After WW II and in the early 50s, the few dark strangers in the streets of London were greeted with a smile by the English. The dark faces were young students and enjoyed a status, which entitled them to some consideration. The traumatic experience of the war was still fresh and the English had not forgotten the contribution of the dark strangers from the colonies to the defeat of Nazi Germany, whose proclamation of superiority was anathema to liberal Europeans.

But, beneath the smile, there was a paternalism, which denied the coloured colonials a level playing-field. The first shock to the latter came when faced with the search for accommodation. Any inquiry about the advertised empty room would meet with a polite refusal of ‘just gone’ when the dark student came face to face with the white landlady. But this was small beer compared to what was to follow later when, in the 50s, Indians, Pakistanis and West Indians came in droves.

A reaction started which, by the end of 1961, took the shape of an open campaign against coloured immigrants. One MP, Cyril Osborne raised the alarm. “This is a white man’s country”, he proclaimed in October 1961, “and I want it to remain so” and, in December 1964, the Spectator reported his hatred in crude language: “Those who so vehemently denounce the slogan ‘Keep Britain white’ should answer the question: do they want to turn it black? If unlimited immigration were allowed, we should ultimately become a chocolate colonial Afro-Asian so-ciety. That I do not want.”

The total immigration at the end of 1960 was 125,400. Yet the working class was already reacting against their presence. “There were many examples of strikes and other forms of industrial action against the employment or promotion of coloured workers,” wrote Paul Foot in his now classic book: Immigration and Race in British Politics.

The fear, however, was unjustified because Britain was short of labour and immigration was related to vacancies in the industries. Fortunately, there were liberal-minded politicians, on both sides of the House, who refused to be dragged into the dangerous rhetoric of Cyril Osborne and his likes. In those days, every Commonwealth born was a British citizen free to travel and settle in the United Kingdom. The call for a restriction was resisted until 1962, when the third reading of the Immigration Bill on 27 February 1962 became law on 1 June the same year. Thus the stage was set for a policy of control, which hit the coloured immigrants the hardest. The Bill, which included the Irish, was later amended to exempt them, the opposition condemned the amendment. The Irish, they said, were the fig leaf – now ripped away – of the Tory colour-bar policy. Immediately after the Bill became law, Commonwealth immigration dropped drastically.

The Act did stem the flow because it made it more difficult for workers to come into the country. The Act was also the opening gambit for other measures soon to follow to remove finally the right of the colonials to free entry into the United Kingdom. The whole policy on immigration underwent a total overhaul after the defeat of Labour in a by-election at Smethwick in 1965, where the Labour candidate, Patrick Gordon Walker, a Foreign Secretary, lost to one obscure Peter Griffiths of the Conservative Party.

<I>Racism is inborn in most people of white skin. It finds expression in everyday life in Britain. Lord Scarman, in his report, on the Brixton disorders of 1981 said on page 135: «The evidence which I have received, the effect of which I have outlined, leaves no doubt in my mind that racial disadvantage is a fact of current British life.» You encounter it everyday on the worksite, in the bus and in the streets.</I>

The election was fought on the single issue of coloured immigrants. The seat was Labour for many years. The Conservative played on the fear and sentiments of the working class who seemed “more affected by the influx of immigrants”. Although Griffiths won a small majority, the psychological damage was done. Immigration had become an issue in politics and no party could afford to ignore it.

Labour and Conservatives accelerated the process of liberalisation of colonies and, within a few years after Smethwick, whatever was left of colonial possessions was liquidated. Britain was relieved of the moral obligations to the citizens of independent territories. I do not think that I should go through the different legislation culminating into British Nationality Act of 1981. I would rather deal with the present situation of race relations in Great Britain. It goes to the praise of central and local authorities for setting up several bodies to promote better relations between the coloured and the whites and to act as watchdogs of discrimination cases on grounds of race or colour.

Between Smethwick and the new millennium, the flow of immigrants, after a period of relative lull, continued. Those settled were allowed to bring in families and dependents. A good number of visitors stayed and later qualified for citizenship. Mauritius sent thousands of young men and women to do nursing who stayed because they were offered employment and attractive salaries far above the home rate. Even now at the time of writing, hundreds of foreigners are entering Britain to stay. As one of the signatories of the Geneva Convention on refugees, Britain had to accept large contingents from Bangladesh, Nigeria, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, etc. The presence of all these dark faces was not welcome by the average British.

Although Enoch Powell’s sinister forecast of the river of blood did not happen, deep down every white British was seething resentment that his country was being taken by strangers with alien culture and values. The church steeples, proudly proclaiming two thousand years of Christian civilization, which adorned the skylines, had now to compete with the massive assault of mosques and temples squeezing within the narrow confines of Edwardian buildings.

But these vibrate with activities while the church next door is deserted. The English ‘fish and chips’ and the ‘Angus steak’ are on the verge of extinction. The British openly accept chicken ‘tikka massala’ as part of their culture. But this alienation is resented by the large majority. The presence of any Asian or Black family in a neighbourhood brings down the price of property because the Whites move out by putting their houses on the market. On 22 April 2000, the Observer at page 15 reported comments from Bradford residents about race relations: “I say, let the Asians have Bradford and us whites can move out. I speak to many white people and when I ask them what they think about Bradford they all say: ‘I want to move out to get away from the Pakkies”, stated one. My quote is one sample among many.

