For Global Peace with Social Justice in a Sustainable Environment

Dimensions of Turkey and Mahatma Gandhi

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar, Professor, Editor and Linguist

Gandhi International Study and Research Institute, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09404955338, 09415777229

E-mail- dr.yadav.yogendra@gandhifoundation.net;

dr.yogendragandhi@gmail.com

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

Dimensions of Turkey and Mahatma Gandhi

We are aware that the questions regarding Turkey, etc., have caused greater hurt to our Mahomedan brethren than has been caused to Hindus, Mahomedans and others by the Rowlatt legislation. But they cannot solve their difficulties by ill will. These difficulties can only be solved by proper deliberation, by properly framing and publishing their demands and by firm adherence thereto. So doing, they can enlist the help of the Hindus, Parsis, Christians, in fact, the whole world, and thus make their demands irresistible. If we harbour anger or ill will against the Government on account of the Rowlatt legislation, or Islamic or other questions, and therefore resort to violence, we shall be powerless even to consolidate Indian opinion, let alone the world’s opinion. The gulf between the English and ourselves will widen and we shall be no nearer the goal. Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary. Then there is increase of ill will between both the parties and each prepares to give battle to the other. There is no such untoward end to Satyagraha. A satyagrahi by reason of suffering for his principles draws towards him universal sympathy and even melts the heart of the so-called enemy. 1

I found the Mahomedans residing in London equally agitated. One morning we read the news that Turkey had joined Germany. I had no leisure then to study the Turkish question and pronounce judgement on the Turkish action, I simply prayed that India might be saved from the turmoil. Having had to explain to the Mahomedan friends in South Africa the events of the Tripolitan war and having understood their sentiments, I had no difficulty in gauging Mahomedan sentiment over the Turkish choice. Theirs became a much difficult position. I landed next year in India with ideas of Hindu- Mahomedan unity and the Turkish question and I felt when I landed that I would like to assist in securing a proper solution of these questions. There are two things to which I am devoting my life permanent unity between Hindus and Mahomedans, and Satyagraha; to Satyagraha probably more, for it covers a much wider field. It is an all-embracing movement and if we accept the law of Satyagraha, unity will come of itself. The question that I have to answer this evening is: How can I help in having a Mahomedan question emerging out of the late war properly solved? After my arrival in India, I began to find out good Mahomedan leaders. My desire was satisfied when I reached Delhi, and found the Brothers Ali, whom I had the privilege of knowing before. It was a question of love at first sight between us.

When I met Dr. Ansari, the circle of Mahomedan friends widened and at last it even included Maulana Abdul Bari of Lucknow. I have discussed the Mahomedan question with all these friends and many other Mahomedans throughout India and I feel that this question is the greatest of all, greater even than that of the repeal of the Rowlatt legislation; for it affects the religious susceptibilities of millions of Mahomedans. It is a remarkable fact, but it is true that Mahomedan women and children too are interested in this question. There is at the present moment suspicion, deep-rooted in the minds of the Mahomedans, regarding the intentions of the Imperial Government on this question. Though the Viceroy is not unmindful of the gravity of the situation, I do feel that a declaration of British policy is necessary in order to conciliate the Mahomedan sentiment. So far as I am aware, there are three points involved: first, the one regarding the Khaliphate and the possession of Turkey; second, regarding Holy Mecca and Medina; third, regarding Palestine. Briefly put, your contention is that the pre-war status should be restored. With the Mahomedan countrymen, the temporal and spiritual power goes hand in hand. I can, therefore, understand the Mahomedan sentiment against any dismemberment of Turkey. But it has been stated by The Times of India amongst others that there is as yet no authoritative and representative statement of the Mahomedan claim. You and you alone can mend this omission.

