WHY I HAVE JOINED THE KHILAFAT MOVEMENT
An esteemed South African friend who
is at present living in England has written to me
a letter from which I make the following excerpts:
“You will doubtless remember having
met me in South Africa at the time when the Rev.
J.J. Doke was assisting you in your campaign there
and I subsequently returned to England deeply impressed
with the rightness of your attitude in that country.
During the months before war I wrote and lectured
and spoke on your behalf in several places which
I do not regret. Since returning from military
service, however, I have noticed from the papers
that you appear to be adopting a more militant
attitude... I notice a report in “The Times”
that you are assisting and countenancing a union
between the Hindus and Moslems with a view of embarrassing
England and the Allied Powers in the matter of
the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire or the ejection
of the Turkish Government from Constantinople.
Knowing as I do your sense of justice and your
humane instincts I feel that I am entitled, in
view of the humble part that I have taken to promote
your interests on this side, to ask you whether
this latter report is correct. I cannot believe
that you have wrongly countenanced a movement to
place the cruel and unjust despotism of the Stamboul
Government above the interests of humanity, for
if any country has crippled these interests in
the East it has surely been Turkey. I am personally
familiar with the conditions in Syria and Armenia and
I can only suppose that if the report, which “The
Times” has published is correct, you have
thrown to one side, your moral responsibilities and
allied yourself with one of the prevailing anarchies.
However, until I hear that this is not your attitude
I cannot prejudice my mind. Perhaps you will
do me the favour of sending me a reply.”
I have sent a reply to the writer.
But as the views expressed in the quotation are likely
to be shared by many of my English friends and as I
do not wish, if I can possibly help it, to forfeit
their friendship or their esteem I shall endeavour
to state my position as clearly as I can on the Khilafat
question. The letter shows what risk public men
run through irresponsible journalism. I have
not seen The Times report, referred to by my
friend. But it is evident that the report has
made the writer to suspect my alliance with “the
prevailing anarchies” and to think that
I have “thrown to one side” my “moral
responsibilities.”
It is just my sense of moral responsibilities
which has made me take up the Khilafat question and
to identify myself entirely with the Mahomedans.
It is perfectly true that I am assisting and countenancing
the union between Hindus and Muslims, but certainly
not with “a view of embarrassing England and
the Allied Powers in the matter of the dismemberment
of the Ottoman Empire,” it is contrary to my
creed to embarrass governments or anybody else.
This does not how ever mean that certain acts of mine
may not result in embarrassment. But I should
not hold myself responsible for having caused embarrassment
when I resist the wrong of a wrong-doer by refusing
assistance in his wrong-doing. On the Khilafat
question I refuse to be party to a broken pledge.
Mr. Lloyd George’s solemn declaration is practically
the whole of the case for Indian Mahomedans and when
that case is fortified by scriptural authority it
becomes unanswerable. Moreover, it is incorrect
to say that I have “allied myself to one of
the prevailing anarchies” or that I have
wrongly countenanced the movement to place the cruel
and unjust despotism of the Stamboul Government above
the interests of humanity. In the whole of the
Mahomedan demand there is no insistance on the
retention of the so-called unjust despotism of the
Stamboul Government; on the contrary the Mahomedans
have accepted the principle of taking full guarantees
from that Government for the protection of non-Muslim
minorities. I do not know how far the condition
of Armenia and Syria may be considered an ‘anarchy’
and how far the Turkish Government may be held responsible
for it. I much suspect that the reports from these
quarters are much exaggerated and that the European
powers are themselves in a measure responsible for
what misrule there may be in Armenia and Syria.
But I am in no way interested in supporting Turkish
or any other anarchy. The Allied Powers can easily
prevent it by means other than that of ending Turkish
rule or dismembering and weakening the Ottoman Empire.
The Allied Powers are not dealing with a new situation.
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 Mahomedan has any
regard for the promises of British Ministers.
In his opinion, the cry against Turkey is that of
Christianity vs. Islam with England as the
louder in the cry. The latest cablegram from Mr.
Mahomed 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.
Thus, if it is true, as I hold it
is true that the Indian Mussalmans have a cause that
is just and is supported by scriptural authority, then
for the Hindus not to support them to the utmost would
be a cowardly breach of brotherhood and they would
forfeit all claim to consideration from their Mahomedan
countrymen. As a public-server therefore, I would
be unworthy of the position I claim, if I did not support
Indian Mussalmans in their struggle to maintain the
Khilafat in accordance with their religious belief.
I believe that in supporting them I am rendering a
service to the Empire, because by assisting my Mahomedan
countrymen to give a disciplined expression to their
sentiment it becomes possible to make the agitation
thoroughly, orderly and even successful.
THE TURKISH TREATY
The Turkish treaty will be out on
the 10th of May. It is stated to provide for
the internationalisation of the Straits, the occupation
of Gallipoli by the Allies, the maintenance of Allied
contingents in Constantinople and the appointment
of a Commission of Control over Turkish finances.