When I was driven to the chancery, my Sri Lankan driver usually switched on the Asian radio Sunrise. Everyday there were reports of Asian men being beaten or killed by racially motivated white youths. Like the Stephen Lawrence case, few of the crimes even went before the court because no witnesses were forthcoming. The cousin of one of the Embassy drivers who had lived in London for many years without problems was attacked one night in front of his house and later died of his injuries. The neighbours knew the white hooligans and even witnessed the attack. But no one came forward as a witness. His widow and a Sri Lankan neighbour had to move into areas where a large presence of Asians gave some security. On 25 September 1999, the Independent reported that“a young black woman was critically ill in hospital last night after an unprovoked racial attack that bore a striking resemblance to the incident in which Stephen Lawrence died. The woman was from France. Police were looking for four white thugs and treating the case as a racial crime”.

Stephen Lawrence’s case, which triggered off the indignation of the whole black community and led to the Sir William MacPherson inquiry laid bare the racial bias of Police when faced with crimes against Blacks and Asians. Stephen Lawrence was a young black student who was stabbed to death on 22 April 1993 at a bus station,and five white youths were the suspects. In spite of evidence which could have led to their conviction, the police bungled the inquiry with such negligence that they were never prosecuted. The private prosecution of the three prime suspects in 1996 failed because of the ‘absence of any firm and sustainable evidence’. They will never be prosecuted again because of the benefit of ‘autrefois acquit’. The system of double jeopardy is fundamental to criminal cases.

The MacPherson report, with all its recommendations, has not put an end to institutionalized racism. It still exists in the Police and the Army, sometimes in the crude behaviour of white elements; at other times, in a subtle manner aimed at humiliating the blacks. If anything, racial crimes have increased from 5,876 in 1997-1998 to 23,346 in 1999-2000. However, these figures should be qualified. The escalation is partly attributed to the definition of racial crimes by the victims themselves rather than the Police before MacPherson. It may also be due to more crimes being reported.

But the truth remains that racism has discouraged Blacks and Asians from joining the Police and the Army in spite of the efforts of the authorities to attract more members of the ethnic minorities. The black policeman patrolling the streets of London is still a rare sight. Racism in the UK is not a new phenomenon. It has always existed in the patronising deportment of the white natives who took it that by adopting such an attitude, they were of service to the Blacks and Asians who needed protection and guidance. To penetrate this psyche, we have to go back to their history.

As a seafaring nation, they found out very early in the 16th century that several parts of Africa and Asia were in such shambles that they had just to move and grab the lands by planting their flags. On top of this easy conquest, there were several empty places with only a few natives living in the Stone Age. The British became masters of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Within a century they had built a vast empire where the sun never set. A tiny island with a population of a few millions, they set out to govern their new possessions with a missionary zeal. They prescribed a code of conduct, which permitted them, with few administrators, to extend their jurisdiction over a vast expanse of territory. Of course, like the Romans, they were most successful in fomenting troubles between rival native powers to make their rule unchallengeable. It is interesting to note how they conceived their conduct towards the natives to whom they were supposed to bring civilisation.

One infamous name in the history of British Empire described the role of the white man vis-à-vis the blacks as follows: “White men in Africa, Lord Luggard concluded, should always stick to a separate way of life that is an assertion of superiority which commands the respect and excites the emulation of the savage. Insolent familiarity by blacks was never to be tolerated and would be rebuffed automatically by a gentleman.” Lord Luggard was expressing his opinion in the nineteenth century when the empire was still to be extended. That cult of racial superiority has permeated all levels of society in Britain. This state of mind is not too far behind Hitler’s theory of Aryan blue blood superior to the rest of humanity.

It will surprise many people to learn that even a brilliant Marshall like Montgomery, whose contribution to the defeat of the Nazi army was so decisive, treated in a secret document the Africans as complete savages. The Times of Thursday 7 January 1999 carried the news under the title: “Monty saw Africans as complete savages.” Secret documents reveal grand imperial design. He believed that the Africans were incapable of developing the continent. Montgomery’s views were shared by the British establishment.

The racial superiority theory was so rigidly observed that sex between Aryans and lesser races were banned under Hitler’s regime. The story of Hans Jurgen Batz is so revealing of the prejudice of the day that I wish to tell it. Jurgen Batz was born in Hamburg of an African father and a German mother and he grew up in that city like any other German boy. He was even wearing a swastika. His ambition was to fight in Hitler’s army. He was rejected because he belonged to a lesser breed, not the pure Aryan race. Jurgen Batz got the message and he left for Liberia. After the war he emigrated to the States where, after becoming a US citizen, he was called up for service and placed in a black unit. The American army was still segregated in 1950. After his discharge, he learnt journalism and became Editor in Chief of Ebony and fought in the Civil Rights movement. “I want my life to demonstrate the madness of racism”, he used to say. He is now 73, scholarly looking and recently visited his native Hamburg, which he still considers his home town.