There should be a calm, dispassionate and reasoned statement of the Mahomedan claim. In my humble opinion, you should set forth your minimum demands in such a way as to appeal to any impartial student of such matters. Time is running fast and unless you make a move at once in the desired direction, it may be too late to do anything; for the League of Nations is making rapid progress, as rapid as it is possible to make in view of world interests that are to be affected by its deliberations. And when you have drawn up the statement of your claim, you have to see how to enforce it. 2 The advocating of the Hindu-Muslim unity not by means of public speeches but by concrete acts of help and kindness on the part of Hindus towards Mohammedans and on the part of the latter towards the former. Hindus would, therefore, naturally give enthusiastic support to the Mohammedans in their just claims regarding the retention of Turkey as a Mohammedan sovereign State with full regard for their feelings as to the holy places and the Khaliphate. 3

The Mahomedan question means trouble so far as I can see. Evidently a decision has been arrived at regarding Turkey but it is being suppressed. This is a suicidal policy. I simply cannot understand this diplomacy that is satisfied with. 4 But the notice gives rise to disturbing reflections which I would like to lay before His Excellency. Why is there this hypersensitiveness regarding news about Turkey? Why should the terms of peace with Turkey, if they are honourable, cause the slightest excitement in India? I was further disturbed as I came upon the letter addressed to the Prime Minister by influential Mahomedans at present residing in London. Among the signatories I notice H. H. the Aga Khan, Chief of Bombay, Ex-Justice Ameer Ali, Sir Abbas Ali Baig and others. I have no doubt H. E. has seen that very weighty communication “on the subject of the threatened dismemberment of Turkey and on the grave situation of anxiety and uneasiness that this report has created among the Mahomedans”, which the signatories go on to say will become aggravated if the design attributed to the Peace Conference is carried into effect.

I have said I was disturbed, because I am daily receiving communications or seeing Mahomedan friends who tell me that they are going to be sold. I have reassured them that H. E. is straining every nerve to place the correct view before His Majesty’s ministers and that there is no occasion for them to distrust the latter. They have received my assurances with incredulity. I feel that I ought to place the very serious position before H. E. Is it not possible to make some definite reassuring pronouncement? If the worst fears of the Mahomedans are realized, there can only be an armed peace in India, not a real peace. I am sure that no Reforms, however generously granted, will ever reconcile the Mahomedans to any dismemberment of Turkey or an encroachment upon their holy places. I know that all these matters cannot be out of H. E.’s mind, but considering me as I do to be a well-wisher of the Empire I should be failing in my duty if I did not bring to H. E.’s notice serious matters that come within my knowledge. May I hope that if it is at all possible a statement will be made regarding Turkish matters? 5

The Turkish question concerns eight crores of Indian Muslims; and a question that concerns nearly one-fourth of the nation must concern the whole of India. It is impossible that one of the four limbs of the nation be wounded and the rest of the nation remains unconcerned. We cannot be called one nation; we cannot be a single body, if such a wound has no effect on us. Hence it is the duty of all, Hindus and Muslims alike, to understand the main points of the Turkish question. It is Turkey’s demand and the demand of our Muslim brethren in India that the territory of Turkey as it was at the start of the War in August 1914 must remain inviolate, and this demand has been forcefully presented by leading Muslims in England. Quoting the words of the Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, they have shown that he, too, had agreed to respect this sentiment. President Wilson also gave expression to similar views. His fourteen principles and five points also imply this. The other nations involved in the War have had their rights preserved to a large extent. What is Turkey’s fault then? The issue still remains to be settled but there are hints in the British Press which create doubt in the mind of every Muslim. They fear that Turkey, that is the Muslim world, will not get justice from the Allies, and that the Turkish Empire will be dismembered. This is no ordinary problem. The problem of the Turkish Empire involves a serious issue for Islam.

Islam makes no distinction between the secular and the religious. The Turkish Sultan is himself the holy Khalifa of Islam; and, if the Sultanate disappears, then according to the Muslim faith the Khaliphate will lose all meaning, so strict are the injunctions of the Koran. Hence this has become a serious religious issue for all the Muslim nations. As he set foot in Bombay, the Maharaja of Bikaner said that Mr. Montagu and Lord Sinha were giving full attention to this question. They say even Lord Chelmsford kept writing strongly about it to Mr. Lloyd George. But merely writing in strong language is not likely to do any good. We believe that Mr. Montagu and Lord Chelmsford owe it, as a duty, to see that the Muslims get the justice to which they are entitled, or, as a mark of protest against the injustice, to give up their posts as Secretary of State for India and as the Crown’s Representative in India. It is the duty of Muslims to present their case before the world peacefully but firmly and stick to it unflinchingly. There should be no exaggeration in it; nor should it be so presented as to leave room for bargaining. They should demand only that without which, it may be said and proved; the Islamic way of life would lose its meaning.

