India and the Empire
(Introduction by the Editor)

PROBLEMS OF EMPIRE SERIES: No. 2
Foreign Affairs, July, 1920. [Special Supplement.


India and the Empire

BRITAlN stands on the threshold of one of the gravest crises in her imperial history. Upon the series of events, culminating in the Arnritsar massacre, which have done so much to estrange Indian opinion, has come the Turkish Treaty. That Treaty has convulsed the Mohammedan world from end to end. It violates in most flagrant fashion the principle of nationality and self-determination of peoples. It affronts Mohammedan and, therefore, a large section of Indian religious sentiment in its profoundest depths. It breaks innumerable pledges given to India, and to the world, by the existing British Government and by its predecessors. It makes a Turkish war in which the Arabs—also flouted by the Treaty—will probably make common cause with the Turkish Nationalists inevitable.

In the Special Supplement dealing with this problem issued with the current issue of Foreign Affairs, we give our readers, from the most authorised pens competent to deal with the subject, the point of view of India and of Mohammedans generally, with a fullness which has never yet been attempted. We say “India” advisedly, for the blunders and follies of the past five years have united Hindu and Mohammedan in India, just as they have united Copt and Mohammedan in Egypt. In so doing we do not merely contribute to the cause of understanding and, therefore, of peace for which this journal strives, we are also placing before the Democracy first-hand information in which its own vital interests are bound up. The British Democracy is responsible for the Empire. it may dislike the Empire. But the Empire is a fact, and the responsibility is a fact. And so long as the Empire. exists, the British Democracy will pay for the mistakes in imperial policy committed by its rulers, just as it pays for their mistake in foreign policy. And imperial policy can never be separated from foreign policy: it is, indeed, part of It.

The working man in this country may not at first sight perceive that the religious convictions of 70 millions of Indian Mohammedans concern him in the least.

But he happens to be ultimately responsible for the machine which is actually governing those 70 million Indian Mohammedans. If that machine breaks down it is he who will be called upon by his rulers to mend it. He may think that the Turkish Treaty is not a matter he needs to worry about. But in the Turkish Treaty is involved not only British rule in India, but the whole. Near East and Middle East problems. And those problems are costing the British taxpayer a pretty round figure to-day. We have 22,846 British troops in Constantinople, 32,014 in Palestine, and 70,603 in Mesopotamia, and they are costing us at the present moment just under £40 millions sterling.

This, however, is a trifle compared with possible future contingencies. The policy of imperial expansion coupled with repression to which our present rulers appear to have committed themselves (combined with a foreign policy which tolerates reaction in Europe and assaults upon Mohammedan States in the interests ol European Allies), requires, in order to maintain itself, one of two things: either an Eastern Army which can be relied upon under any and every circumstance, or a permanent conscript army at home. The alleged attitude of Indian troops in Persia in the course of the rising the other day is not yet explicitly confirmed. But the news, if it eventually turns out to be true, is of import to every working man in this country.

These are some of the reasons why it is essential that the character of the Turkish Treaty, and Indian sentiment in regard to it, need to be brought home clearly to the British people.

It is not necessary that they should agree with everything that is here contended by the distinguished writers who have contributed articles to the Supplement. But it is necessary that they should become fully acquainted with these views, and be in a position to understand the force and volume of the convictions which lie behind them.

EDITOR, Foreign Affairs.

CONTENTS.

The Indian Khilafat Delegation.
By A.R.S. (p. II)

Islam and the Khilafat
By Mohamed Ali. (p. III)

Khilafat and the Koreish.
By Maulana Seyed Sulaiman Nadwi. (p. VI)

The Relations of Great Britain with the Muslims of India as they are Affected by the Turkish Treaty
By Syud Hossain (p. IX)

The Turkish Treaty.
By Leland Buxton (p. XII)

Massacres and the Turks.
By Marmaduke Pickthall (p. XIV)

Self-Determination and the Turkish Treaty.
By "Q." (p. XVI)

The Situation in India.
By the Hon. Maulvi Abul Kasem. (inset)

The Relations of Great Britain with the Muslims of India as they are Affected by the Turkish Treaty

The Relations of Great Britain with the Muslims of India as they are Affected by the Turkish Treaty

By SYUD HOSSAIN (Member, Indian Khilafat Delegation)

IN order correctly to appraise the grave crisis that has arisen in India over the future of the Khilafat, consequent on Turkey’s participation in the Great War, it is important to bear in mind a leading and, indeed, governing fact in regard to the constitutional relationship that exists between the people of India and the British Crown. British rule in India formally dates from the assumption by Queen Victoria, after the Indian Mutiny, of the title of Empress of India in 1858, and the simultaneous transference from the East India Company to the Crown of all rights, responsibilities, and functions of government. Queen Victoria inaugurated her regime by a memorable Proclamation which has been rightly regarded as the Magna Càrrta of India. In it were laid down, in language at once impressive and categorical, the fundamental principles of British rule in India. Foremost amongst them was solemnly affirmed to be the concession of complete religious freedom to all Her Majesty’s Indian subjects. It thus be seen that the loyalty and allegiance of Indians to the British Crown have, from the very beginning of British-Indian official contact, been conditional upon the due recognition and observance of the principles of religious neutrality and toleration on the part of the British Government, and upon its duly respecting the religious obligations of the Indian peoples.

Until recently, in whatever other respects British administration in India may have violated or run counter to the principles laid down in the Queen’s Proclamation, the pledge regarding religious neutrality was not infringed. But the text of the so-called Peace Treaty with Turkey presented on behalf of Great Britain and her Allies to the Turkish Plenipotentiaries on June 11 last, marks the culmination of a process of violent departure from the principle to which I have referred, which had been increasingly in evidence since the outbreak of war with ‘I’urkey. The resultant issue is a grave one, both in the impasse it has actually entailed, as represented in the Non-Cooperation Movement already started in India, and the far-reaching and ominous implications it involves. The question goes to the very roots of the relations between Great Britain and India. It cannot be burked. If the seventy millions of Mussulmans in India are to be enabled to continue, as heretofore, to render a willing allegiance to the British connection, the deadlock must be solved by re-establishing the principle that. has been violated. The infringement must be practically rectified.

