Jian Bozan was a renowned Marxist historian of the Chinese Communist Party and vice president of Peking University. At the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, he was subjected to struggle sessions. Elderly and ill, he could not endure the torment. He was further forced to fabricate evidence in the case against Liu Shaoqi as a “traitor,” leaving him with no way out. He and his wife committed suicide together, shocking Mao, who then withdrew the military propaganda team from Peking University.

More than forty years after Mao’s death, whenever he thought of the elderly couple taking their lives together, he felt guilty. Wanting to apologize to Jian in person, he submitted a request to the Jade Emperor. The Jade Emperor approved and arranged their meeting.

Mao came straight to the point: “The Cultural Revolution greatly wronged you. You were subjected to constant struggle sessions, large and small, which devastated you physically and mentally. You were forced to give false testimony against Liu Shaoqi, leaving you and your wife no choice but to end your lives together. I still feel guilty and have come to apologize.”

Bozan replied: “During the Cultural Revolution, the struggle sessions never stopped. I was punched and kicked, forced to ‘fly an airplane’ posture, and struggled against more than a hundred times in three months. Nie Yuanzi held a mass rally of tens of thousands to denounce me. I was bedridden and unable to walk, so they dragged me to the venue on a flat cart, made me stand for hours holding onto an upright bench. I was locked in a small dark room; middle school students from the neighborhood came every day to struggle against me. Even when I fainted to the ground, the beating did not stop. Once, I was dragged out of a toilet, and a wastebasket was clapped over my head—I was nearly beaten to death.”

Mao said: “Children don’t understand; it was inhumane. But the children listened to me—I told them to rebel. Your home was searched too, wasn’t it?”

Bozan answered: “The students were incited by you. It was utterly inhumane. My home was ransacked; thousands of books were taken away. Precious clothing was mostly gone; nearly all the furniture was smashed. All the keys were confiscated. I was driven out of my home and locked in a small dark room.”

Mao continued: “Later they forced you to denounce Liu Shaoqi and write materials. I had to bring Liu Shaoqi down—you should have helped me.”

Bozan said: “In 1968, the military propaganda team hounded me relentlessly, demanding that I confess and expose Liu Shaoqi as a traitor. I understood they were acting on Jiang Qing’s orders. Before 1949, I had never met Liu Shaoqi—how would I know whether he was a traitor? They even pointed a pistol at me, threatening that if I did not confess, there would be only death. I was tortured to the point of collapse, unable to sleep without sleeping pills. My wife and I discussed it: better to die comfortably together than suffer separately. We saved up sleeping pills, put on new clothes, covered ourselves with a new quilt, and took them together.”

Mao said: “Your death shocked me. Although you were no longer of much use to me—death is death—I reprimanded Xie Fuzhi and withdrew the military propaganda team to calm public anger.”

Bozan replied: “I understood the military propaganda team was following orders from above. At that time, a meeting was being prepared to formally convict Liu Shaoqi; they were desperately seeking evidence and witnesses. But I could not lie. So before taking the sleeping pills, I wrote two notes. One said I had nothing to confess. The other read: ‘Long live Chairman Mao!’”

Mao said: “Since the founding of the People’s Republic, you followed me closely—criticizing Zhang Dongsun in 1952, Hu Feng in 1955, and Lei Haizong in 1957. You always spoke in the tone of Marxist class struggle.”

Bozan replied: “In 1961, in On Peasant Wars in Ancient China, I wrote: ‘After a major peasant war, the feudal ruling class, in order to restore feudal order, would make certain concessions to the peasants. The meaning of the concession policy is that after each peasant revolutionary war overthrows the landlord class and changes dynasties, the new regime, to ease class contradictions and restore productivity, would learn from the previous dynasty and make concessions to the peasants. It is precisely these concession policies that strongly propelled historical development.’ My theory of concession policy may not have pleased you.”

Mao responded: “Your ‘concession policy’ suggests that feudal landlords became benevolent, that class struggle lost its edge. If that were so, why mobilize the masses to fight landlords? In promoting class struggle, I can only say landlords are bad—I cannot say they were sometimes decent.”

Bozan answered: “But historically, concession policies did exist.”

Mao said: “Even if they existed, I could ignore them and choose not to mention them. In 1965, Qi Benyu’s article Study History for the Sake of Revolution criticized your historical views, saying your concession policy was a supra-class, purely objective bourgeois viewpoint. I commented, ‘Qi Benyu’s article is very good; I read it three times. Its flaw is that it does not name names.’ In 1966, Qi Benyu and two others published Jian Bozan’s Historical Views Must Be Criticized, explicitly naming you, labeling you a ‘representative figure of bourgeois historiography,’ and calling your work an ‘anti-Marxist historical program.’ Was that appropriate?”

Bozan replied: “Since you said so, what could be inappropriate? Your words were greater than heaven—one sentence from you outweighed ten thousand from others. I could only make self-criticisms, not resist.”

Mao said: “It was mainly your concession policy that brought disaster. If emperors and generals made concessions, what revolution would I make? So I believed Marxist historians like you should be overthrown. But overthrowing you and detaining you would have been enough; the military propaganda team went too far. Today I apologize.”

Bozan could tell Mao’s apology was perfunctory. He said: “I once said that historical materials are like scattered coins on the ground; they must be strung together with a rope. I used Marxism as that rope. Concession policies existed in history; you chose to treat them as nonexistent. I could do nothing. You insist that history must serve you—what conforms is emphasized, what does not is discarded.”

Mao replied: “That is revolution—otherwise what is revolution?”

Bozan said: “You are arguing sophistry. History cannot be distorted or misinterpreted. What is most urgent now is to restore historical truth.”

Mao asked: “After my death, you were rehabilitated, weren’t you?”

Bozan answered: “Not until 1979. A memorial service was held for me.”

Mao offered a perfunctory self-criticism: “Fifty years have passed. History has proven that my revolution was mistaken. You were right to uphold historical truth; you had conscience. I continue to reflect on my errors. Perhaps someday I will seek your guidance again.”

Bozan replied: “You must publicly repent and confess your crimes. The nation must eradicate your pernicious influence so it can no longer harm China. Yet, to be fair, those of us who assisted tyranny were not without guilt either.”

Mao fell silent.

NEXT: 81. Ba Jin (1904–2005)