Where it is a question of ethics, that is, of religion, where the deeper emotions are concerned, there can be no scope for compromise, give and take or bargaining. Truth can be only one, and ultimately all see it as such. Turkey’s case has justice on its side, the pledge of a British Minister and President Wilson’s promise. If the Allies’ claim that they fought to protect the right of small States against injustice has any substance in it, then neither Turkey nor the Muslims nor any of us have reason to feel suspicious. But he alone can shake off suspicion who works on tirelessly. Like the Muslims, the Hindus and the other communities also have their duty to do. If they regard the Muslims as their respected neighbours and brethren, they should extend their full support to the latter’s demand which concerns their religion. All those born in India have to live and die together. No community can rise at the cost of another, or preserve its rights if it permits those of others to be sacrificed. 6

The Khilafat Conference at Lucknow has decided to observe Friday next, the 17th instant, as a day of fasting and prayer. There can be no doubt about the intensity of Moslem feeling on this very important matter. There is no doubt also that the intentions of the league are distrusted. In one's darkest hour, God is the only refuge and it is to Him that millions of Moslems all over India are expected to turn for comfort, guidance and relief. Millions of mouths will, that day, ask the Almighty if it be His will to avert the impending doom. A true Moslem can no more contemplate with equanimity the dismemberment of Turkey than a Christian can so contemplate the desecration of what is dearest and nearest to him. 7

I shall now address myself to my Hindu brothers who are present here. Today our friend, Mr. Asaf Ali, addressed me two letters in which he said that he hoped it would be possible for the Khilafat Committee to be instrumental in solving the question of preservation of the cows. But I should like to affirm that, if one brother is in trouble, it is the duty of the other to render him all possible help. When Hindus are in trouble, Moslems should help them and, if Moslems are in trouble, Hindus should come to their rescue. We want no return for our assistance and sympathy. If you Moslems are in the right, we shall offer you unconditional help. This is a hereditary privilege of the Hindus. If the Moslems themselves voluntarily conceded anything it would be welcome, but we would not care to play the role of mercenary soldiers. Whatever we give we give for duty and ask its reward of God only. Let me tell my Hindu brothers that I hold the cows as dear as any of you do, but we cannot save the cows by quarrelling with Moslems. You can save the cows only by following my example, by doing your duty. (Cheers.) Please hear me out. There is no occasion for cheers. If you have any doubts as to justice of the cause for which the Moslems are standing out, let me call Mr. Lloyd George, the Premier, to witness.

When soldiers and recruits were needed, an assurance was vouchsafed that nobody had an eye on Moslems’ provinces which would remain with Moslems themselves. Now justice should be done if Muslims’ dissatisfaction and grief are to be dispelled. They are struggling in respect to the Khilafat question on just grounds, and all Hindus and Parsis should share their sorrow. It is our duty to demonstrate to the British people, the King and responsible Ministers that we regard the sentiments of Mussulmans with respect and consider their cause just. It is not right that eight crore Mussulmans should have to face mental torment. They are in the right and they should be helped. On 17th October, the whole of India excepting the Punjab observed a fast and hartal and prayed. But this will not be adequate. The Khilafat question is a very big one and it belongs to the whole of India. It will require a corresponding degree of sincere devotion. Let me here tell Indians not to despair. Despondence robs one of all energy. We can yet demonstrate to Britain how deeply we are affected by this problem and they must listen to us without our willingness to sacrifice. We need have no hope for the fulfillment of our desire. But the readiness of 30 crores for sacrifice can obtain them the fulfillment of any of their desires in the world. Neither the Government nor anyone in the world can maintain that there is any peace for us. On the contrary, we are under the shadow of a calamity. Where is peace? I do not see it.