What is the Muslim position? The Mussulmans maintain that Great Britain can be no party to the Peace Settlement with Turkey which has been proposed by her and her Allies without dealing a mortal blow to their indefeasible religious obligations. By so doing they hold that Great Britain would be violating the constitutional foundation of British rule in India, and inevitably forfeiting the loyalty of Indian Mussulmans. It may be useful briefly to examine the elements of this question. The loyalty of Indian Muslims to the British Crown has long been an Anglo-Indian tradition: there has been no question at any time during the history of British rule in India that this loyalty was not entirely compatible with their religious allegiance, in the most comprehensive sense of the term, to the Sultan of Turkey, the Khalif of Islam, and the Warden of its Holy Shrines. On the contrary, this "extra-territorial” allegiance, representing a continuity of historic tradition from the earliest days of Muslim rule in India, was fully and consistently acknowledged. When one finds, at the present day, even official apologists advancing pleas, at once pathetic, pedantic, and preposterous, intended to cast doubts on the validity of the Sultan’s title to be Khalifa of Islam — as though that were a question for any but Muslims themselves to determine — it becomes pertinent to inquire why the British Government, or its expert apologists, did not seek to vindicate the doubt that was in them on any of the numerous occasions that presented themselves, and would seem to have been available for the purpose, during the last half century. Why did no one attempt to wean the lndian Mussulmans from their blind infatuation for a bogus Khaiifa, by suggesting, for instance, that their centuries-old habit of offering prayers every Friday for the Khalifa in their mosques throughout the length and breadth of India was in act of futile piety? Why, when hostilities broke out in 1876, between the Turkish Government and Russia, and the sympathies of Indian Mussulmans were strongly excited on behalf of the Sultan and their coreligionists in Turkey, did Lord Beaconsfield, the Government of India, and Sir Richard Temple, the then Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, bless the mass meeting of the Mussulmans that was held in the Town Hall of Calcutta, to “express sympathy with his Imperial Majesty the Sultan of Turkey in the endeavours of His Majesty’s Government to defend and maintain its power”? Why, in the subsequent crises through which the Ottoman Empire passed, did the Government of India countenance the enthusiastic manifestations of active sympathy on the part of Indian Muslims for the Khalifa and their co-religionists? Why did they accord their sanction to the proposal for raising funds for Red Crescent Relief for the Turkish wounded in the last Balkan War, when the Moslems subscribed a larger sum of money than was ever raised by them, I believe, for any domestic purpose whatsover? Why, coming to the beginnings of the present crisis, after the declaration of war between England and Turkey in 1914, did the Government of India, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, as also the Governments of France and Russia, promptly issue a proclamation, assuring “His Majesty’s most loyal Moslem subjects” that “no question of a religious character was involved” in the war, and disclaiming any British designs on the Holy Places of Islam? I give below the text of this document, but in view of the attempts that have recently been made to interpret it with perverse narrowness, it is necessary to point out that the proclamation was accepted and interpreted throughout India in the sense I have indicated above. The proclamation is dated November 2, 1914, and runs as follows:—

In view of the outbreak of war between Great Britain and Turkey, which, to the regret of Great Britain, has been brought about by the ill-advised, unprovoked, and deliberate action of the Ottoman Government, His Excellency the Viceroy is authorised by His Majesty’s Government to make the following public announcement in regard to the Holy Places of Arabia, including the Holy Shrines of Mesopotamia and the port of Jeddah, in order that there may be no misunderstanding on the part of His Majesty’s most loyal Muslim subjects in this War, in which no question of a religious character is involved. These Holy Places and Jeddab will be immune from attack or molestation by the British Naval and Military Forces so long as there is no interference with pilgrims from India to the Holy Places and Shrines in question. At the request of His Majesty’s Government, the Governments of France and Russia have given them similar assurances.

There can be no question that this authoritative declaration had the effect of reassuring the Muslim mind in an hour of acute spiritual conflict and misgivings. if it were not that Indian Muslims accepted the word of England, pledging her own honour and that of her Allies, it is inconceivable that tens of thousands of Muslim soldiers would have readily rallied, as they did, to the cause of the Allies and of the Empire, and willingly laid down their lives in. fighting even against their own co-religionists. In other words, the proclamation served its turn. Subsequently, as the strife developed, and it became necessary to beat up fresh Indian recruits, Mr. Lloyd George felt that it was desirable to give further assurances to Muslims and Indians. On January 5, 1918, claiming to speak in the name of the whole Empire, the British Prime Minister made the following unambiguous and remarkable pronouncement:—

Nor are we fighting to deprive Turkey of Its capital or of the rich end renowned lands of Asia Minor and Thrace, which are predominantly Turkish In race.

This solemn and categorical declaration also served its turn. The Muslim mind which had begun to be rather restive and suspicious at sundry manifestations of British policy even in the throes of war, was lulled for a further spell by a false sense of security. Finally came the Armistice with Turkey, and it is important to recall that it was signed on the basis of President Wilson’s Twelfth Point (one of his famous Fourteen Points as set forth in his message to Congress dated January 8, 1918) which is as follows :—

That the Turkish portIons of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured of secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities now under Turkish rule should be assured security of Iife and autonomous development.

Now how have these promises and pledges been redeemed? It is the bare truth to say that in the Treaty presented to the Turkish Plenipotethiaries on May 11 last, every single principle contained in the declarations I have cited above has been palpably violated and betrayed. Non-interference with Muslim religious practices and obligations, non-molestation of Islamic Holy Places and respect for Turkish territorial and national integrity have all been thrown overboard. The proposed Treaty aims not only at the utter dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, but also, quite unmistakably, at the destruction of the Khilafat. That is a project of immeasurable mischief which must be exposed and frustrated. Article 139 of the Treaty runs as follows:—

Turkey renounces formally all right of suzerainty or jurisdiction of any kind over Moslems who are subject to the sovereignty or protectorate of any other State.
No power shall be exercised directly or indIrectly by any Turkish authority whatever in any territory detached from Turkey or of which the existing status is recognised by Turkey under the present Treaty.

