Britain has been going through a period of masochistic introspection when the people are anxious to believe the worst about themselves.
Every institution of which they used to be proud not so long ago is being held up to ridicule. Ridicule of the class system and its companion, the education system are old hat. Parliament, the judiciary, the civil service, the police, industry and trade unions are having their share in this campaign of self-laceration. It is taken for granted that moral standards, too, in public life have taken a deep plunge.
Suez Crisis
For one comparatively new to the British scene it is difficult to say with any assurance when this period started though there is reason to believe that it began with the miserable failure of the Suez expedition in November 1956. When I came here in early 1962 the feeling of inadequacy was fairly advanced. Its outward expression was the desperate anxiety to join the European Economic Community irrespective of the terms and consequences. With rare exceptions, even the opponents of the project were not free from the gnawing anxiety that something was drastically wrong with the country. Otherwise honourable and patriotic Britons were willing to jettison much of the British way of life in their desire to merge themselves with a larger entity. Everything was wonderful across the channel and contemptible on this side.
It is doubtful if anyone outside these islands realised either at that time or even subsequently what a traumatic experience the Suez expedition has been for the British. I use “has been” advisedly because it is not yet over. It is strange that a people who could transfer power in India, Burma and Ceylon before this event and in a number of African countries afterwards, should have reacted in that manner to the Suez episode. But there it is, one of those stubborn facts of life which refuse to be pushed under the carpet.
Much that has happened since can be explained only in terms of that experience. The distrust in the effectiveness of the alliance with America is justified in terms of the Suez and so is the burdensome independent nuclear deterrent. In ruling circles India is not yet forgiven for the role she played at the time. President Nasser remains a favourite whipping horse The landings in Jordon in 1958 and Kuwait in 1961 were not organised so much in response to specific situations as under the psychological compulsion to prove that the British military machine was not wholly ineffective after all. Impressive evidence can be cited in support of this view. One can only hope that this period of compulsive acts will pass away with the end of Mr Macmillan’s tenure of office.
Britain has for months been delayed with talk of loss of influence abroad on account of the Profumo scandal and the accompanying disclosures about the underworld where call girls and pimps rubbed shoulders with members of the nobility and ruling hierarchy. London has been described as if it was one large whore-house which is plainly absurd. London is neither more nor less virtuous than, say, Paris, Tokyo, New York or Hamburg. Public men today are no worse than their predecessors. What is new is an illogical desire for self-immolation. A change of Government and party in power will be meaningful only if it brings to the top men capable of ending this “spree”.
Judiciary
In past months no institution has suffered so much damage as the judiciary. The integrity and independence of the judge which was almost an article of faith in this country has become so wide open to questioning that the Labour Party threatens to make an issue of the relationship between the executive and the judiciary. Much of the criticism is clearly misdirected but the relevant criticism is strong enough to warrant the conclusion that the judges have become executive minded.
The criticism came to a head in the shadow of the Profumo affair. Here the critics clearly flew off at a tangent. It was not the fault of the judge that the prosecution modified the charge against Edgecome and pursued the case against him in the absence of the principal witness, Miss Christine Keeler. Again the judge was not to blame if Gordon was tried on what are now known to be trumped up charges and false evidence. The manner in which Miss Mandy Rice Davies was forced to give evidence against Dr Ward was outside the jurisdiction of the judiciary.
The Appellate Court acquitted Gordon without disclosing the new evidence because it was not competent to disclose it under the law.
My own view is that the source of the trouble is acceptance by some of the leading lights of the judiciary of the role of being defenders of the interests of the community as against the rights of the individual.
This is a pernicious doctrine and not only violates the very essence of British justice but threatens to undermine the liberty of the citizen. The Lord Chief Justice openly subscribed to it when he sent two “silent” reporters to jail on the ground that the interests of the State were supreme and demands of personal conscience and professional ethics could not override them.
This statement surprised most people, but so strong was the revulsion against the way the press had indulged in innuendo and character assassination in connection with the Vassal Espionage Case that its full import was not fully realised at that time. The belated awareness is producing a strong reaction. It is almost difficult to believe that a man should be sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment on the charge of directing a demonstration, which he denied, in Britain, but it is a fact. The interests of the State were engaged because the demonstration was against the Greek Queen.
Old Trend
The Lord Chief Justice had only formulated in words a trend which had been in evidence for some time. George Blake was sentenced to 42 years’ imprisonment in 1961 on the charge of being a double agent. In 1962 the spirit if not the letter of the law was violated when the American spy, Soblen, was sought to be put on a plane going to America. During the controversy regarding the deportation, Chief Enahoro, the Chief Justice, met the Home Secretary.
There are two views on why the judiciary has become executive minded. One view popularised by the Labour Party is that the Government has so often called upon judges to salvage it through inquiries into various problems that the distinction between the two has been blurred. We in India have been doing the same and we had better watch out. The other view which the Observer has expounded is that since “an innately conservative profession tends to share many of the assumptions of a conservative government” the judiciary looks dependent on the executive. This is a view borrowed from the left wing critics of what they call the Establishment.
There is still another view which Robert Conquest put forward in the Spectator three weeks ago. He wrote: “Why is it that leading English judges seem, compared with the members of the Supreme Court (American), like magistrates’ clerks in 19th century Runcorn? On the bench, the inhuman and uncivilized; on the prosecutor’s table, the slick and the smearer. Perhaps someone should set up an independent tribunal to judge the judges. Pharisaism, so I thought, is a worse sin than sexuality.” Pharisaism, which was immortalised in “I am all right Jack” and “You never had it so good,” is the other side of the coin. Masochism and Pharisaism can not only coexist in theory, they do in fact.
The Times of India, 22 September 1963