No peace has yet been concluded with Turkey, and so long as an honourable peace has not been concluded with Turkey, Mussulmans cannot possibly join the celebrations. And it would mean unhappiness for us all. In the first place, with a heart oppressed with grief they cannot possibly participate in the forthcoming rejoicings, and, if they are forced to do so, their feelings would be far from those of genuine rejoicings. There is no sense in a hypocritical display. Since eight crore Moslems regard the Sultan of Turkey their religious head, we, as their neighbours and compatriots realizing the justice of their feelings, should join them in the resolution they passed yesterday. God knows we are with them, because we know them to be justly aggrieved. We would not be with them otherwise. 8

The question of questions today is the Khilafat question, otherwise known as that of the Turkish peace terms. His Excellency the Viceroy deserves our thanks for receiving the joint deputation even at this late hour especially when he was busy preparing to receive the heads of the different provinces. His Excellency must be thanked for the unfailing courtesy with which he received the deputation and the courteous language in which his reply was couched. But mere courtesy, valuable as it is at all times, never so valuable as at this, is not enough at this critical moment. “Sweet words butter no parsnips” is a proverb more applicable today than ever before. Behind the courtesy there was the determination to punish Turkey. Punishment of Turkey is a thing which Muslim sentiment cannot tolerate for a moment. Muslim soldiers are as responsible for the result of the War as any others. It was to appease them that Mr. Asquith said, when Turkey decided to join the Central Powers, that the British Government had no designs on Turkey and that His Majesty’s Government would never think of punishing the Sultan for the misdeeds of the Turkish Committee. Examined by that standard the Viceregal reply is not only disappointing but it is a fall from truth and justice.

What is this British Empire? It is as much Mohammedan and Hindu as it is Christian. Its religious neutrality is not a virtue, or if it is, it is a virtue of necessity. Such a mighty Empire could not be held together on any other terms. British ministers are therefore bound to protect Mohammedan interests as any other. Indeed, as the Muslim rejoinder says, they are bound to make the cause their own. What is the use of His Excellency having presented the Muslim claim before the Conference? If the cause is lost, the Mohammedans will be entitled to think that Britain did not do her duty by them. And the Viceregal reply confirms the views.

When His Excellency says that Turkey must suffer for her having joined the Central Powers, he but expresses the opinion of the British ministers. We hope, therefore, with the framers of the Muslim rejoinder that His Majesty’s ministers will mend the mistakes if any have been committed and secure a settlement that would satisfy Mohammedan sentiment. What does the sentiment demand? The preservation of the Khilafat with such guarantees as may be necessary for the protection of the interests of the non-Muslim race living under Turkish rule and the Khalifa’s control over Arabia and the Holy Places with such arrangement as may be required for guaranteeing Arab self-rule, should the Arabs desire it. It is hardly possible to state the claim more fairly than has been done. It is a claim backed by justice, by the declarations of British ministers and by the unanimous Hindu and Muslim opinion. It would be midsummer madness to reject or whittle down a claim so backed. 9

The question of the Khilafat that is, of the peace terms with Turkey, is so important a one that before it all others fade into insignificance, for on a satisfactory solution of this problem depends the peace of India. The Government may with armed might succeed in maintaining an artificial peace for the time being but, should the solution of this problem prove unsatisfactory, a peace enforced by strength of arms will not be an enduring peace. There are questions which may not be satisfactorily solved, but the dissatisfaction is forgotten in the course of time. If, however, the solution of the Khilafat problem is felt to be unsatisfactory, time will be no cure for the resulting discontent; on the contrary, the effects will grow in strength from day to day and unrest will go on increasing. Hence it is the duty of every Indian to know what the problem is and know its right solution and to take steps to bring about a satisfactory settlement. What has hurt seven crores of Muslims ought to hurt Hindus too. We do not, therefore, hesitate to place this issue before the people again and again. The Government’s duty in this matter is as important as that of the people.

The deputation which waited on His Excellency the Viceroy included both Hindus and Muslims. His Excellency’s reply was courteous. He showed the utmost consideration to the deputation and spared time for it from his heavy schedule of work. We should thank him for all this. But mere courtesy and good manners cannot satisfy the Muslims or the nation this time. Courtesy is essential at all times, but there are occasions when courtesy fails to meet one’s object. There is a saying in English that “fine words butter no parsnips”. This applies very well to the present situation. The Viceroy pointed out that there was nothing strange in Turkey, having taken the sword against the Allies, paying the penalty for doing so. No Muslim would admit the justice of this. When Turkey threw in its lot with Germany, Mr. Asquith, the then Prime Minister, said that the Sultan had no hand in this step; it was the mistake of a few Turks and Turkey would not have to suffer for it. Why did he have to declare this, surely, not for reasons of good manners or justice? He said it lest there be disaffection among Muslim troops. The result was as desired. The Muslim troops remained staunch in their loyalty. A promise of reward thus made in order to reassure people cannot be lightly set aside now. If it is, one should not be surprised that Muslims feel hurt.