The San Remo Conference has entrusted Britain with
Mandates for Mesopotamia and Palestine and France with
the Mandate for Syria. As regards Smyrna the
accounts so far received inform that Turkish suzerainty
over Smyrna will be indicated by the fact that the
population will not be entitled to send delegates to
the Greek Parliament but at the end of five years
local Smyrna Parliament will have the right of voting
in favour of union with Greece and in such an event
Turkish suzerainty will cease. Turkish suzerainty
will be confined to the area within the Chatalja lines.
With regard to Emir Foisul’s position there
is no news except that the Mandates of Britain and
France transform his military title into a civil title.
We have given above the terms of the
Turkish treaty as indicated in Router’s messages.
These reports are incomplete and all of them are not
equally authenticated. But if these terms are
true, they are a challenge to the Muslim demands.
Turkish Sovereignty is confined to the Chatalja lines.
This means that the Big Three of the Supreme Council
have cut off Thrace from Turkish dominions. This
is a distinct breach of the pledge given by one of
these Three, viz., the Premier of the British
Empire. To remain within the Chatalja lines and,
we are afraid, as a dependent of the Allies, is for
the Sultan a humiliating position inconsistent with
the Koranic injunctions. Such a restricted position
of the Turks is virtually a success of the bag and
baggage school.
It is not yet known how the Supreme
Council disposed of the rich and renowned lands of
Asia Minor. If Mr. Lloyd George’s views
recently expressed in this respect have received the
Allies’ sanction it is probable nothing
less than a common control is expected. The decision
in the case of Smyrna will be satisfying to none, though
the Allies seem to have made by their arrangement
a skillful attempt to please all the parties concerned.
Mr. Lloyd George, in his reply to the Khilafat Deputation,
had talked about the careful investigations by an impartial
committee and had added; “The great majority
of the population undoubtedly prefer Greek rule to
Turkish rule, so I understand” But the decision
postpones to carry out his understanding till a period
of five years.
When we come to the question of mandates,
the Allied Powers’ motives come out more distinctly.
The Arabs’ claim of independence was used as
a difficulty against keeping Turkish Sovereignty.
This was defended in the of self-determination and
by pointing out parallels of Transylvania and other
provinces. When the final moment came, the Allies
have ventured to divide the spoils amongst themselves.
Britain is given the mandate over Mesopotamia and
Palestine and France has the mandate over Syria.
The Arab delegation complains in their note lately
issued expressing their disappointment at the Supreme
Council’s decision with regard to the Arab liberated
countries, which, it declares, is contrary to the
principle of self-determination.
So what little news has arrived about
the Turkish treaty, is uniformly disquieting.
The Moslems have found sufficient ground to honour
Russia, more than the Allies. Russia has recognised
the freedom of Khiva and Bokhara. The Moslem
world, as H. M. the Amir of Afghanistan said in his
speech, will feel grateful towards Russia in spite
of all the rumours abroad about its anarchy and disorder,
whereas the whole Moslem world will resent the action
of the other European nations who have allied with
each other to carry out a joint coercion and extinction
of Turkey in the name of self-determination and partly
in the guise of the interest of civilization.
The terms of the Turkish treaty are
not only a breach of the Premier’s pledge, not
only a sin against the principle of self-determination,
but they also show a reckless indifference of the
Allied Powers towards the Koranic injunctions.
The terms point out that Mr. Lloyd George’s
misinformed ideas of Khilafat have prevailed in the
Council. Like Mr. Lloyd George other statesmen
also at San Remo have compared Caliphate with Popedom
and ignored the Koronic idea of associating spiritual
power with temporal power. These misguided statesmen
were too much possessed by haughtiness and so they
refused to receive any enlightenment on the question
of Khilafat from the Deputation. They could have
corrected themselves had they heard Mr. Mahomed Ali
on this point. Speaking at the Essex Hall meeting
Mr. Mahomed Ali distinguished between Popedom and
Caliphate and clearly explained what Caliphate means.
He said:
“Islam is supernational and not
national, the basis of Islamic sympathy is a common
outlook on life and common culture.... And it
has two centres. The personal centre is the
island of Arabia. The Khalifa is the Commander
of the Faithful and his orders must be obeyed by
all Muslims so long and so long only, as they are not
at variance with the Commandments of God and the
Traditions of the Prophet. But since there
is no lacerating distinction between things temporal
and things spiritual, the Khalifa is something more
than a Pope and cannot be “Vaticanised.”
But he is also less than a Pope for he is not infallible.
If he persists in un-Islamic conduct we can depose
him. And we have deposed him more than once.
But so long as he orders only that which Islam
demands we must support him. He and no other
ruler is the Defender of our faith.”
These few words could have removed
the mis-undertakings rooted in the minds of those
that at San Remo, if they were in earnest for a just
solution. But Mr. Mahomed Ali’s deputation
was not given any hearing by the Peace Conference.
They were told that the Peace Conference had already
heard the official delegation of India on this question.
But the wrong notions the Allies still entertain about
Caliphate are a sufficient indication of the effects
of the work of this official delegation. The
result of these wrong notions is the present settlement
and this unjust settlement will unsettle the world.
They know not what they do.