It must be pointed out that this Article by itself, irrespective of anything else in the Treaty, would utterly damn the whole settlement so far as the Inditan Muslims are concerned. The Sultan of Turkey, as Khalifa, has aways had, has, and must continue to have so long as he holds that offIce, his very considerable “jurisdiction, ‘“over Muslims who are subject to the sovereignty or protectorate of any other State.” The Law of Islam clearly prescribes the character and extent of the “jurisdiction” pertaining to the office of Khilafat, and from the Muslim point of view it is nothing short of an outrageous encroachment on the fundamental religious canons of islam for Great Britain and her Allies to demand the formal surrender of the “jurisdiction” which has rightfully been vested In the Khalifa during more than 1,300 years of Islamic history. The Sultan can no more forswear such “jurisdiction” than the Muslims can surrender it, without involving the collapse of the Khilafat. And the maintenance of the Khilafat, intact and unimpaired, is indispensable to Islam. The wanton and reckless intent of the Article, indeed, can scarcely be exaggerated. It not only seeks to destroy the present Khalifa—for if he were to assent to the Allies’ proposal he would automatically cease to be Khalifa—but assails the very foundations of the institution of the Khilafat, which enfolds the entire brotherhood of Islam.

Of a similar character is Article 121, which lays down that:

Turkey definitely renounces all rights and privileges, which, under the Treaty of Lausanne of October 12, 1912, were left to the Sultan in Libya. 1

[1] i.e., Tripoli, in Italian occupation.—Ed. Foreign Affairs.

These, as all must know, included rights pertaining to the Sultan as Khalifa over a territory which had ceased to be Turkish.

The other parts of the Treaty, whether the Political Clauses or the Military, Naval, and Air Clauses or the Financial and Economic Clauses, are calculated, singly and collectively, to achieve in practical detail the destruction of the Khilafat. According to the Islamic law, the Khalifa must be an independent temporal sovereign, equipped with adequate territorial, economic and defensive resources; according to the Peace Treaty be would be a helpless, impotent puppet without any such resources or assets as are postulated in his role of “Defender of the Faith.” According to Article 155 of the Treaty the total number of Turkish forces has. been generously fixed—for all time !—at a maximum of 50,000, including staffs, officers, training personnel, and depot troops. The Naval Clauses provide for the surrender of all Turkish warships, with the exception ol a few small, lightly armed vessels for police and fishery duties. Turkey may not at any time construct or acquire any warship other than those required to replace the units allowed for police and fishery duties, and is also forbidden to construct or acquire any submarine even for commercial purposes. The Air Clauses, if anything, are still mere interesting and characteristic. Turkey must have no air forces, now or in the future; the entire Turkish Air Force personnel must be dernobilised but— " the aircraft of the Allied Powers are to have freedom of passage over and transit and landing throughout Turkish territory until the complete evacuation of Turkey by the Allies.” But it is not enough that Turkey should have no Army, Navy and Air Forces. “No part is to be taken by Turkey,” one reads, “nor by any individual Turk, in the military, naval, or aeronautical concerns of any foreign. nation.” So much for the maintenance of the Khalif as an independent, temporal sovereign!

Coming to the territorial disposal of the Khalifa’s dominions, we find that “the rich and renowned lands of Asia Minor and Thrace, which are predominantly Turkish in race” have been consigned to Greece; that the “Holy Shrines of Mesopotamia,” which were to be immune from British attack or molestation, are, together with the rest of Mesopotamia and Syria, to be placed under Christian Mandatories—thus destroying directly the inviolability of “Jazirat-ul-Arab”; and that even the “secure sovereignty” which was assured to the Turkish portions of the Ottoman Ernpire by the terms of the Armistice has been shamelessly sought to be rendered null and void. An examination in detail of these amiable arrangements may be deferred to another occasion.

But it is impossible to pass over Articles 96 and 97, which lay down, with reference to Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine, that:

The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the principal Allied Powers, and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval;

and that

Turkey hereby undertakes in accordance with the provisions of Article 132, to accept any decisions which may be taken in relation to the questions dealt with in this section.

Article 132, referred to above; runs as follows :—

Outside the frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty, Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers ALL rights and titles which she could claim ON ANY GROUND over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement, where necessary, with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.

The Turkish Treaty

(Again, in the magazine, what is above simply runs into what is below, and the headline is not as giant-sized as with the rest of the articles. The author is uncredited, but in the "Contents," the name given is Leland Buxton. This section appears on the correct page as listed in the Contents, p. xi, and ends on p. xiv.)

The Turkish Treaty

The terms of the Turkish Treaty now published have been the last straw on the camel’s back, and the Mussulmans of India as well as their countrymen of other faiths have been goaded to desperation, and are now in an ugly mood. The Viceroy’s message to them, though full of fine words, has instead of reassuring them, added insult to injury and caused a good deal of irritation among the people

The Recommencement of Repression and its Sequel

The Government of India, finding that the time for pledges and assurances by which they could silence and assure the people, had gone, and that they would no longer be pacified by such means, are now adopting repressive measures again to crush the agitation. But these measures are doomed to failure. An ardent worker in the Khilafat movement, Moulvi Hamid Ahmed, of Allahabad, was prosecuted for a speech delivered at a Khilafat meeting, and was sentenced to give security for good behaviour for a comparatively small amount. But although hundreds came forward to offer it on his behalf, he refused to give it, and gladly went to jail amidst the plaudits and congratulations of large crowds assembled in and outside the Court. This was followed by the prosecution of a more notable worker, Maulana Mohammed Fakhir, an old and eminent religious leader, who was touring in the country and was a prominent member of the Deputation that was received by the Viceroy in January last. He refused to defend himself, and told the Court and the public that he had done and would continue to do what the laws of God dictated. He was sentenced to one year’s hard labour, and his counsel assured that the sentence would be altered into one of simple imprisonment if he applied to the Court, refused to plead ad misericordiam. The Maulana, who is in very poor health, gladly went to jail, followed by a crowd of 30,000 people who were cheering him and showering flowers over him. Accounts of this sad and yet exultant procession that are coming in by the Indian mails show that for once, at least, repression such as this would utterly fail to crush the movement.