Thus the threat uttered by the viceroy or the hint dropped by him as to the shape of things to come is such as can lead only to discontent, and the statement issued by the deputation in reply to the Viceroy is very much to the point. Let us hope that the Government will give its best attention to it. What is the Muslim demand? The Khilafat means the Turkish Empire. Its authority should remain substantially what it was at the commencement of the War. The Allies may demand any guarantees they choose for the protection of the interests of non-Muslim subjects of the Empire. Turkish rule, however, should be preserved. Likewise, the Khalifa’s control over Arabia which is called Jazirat-ul-Arab and over other holy places of Islam should remain. It has been objected against this that Arabs too are Muslims; why should they not it is asked have swaraj in Arabia? Our Muslim friends reply that they have no objection to a scheme of swaraj for Arabia. Their only claim is that Arabia should not be subject to any but Muslim authority. This demand of the Muslims is perfectly just. If it is rejected and unrest spreads in consequence, the responsibility will not be the Muslims’ but the Government’s. It is not enough that the Government presented the Muslim claim effectively before the Peace Conference. It is in duty bound to make the Muslim cause its own. The Empire belongs as much to Muslims and Hindus as to Christians and, therefore, it cannot sacrifice Muslim interests any more than it will sacrifice Christian interests. 10

If Turkey was to be partitioned, the position should have been made clear at the commencement of the War. There would then have been no question of a broken pledge. As it is, no Indian Mohammedan has any regard for the promises of British Ministers. In his opinion the cry against Turkey is that of Christianity versus Islam with England as the leader in the cry. The latest cablegram from Mr. Mohamed Ali strengthens the impression, for he says that unlike as in England his deputation is receiving much support from the French Government and the people. 11 If Turkey enjoyed the closest ties of friendship with Great Britain before the War, Great Britain has certainly made ample reparation for her mistake by having made the largest contribution to the humiliation of Turkey. It is insufferable therefore when the Viceroy feels confident that with the conclusion of this new treaty that friendship will quickly take life again and a Turkey regenerate, full of hope and strength, will stand forth in the future, as in the past, a pillar of the Islamic faith. The Viceregal message audaciously concludes,” This thought will, I trust, strengthen you to accept the peace terms with resignation, courage and fortitude and to keep your loyalty towards the Crown bright and untarnished as it has been for so many generations.” If Muslim loyalty remains untarnished it will certainly not be for want of effort on the part of the Government of India to put the heaviest strain upon it, but it will remain so because the Mohammedans realize their own strength the strength in the knowledge that their cause is just and that they have got the power to vindicate justice in spite of the aberration suffered by Great Britain under a Prime Minister whom continued power has made as reckless in making promises as in breaking them. 12

And yet the Supreme Council has framed such terms and sent them to Turkey. It has, by doing so, disgraced the epithet it uses to describe itself. For a council which ignores justice and, blinded by its strength, wishes to describe injustice as justice, to call it supreme is to add insult to injury. The peace terms may be said to have completely violated the pledges given by British Ministers. The promise was to the effect that the Turkish Empire would be preserved intact in Asia and Europe, wherever there were communities of Turks. But the Turkish Empire has been preserved only in name. In fact, the Supreme Council has, as it were, imprisoned the Sultan in his own palace. This amounts to torturing the Turks by constantly reminding them of their past glory. There was hope that the holy places of Islam would remain under the control of the Khalifa. Actually, he has been deprived of his suzerainty over these holy places as also over the peninsula which Muslims know as Jazirat-ul-Arab; in all this, there is not even a trace of justice or truth. Its being described, nevertheless, as justice is the very limit of man’s pride and haughtiness, his reliance on brute strength. If such one-sided terms can be described as just, many things in the world which we usually know as injustice will have to be considered just. And yet His Excellency the Viceroy, addressing the Muslims, tells them that they should remain peaceful, that what now remains leaves room for hope and so they should take heart, rather than fall into despair. They should remember [he says] the old friendship between England and Turkey, and now that the peace terms have brought about a reunion, they should cement the new friendship and help in creating a new and glorious Turkey. These words of His Excellency are like branding again a man who has received burns. What should one do in this difficult situation? If the Muslims sit still, all that they have done during the last four years will be proved to have been hollow. If the Muslims have no peace, Hindus can have none, and vice versa—such is the law of friendship. If, losing our peace of mind in this way, we give way to anger and, getting excited, take to violence; we shall have lost the game. If we refrain from violence, however, and show that we have the strength for self-sacrifice, we need not at all conclude that we have lost the game. 13

