That Bhutto degree
From Sir Frederic Bennett, MP
Sir: Hugh Trevor-Roper (March 15) has done a real service to the cause of maintaining good community relations here and in regard to our national valuable relationship with Pakistan by
his factual account of what Mr Bhutto has rightly, contemptuously described as a 'bizarre episode' which he fortunately does not believe reflects the opinion of the great majority of people in this country. Had something not been done — and had Dr Bhutto not reacted in such a statesmanlike way — to explain the circumstances fully and objectively, as has now been done, resentment among the Pakistan community in this country would have been engendered and the people of Pakistan might have expressed their own outrage more vigorously than has happily proved to be the case.
As it is, one need only indulge in two more reflections. Firstly Zionist instigators of the furore have done their cause no good at all by venting their frustration about the dangerous tensions between Israel and her Arab neighbours on Pakistan, through the person of Dr Bhutto, simply and solely because, presumably, his country has supported resolutions of fellow-Moslem nations at the UN. Secondly, there does seem something wrong with an electoral system which permits a man of such complete obscurity and insignificance as Dr Gombrich to have the capacity potentially to do so much damage in such wide fields.
Frederic Bennett House of Commons, London, SW!
Sir: The classic case for freedom of the press is that it serves the cause of truth. There were doubtless good reasons against publishing the debate of February 11, when the Congregation of Oxford University heard the arguments for and against conferring an honorary degree on Mr Bhutto. But the consequence has been that the public has been misinformed about what happened. As a Gentile, without sentimental attachment to India, who went to that debate with an open mind but voted in the end against honouring Mr Bhutto, may I comment on Professor Trevor-Roper's analysis of the affair?
I find his account of the prelude to the debate, and its atmosphere, misleading. First, he gives the impression that the period between the adjourned debate of January 21 and February 11 was used by Mr Bhutto's opponents alone to publicise their cause. In fact, Council also circulated a flysheet. Both sides canvassed opinion vigorously, appealing in some cases to party or college loyalties. The effect was to arouse interest in the question, as was shown by the unusually large attendance at the debate in Congregation, but not to prejudice the outcome. Many people went to listen before making up their minds. I would also dissent from Professor Trevor-Roper's interpretation of what influenced those present. Sensible people did not believe in Council's conspiracy against Mr Gombrich (any more than they believe in a Jewish conspiracy against Mr Bhutto).
Neither Jews nor the academic Left are an organised, cohesive body in Oxford. It is, on the whole, a conservative university, and attached to tradition. Because of its collegiate structure, opinion is fragmented and senior members hard to mobilise in parties.
Two kinds of serious argument were advanced against endorsing Council's offer to Mr Bhutto. The first related to the sackiog of Dacca University in 1971. The ''smear' — that Mr Bhutto was oirectly responsible for this massacre — was shown in debate to be groundless. It was demonstrated that he was not then in a position to give orders to the army, and that his comment to journalists shortly after the massacre ('Pakistan has been saved') might have been made in ignorance of the facts. At the same time, Mr Bhutto did promote the General responsible for the massacre after he came to power. None of his supporters chose to comment on this fact. Perhaps he had no choice in the matter. However, I do not think it unreasonable for academics to be sensitive about the murder of academics in other countries, and wary of those who appear to condone it. Secondly, it was indeed said, as Professor TrevorRoper reports, that his regime was not to the taste of Western liberals. He had just suppressed the opposition party. His 'constitution' left little room for criticism of any kind. Among his many opponents who were illegally in prison, we were told, was an Oxford graduate — a man of high character — whose friends had for some time been attempting to contact him through Amnesty International. Perhaps these are all parochial objections.
The view that the whole debacle was brought about by 'Jews and Lefties' obscures the real fact of historical change in the position of this country and of Oxford as a university. Not so very long ago, Britain was the centre of an Empire and a Commonwealth which had major international significance. Thus it seemed only natural for Oxford to honour Mrs Gandhi: whatever the faults of her regime, it appeared to be unequivocally a good thing that she ruled India, and only an eccentric minority would challenge the assumption that she stood, as an Oxford graduate, for civilised values. But times have changed. The universtiy cannot now ride on a wave of nationalist or imperialist sentiment, for the wave has broken. If we are to honour foreign statesmen, it seems that we are bound to make up our own minds about them.
The alternative view of the affair of Mr Bhutto's degree is, -then, that the offer should never have been made. It was an anachronistic suggestion. Many who voted against Council wished, above all, that the university had not been asked to make public and corporate judgments upon Mr Bhutto's career. Yet there was no compelling reason why Congregation should whitewash a mistake which Council had made. If power corrupts, loss of power clearly disposes of the arguments in favour of corrupt decisions.
The affairs of Oxford would, indeed, be an entertaining study for any anthropologist bold enough to undertake it. It is a sheltered and atavistic society. Its rituals are curious and intricate. But insofar as it has a corporate purpose and ethic in this post-imperial age, it must, I think, be concerned with truth rather than propaganda. From an academic standpoint, the most disturbing aspect of this affair has been the manner in which Mr Bhutto's sponsors, themselves academics, have reported it in the press. Oxford has, indeed, been damaged in the process.
Janet Howarth St Hilda's College, Oxford
Previous page