TURKISH PEACE TERMS
The question of question to-day 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 head 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 to-day 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 Mahomedan 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 Mahomedan
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 Mahomedans will be entitled to think
that Britain did not do her duty by them. And
the Viceregal reply confirms the view. When His
Excellency says that Turkey must suffer for her having
joined the Central Powers he but expresses the opinion
of 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 Mahomedan
sentiment.
What does the sentiment demand?
The preservation of the Khilafat with such guarantee
as may be necessary for the protection of the interests
of the non-Muslim races living under Turkish rule and
the Khalif’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.
THE SUZERAINTY OVER ARABIA
“As I told you in my last letter
I think Mr. Gandhi has made a serious mistake in
the Kailafat business. The Indian Mahomedans base
their demand on the assertion that their religion
requires the Turkish rule over Arabia: but
when they have against them in this matter, the
Arabs themselves, it is impossible to regard the theory
of the Indian Mahomedans as essential to Islam.
After all if the Arabs do not represent Islam,
who does? It is as if the German Roman Catholics
made a demand in the name of Roman Catholicism with
Rome and the Italians making a contrary demand.
But even if the religion of the Indian Mahomedans
did require that Turkish rule should be imposed
upon the Arabs against their will, one could not, now-a-days,
recognise as a really religious demand, one which
required the continued oppression of one people
by another. When an assurance was given at
the beginning of the war to the Indian Mahomedans that
the Mahomedan religion would be respected, that
could never have meant that a temporal sovereignty
which violated the principles of self-determination
would be upheld. We could not now stand by and
see the Turks re-conquer the Arabs (for the Arabs
would certainly fight against them) without grossly
betraying the Arabs to whom we have given pledges.
It is not true that the Arab hostility to the Turks
was due simply to European suggestion. No doubt,
during the war we availed ourselves of the Arab
hostility to the Turks to get another ally, but
the hostility had existed long before the war.
The Non-Turkish Mahomedan subjects of the Sultan
in general wanted to get rid of his rule.
It is the Indian Mahomedans who have no experience
of that rule who want to impose it on others.
As a matter of fact the idea of any restoration
of Turkish rule in Syria or Arabia, seems so remote
from all possibilities that to discuss it seems like
discussing a restoration of the Holy Roman Empire.
I cannot conceive what series of events could bring
it about. The Indian Mahomedans certainly
could not march into Arabia themselves and conquer
the Arabs for the Sultan. And no amount of
agitation and trouble in India would ever induce
England to put back Turkish rule in Arabia. In
this matter it is not English Imperialism which
the Indian Mahomedans are up against, but the mass
of English Liberal and Humanitarian opinion, the
mass of the better opinion of England, which wants
self-determination to go forward in India.
Supposing the Indian Mahomedans could stir up an
agitation so violent in India as to sever the connection
between India and the British Crown, still they would
not be any nearer to their purpose. For to-day
they do have considerable influence on British
world-policy. Even if in this matter of the
Turkish question their influence has not been sufficient
to turn the scale against the very heavy weights on
the other side, it has weighed in the scale.
But apart from the British connection, Indian Mahomedans
would have no influence at all outside India.
They would not count for more in world politics than
the Mahomedans of China. I think it is likely
(apart from the pressure of America on the other
side. I should say certain) that the influence
of the Indian Mahomedans may at any rate avail to keep
the Sultan in Constantinople. But I doubt
whether they will gain any advantage by doing so.
For a Turkey cut down to the Turkish parts of Asia-Minor,
Constantinople would be a very inconvenient capital.
I think its inconvenience would more than outweigh
the sentimental gratification of keeping up a phantom
of the old Ottoman Empire. But if the Indian
Mahomedans want the Sultan to retain his place in
Constantinople I think the assurances given officially
by the Viceroy in India now binds us to insist
on his remaining there and I think he will remain
there in spite of America.”
This is an extract, from the letter
of an Englishman enjoying a position in Great Britain,
to a friend in India. It is a typical letter,
sober, honest, to the point and put in such graceful
language that whilst it challenges you, it commands
your respect by its very gracefulness. But it
is just this attitude based upon insufficient or false
information which has ruined many a cause in the British
Isles. The superficiality, the one-sidedness
the inaccuracy and often even dishonesty that have
crept into modern journalism, continuously mislead
honest men who want to see nothing but justice done.
Then there are always interested groups whose business
it is to serve their ends by means of faul or
food. And the honest Englishman wishing to vote
for justice but swayed by conflicting opinions and
dominated by distorted versions, often ends by becoming
an instrument of injustice.
The writer of the letter quoted above
has built up convincing argument on imaginary data.
He has successfully shown that the Mahomedan case,
as it has been presented to him, is a rotten case.
In India, where it is not quite easy to distort facts
about the Khilafat. English friends admit the
utter justice of the Indian-Mahomedan claim. But
they plead helplessness and tell us that the Government
of India and Mr. Montagu have done all it was humanly
possible for them to do. And if now the judgment
goes against Islam, Indian Mahomedans should resign
themselves to it. This extraordinary state of
things would not be possible except under this modern
rush and preoccupations of all responsible people.