I have reproduced the above extract in order to show that the present British policy has been affected by propaganda of an unscrupulous nature. Turkey, which was dominant over two million square miles of Asia, Africa and Europe in the 17th century, under the terms of the treaty, says the London Chronicle, has dwindled down to little more than 1,000 square miles. It says : All European Turkey could now be accommodated comfortably between the Lands End and the Tamar, Cornwall alone exceeding its total area, and but for its alliance with Germany, Turkey could have been assured of retaining at least sixty thousand square miles of the Eastern Balkans. I do not know whether the Chronicle view is generally shared. Is it by way of punishment that Turkey is to undergo such shrinkage, or is it because justice demands it? If Turkey had not made the mistake of joining Germany, would the principle of nationality have been still applied to Armenia, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Palestine? Let me now remind those who think with Mr. Candler that the promise was not made by Mr. Lloyd George to the people of India in anticipation of the supply of recruits continuing. 14

I wish you will not concern yourself about my position on the Turkish question i.e., you will depend upon it that I shall do nothing blindly. I am committed to nothing on the Turkish question so that upon proof of the immorality of a position being found I could not retrace my steps. The unfortunate position in which I find myself is that I thoroughly distrust Lloyd George. Somehow or other I distrust the Armenian case as I distrust the Arabian case and I am so prejudiced against the present British diplomacy that I sent the foul hand of the deceitful diplomat in Armenia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Palestine Syria. The position therefore I take up is that as soon as I can remove my prejudice I shall retire from the untenable position I may find myself in. I do ask for suzerainty over Armenia, Mesopotamia, Palestine and Syria with proper safeguards. You say the safeguards are nothing. I do not agree with you. If the Allied Powers are themselves insincere and jealous of one another they may mean nothing. But if they are sincere, the safeguards can certainly be effective. Britain claims suzerainty over the Transvaal, but the Transvaal had no interference with its internal affairs. Why should Armenia have to complain if it has full autonomy with a Turkish Resident there? If Britain only meant well by Turkey everything could be satisfactorily arranged. If Turkey had joined the Allies, could Britain have dispossessed Turkey of Armenia, Arabia or Mesopotamia? Would Britain then not have brought about reforms in Turkey by friendly pressure instead of a victor’s dictation? The insolence and hypocrisy of the Ministry bolstered up by equal insolence and hypocrisy in the Viceroy’s communiqué are really insufferable. 15

1. The frontiers of Turkey will be as already demarcated, and where necessary revised by a Boundary Commission to be created. According to this delimitation Turkey will include the Constantinople sector of Thrace and all the predominantly Turkish areas of Asia Minor.

2. The rights and titles of the Turkish Government in Constantinople will not be affected, but the right to modify this provision is reserved in the event of the failure of Turkey faithfully to fulfil the treaty.

3. A Commission of the Straits will have authority over all waters between the Mediterranean mouth of the Dardanelles, the Black Sea mouth of the Phosphorous, and of the waters within three miles of each of these mouths; also on the shores to such extent as may be necessary. The duty of the Commission will be to ensure freedom of navigation in these waters in peace and war.

4. A scheme of local self-government will be drafted for Kurdistan, including provision for the protection of the Assyro-Chaldeans and other minorities. The League of Nations will decide later whether Kurdistan should be granted independence of Turkey, if it be proved that separation is desired by the majority of the Kurdish people.

5. Certain portions of Smyrna are formed into a separate unit to be administered by Greece, the suzerainty of Turkey being continued for a period of years till the autonomous State of Smyrna decides its own destiny.

