By Prof. M.
Venkatarangaiya, M.A.
THE
trial of Cardinal Josef Mindszenty, the Primate of Hungary, and the sentence of
life imprisonment passed on him by the special People’s Court have attracted
the attention of the public in almost every country in the world. Some were
shocked by it while there were others who felt that there was in it the desired
victory of right and justice. This difference of opinion on a subject of
serious gravity like this is only a reflection of the acute division which has
become characteristic of the contemporary world, the division between the East
and the West, between the totalitarian and the democratic ways of organising
society and between the materialistic and the idealistic outlook on life. It is
a difficult task to judge between the rival attitudes adopted towards the trial
and its result. What is possible is to state the facts and to note the issues
that have gathered around them.
The
Cardinal was the Head of the Roman Catholic Church in Hungary and had
conscientious objections to many of the policies adopted by the communistic
Government of that country. One of the matters on which he was opposed to the
Government was the nationalisation of Catholic schools. The Hungarian
Government arrested him on December 27, 1948 on charges of espionage, crimes
against the security of the Republic, and currency smuggling and
blackmarketing. Several other allegations were levelled against him and among
them were that he wrote to the minister of a Western Power asking him to
prevent the return to Hungary the Holy Crown of St. Stephen, said to be held by
the United States forces in Germany, and that he established close personal
relations with the minister of another great power to achieve his aims.
For
forty days he was kept in police custody. Then the trial was taken up and it
went on for three days. At first he denied most of the charges brought against
him but subsequently admitted that he was guilty of them and that he had even
planned to escape from prison and flee from the country. The Court found him
guilty on the basis of his own confession and sentenced him to life
imprisonment.
Why
did this trial become a matter of such world-wide interest? Part of it is due
to the eminent position occupied by the Cardinal and the severe sentence passed
on him. Part of it was also due to the Western Powers using the trial for
propaganda purposes in their cold war against Soviet Russia and her satellites
in Eastern Europe. Besides these there are more important and significant
reasons. The trial is one more illustration of the nature of communist
dictatorship and its hostility to any kind of individual freedom. It is also an
illustration of the procedure adopted by the police in these States to extort
confession from persons under trial–a procedure that has come to be specially
associated with all State trials in them.
The
communist State is a totalitarian State. It aims at controlling every aspect of
the life of its citizens. It does not draw any distinction between matters on
which government is justified in exercising its supremacy and those which might
be left for the free choice of individuals and voluntary associations. It is
this that is at the root of the opposition of the Catholic Church and the
Communist State. The Church finds that it is prevented from the exercise of its
traditional right and function of directing the moral and religious beliefs of
the people and their conduct in the spiritual sphere. Churches, it is true, may
exist in a communist State but they should exist only as the sub-ordinate
organs of governments and they should teach only such doctrines as are
supported by the State. This is the position to which not only the Church but
also the Trade Unions, Cooperative Societies, and all other associations are
reduced. The contest therefore between the Communist Government of Hungary and
the Cardinal was a contest between totalitarianism on one side and the claim of
the Catholic Church to lead an independent life in a sphere of its own, which
is the religious and the spiritual sphere. The trial marks an important stage
in the suppression of the religious liberties of the Hungarian people and the
triumph of the totalitarian State dominated by the small minority of fanatical
communists claiming to rule in the name of the proletariat. It is therefore no
wonder that all lovers of human freedom have been shocked by the trial.
There
is also another aspect of the trial which is equally important. The way in
which under-trial prisoners confess their guilt has become a characteristic
feature of trials in communist States. Knowing this the Cardinal stated in a
letter written by him in November 1948–shortly before his arrest–that any
confession attributed to him should be regarded by the public as either having
been forced from him or as due to human frailty, implying thereby that no value
should be attached to it. In the course of the trial he was asked what he
thought of that letter and he answered: “I did not then see many things which I
see today. The statement I then made is not valid,” and withdrew the letter.
The point to note here is that “before he saw things differently” he was under
close arrest and in police custody for forty days and nights. The withdrawal of
the letter was followed by his confession. It is now widely known that in
Soviet Russia and other communist States under-trial prisoners–especially those
involved in political trials–are subject to various kinds of torture, to third
degree methods, to threats of pain or reprisals on their families, and to drug
treatment. The consequence is that when they are under such treatment they see
(or are made to see) things differently and accept as facts many things they
would normally reject. This was what happened in the Trotsky Purge trials of
1936, 1937 and 1938 when the accused confessed to a plot to overthrow the
Stalin regime. There is now a suspicion that similar methods were used to
extract confessions from the Cardinal. And the suspicion is confirmed by the
refusal of the Hungarian Government to allow foreign press correspondents and
observers to be present at the trial. Newspapers have all been reporting that
in the treason trial now going on in Bulgaria several of the accused clergymen
made similar confessions.
All
this may not mean that the Cardinal was completely innocent. It is surmised
that he expected a third World War to break out in 1948, that he worked for the
overthrow of the communist State and that he was encouraged in this by the
secret emissaries employed by the Western powers. The point however is that he
had not a fair trial as judged by the standards in countries where the rule of
law prevails. This is seen best in the contrast between the Cardinal’s trial
and the trial of those accused of having conspired for Mahatma Gandhi’s
assassination.
Naturally
the trial produced different reactions on different people. The Pope declared:
“Never as today have the forces of evil, the deniers of God, and the destroyers
of religion appeared so aggressive and so obstinate in their terrible work. All
means are being used to destroy faith in God in the hearts of men in the name
of materialist atheism that deprives them of every spiritual dignity making
them slaves of oppressors.” President Truman denounced as infamous the
Hungarian Government’s treatment of the Cardinal and said that it was one of
the blackspots in Hungary’s history and a blot on the nation. Many British
leaders stated that in conducting the trial the Hungarian Government acted
contrary to the terms of the Peace Treaty in which the Government guaranteed to
its citizens all the fundamental rights of human freedom. There is now a move
to bring the issue before the United Nations, though in the face of the Soviet
veto it may not result in anything. The Soviet press has already declared that
the trial was completely fair, that it showed the impartiality of the Court,
and the triumph of Hungarian popular opinion.
That
an eminent Cardinal should have been subjected to such a trial
and punishment shows how the world is passing today through a crisis, how the
forces of primitive savagery and violence are at work and how there is a
collapse of the higher spiritual and ethical values. It is no doubt true that
social solidarity and harmony should be maintained. But the tragedy of the
present situation in most countries in the world is that power is falling into
the hands of well-organised minorities who rely entirely on terror and force
for maintaining social unity. Mankind has to face the threat and danger of the
whole world being converted into a vast prison.
Discussions
are going on at Washington on the details regarding the Atlantic Pact which is
now regarded as the most effective instrument for meeting the aggressive policy
of Soviet Russia and her determination to establish communism in Western Europe
and in every other part of the world. These prolonged discussions are due to
certain features of the Constitution of the United States under which it is not
competent for the government of that country to take to war unless with the
previous approval of the Congress. The purpose of the Atlantic Pact is that
United States should come to the active help of any of the members of the pact
if their integrity is attacked by any power or if there is a threat of such attack. It is not therefore
left to the discretion of any future legislature of the United States to give
help or not to give it. The conclusion of the pact therefore means that the
United States is committed to war irrespective of the likes or dislikes of the
Congress. The question that has been engaging the attention of the delegates
now carrying on conversations in Washington is how to give assurance to the
members of the pact that the United States would automatically come to their
defence. No formula has so far been evolved but something, definite has to be
done in this direction if the fears of the smaller powers like Norway which are
invited to join the pact are to be allayed.
As
a matter of fact it was because of the misgivings of Norway that this
constitutional aspect came to the forefront. And these misgivings in their turn
were the outcome to a great extent of the pressure that was brought by Soviet
Russia on Norway during the course of February to prevent her from joining the
Atlantic Pact. Norway is a very small State. It is next to impossible for her
to follow an independent course of foreign policy in defiance of Russia, unless
she is sure of the substantial help of a great power like the United States.
Russia not only made it clear to Norway that she was opposed to Norway entering
the Pact but said that she was prepared to enter into a non-aggression pact
with her to remove any suspicion that she had aggressive designs against her.
Norway however has not been in a mood to listen to Russia because the
conclusions of non-aggression pacts by Hitler before 1939, and by Soviet Russia
herself with the Baltic States like Esthonia did not save them from aggression
when such a policy suited the great powers. So Norway has now practically
decided on entering the Atlantic Pact, and before it takes a concrete form the
constitutional issue referred to above has to be settled.
Other
methods have also been used by Russia during the month for sabotaging the
Atlantic Pact. Stalin himself came forward with his answers to a number of questions
addressed to him by an American journalist and stated that he was anxious for
peace, for reduction of armaments and even for lifting the Berlin blockade,
provided the Western Powers gave up their plans for West European defence and
the formation of a government for Western Germany–plans which are about to
yield good results. It was in the same strain that the communist leaders in
France and Italy began to talk. They expressed the view that Soviet Russia was
anxious for peace and that there was therefore no need for any regional pacts
or Unions. These have however been regarded merely as tactical moves on the
part of Soviet Russia and the sponsors of the AtlanticPact have not been
affected by them in any way. They proceeding with their work in an effective
manner.
It
was this realisation that there is no prospect of peace and that might become
inevitable that is responsible for the large amount of expenditure on Defence
by Britain in the current year. The net financial provision comes to £ 760
million pounds. Mr. Attlee, the British Minister, explained the need for such
heavy expenditure in the following words: “Twice in the last thirty-five years
we have had to fight a great war in defence of our country, our way of life,
and the freedom of the world. By a great sacrifice of life and wealth victory
was achieved. After both the wars we tried to establish lasting peace and to
lift the burden of armaments from the backs of the people, first through the
League of Nations and now through the United Nations. The first attempt failed.
We are doing all we can to make the second effective, but success has not yet
come. We shall continue to strive for peace but we cannot ignore the
possibility of another war. We must therefore do our part with others by
maintaining such forces as will deter any would-be aggressor. We have also
commitments to the rest of the Commonwealth and to our friends and allies which
we must be ready to fulfil. We must have efficient defence forces.”
So,
as days pass on, the world becomes more clearly divided into two armed camps.
Everyone says that all resources are to be utilised in promoting the standard
of living of the common man–the worker and the peasant. But how will this be
possible if such a large part of the resources in all countries are being used
not in producing more food, more clothing and more house-room but in the
manufacture of destructive weapons of warfare? The truth is that those who,
like the communists, denounce concentration of wealth are keenly after
concentration of power. Both are equally dangerous. While in the Western States
there is concentration of wealth–which stands in the way of the equal freedom
of all–there is in communistic countries a concentration of power which
produces the same effect. It is only when both these kinds of concentration
disappear and both wealth and power come to be diffused that mankind has a
chance of enjoying real freedom, peace, and security. This is not what is
happening at present. Each of the contestants–those who, like the United
States, believe in concentration of wealth and those who, like Soviet Russia,
believe in concentration of power–is only anxious to bring more and more of the
smaller States into its fold and use them to gain its own ends.
There has been a certain amount of kite-flying regarding the possibility of the United States withdrawing from Japan on the ground that, from a strategic point of view, that country might not be of great use in a war with Russia, especially because of the triumph of communism in China and portions of Korea. It is also apprehended that there will be other difficulties in holding that country. There does not seem to be much hope for the victory there of moderate democratic forces. The rightists are in the ascendant today and if at all they lose their influence and power they might give place to communists. Moreover there are some prominent Americans who think that all their country’s resources must be primarily utilised in strengthening the Atlantic Pact and the defences of Western Europe and not dissipated in Japan and other countries of the Far East. But there are equally other arguments against the withdrawal of the United States from Japan, Countries like Australia and New Zealand are anxious that the United States should stay on and they have some influence on American policy. There are schools of thought in America itself which want to maintain their country’s influence on Japan over as long a period as possible. It may therefore be concluded that there is no possibility of American withdrawal from Japan in the near future.
From
another quarter a more relevant criticism of the Atlantic Pact has
come. Among the prominent members of the pact are Britain, France, Holland and
Belgium. These are all Colonial powers and hold large areas
under their control in Asia and Africa. In their Asiatic territories there are
strong nationalist movements which they are trying their best to suppress,
There is a genuine fear that the assurance of help to them by the United States
through the Atlantic Pact might strengthen them in their efforts to retain as
much of colonial territory as possible, Those who have been watching the course
of events in Indonesia know only too well that this danger is not
imaginary and that a part of the aid which the United States extended to
Holland through her Marshall Aid Plan has been diverted by the Dutch to
strengthen their forces in Indonesia. If for checking Soviet Russia and
communism the Atlantic Pact becomes necessary, the United States should see at
the same time that it does not stand in the way of the freedom movement in Asia
and Africa. Unless this is done there is a possibility of the Pact not
achieving much in regard to its primary aim.
There
have been three significant developments in Palestine. One is the de facto recognition
of the State of Israel by Britain. Because of their pro-Arab sympathies the
British have for months withheld such a recognition. But this created a good
deal of friction between them and the United States where the government is on
the whole sympathetic towards the Jews. In every other part of the world there
is fundamental accord between America and Britain. It was only in Palestine
that it was absent. This anamoly has now been removed and a more concerted
policy will now be followed by them in the Middle East. The second significant
development is the meeting of the Constituent Assembly of Israel and the
formation of a regular government in place of the Provisional government which
was in office all these months. This is the first Jewish Parliament in 2000
years and marks therefore a significant stage in the history of the Jewish
nation. A third development is the signing of the Armistice by Israel and
Egypt. Egyptians have now realised the futility of their fighting with the Jews
who possess distinct military superiority over all the
Arabs, They have given up their claims to Negev Armistice talks also have begun
with Transjordan; and there is every hope that they too
will be successfully concluded. There are one or two questions to which an easy
solution may not be possible. There is the question of the future of
Jerusalem–whether it should be internationalised or made over to Israel or to
Transjordan. There is next the question of the future of Arab Palestine–whether
it should be partitioned among the different Arab States in the neighbourhood
or completely incorporated in the Kingdom of Transjordan. But even though some time
may elapse before these are finally settled it may be assumed that the State of
Israel will not be very much affected by their solution one way or the other.
The
situation in Burma is becoming more and more alarming. The communists have
joined hands with the Karens, just as in the days of the freedom struggle in
our country the communists joined hands with the Pakistan separatists. Fighting
is now fiercer and the Government forces have not yet established their
superiority over the rebels. To consider the general situation in Burma and the
grant of financial assistance to her Government, a conference is being held in
New Delhi. The triumph of communism in that country will create trouble in
India, Pakistan, and Ceylon. And disorders in this part of the world are sure
to endanger the defences and security of Australia and New Zealand. In
this interdependent world nothing that happens in one country can be looked at
with indifference by other countries. This truth is best brought home today by
the events in Burma and this gives significance to the Delhi Conference.