An Astonishing Incident

The feeling in India is far more intense than it has ever been known before, and the gravity of the situation cannot be realised by anyone who does not know what religion means to a Mussulman. As an example of the intensity of feeling, I may mention that on a recent occasion in Sind, when the enthusiasm of the people at a Khilafat meeting was being described, a young man stood up, cried “Allahu Akbar” (God is Great) and immediately fell down dead! Poor Mussulmans have chosen to starve for some days in order to subscribe to the Khilafat fund, and Muslim women have parted with their ornaments and jewelry, and even brides have given away their trousseaux to the Khilafat fund, preferring to he married in worn-out clothes.

Now that the Government have started a policy of repression, it is hard to prophecy to what it will lead. For more than a quarter of a century, I have been associated with public life in India and have watched from within and from without, various agitations, violent as well as mild, which the people had started for their political advancement or the protection of their rights. But nothing so far could at all approach the Khilafat agitation in its intensity, magnitude or range. The fact is that it is not a question of political rights and privileges nor a matter of economic concern for which people can only make a certain limited amount of sacrifice, but a question of faith and religion which is dearer and more valuable to a Mussulman than life and honour, and one for which no sacrifice can be too great. It is a question which affects all alike, the prince and the peasant, the capitalist and the labourer, the educated classes and, alas, the still ignorant masses. The outlook in India is very gloomy, and a storm may break out at any moment unless Mussulmans, by whose help and sacrifice England won the war, and now occupies the position of a world-dictator, receive justice and fair play at her hands would at least hold Out some hope for the inemnant of the Armenians; but it is fairly clear that, as those unfortunate people are not in a position to help themselves, nothing is to be done for them. A large British army will guard the oil-wells of Mesopotamia, but it will not prevent the extermination of the Armenian race. M. Venizelos, indeed, is believed to have given a promise that the mighty Hellenic army will compel the Turks to carry out the whole Treaty. It would be interesting to watch it making the attempt. M. Venizelos, however, is much less beloved by the Greek people than he is by Mr. Lloyd George, Lord Robert Cecil, or Mr. Asquith. His position in his own country is already precarious, and although most of his personal enemies are in prison or exile, the opposition is growing in numbers and influence. M. Venizelos cannot, even if he would, induce his people to fight the battles of their commercial rivals. The Greek army will be fully occupied in holding down the alien populations annexed by Greece, and it is to be hoped that British Trade Unionists will refuse to handle military supplies intended for that country. As for the League of Nations, it is no longer practical politics to suggest that it shall undertake any important task. The only hope for the Armenians of Turkey lies in the protection of one of the Great Powers, but this is not likely to be forthcoming, for the mineral resources of Armenia are insufficient to stimulate a philanthropic enterprise. Under the circumstances it is a mere farce to define the frontiers of an Armenian State.

There is a mixed Armenian and Kurdish population throughout the regions usually known as Armenia and Kurdistan, but on the whole the Armenians predominate in the north and the Kurds in the south. There is some justification, therefore, for the clause in the Treaty in which “Turkey accepts in advance a scheme of autonomy for the predominantly Kurdish areas east of the Euphrates, south of the southern frontier of Armenia, and north of the southern frontier of Turkey. This rather unexpected provision is possibly due to the influence of the intrepid Major Noel, the “Lawrence of Kurdistan,” who has discovered virtues in the Kurdish people to which the majority of travellers have hitherto been blind. It is satisfactory, at any rate, to find that the Supreme Council has been taking lessons in geography, but it has still to be explained how the Turks are to be evicted from Armenia and Kurdistan.

Future Relations with Turkey.

While the creation of a Greek Empire is perhaps the worst feature of the Turkish settlement, there is little cause for satisfaction in any part of the Treaty. If its object is to make our own position in the Middle East secure against Turkish aggression in the future, it is totally ineffective. Turkey will, quite possibly, become a more formidable military power than she was before the war. She is not surrounded, like Bulgaria, by hostile States, and it is quite impossible for the Allies, under present circumstances, to conquer and occupy the whole of Anatolia, where the Nationalists are supremely indifferent to the orders of the Government at Constantinople. We have no means, therefore, of enforcing either the military clauses of the Treaty or those dealing with the protection of minorities. Nor can we prevent the Turks, now that Tsarist Russia has disappeared, from joining forces with the, Moslems of the Caucasus and Transcaspia, who will tolerate Turkish supervision much more readily than did the Arabs. Further, the loss of the Yemen, where Turkey has squandered her resources for decades without getting any return, will be a pure gain to her, and in the next war she will not have one of her armies shut up in Medina.

One of the most important sections of the Treaty is that which creates a “Commission of the Straits,” with its own flag, budget, and police, to control the navigation of the Bosphorus, the Sea of Marmora, and the Dardanelles. “In the case of threats to the freedom of passage of the Straits,” says the official summary of the Treaty, “special provision is made for appeal by the commission to the representatives at Constantinople of Great Britain, France, arid Italy, which powers under the military provisions of the Treaty, provide forces for the occupation of the zone of the Straits”; the naval and military commanders of the Allies will then (it is hoped) take the necessary steps. The Commission is to consist, for the present, of representatives of the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Roumania, and of the United States, if that Power is willing to participate. An element of comedy is supplied by the provision that Russia and Bulgaria (who are vitally interested in the freedom of the Straits) shall have representatives on the Commission if and when they become members of the League of Nations. In other words, they are indefinitely excluded from participation, and it will doubtless be one of the objects of Greek policy to prevent Bulgaria’s admission to the League.