6. With the exception of the Constantinople sector, Eastern Thrace is ceded to Greece, provision being made for the local self-government of the town of Adrianople.

7. Certain portions of the Armenian districts of Turkey are added to the existing Armenian Republic, the boundary between Turkey and Armenia in certain districts being referred to the arbitration of the President of the United States, whose decision will be final thereon and on any stipulation regarding the Armenian access to the sea.

8. Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine are provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to administrative advice and assistance from a Mandatory Power until such time as they are able to stand alone. The man- date for Syria has been entrusted to France and those for Mesopotamia and Palestine to Britain. The mandate for Palestine will include the provision for giving effect to the declaration of November 8, 1918, regarding the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people.

9. The Hedjaz is recognized as a free and independent State. The King of the Hedjaz undertakes to assure free and easy access to Mecca and Medina to Muslim pilgrims of all countries.

10. Turkey relinquishes all rights and titles over Egypt and the Sudan and Cyprus.

11. Turkey recognizes the French protectorate over Morocco and Tunisia.

12. Turkey relinquishes her claims to certain islands in the Aegean.

13. The military, naval, and air forces at the disposal of Turkey will consist of the following:

(1) The Sultan’s bodyguard at Constantinople;

(2) A troop of gendarmerie for the maintenance of internal order and security and the protection of minorities;

(3) Special elements for reinforcements of the gendarmerie and eventual control of the frontiers. The bodyguard is limited to 700 and the gendarmerie with special elements to 50,000. All warships interned in Turkish ports are declared to be finally surrendered. The Turkish fleet is limited to six torpedo boats and seven sloops. No military or naval air forces or dirigibles are to be maintained.

14. Control will be maintained over the finances of Turkey until the discharge of her international obligations has been assured.

15. Freedom of navigation and transit is secured. The following ports are declared international ports, provision to be made for free zones in each: Alexandretta, Busrah, Constantinople, Dedeagatch, Haief, Hailad Pasha, Smyrna and Trebizond.

16. In addition to the above are numerous provisions regarding (a) League of Nations, (b) protection of minorities, (c) restoration of abandoned property rights, (d) prisoners of war, (e) graves of Allied soldiers, (f) punishment of war criminals, (g) economic questions and concessions, (h) labour conventions and (i) antiquities. But it is not necessary to detail these in the present statement. 16

The second objection raised by these English friends is more to the point. I would be guilty of wrongdoing myself if the Muslim cause was not just. The fact is that the Muslim claim is not to perpetuate foreign domination of non-Muslim or non Turkish races. The Indian Mussulmans do not resist self-determination, but they would fight to the last the nefarious plan of exploiting Mesopotamia under the plea of self-determination. They must resist the studied attempt to humiliate Turkey, and there through Islam, under the false pretext of ensuring Armenian independence. The third objection has reference to schools. I do object to missionary or any schools being carried on with Government money. It is true that it was at one time our money. Will these good missionaries be justified in educating me with funds given to them by a robber, who has robbed me of my money, religion and honour, because the money was originally mine? 17

I have only hurriedly glanced through the new terms. So far as I can judge, they aim at pacifying Turks and not Indian Mussulmans. The two things have to be recognized as distinct. Khilafat is essentially a religious movement, being idealistic and unconnected with Turkish pacification. It derives its sanction directly from the injunction of the Prophet. Until, therefore, Indian Mussulmans are placated, there can be no peace, and the sine qua non of Mussulman conciliation is that what is termed the Island of Arabia must remain under the exclusive Mussulman control and under the spiritual sovereignty of the Khalifa, whoever he may be for the time being. The prestige of Islam demands rendition of Smyrna and Thrace to Turkey, and evacuation by the Allied Powers of Constantinople, but the existence of Islam demands the total abrogation of mandates taken by Britain and France. No influence, direct or indirect, over the Holy Places of Islam will ever be tolerated by Indian Mussulmans. It follows, therefore, that even Palestine must be under Mussulman control. So far as I am aware, there never has been any difficulty put in the way of Jews and Christians visiting Palestine and performing all their religious rites. No canon, however, of ethics or war can possibly justify the gift by the Allies of Palestine to Jews. It would be a breach of implied faith with Indian Mussulmans in particular and the whole of India in general. Not an Indian soldier would have gone, if Britain on the eve of war had declared even the possibility of any such usurpation, and it is becoming clearer every day that if India is to remain a free partner in a future British Commonwealth, as distinguished from the Empire, the terms of the Khilafat have to be settled more in consultation with the spiritual leaders of Mussulmans than with the political leaders of Turkey. 18