Let us for a moment examine the case
as it has been imagined by the writer. He suggests
that Indian Mahomedans want Turkish rule in Arabia
in spite of the opposition of the Arabs themselves,
and that, if the Arabs do not want Turkish rule, the
writer argues, no false religions sentiment can be
permitted to interfere with self-determination of the
Arabs when India herself has been pleading for that
very status. Now the fact is that the Mahomedans,
as is known to everybody who has at all studied the
case, have never asked for Turkish rule in Arabia in
opposition to the Arabs. On the contrary, they
have said that they have no intention of resisting
Arabian self-government. All they ask for is
Turkish suzerainty over Arabia which would guarantee
complete self-rule for the Arabs. They want Khalif’s
control of the Holy Places of Islam. In other
words they ask for nothing more than what was guaranteed
by Mr. Lloyd George and on the strength of which guarantee
Mahomedan soldiers split their blood on behalf of
the Allied Powers. All the elaborate argument
therefore and the cogent reasoning of the above extract
fall to pieces based as they are upon a case that
has never existed. I have thrown myself heart
and soul into this question because British pledges
abstract justice, and religious sentiment coincide.
I can conceive the possibility of a blind and fanatical
religious sentiment existing in opposition to pure
justice. I should then resist the former and fight
for the latter. Nor would I insist upon pledges
given dishonestly to support an unjust cause as has
happened with England in the case of the secret treaties.
Resistance there becomes not only lawful but obligatory
on the part of a nation that prides itself on its righteousness.
It is unnecessary for me to examine
the position imagined by the English friend, viz.,
how India would have fared had she been an independent
power. It is unnecessary because Indian Mahomedans,
and for that matter India, are fighting for a cause
that is admittedly just; a cause in aid of which they
are invoking the whole-hearted support of the British
people. I would however venture to suggest that
this is a cause in which mere sympathy will not suffice.
It is a cause which demands support that is strong
enough to bring about substantial justice.
FURTHER QUESTIONS ANSWERED
I have been overwhelmed with public
criticism and private advice and even anonymous letters
telling me exactly what I should do. Some are
impatient that I do not advise immediate and extensive
non-co-operation; others tell me what harm I am doing
the country by throwing it knowingly in a tempest
of violence on either side. It is difficult for
me to deal with the whole of the criticism, but I
would summarize some of the objections and endeavour
to answer them to the best of my ability. These
are in addition to those I have already answered:
(1) Turkish claim is immoral or unjust
and how can I, a lover of truth and justice, support
it? (2) Even if the claim be just in theory, the Turk
is hopelessly incapable, weak and cruel. He does
not deserve any assistance.
(3) Even if Turkey deserves all that
is claimed for her, why should I land India in an
international struggle?
(4) It is no part of the Indian Mahomedans’
business to meddle in this affair. If they cherish
any political ambition, they have tried, they have
failed and they should now sit still. If it is
a religious matter with them, it cannot appeal to
the Hindu reason in the manner it is put and in any
case Hindus ought not to identify themselves with Mahomedans
in their religious quarrel with Christendom.
(5) In no case should I advocate non-co-operation
which in its extreme sense is nothing but a rebellion,
no matter how peaceful it may be.
(6) Moreover, my experience of last
year must show me that it is beyond the capacity of
any single human being to control the forces of violence
that are lying dormant in the land.
(7) Non-co-operation is futile because
people will never respond in right earnest, and reaction
that might afterwards set in will be worse than the
state of hopefulness we are now in.
(8) Non-co-operation will bring about
cessation of all other activities, even working of
the Reforms, thus set back the clock of progress. (9)
However pure my motives may be, those of the Mussalmans
are obviously revengeful.
I shall now answer the objections
in the order in which they are stated
(1) In my opinion the Turkish claim
is not only not immoral and unjust, but it is highly
equitable, if only because Turkey wants to retain what
is her own. And the Mahomedan manifesto has definitely
declared that whatever guarantees may be necessary
to be taken for the protection of non-Muslim and non-Turkish
races, should be taken so as to give the Christians
theirs and the Arabs their self-government under the
Turkish suzerainty.
(2) I do not believe the Turk to be
weak, incapable or cruel. He is certainly disorganised
and probably without good generalship. He has
been obliged to fight against heavy odds. The
argument of weakness, incapacity and cruelty one often
hears quoted in connection with those from whom power
is sought to be taken away. About the alleged
massacres a proper commission has been asked for,
but never granted. And in any case security can
be taken against oppression.
(3) I have already stated that if
I were not interested in the Indian Mahomedans, I
would not interest myself in the welfare of the Turks
any more than I am in that of the Austrians or the
Poles. But I am bound as an Indian to share the
sufferings and trial of fellow-Indians. If I deem
the Mahomedan to be my brother. It is my duty
to help him in his hour of peril to the best of my
ability, if his cause commends itself to me as just.
(4) The fourth refers to the extent
Hindus should join hands with the Mahomedans.
It is therefore a matter of feeling and opinion.
It is expedient to suffer for my Mahomedan brother
to the utmost in a just cause and I should therefore
travel with him along the whole road so long as the
means employed by him are as honourable as his end.
