Extract of the work "Pages of the Moroccan Nationalism" of Mohamed Zniber, ed. 1990 p.203 - 205.

In a critical study of the book published by Abdelkrim Ghallab under the title "History of the National Movement," the historian Dr Mohamed Zniber was astonished by the classification of the nationalists made by the author who distinguished:

Dr Zniber considered it useful to remind the author of the above mentioned work that the nationalists of the first hour counted in their rows a generation of pioneers of the National Movement among them we must mention two young people originating from Salé who had been distinguished on the political and cultural scene and enjoyed an undeniable notoriety on the national level:

Mohamed Hassar, who was not entitled to the least quotation by the author who set up as a historian of the National Movement,

and Said Hajji, who was entitled to a position which incites to doubt his patriotism.

Here is what Dr Zniber wrote in response to the allegations of this author who seems to ignore both the facts and the main actors of the National Movement and denatures the historical reality of this movement.

The issue dealt with in the case of Mohamed Hassar is highly pertinent compared to a further situation in connection with another young man of Salé who was among the most brilliant and most intelligent of the young nationalists of his generation. He emerged between 1930 and 1942, and died at an age which did not exceed thirty years. This young man was named Said Hajji, and this name all alone evokes a quantity of memories, memories of a young man overflowing with ardour and enthusiasm, who passed from an idea to another, from a project to the next one, associating the reflexion with the action, arousing the interest of his entourage with all what he undertook. His residence and his offices were thus transformed into "salons" where the ideas were brewed and the proposals of action planing were confronted. He created an entirely handwritten review long before the publication of the national newpapers. Copies of this review still exist nowadays. Said took part effectively in all activities of the National Movement and succeeded, due to his efforts and his own means to create a national daily newspaper, "Almaghrib" with its cultural supplementary magazine whose collection is regarded today as a significant repertory of the Moroccan literature of this period. Moreover, he was involved in the literary activities and the cutural events in general by informing the youth of his home town of the principle characteristics of the literary movement in the middle east.

On another hand, Said's manners were coolly polite. He was, moreover, highly skilfull in his tactics, and naturally gifted with a diplomatic state of mind, which led his companions of the National Movement to entrust him to take charge of the mission to enter in contact with the General Resident of France in Morocco when they decided to observe a break in their confrontation with the colonial power in the circumstances of the war. His mission was a full success, as he created a favourable climate to open the door to start the dialogue with the Government of the Protectorate in a moment when the National Movement was confronted to an extremely difficult period and, thus, without never forgetting the policy of the National Party and its strategy. The role he played in such circumstances was one of the most courageous in a politically delicate situation.

Then, one day, the Moroccans were surprised to learn that Said was suffering from an incurable disease and started spreading rumors that the French, by fear of his intelligence, would have poisened him. That the bottom of this mystery is true or false, those who neared Said closely and knew him well and accompanied him in the various phases of his life as a militant always saw in him the man who was faithful to his patriotic principles and unanimously appreciated for his rightness and the enlighted judgements he carried on the events and the efficient means of facing them.

How is it then possible that sir Ghallab comes today with such a discordant view and induces his readers to think that Said Hajji would have deviated from the line traced by the national party and felt obliged to resort to the good offices of Ahmed Balafrej in Geneva to justify his position, whereas the party itself decided to adopt the same policy that the author of "the history of the National Movement" qualified as "a kind of practical reflexion." Moreover, the party has instructed a delegation to meet with General Nogues "in order to open a new era in the relationships between the colonial administration and the nationalist movement." Which logic uses this author when he takes the liberty to judge Said Hajji and his control of national affairs by using a tone which could inspire some doubts about his honesty when he writes: "In spite of all this, resolute defenders of the attempt of Said Hajji thought he contributed to ameliorate the detention conditions of the political prisonners."

Thus, Said's patriotism and his personality became "under suspicion" and incited to put questions about the integrity of the man. The author of the above mentioned work is the only person to be self opinionated in this manner. All the companions of Said relied on him and fully trusted him. They even carried him to join the restricted group of "the Taifa," this secret cell which was reserved to a quite selected elite among the militants who were most devoted to the national cause. I do not think that our "historian" was ever allowed to belong to this cell. Said was the man of initiatives and improvisations. He burnt with dynamism and pursued his goals with tenacity and perseverance. He had a deep horror of the vacuum which could lead to a moral relaxation in the national combat. The long stagnation which was imposed to the National Party after 1937 incited him to take his responsabilities and to act with tact and intelligence to print a new style in the patriotic action so that the nationalists do not remain a long time absent from the political scene.

Is there in all this any justification of the tone with which the author granted himself to carry out such a violent attack against a great patriot, treating him sometimes as if he were ambitious and invading, and some other times as if he were acting, as some might imagine, in a pragmatical way which could probably be of some utility? No and thousand times no! Never all those who approached Said and had the opportunity to know him well perceived his personality in such a deforming mirror. Nobody has ever put in doubt his integrity, or asked any question about his patriotism. Is it necessary to remind the author - and it seems to me absolutely indispensable to do so, because he was at that time in Egypt, taking a rest from the problems of this world on the edges of the eternal Nile - that the death of Said was crowned by an imposing funeral which is recorded in the annals of the National Movement history? Do I have to remind the author that among the personalities who pronounced on Said's grave the most emotional funerary speeches, there was no less than Mohamed Ghazi, Abou Bakr zniber and Abou Bakr Kadiri? Shall I remind him that the auditorium where was celebrated the commemoration of the 40th day of his passing was overcrowded with an assistance that the newspapers of that time evaluated with more than 500 people?

Who incited then our "historian" to take such a position with regard to Said Hajji? Had he an open account with him which he wanted to rule out in his manner? I do not think so. Doesn't he recognize the fact that, as a very young man, Said realized so many big projects, or doesn't he want to forgive him that his origins are rooted in the modest city of Salé?