As with England, so with India, The latter, too, has her choice. Today, we are striving for swaraj within the Empire in the hope that England will in the end prove true, and for independence if she fails, But when it is incontestably proved that Britain seeks to destroy Turkey, India’s only choice must be independence. For Mussulmans, when Turkey’s existence, such as it is, is threatened, there is no looking back. They would draw the sword if they could, and perish or rise victorious with the brave Turks. But if, as is certain, thanks to the policy of the Government of India, they cannot declare war against the British Government, they can at least forswear allegiance to a Government which wickedly goes to war against Turkey. The duty of the Hindus is no less clear. If we still fear and distrust the Mussulmans, we must side with the British and prolong our slavery. If we are brave and religious enough not to fear the Mussulmans, our countrymen, and if we have the wisdom to trust them, we must make common cause with the Mussulmans in every peaceful and truthful method to secure Indian independence. For a Hindu, as I conceive Hinduism to be, whether for independence or for swaraj within the Empire, there is no road but non-violent non-cooperation. India can have dominion or independent status today if India learns and assimilates the secret and the invincible power of non-violence. When she has learnt that lesson, she is ready to take up all the stages of non-co-operation including non-payment of taxes. India is not ready today, but if we would be prepared to frustrate every plot that may be hatched for the destruction of Turkey or for prolonging our subjection, we must secure an atmosphere of enlightened non-violence as fast as possible, not the non-violence of the weak but the non-violence of the strong, who would disdain to kill but would gladly die for the vindication of truth. 19

Dr. Syed Mahmud of Patna has rendered a service to the Khilafat by bringing out this booklet on the Khilafat and England. It is easy reading, and makes out for the busy man a fairly complete case for the Khilafat. Dr. Mahmud has been careful to support every one of his propositions by copious extracts. He proves the treachery of British ministers from their own writings and speeches. He has had go difficulty in showing that England, even when she was regarded as Turkey’s friend, was a friend out of necessity, because she was Russia’s foe. The history of England’s relationship with Turkey has been one of betrayal, of secret treaties hostile to Turkey’s interests, the brave and trusting Turks always believing in England’s promises. Here are Lord Palmerstone’s reasons for the support of Turkey in his days: “We support Turkey for our own sake and for our own interest.” When these very sound reasons ceased, Turkey was sold. It was at the time of the Berlin Congress of 1877, that the secret leaked out that Britain had exacted the cession of the island of Cyprus from Turkey. Disraeli and Salisbury, the two English plenipotentiaries, kept the secret from the Congress, although they were under an obligation to disclose it. “They stood convicted of nothing less than a direct and recorded live!” Did the discovery lead to the return to Turkey of Cyprus? Not at all. England placated outraged France by recognizing the latter’s right at the first convenient opportunity to occupy Tunis, by recognizing her special interest in Syria and giving an equal share to her in the financial spoliation of Egypt. No wonder Mr. Blunt has said: “To the Cyprus intrigue are directly or indirectly referable half the crimes against Oriental and North African liberty our generation has witnessed.” Dr. Syed Mahmud traces the treacherous dealings of England regarding Egypt, Tripoli and the Balkan War, and shows clearly that Turkey was practically driven out of the alliance with England. Is it any wonder that no Mussulman trusts British ministers’ friendly professions? They will forfeit all title to be called followers of Islam, if they rest themselves before compelling England to do the right thing by Turkey and India. 20

Although I never let go an opportunity for a settlement, I am hesitant to seek one now after discovering India’s strength. If there is a political settlement before we have developed our full strength, what will be our fate? Such a settlement will be like a baby born before its time and dying soon after. There was an overnight revolution in Portugal and a new government was established with the result that revolutions followed one another and there was no stable government. Everybody congratulated Turkey when there was a sudden change of government there in 1906. It, however, turned out to be a short-lived affair. The revolution came and vanished like a dream. Turkey has had to suffer much since then and no one knows how much more still its brave people will have to suffer. 21

References: