By Peter Gellert
MEXICO CITY — October 2 was the 30th anniversary of the bloody suppression of the Mexican student movement, when the army opened fire on a demonstration in the Plaza of the Three Cultures in the Tlatelolco housing complex.
For the past several weeks, and particularly in the days preceding October 2, the events of 1968 were commemorated with TV and radio programs, extensive commentaries in the mass media, dozens of well-publicised discussions with the country's leading intellectuals and surviving leaders of the student movement, and the publication of numerous books.
This culminated in a march of about 125,000 people on October 2. Although numerous veterans of the struggles of the 1960s and 1970s participated, the composition of the march was overwhelming student.
From the Zocalo to Tlatelolco, a sea of humanity carried Che placards and banners, and chanted anti-government slogans.
Dozens of speakers addressed the final rally in the Plaza of the Three Cultures. A message from Subcomandante Marcos of the Zapatista National Liberation Army was particularly well received, although there were virtually no signs or banners referring to the conflict.
Mayor Cuauhtemoc Cárdenas, of the centre-left Party of the Democratic Revolution, declared October 2 a day of mourning. Flags on city buildings flew at half-mast, and a commemorative plaque was unveiled at the City Assembly.
This is particularly striking since, for many years, the October 2 massacre, and indeed the student movement of 1968, has been a non-event in pro-government media and political circles, and has not even been mentioned in school history books.
In recent weeks, debate on October 2 has focused on several points of historical fact: Did the students initially fire on the army, as the government maintained at the time, or was it a premeditated bloodbath, as is increasingly accepted by Mexican society? Who gave the orders to fire on the students? Were the '68 events the product of an international communist conspiracy (the explanation advanced then and cautiously defended today by a minority of ruling party "dinosaurs" and some military brass), or a legitimate expression of student and popular grievances?
Another question being re-raised is how many students were killed. The official death count ranges from 27 to 40, but student leaders of the time say as many as 600 may have been killed. Hundreds were jailed in the subsequent repression.
Much debate has centred on the broader significance of 1968 as a watershed in Mexico's democratic transition.
While no-one denies that the massacre took place, differences have nonetheless emerged, including on the left.
Cárdenas declared at a university conference that the army is free of responsibility, arguing that the orders came from the top. Others are not so quick to absolve the armed forces, given the memory of wanton brutality at the Tlatelolco rally 30 years ago.
Demands have been raised, including by the Chamber of Deputies commission investigating the 1968 events, for the government to open its archives. The Interior Ministry has refused to consider such a step, using the excuse of "national security" or that it is a decision for the army.
The commission is threatening to take the case to Mexico's Supreme Court, although it is highly unlikely that it would receive a favourable ruling.
The 1968 events forged an entire generation of militants and social activists, many of whom went on to play leading roles in the urban popular, peasant, student and trade union movements, or in international solidarity campaigns.
Many say 1968 was a watershed that gave rise to a new Mexico, and that the student movement was ultimately responsible for the democratic openings — partial and incomplete as they are — that are now a prominent part of the political landscape.
Thirty years later the wounds have not totally healed, as the intense debate and scrutiny of the past few weeks have shown.