I cannot regulate the Mahomedan feeling. I must
accept his statement that the Khilafat is with him
a religious question in the sense that it binds him
to reach the goal even at the cost of his own life.
(5) I do not consider non-co-operation
to be a rebellion, because it is free from violence.
In a larger sense all opposition to a Government measure
is a rebellion. In that sense, rebellion in a
just cause is a duty, the extent of opposition being
determined by the measure of the injustice done and
felt.
(6) My experience of last year shows
me that in spite of aberrations in some parts of India,
the country was entirely under control that the influence
of Satyagraha was profoundly for its good and that
where violence did break out there were local causes
that directly contributed to it. At the same
time I admit that even the violence that did take
place on the part of the people and the spirit of lawlessness
that was undoubtedly shown in some parts should have
remained under check. I have made ample acknowledgment
of the miscalculation I then made. But all the
painful experience that I then gained did not any way
shake my belief in Satyagraha or in the possibility
of that matchless force being utilised in India.
Ample provision is being made this time to avoid the
mistakes of the past. But I must refuse to be
deterred from a clear course; because it may be attended
by violence totally unintended and in spite of extraordinary
efforts that are being made to prevent it. At
the same time I must make my position clear.
Nothing can possibly prevent a Satyagrahi from doing
his duty because of the frown of the authorities.
I would risk, if necessary, a million lives so long
as they are voluntary sufferers and are innocent,
spotless victims. It is the mistakes of the people
that matter in a Satyagraha campaign. Mistakes,
even insanity must be expected from the strong and
the powerful, and the moment of victory has come when
there is no retort to the mad fury of the powerful,
but a voluntary, dignified and quiet submission but
not submission to the will of the authority that has
put itself in the wrong. The secret of success
lies therefore in holding every English life and the
life of every officer serving the Government as sacred
as those of our own dear ones. All the wonderful
experience I have gained now during nearly 40 years
of conscious existence, has convinced me that there
is no gift so precious as that of life. I make
bold to say that the moment the Englishmen feel that
although they are in India in a hopeless minority,
their lives are protected against harm not because
of the matchless weapons of destruction which are
at their disposal, but because Indians refuse to take
the lives even of those whom they may consider to
be utterly in the wrong that moment will see a transformation
in the English nature in its relation to India and
that moment will also be the moment when all the destructive
cutlery that is to be had in India will begin to rust.
I know that this is a far-off vision. That cannot
matter to me. It is enough for me to see the light
and to act up to it, and it is more than enough when
I gain companions in the onward march. I have
claimed in private conversations with English friends
that it is because of my incessant preaching of the
gospel of non-violence and my having successfully demonstrated
its practical utility that so far the forces of violence,
which are undoubtedly in existence in connection with
the Khilafat movement, have remained under complete
control.
(7) From a religious standpoint the
seventh objection is hardly worth considering.
If people do not respond to the movement of non-co-operation,
it would be a pity, but that can be no reason for a
reformer not to try. It would be to me a demonstration
that the present position of hopefulness is not dependent
on any inward strength or knowledge, but it is hope
born of ignorance and superstition.
(8) If non-co-operation is taken up
in earnest, it must bring about a cessation of all
other activities including the Reforms, but I decline
to draw therefore the corollary that it will set back
the clock of progress. On the contrary, I consider
non-co-operation to be such a powerful and pure instrument,
that if it is enforced in an earnest spirit, it will
be like seeking first the Kingdom of God and everything
else following as a matter of course. People will
have then realised their true power. They would
have learnt the value of discipline, self-control,
joint action, non-violence, organisation and everything
else that goes to make a nation great and good, and
not merely great.
(9) I do not know that I have a right
to arrogate greater purity for myself than for our
Mussalman brethren. But I do admit that they do
not believe in my doctrine of non-violence to the
full extent. For them it is a weapon of the weak,
an expedient. They consider non-co-operation
without violence to be the only thing open to them
in the war of direct action. I know that if some
of them could offer successful violence, they would
do to-day. But they are convinced that humanly
speaking it is an impossibility. For them, therefore,
non-co-operation is a matter not merely of duty but
also of revenge. Whereas I take up non-co-operation
against the Government as I have actually taken it
up in practice against members of my own family.
I entertain very high regard for the British constitution,
I have not only no enmity against Englishmen but I
regard much in English character as worthy of my emulation.
I count many as my friends. It is against my
religion to regard any one as an enemy. I entertain
similar sentiments with respect to Mahomedans.
I find their cause to be just and pure. Although
therefore their viewpoint is different from mine I
do not hesitate to associate with them and invite
them to give my method a trial, for, I believe that
the use of a pure weapon even from a mistaken motive
does not fail to produce some good, even as the telling
of truth if only because for the time being it is
the best policy, is at least so much to the good.
MR. CANDLER’S OPEN LETTER
Mr. Candler has favoured me with an
open letter on this question of questions. The
letter has already appeared in the Press. I can
appreciate Mr. Candler’s position as I would
like him and other Englishmen to appreciate mine and
that of hundreds of Hindus who feel as I do.