The League of Nations is also to serve as a convenient excuse for preventing, as far as possible the resumption of German trade with Asia Minor. It is declared that the members of the League are to enjoy complete freedom in the use of the ports of Constantinople, Smyrna, Alexandretta, etc. Thus all the members who trade with Turkey are furnished with an additional motive for keeping the ex-enemy States outside the League of Nations for a long period. The League does not figure largely in the Turkish Treaty, but it has provided the Supreme council with some welcome opportunities of gratifying its innate love of cant.

Mr. George’s “Crusading Enthusiasm.”

Whatever advantages we may hope to gain by inflicting further injuries on our Christian enemies, there is little doubt that we shall suffer terribly for the crusading enthusiasm of Mr. Lloyd George. It is difficult for those who have not lived or travelled in Moslem lands to appreciate the international character of Islam. Non-Turkish Moslems care little for the Turks qua Turks, but they care much for the Turkish Empire as the leading Moslem Power. Certain learned students of Koranic law, with little personal knowledge of the Moslems of the present day, are fond of writing to the Press about the Khilafat. Their views on this subject are of purely academic interest. It does not in the least matter what Professor This or Dr. That thinks the Moslems ought to feel. What does matter is that the vast majority of Sunni Moslems do believe that the Sultan of Turkey is their rightful Khalifa, and that the interests of Islam require him to be the head of a large, powerful, and independent State. According to the Peace Treaty, Turkey practically loses her independence and is placed under the tutelage or three Christian Powers; while the conditions under which the Sultan remains at a semi-internationalised Constantinople, almost under the guns of the despised Greeks, will certainly not diminish Moslem resentment. To avoid the suspicion that the British Empire was hostile to Islam, it was essential that Turkish suzerainty, at least, should be retained over the greater part of Eastern Thrace, with its sacred city of Adrianople, and over the “Jazirat-ul-Arab (i.e., Syria, Mesopotamia, and Arabia), which has a peculiar holiness in the eyes of all Moslems. An important party has long existed among the Turks which was in favour of provincial autonomy throughout the Empire, and there is no doubt that the Ottoman Government would now give the inhabitants of the Arab provinces what they desire, i.e., the right to mismanage their own affairs with the least possible interference from any central government. As the great majority of the population would prefer the suzerainty of the Sultan to that of any Christian Power, a wise statesmanship would have left the Turks and Arabs to come to a mutual agreement.

The Allied statesmen, however, had the mentality of concession-hunters, and a particularly keen scent for coal and oil. Although the precise arrangements made among themselves have not yet been published, it is clear that Italy, as usual, gets the smallest share of the spoils, and neither the coal of Eregli, nor a sphere of influence in Southern Anatolia, will compensate her for the aggrandisement of Greece. Syria, Mesopotamia and Hejaz are declared to be independent states, but this is a fiction which deceives nobody; humbug has become such an ingrained habit with the Big Two that it has ceased even to amuse. “The selection of mandatories is to be fixed by the principal Allied Powers,” and not by the peoples chiefly concerned. In practice, of course, France is to have a Protectorate over Syria, and Great Britain over Mesopotamia, Palestine and Arabia. These things outrage the feelings of Moslems throughout the world, but they do not rankle in the minds of the Turks like the Greek annexation of Thrace and Smyrna, especially as the British and French do not habitually persecute those who differ from them in race or religion.

In the case of the Treaty with Turkey, there was no clamour for vengeance from France, and it was open to Great Britain, therefore, either to initiate a policy of conciliation or to insist on that of the Big Stick. Mr. Lloyd George, largely under the influence of M. Venizelos, has chosen the latter course, and the consequences will be disastrous for the British taxpayer. We have driven the Turks into the arms of the Bolsheviks, and have made the Pan-Islamic danger a reality. From Khiva to Cairo, from Adrianople to Delhi, we have fanned the flames of fanaticism and organised the growing animosity against Christians in general and against the British in particular. The menace to our Eastern Empire becomes more formidable month by month. When a great nation allows its foreign policy to be dictated by a Balkan statesman, it must expect to suffer.

Self-Determination and the Turkish Treaty

By “Q.”

Such an important article, and "Q" chose not to reveal his real name. He probably wasn't even yet working for His Majesty's Secret Service, either.

The Mussulmans of India claim a locus standi in every assembly of the Empire that meets to settle the future of Turkey in virtue of their being Mussulmans, and therefore vitally concerned in the terms of settlement which is bound to affect the destinies of the religious institution of the Khilafat. Their concern is purely religious, and they maintain that their allegiance to every temporal sovereign, Christian Or Muslim, is strictly conditional on their religious requirements being respected. If, in making peace, these requirements and responsibilities are disregarded, it would mean a terrible betrayal of people whose assistance was sought and obtained in making war, and as a result of it, achieving a victory that enables Great Britain to impose on Turkey any terms of peace at alt. But this is not all. It will also mean the absolution of Mussulmans from their allegiance to Great Britain for the future. That is a position from which there is no escape. The Mussulmans cannot compromise their eternal salvation. Great Britain who is, apparently, no longer wishful to respect their religious obligations or to shape her policy without prejudice to them, cannot expect in future to receive their homage in return if she maintains her present attitude.

Even if it were possible to ignore the unchanging obligations of Mussulmans with regard to their faith, and Great Britain’s obligations to Mussulmans with regard to her pledged word, which should be equally unchangeable, there is yet another aspect of the question which happily makes an appeal of no little power to the modern world. One may disregard the rights of the Mussulmans to maintain the Khilafat, and even the rights of a people to whom a pledge has been given, to insist on its fulfillment; but can one equally disregard the right of a people to determine the form of its own government? This, at least, is common ground between the Mussulman and the Christian, between the religious-minded and the politically-minded.

Some Interpretations of Self- Determination.

Although peace has not yet resumed its sway over mankind and is not likely to do so for many a decade yet if the “governing classes” continue acting as they are acting to-day — how distant seem the days of war when the noblest of principles were being advertised with an eloquence that had all the appearance of sincerity! The most notable of these and the special product of the mentality of the war is the principle of self-determination which, chameleon-like, takes on the hue of political surroundings in various parts of the world.

