”
Already in the 2000s, other research suggested that Rubem Fonseca was the author of the itineraries of the films of Ipês, produced by Jean Manzon, legendary photographer of Brazilian magazines. But these studies support the accusation in fragile evidence, while later works claim that the institute’s films were initiative mainly from the unit of São Paulo and that the role of the writer was overestimated.
However, historians have pointed out documents in the IPês collection, in the National Archives, which seem to contradict the dismissal letter.
For example, on March 27, 1968, Haroldo Poland, president of the entity, communicates in a letter to Rubem Fonseca that the author was unanimously reappointed to the Institute’s advisor council; He calls him “dear friend Dr. José”. In addition, the organization’s dissolution minutes in 1972 has the writer’s signature.
According to Bia Corrêa do Lago, the father officially continued in the Ipês painting because he was executive of Light, but moved away from the daily life of the entity.
“He stopped going to Ipês meetings. As Light was still linked to the institute, he remained linked in some way, but without actions in practice,” she says, adding that her father was against the deposition of João Goulart and is hiring a researcher to investigate the institute’s archives.
The author’s daughter has been working in her father’s collection for a photobiography in celebration of his centenary. She states that the roles allow a comprehensive look at the writer’s political positions – in which youthful performance against Getúlio Vargas. According to Bia, the man who arises from documents has democratic credentials.