Mr. Candler’s letter is an attempt to show that
Mr. Lloyd George’s pledge is not in any way
broken by the peace terms. I quite agree with
him that Mr. Lloyd George’s words ought not to
be torn from their context to support the Mahomedan
claim. These are Mr. Lloyd George’s words
as quoted in the recent Viceregal message: “Nor
are we fighting to destroy Austria-Hungary or to deprive
Turkey of its capital or of the rich and renowned
lands of Asia Minor and Thrace which are predominantly
Turkish in race.” Mr. Candler seems to read
‘which’, as if it meant ’if they,’
whereas I give the pronoun its natural meaning, namely,
that the Prime Minister knew in 1918, that the lands
referred to by him were “predominantly Turkish
in race.” And if this is the meaning I venture
to suggest that the pledge has been broken in a most
barefaced manner, for there is practically nothing
left to the Turk of ’the rich and renowned lands
of Asia Minor and Thrace.’
I have already my view of the retention
of the Sultan in Constantinople. It is an insult
to the intelligence of man to suggest that ’the
maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the homeland of
the Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople
has been left unimpaired by the terms of peace.
This is the other passage from the speech which I presume
Mr. Candler wants me to read together with the one
already quoted:
“While we do not challenge the
maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the home-land
of the Turkish race with its capital at Constantinople,
the passage between the Mediterranean and the Black
Sea being inter-nationalised, Armenia, Mesopotamia,
Syria and Palestine are in our judgment entitled
to a recognition of their separate national condition.”
Did that mean entire removal of Turkish
influence, extinction of Turkish suzerainty and the
introduction of European-Christian influence under
the guise of Mandates? Have the Moslems of Arabia,
Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine been committed,
or is the new arrangement being superimposed upon
them by Powers conscious of their own brute-strength
rather than of justice of their action? I for
one would nurse by every legitimate means the spirit
of independence in the brave Arabs, but I shudder
to think what will happen to them under the schemes
of exploitation of their country by the greedy capitalists
protected as they will be by the mandatory Powers.
If the pledge is to be fulfilled, let these places
have full self-government with suzerainty to be retained
with Turkey as has been suggested by the Times of
India. Let there be all the necessary guarantees
taken from Turkey about the internal independence
of the Arabs. But to remove that suzerainty, to
deprive the Khalif of the wardenship of the Holy Places
is to render Khilafat a mockery which no Mahomedan
can possibly look upon with equanimity, I am not alone
in my interpretation of the pledge. The Right
Hon’ble Ameer Ali calls the peace terms a breach
of faith. Mr. Charles Roberts reminds the British
public that the Indian Mussalman sentiment regarding
the Turkish Treaty is based upon the Prime Minister’s
pledge “regarding Thrace, Constantinople and
Turkish lands in Asia Minor, repeated on February
26 last with deliberation by Mr. Lloyd George.
Mr. Roberts holds that the pledge must be treated
as a whole, not as binding only regarding Constantinople
but also binding as regards Thrace and Asia Minor.
He describes the pledge as binding upon the nation
as a whole and its breach in any part as a gross breach
of faith on the part of the British Empire. He
demands that if there is an unanswerable reply to
the charge of breach of faith it ought to be given
and adds the Prime Minister may regard his own word
lightly if he chooses, but he has no right to break
a pledge given on behalf of the nation. He concludes
that it is incredible that such pledge should not
have been kept in the letter and in the spirit.”
He adds: “I have reason to believe that
these views are fully shared by prominent members
of the Cabinet.”
I wonder if Mr. Candler knows what
is going on to-day in England. Mr. Pickthall
writing in New Age says: “No impartial
international enquiry into the whole question of the
Armenian massacres has been instituted in the ample
time which has elapsed since the conclusion of armistice
with Turkey. The Turkish Government has asked
for such enquiry. But the Armenian organisations
and the Armenian partisans refuse to hear of such
a thing, declaring that the Bryce and Lepssens reports
are quite sufficient to condemn the Turks. In
other words the judgment should be given on the case
for prosecution alone. The inter-allied commission
which investigated the unfortunate events in Smyrna
last year, made a report unfavourable to Greek claims.
Therefore, that report has not been published here
in England, though in other countries it has long been
public property.” He then goes on to show
how money is being scattered by Armenian and Greek
emissaries in order to popularise their cause and
adds: “This conjunction of dense ignorance
and cunning falsehood is fraught with instant danger
to the British realm,” and concludes: “A
Government and people which prefer propaganda to fact
as the ground of policy and foreign policy
at that is self-condemned.”
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 Landsend
and the Tamar, Cornawal 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. In defending
his own statement Mr. Lloyd George is reported to
have said:
“The effect of the statement in
India was that recruiting went up appreciably from
that very moment. They were not all Mahomedans
but there were many Mahomedans amongst them.
Now we are told that was an offer to Turkey.
But they rejected it, and therefore we were absolutely
free. It was not. It is too often forgotten
that we are the greatest Mahomedan power in the
world and one-fourth of the population of the British
Empire is Mahomedan. There have been no more
loyal adherents to the throne and no more effective
and loyal supporters of the Empire in its hour
of trial. We gave a solemn pledge and they accepted
it. They are disturbed by the prospect of
our not abiding by it.”