Montenegro, perhaps the smallest of the small nations of the world, in the interests of which we were told the war was waged, must submit to Serbia because, reversing the Japanese proverb, it is better to be the tail of a bull than the head of a cock, and she is doomed to lose her individuality because the autocrats at the Peace Conference table have decreed that Serbia must have a respectable size and population. There, according to Lord Curzon, the advantage of being part of a larger unit outweighed the inestimable possession of liberty which the people of the Black Mountain had evidently cherished for long centuries. But, when the Mussulmans of India merely ask the Premier not to interfere in the purely Muslim question of an adjustment of the undeniable right of the Arabs to autonomy within the scheme of Ottoman Sovereignty, so that the most essential religious institution of the Khilafat might not languish for want of adequate temporal power for the defence of the faith, he asks them whether he is to deny to the Arabs, because they are Muslim, the independence that has been given to the Czecho-Slovaks and the Yugoslavs, as if the Muslims of Egypt, supported by their Christian compatriots, had already had their undoubted independence recognised at 10 Downing Street, and as if the Arabs, ruled over by the Ottoman Khalifa did not need, in these days of large dominating empires, the support of their Muslim brethren of Turkey to withstand the pressure of so-called protectors and mandatories?

Again, when Ireland has so clearly determined what her future shall be, she is told by the Premier that :

“it is of no use talking about self-determination. If the Rt. Honourable gentleman (Mr. Adamson) supports self-determination, he must go the full length of planting an Irish Republic in Ireland … Self-determination does not mean that every part of a country which has been acting together for hundreds of years shall have a right to say, we mean to set up a separate republic…..There must be that limitation to the application of any principle, otherwise you might carry it to every fragment and every locality in every country throughout the world. When you lay down a principle of that kind, you must lay it down within, the limitations which common sense, which tradition will permit.”

And yet apparently if the starving population of blockaded Arabia — promised immunity from attack and molestation — is made to demand separation from the Empire, to which the most sacred ties and traditions had bound her for many centuries, these great almoners at the Peace Conference table are so lavish in distributing the largesse of liberty that no consideration of the kind hat overruled self-determination in Ireland, could check their generosity at other folk’s expense. As for Smyrna, one wonders whether even the limitation of common sense was present in the Premier’s mind at San Remo, let alone the limitation of tradition.

But the last connotation of self-determination is evidently the best. There is oil in Mosul, and the only self-determination that is therefore possible, is that the British shall demand a mandate in Mesopotamia. Verily as a member of the Indian Khilafat Delegation has said, the Prime Minister is pouring Mosul oil over the troubled waters of Mesopotarnia!

"...Perhaps the principle of self-determination would after all be applied... in the old orthodox way, and heads would once again be cut..."

 

More Recent and Detailed Figures.

A reference, however, to more recent figures than those of 1914 shows that, while the number of the Turks in Eastern Thrace has increased, its Greek population has considerably decreased; and if some 70,000 of Turkish Mussulmans, originally inhabitants of this vilayet who had been forced by Greek and Bulgarian oppression to seek refuge in Asia Minor, are added to the present figures, as M.VenizeIos has added the imaginary figures of Greek emigrants desiring to return to their former homes, the Muslim population of Eastern Thrace would almost aggregate half a million.

On the other hand, according to the statistics of the year 1913, concerning the period just preceding the Balkan War, the Greek population was less than 200,000, and if from this figure are excluded some 70,000 emigrants whose properties, lands and assets were exchanged with those of an equivalent number of Muslim emigrants from Macedonia by an arrangement concluded with the Greek Government, the Greek population of Eastern Thrace to-day ought to be no more than about 130,000 souls. And even these are not all of Greek blood. They include all Christians belonging to the Orthodox Church. On this basis the true Greeks do not number more than 45,000, the rest comprising 18,000 Albanians, 21,500 Turcomans, who speak Turkish and are known by the name of Gagavouz, 12,500 Christian Turks of Asia Minor who speak Turkish and are known as Karamanli, while there are as many as 32,000 indigenous Turkish Christians who speak both Turkish and Greek. In this group of Orthodox Christians there are therefore only 45,000 Greeks and 18,000 Albanians, while there are as many as 66,500 Turks. If a racial rather than a religious basis is preferred, as Mr. Lloyd George seems to prefer in the case of Smyrna, then the present population of Eastern Thrace has 82 per cent Turks, 8 per cent. Greeks, 3 per cent. Albanians, 1/2 per cent. Bulgarians, 3 1/2 per cent. Jews, and 3 per cent. Armenians. Against this overwhelming majority of 82 per cent. of the Turks, all the other elements do not average more than 18 per cent.

Again, 84 per cent, of the land, aggregating nearly two million hectares, belongs to Muslim Turks, while only 14 per cent. belongs to Christians of the Greek Church, and 2 per cent. to the Bulgarians, Armenians and Jews. But since more than half of the land classed under the head “Greek” belongs to Christian Turks, and 2 per cent. out of the remainder to the Albanians, in reality 91 per cent, of it is Turkish and only 5 per cent. really Greek.

An international Inquiry Suggested.

If after all this Mr. Lloyd George still finds it “very difficult to get the facts about Thrace,” why does he not get an International Commission, with adequate Muslim and Indian representation to take a plebiscite on the spot? But evidently he is still under the spell woven by the Greek wizard Venizelos, and fondly imagines that somewhere in Downing Street there is a Turkish census of Thrace and that, in some way, M. Venizelos also managed to take a census in territory not yet his, and that “there is very little difference between them”! But perhaps the principle of self-determination would after all be applied, in Thrace in the old orthodox way, and heads would once again be cut rather than counted.

 

"We have to remove these deeply-rooted prejudices"

III.-The Case of Armenia.

The case of Armenia stands on a different footing from the cases of Thrace and Smyrna, not because the Christian population is in a majority in any vilayet of so-called Armenia, but because the Armenians have certainly suffered, at least as belligerents, whereas the Greeks have not, and have, in fact, caused untold suffering to others. A strong case exists for removing such grievances of the Christian population as are found to be legitimate after discounting the exaggerations of a raging and tearing propaganda started in this country, not so much for the benefit of the Christian population of Armenia, as with a view to “queer the pitch” for those who would appeal for the app1ication of the principle of self-determination even to the “unspeakable Turk.”

