British colonialism in Malta

Joe Bugeja’s article ‘The role of British colonialism in Malta’ (The Sunday Times, November 14) is yet another stereotypical rant of our old-fashioned anti-British brigade who, still stuck in the days of the long-gone Raj, periodically regale us with uninvited bilious attacks against our former British masters. In doing so they spice their assumptions with a mixture of old wives’ tales, popular myths, inaccuracies and pure invention.

Paradoxically, the author, though he describes himself as “pro-British by education, by profession and by conviction”, leaves no stone unturn-ed in finding every possible fault with the British presence in Malta.

I also view his article as a veiled attack on my professional integrity as a military history researcher, heritage lobbyist and conservationist. This is clearly shown in the way he uses parts of my conclusions featured in recent articles carried in this newspaper regarding popular myths about the Knights Order’s arsenal (The Sunday Times, September 5).

In doing this he bundles me with “many correspondents with little knowledge of historical research”. I wonder what qualifies him to reach this conclusion.

I am no anglophile, as Mr Bugeja dubbed me, but a proud citizen of this island. My connection with former British military heritage sites is only accidental, since I was instrumental, along with other worthy conservationists, in improving the overall appreciation of this heritage, which up to two decades ago was considered as mere trivia and as a result was being hopelessly lost.

I have spent more than half of my adult life actively working to save and conserve what precious cultural heritage we have in this island, whether prehistoric, medieval, Hospitaller or British. I have incessantly strived to achieve these goals along with the better presentation of our varied heritage sites, as can be enjoyed daily at Fort Rinella in Kalkara, the Saluting Battery in Valletta, the ‘Malta at War’ Museum in Vittoriosa and the Lascaris War Rooms in Valletta, among 34 other different projects.

All of this work has been achieved through solid scholarly historical research conducted in person in some of the finest libraries, archives and collections of Europe.

Throughout his article Mr Bugeja warns against amateurism in the study and presentation of history. However, his article is riddled with fundamental mistakes.

Here are a few of them: The building of British fortifications and barracks destroyed arable land – wrong. Fortifications and defence works were always built on rocky outcrops as the Knights had done to exploit the vantage value of the location.

Compensation was not paid on the expropriation of private land for defence purposes – completely untrue. There exists tons of documents attesting to the contrary. Of course, there would have been exceptions and disagreements but as rule compensation was in place.

Mention is made of the extension of the docks of the Knights – wrong; the first drydock was built by the British at Cospicua in 1848 followed by another in 1871 which marked the beginning of the industrialisation of the islands. In the same sentence he refers to the Mediterranean Fleets – there was only one such fleet and Malta was its headquarters till 1967.

Malta was almost bartered for peace with Mussolini – totally untrue. A similar myth exists that Nerik Mizzi had suggested the exchange of Malta for Italian Eritrea. Emigration from Malta was never restricted to the British period as the author implies but was very active during earlier periods too. Similar mass migrations were taking place all over Europe.

Poverty of the masses was not limited to these islands but was symptomatic of its time. Poverty on an even bigger scale existed in Britain itself, particularly in the big cities, and this lasted well into the 1950s. The difference in pay between the Maltese and the British for doing the same jobs was no sign of colonial exploitation but simple logic – foreigners required to work away from home were to be paid the same rates as if working back home, plus inducement money.

The great redundancies from the dockyard following the end of the two world wars were indeed unfortunate but expected, and not as some form of fiendish British vindictiveness against the Maltese, as both wars had bankrupted Britain, and on each occasion the fleet had to be downsized. Similar rundowns took place all over the Empire.

The annual contribution of £5,000 by Malta towards its defence budget was standard to all other colonies and it went to fund the locally raised Maltese units used for local defence, so it was a case of passing money from one pocket to another.

In the Dominions the entire defence budget was to be forked out by those states and they were obliged to maintain a fleet and an army ready for deployment in assisting the defence needs of the Empire. This was the concept of shared responsibility.

In return for this paltry contribution the island got far more than that in terms of commerce generated by the fleet, the resident garrison, naval and military construction projects on the island and all the custom generated by the fact that Malta became one of the principal staging points along the strategic commercial route to India.

The assertion that Malta’s history predates that of Britain is simply derisive and pathetic, and shows the author’s complete detachment from current historic thought. Is he aware that pre-history was taking place all over the globe,.including Britain?

It is true that the overall defence of the island was found wanting at the beginning of World War II but this had nothing to do with Admiral Cunningham’s decision to transfer the fleet to Alexandria out of harm’s way. That came from the fact that aerial attack rendered surface fleets completely obsolete, which is why traditional capital fleets vanished without a trace in the two decades after the end of World War II.

Instead, the submarines, which were less vulnerable to aerial attack, were left here to eventually cause untold havoc along Italian and German communication lines between mainland Europe and North Africa.

With regard to the deportation of Maltese Nationalists during the war I agree it was both illegal and unnecessary for the defence of the island. But let us not put all the blame on Britain for this. After all these years we should find enough courage to say that the enactment of this vile act was mostly instigated by fellow Maltese from the Constitutional camp, who had it been for them would have banished, if not worse, the entire Nationalist community.

I suggest Mr Bugeja t uses his deserved retirement to catch up with his history reading and spend less time branding others. Being an octogenarian in no way qualifies him to be a good historian.

Mr Farrugia is the executive chairman of Fondazzjoni Wirt Artna – Malta Heritage Trust.