Who shall interpret that pledge and
how? How did the Government of India itself interpret
it? Did it or did it not energetically support
the claim for the control of the Holy Places of Islam
vesting in the Khalif? Did the Government of
India suggest that the whole of Jazirat-ul-Arab could
he taken away consistently with that pledge from the
sphere of influence of the Khalif, and given over
to the Allies as mandatory Powers? Why does the
Government of India sympathise with the Indian Mussalmans
if the terms are all they should be? So much for
the pledge. I would like to guard myself against
being understood that I stand or fall absolutely by
Mr. Lloyd George’s declaration. I have advisedly
used the adverb ‘practically’ in connection
with it. It is an important qualification.’
Mr. Candler seems to suggest that
my goal is something more than merely attaining justice
on the Khilafat. If so, he is right. Attainment
of justice is undoubtedly the corner-stone, and if
I found that I was wrong in my conception of justice
on this question, I hope I shall have the courage
immediately to retrace my steps. But by helping
the Mahomedans of India at a critical moment in their
history, I want to buy their friendship. Moreover,
if I can carry the Mahomedans with me I hope to wean
Great Britain from the downward path along which the
Prime Minister seems to me to be taking her.
I hope also to show to India and the Empire at large
that given a certain amount of capacity for self-sacrifice,
justice can be secured by peacefullest and cleanest
means without sowing or increasing bitterness between
English and Indians. For, whatever may be the
temporary effect of my methods, I know enough of them
to feel certain that they alone are immune from lasting
bitterness. They are untainted with hatred, expedience
or untruth.
IN PROCESS OF KEEPING
The writer of ‘Current Topics’
in the “Times of India” has attempted to
challenge the statement made in my Khilafat article
regarding ministerial pledges, and in doing so cites
Mr. Asquith’s Guild-Hall speech of November
10, 1914. When I wrote the articles, I had in
mind Mr. Asquith’s speech. I am sorry that
he ever made that speech. For, in my humble opinion,
it betrayed to say the least, a confusion of thought.
Could he think of the Turkish people as apart from
the Ottoman Government? And what is the meaning
of the death-knell of Ottoman Dominion in Europe and
Asia if it be not the death knell of Turkish people
as a free and governing race? Is it, again, true
historically that the Turkish rule has always been
a blight that ’has withered some of the fairest
regions of the earth?’ And what is the meaning
of his statement that followed, viz., “Nothing
is further from our thoughts than to imitate or encourage
a crusade against their belief?” If words have
any meaning, the qualifications that Mr. Asquith introduced
in his speech should have meant a scrupulous regard
for Indian Muslim feeling. And if that be the
meaning of his speech, without anything further to
support me I would claim that even Mr. Asquith’s
assurance is in danger of being set at nought if the
resolutions of the San Remo Conference are to be crystallised
into action. But I base remarks on a considered
speech made by Mr. Asquith’s successor two years
later when things had assumed a more threatening shape
than in 1914 and when the need for Indian help was
much greater than in 1914. His pledge would bear
repetition till it is fulfilled. He said:
“Nor are we fighting to deprive Turkey of its
capital or of the rich and renowned lands of Asia
Minor and Thrace which are predominantly Turkish in
race. We do not challenge the maintenance of
the Turkish Empire in the homelands of the Turkish
race with its capital at Constantinople.”
If only every word of this pledge is fulfilled both
in letter and in spirit, there would be little left
for quarrelling about. In so far as Mr. Asquith’s
declaration can be considered hostile to the Indian
Muslim claim, it its superseded by the later and more
considered declaration of Mr. Lloyd George a
declaration made irrevocable by fulfilment of the
consideration it expected, viz. the enlistment
of the brave Mahomedan soldiery which fought in the
very place which is now being partitioned in spite
of the pledge. But the writer of ‘Current
Topics’ says Mr. Lloyd George “is now
in process of keeping his pledge” I hope he is
right. But what has already happened gives little
ground for any such hope. For, imprisonment or
internment of the Khalif in his own capital will be
not only a mockery of fulfilment but it would he adding
injury to insult. Either the Turkish Empire is
to be maintained in the homelands of the Turkish race
with its capital at Constantinople or it is not.
If it is, let the Indian Mahomedans feel the full glow
of it or if the Empire is to be broken up, let the
mask of hypocrisy be lifted and India see the truth
in its nakedness. To join the Khilafat movement
then means to join a movement to keep inviolate the
pledge of a British minister. Surely, such a
movement is worth much greater sacrifice than may
be involved in non-co-operation.
APPEAL TO THE VICEROY
Your Excellency.
As one who has enjoyed a certain measure
of your Excellency’s confidence, and as one
who claims to be a devoted well-wisher of the British
Empire, I owe it to your Excellency, and through your
Excellency to His Majesty’s Ministers, to explain
my connection with and my conduct in the Khilafat
question.
At the very earliest stages of the
war, even whilst I was in London organising the Indian
Volunteer Ambulance Corps, I began to interest myself
in the Khilafat question. I perceived how deeply
moved the little Mussalman World in London was when
Turkey decided to throw in her lot with Germany.