“Queering the Pitch”

There was a time when people said that “men lie, but figures don’t.” Even this impersonal reputation for veracity has been exploited since then, and people have now come to divide liars into three varieties—liars, d— liars, and statisticians. But even the efforts of statisticians, unless they happen to be of the Venizelist variety, cannot alter the fact that Armenia is not a country peopled by Christians belonging to the Armenian Church, but a part of Turkey inhabited mostly by Mussulmans, not a few of whom are of Turkish origin, the majority, of course, being Kurdish. Therefore, if the Khi1afat was to be completely dismembered, it was necessary to set up some other equally potent doctrine to defeat Muslim self-determination, and nothing better could be conceived to appeal to ancient prejudices and a bitterness of more recent growth than the cry of massacred Armenia. And these tactics have succeeded beyond expectation.

The Foundling at the Door

Some of the strongest advocates of self-determination draw the line at Armenia, and innocently taking up the cry from clever propagandists say that Muslim majorities in Armenia were made by massacres and that in no case could these “innocent lambs” be left in charge of the ferocious Turkish wolf. But San Remo, and now the Treaty perfected at San Remo, have lifted the veil, and it is clear that the ultimate object was not the rescue of the Christian population of Armenia. Mandatories have been found — in fact, they have manifestly thrust themselves on the Supreme Council — for every part of dismembered Turkey but poor Armenia. Every day this foundling is discovered at the door of a fresh Power, but none would acknowledge or adopt it, because, alas and alack, it possessed neither oil nor cotton nor coal. It was then that some genius discovered a plan for killing two birds with a stone. America, that wary fly, that would not go into the European spider’s little parlour on any account, has been tauntingly appealed to in the name of massacred Armenia. If she comes in, not only is Armenia lost to the Turks, but she herself is lost in spite of her self- denying ordinances and Monroe doctrines and if she does not come in, disinterested, sympathetic, tenderhearted Europe could always point the finger of scorn at selfish, soulless America!

But even this plan seems to have miscarried and the result is that Armenia, in the name of which all this propaganda was carried on, gets but little, while Greece, which was not even at war with Turkey, walks away with most of the spoils of war — after the British lion has had the lion’s share. This alone is sufficient testimony to the sincerity of the propagandists. In fact, even to-day when Greek hecklers attend meetings organised for defending Turkey’s right to self- determination, they still cry “Armenian Massacres” forgetting that the hands held up in horror are dripping with the blood of massacred Smyrna !

The Population of Armenia

But let us examine what Armenia gets. She is recognised in tile Treaty as a free and independent state, and the President of the United States is to arbitrate on the question of the frontier to be fixed between Turkey and Armenia in the vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis. But what is the nature of the population of these vilayets of Turkey? In Erzerum there are 673,000 Mussulmans, constituting 82 ½ per cent of the population, as against 136,000 Armenians who constitute 16 ½ per cent. Of the population. In Trebizond the Mussulmans number 921,000 or 82 per cent. of the population, as against only 40,000 Armenians, averaging 3 ½ per cent. In the vilayet of Van the Muslim population is 179,000 or 69 per cent. as against 67,000 Armenians or 26 per cent., and in Bitlis the Mussulmans number 310,000 or 70 ½ per cent. as against. 119,000 Armenians, averaging 27 per cent. Thus, in these four vilayets alone the Mussulmans number 2,083,000 or 80 per cent. as against 362,000 or 13 per cent.

Majorities “Made by Massacre”

Now, no one can say that any attempt has yet been made to take a plébiscite of the population of these four vilayets, and it is certain that if one were taken the majority would still decide to remain part of the Turkish Empire. But it is said that the majority is one “made by massacres,” and when the Prime Minister was asked by the Indian Delegation for the data on which a correct judgement could be based, his Secretary wrote back:

As to Armenia, I am afraid I can give you no statistics. Pre-war statistics, both Turkish and Armenian, were open to grave suspicion, and during the war, owing to the policy of massacre and expulsion pursued by the Turkish Government, the situation as regards population has been greatly modified. For instance, it is estimated that some 800,000 Armenians were massacred in these parts by the Turks. In determining the Eastern frontiers of Turkey, therefore, present day statistics, even if they were obtainable, could not be taken as the final arbiter, for to do so would simply be to offer a standing inducement to massacre in every inter-racial quarrel in the future.

The Indian Delegation’s Reply.

In reply to this the Delegation wrote back that they had seen other estimates of the numbers massacred, varying from 600,000 to one million, ‘‘but’’ said they :

the entire Armenian Population of Turkey has never been much more than one million, and the Turkish official estimates prepared before the outbreak of war, for a purpose which places it above suspicion, shows that number to be less than the figures given by the Archbishop of Canterbury not long ago for the Armenians still living. Even if it is conceded that any considerable loss of life took place among the Christian population of that part of Anatolia, has there been no similar loss of life among the Moslem population due to war, massacre, and famine which counterbalances the losses of the Christian population? In these circumstances we do not know how the question can arise of offering ’a standing inducement to massacre in every inter-racial quarrel in the future’ If, in determining the Eastern frontiers of Turkey ‘present-day statistics’ are to be relied upon. Clearly some data other than mere allegations of massacres and deportations have to be relied upon, and it is these data precisely that we should like to have, so that our respective views may be based, so to speak, on a common denominator, if we agree as to the accuracy of those data. Can we go back to any period of history within a few generations in which the so-called Armenians predominated in any part of so-called Armenia? There are the figures of M. Vital Cuinet (Turquie ~d’Asie, Paris, 1892). There are the figures published by the French Government (Yellow Book, 1897, Armenian Question), based upon the data furnished by the Christian Patriarchates. Then again, there are the figures given by General Zelenyi to the Caucasian Geographical Society (Zapiski, Vol. 18, Tiflis, 1896). Finally, there are the figures given in the Encyclopedia Britannica. If none of these can be relied upon, what other data are we to take for our guidance in this matter? That is our difficulty; and since the fate of Turkey and Islam is to be settled in accordance with the figures of population, you will, we feel sure, agree that there should be as little chance of inaccuracy in our figures as possible; and, at any rate, the data on which reliance is placed should be equally available to all concerned.