Racism is inborn in most people of white skin. It finds expression in everyday life in Britain. Lord Scarman, in his report on the Brixton disorders of 1981 said on page 135: “The evidence, which I have received, the effect of which I have outlined, leaves no doubt in my mind that racial disadvantage is a fact of current British life.” You encounter it everyday on the work site, in the bus, the underground and in the streets. Stephen Lawrence was killed while waiting for a bus. The Guardian of September 24, 1999 reported: “An Asian worker at Ford’s Dagenham factory yesterday broke down as he described years of abuse and humiliation, threats of assault and sabotage of his work. The company admitted racial discrimination, harassment and victimisation at one East London employment tribunal.” Mr Parma, this is the name of the victim, described how his Indian food was snatched out of his hands and graffiti scrawled on his pay packet. He is still working but has to take extra security measures.

An Indian friend, owner of a restaurant in the West End, told me how he was robbed of his day’s takings by two white youths who threatened him with a knife. To save his life, he did not put up any resistance. People who witnessed the incident did not interfere to help him. I have myself been subjected to abuse by white drivers who either could not overtake or were overtaken by my car. My driver had to behave as if he was of stone. I remember the day, before I was appointed high commissioner, I was going to my flat when a group of boys threw pebbles at me. When I turned round to face them, they ran away shouting: “Paki, go back to your country.” Paki is not necessarily a Pakistani, but any Asian from the subcontinent and Sri Lanka.

In the States there are many black men and women in the diplomatic service. In the British Foreign service there are hardly any. The few that are recruited have not been integrated as part of the outfit. There is a drive now by Labour to have more members of ethnic minorities in Whitehall. Racism has permeated all layers of British society. In spite of the presence of several black star players in the Premier and First divisions, they are not spared racial abuse especially by supporters of the losing team.

Hardly accustomed to seeing dark faces wearing ermine and sitting in the House of Lords, the staff has not yet come to terms with names like Lord Ali, Lord Mittal, Lord Dholokia, Baroness Prasad. They make the latter feel that they are not welcome in that sanctuary of British aristocracy. Lord Jackson Taylor, a young black barrister, was a candidate of the Conservative party in the safe seat of Cheltenham. It was a well-hyped public relations exercise to enhance the image of conservatives as non-discriminatory. Taylor lost the election to his liberal rival because Cheltenham voters refused to be represented by a black man. John Major who was the prime minister repaired the damage by sending him to the Lords as the youngest member of that House.

Even in the Labour Party, the few Asians and Blacks who get elected have to stand in constituencies with a substantial number of ethnic minorities. The other candidates are sacrificed in marginal seats. But some of the latter are happy that they have one foot on the ladder. I knew an Indian, who is a social worker and included in his CV that he stood as Labour candidate against Mr Howard, the Conservative Secretary of State for Home affairs. Labour has made an effort to raise an Asian MP, Keith Vaz, to the rank of minister of State for European affairs. Because of his failure to declare certain revenue in a company controlled by the family, he was hounded by British tabloids and is of now forever out of favour.

<I>After the MacPherson Inquiry, some Blacks permitted themselves the liberty of making an abuse of their status. Whenever they thought they had not been selected for a post or had been passed over for promotion, they attributed it to racial discrimination. Even the police became wary of stopping any suspect if he was Black for fear of being accused of racial harassment.</I>

After the MacPherson Inquiry, some blacks permitted themselves the liberty of making an abuse of their status. Whenever they thought they had not been selected for a post or had been passed over for promotion, they attributed it to racial discrimination and alerted the Commission for Racial Equality for redress. Even the police became wary of stopping any suspect if he was black for fear of being accused of racial harassment.

A white backlash has started, as was to be expected. They complain of positive discrimination in favour of blacks. The latter can get away with any petty offences by declaring themselves victims of racism even if there is not a shred of evidence to support the claim. The whites do not always get a good hearing because any allegation of racism raises the presumption of guilt and they have to disprove that presumption which is not easy. The whites also are discriminated against. A Japanese firm was taken to court for ignoring the claims for promotion of the white British. The firm was fined and condemned to make redress. Indian business undertakings have also been guilty of bypassing English in favour of Asians on matters of redundancy and promotion.

The first generation of Asian youths born and brought up in Britain do not tolerate the humiliation inflicted upon their fathers. They retaliate with the same unruly behaviour as their white peers. Certain areas in Bradford are no- go areas for white youths. They are beaten up and maimed. But such backlash makes its appearance where the Asians are in sufficiently large number to lay down the rule. According to a report in the Observer of 22 April 2001 “60% of the past year’s 572 racist attacks were against whites.”

The presence of a large number of non-white immigrants, numbering five to six millions, has sparked a new kind of racism, which has no relationship with the white British. Indians and Pakistanis have brought their sub-continental institution in UK. The Africans complain that they are regularly discriminated against by West Indians, who disparage their accent and their women’s dress.

<B>By the late Sir Satcam Boolell </B>