The only reply received to this so far has been the one which has already been quoted, that they could not supply the Delegation with the details for which they had asked, nor could they “enter into a discussion with them on the vexed question of the population statistics of these areas.”

The Delegation and the “Massacres”

Lest it be said that the Delegation in any way desire to countenance oppression of the Christian population of the Turkish Empire, it is sufficient to quote what the Delegation told Mr. Fisher who received them in the absence of Mr. Montagu, what they said to Mr. Lloyd George, and finally what they said to Mr. Toynbee, who has undertaken, at the tax-payers’ expense, some propaganda in the shape of the Foreign Office Blue Book containing the Bryce report. To Mr. Fisher they said:

As regards the propaganda carried on in this country against the Turks, we feel that, when the Turks are accused of crimes against humanity, these accusations are due in a great measure to religious and racial prejudices ingrained for centuries past in the communities that indulge in these accusations, and in no inconsiderable measure also to the greed and covetousness of Turkey’s neighbours that have for long wanted to grab as much as they could of Ottoman territories. To say the very least of it, these crimes have been much exaggerated. In some parts of the Christian world it is considered that the Turks should be driven out of Constantinople not only because they are Turks and guilty of criminal conduct, but because they are Moslem, and Islam itself is a blight. We have to remove these deeply-rooted prejudices and repudiate the association of criminal conduct with Islam. But at the same time we are also anxious to exert our influence as Mussulmans so that not only such things, but even the suspicion of such things, should not be possible in future. As regards the character of the Turk, we think it very different indeed from what it has so often been described to be. We should not like to say anything at all about the character of the propaganda of the Churches among other sources of mischief and prejudice. We are not here to increase any kind of bitterness. As a matter of fact, we have come on a mission of peace. But this much we will say, that before one can judge the Turks impartially, one has to enquire into the intrigues carried on for two centuries at least by the enemies of Turkey to foment trouble among her Christian subjects, and thereby make out a plausible case for lopping off parts of the Ottoman Empire in Europe and Asia. One will also have to enquire into the character of the dealings of these Christian populations of Turkey with their Moslem neighbours, and ascertain whether these dealings were neighbourly or provocative. In any case, we think that even if the Turks have been to a certain extent to blame, it must be admitted that they have had a very great lesson, and I can assure you, Sir, that Indian Mussulmans do not think that they have nothing more to do if their claims are satisfied; if a settlement is made such as they hope for, they would endeavour to create a desire in the Turks for reconciliation with the British Government and their Allies. They would also impress upon the Turks that not only must such atrocities as they are so recklessly accused of not occur, but they must’ also be above the suspicion of committing such atrocities. As Mussulmans we have to wipe off the stain of inhumanity from the fair name of Islam, and the British Government and their Allies can rest assured that Indian Mussulmans will not fail in their duty towards Islam in a matter of this kind. Their restraining influence would be utilised to the fullest extent. Our Mission is of a double character. It is our duty to represent matters to His Majesty’s Government, because we are his subjects; and it is our duty to represent matters to the Khalifa, who is the Commander of the Faithful. Both these duties we should like to observe. If a settlement such as we desire is made with the Khilafat, our Influence for good would naturally greatly increase, and it would be used in the interests of the Empire and of humanity.

 

War Losses in World War I

(These statistics followed the last article on p. xxiv, and is inlcuded for interest value. Ironically, the Ottoman Turks, who very likely [at least proportionately] suffered the greatest losses of W.W.I, didn't even make it to the chart. In an issue that spotlighted the Turks, too.)

MAKING THE WORLD SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY

“The Society for the Study of the Social Consequences of the War,” a Copenhagen organisation, has issued a report on the losses suffered by the European belligerents as a consequence of the war. The report, the work of Mr. Christian Doering, is based on material obtained from the Central Powers, France, Italy, and Great Britain, whose populations represented 60 per cent of those engaged in the struggle. it was not possible to secure complete data from the smaller States, or from Russia, and with regard to them the author was obliged, occasionally to make computations on the strength of the results he obtained for the other countries. But in these cases his calculations represent a minimum.

The period covered by the report, which was concluded at the end of October last, stretches from the beginning of the war to the middle of 1919. Mr. Doering has inquired in detail into the movement of the populations of the six Great Powers and of four of the smaller belligerents (Belgium, Bulgaria, Rumania, and Serbia), and has reached his conclusion by considering (a) the decline of the birth-rate, and (b) the rise in the death-rate. The sum total of his investigations is contained in the table which we reproduce below. It gives in absolute figures the losses of the ten countries :

(In thousands)

		Decline in Births		Total Rise in Deaths		War Casualties		Total Losses
Austro-Hungary		3,800		2,000		1,500		5,800
France		1,500		1,840		1,400		3,340
Germany		3,600		2,700		2,000		6,300
Great Britain		850		1,000		800		1,850
Italy		1,400		880		600		2,280
European Russia		8,300		4,700		2,500		13,000
Belgium		175		200		115		375
Bulgaria		155		120		65		275
Rumania		150		360		159		510
Serbia		320		1,330		690		1,650
Total		20,250		15,130		9,829		35,380

Great, patriotic manifestations are being held throughout Bulgaria, protesting against the attribution of Thrace to Greece. Resolutions are being passed to the effect that the Bulgarians will never tolerate Greek domination over territories ethnically belonging to Bulgarians, and will not be reconciled to Bulgaria being cut off from the open sea

__Printed for the Union of Democratic Control, Orchard House, 2 and 4 Great Smith St. West Minster, S.W.I by the National Labour Pres Ltd., 8,9,10 Johnson’ s Court Flcet St. E.C.4, also at Manchester and Leicester 08733