On my arrival in India in the January of 1915, I found
the same anxiousness and earnestness among the Mussalmans
with whom I came in contact. Their anxiety became
intense when the information about the Secret Treaties
leaked out. Distrust of British intentions filled
their minds, and despair took possession of them.
Even at that moment I advised my Mussalman friends
not to give way to despair, but to express their fear
and their hopes in a disciplined manner. It will
be admitted that the whole of Mussalman India has
behaved in a singularly restrained manner during the
past five years and that the leaders have been able
to keep the turbulent sections of their community
under complete control.
The peace terms and your Excellency’s
defence of them have given the Mussalmans of India
a shock from which it will be difficult for them to
recover. The terms violate ministerial pledges
and utterly disregard Mussalman sentiment. I
consider that as a staunch Hindu wishing to live on
terms of the closest friendship with my Mussalman countrymen.
I should be an unworthy son of India if I did not
stand by them in their hour of trial. In my humble
opinion their cause is just. They claim that
Turkey must be punished if their sentiment is
to be respected. Muslim soldiers did fight to
inflict punishment on their own Khalifa or to deprive
him of his territories. The Mussalman attitude
has been consistent, throughout these five years.
My duty to the Empire to which I owe
my loyalty requires me to resist the cruel violence
that has been done to the Mussalman sentiment.
So far as I am aware, Mussulmans and Hindus have as
a whole lost faith in British justice and honour.
The report of the majority of the Hunter Committee,
Your Excellency’s despatch thereon and Mr. Montagu’s
reply have only aggravated the distrust.
In these circumstances the only course
open to one like me is either in despair to sever
all connection with British rule, or, if I still retained
faith in the inherent superiority of the British constitution
to all others at present in vogue to adopt such means
as will rectify the wrong done, and thus restore confidence.
I have not lost faith in such superiority and I am
not without hope that somehow or other justice will
yet be rendered if we show the requisite capacity for
suffering. Indeed, my conception of that constitution
is that it helps only those who are ready to help
themselves. I do not believe that it protects
the weak. It gives free scope to the strong to
maintain their strength and develop it. The weak
under it go to the wall.
It is, then, because I believe in
the British constitution that I have advised my Mussalman
friends to withdraw their support from your Excellency’s
Government and the Hindus to join them, should the
peace terms not be revised in accordance with the
solemn pledges of Ministers and the Muslim sentiment.
Three courses were open to the Mahomedans
in order to mark their emphatic disapproval of the
utter injustice to which His Majesty’s Ministers
have become party, if they have not actually been the
prime perpetrators of it. They are:
(1) To resort to violence,
(2) To advise emigration on a wholesale scale,
(3) Not to be party to the injustice
by ceasing to co-operate with the Government.
Your Excellency must be aware that
there was a time when the boldest, though the most
thoughtless among the Mussulmans favoured violence,
and the “Hijrat” (emigration) has not
yet ceased to be the battle-cry. I venture to
claim that I have succeeded by patient reasoning in
weaning the party of violence from its ways.
I confess that I did not I did not attempt
to succeed in weaning them from violence on moral grounds,
but purely on utilitarian grounds. The result,
for the time being at any has, however, been to stop
violence. The School of “Hijrat” has
received a check, if it has not stopped its activity
entirely. I hold that no repression could have
prevented a violent eruption, if the people had not
had presented to them a form of direct action involving
considerable sacrifice and ensuring success if such
direct action was largely taken up by the public.
Non-co-operation was the only dignified and constitutional
form of such direct action. For it is the right
recognised from times immemorial of the subject to
refuse to assist a ruler who misrules.
At the same time I admit that non-co-operation
practised by the mass of people is attended with grave
risks. But, in a crisis such as has overtaken
the Mussalmans of India, no step that is unattended
with large risks, can possibly bring about the desired
change. Not to run some risks now will be to
court much greater risks if not virtual destruction
of Law and Order.
But there is yet an escape from non-co-operation.
The Mussalman representation has requested your Excellency
to lead the agitation yourself, as did your distinguished
predecessor at the time of the South African trouble.
But if you cannot see your way to do so, and non-co-operation
becomes a dire necessity, I hope that your Excellency
will give those who have accepted my advice and myself
the credit for being actuated by nothing less than
a stern sense of duty.
I have the honour to remain,
Your Excellency’s faithful servant,
(Sd.) M.K. GANDHI.
Laburnam Road, Gamdevi, Bombay
22nd June 1920
THE PREMIER’S REPLY
The English mail has brought us a
full and official report of the Premier’s speech
which he recently made when he received the Khilafat
deputation. Mr. Lloyd George’s speech is
more definite and therefore more disappointing than
H.E. the Viceroy’s reply to the deputation here.
He draws quite unwarranted deductions from the same
high principles on which he had based his own pledge
only two years ago. He declares that Turkey must
pay the penalty of defeat. This determination
to punish Turkey does not become one whose immediate
predecessor had, in order to appease Muslim soldiers,
promised 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. Mr. Lloyd George has
expressed his belief that the majority of the population
of Turkey did not really want to quarrel with Great
Britain and that their rulers misled the country.
In spite of this conviction and in spite of Mr. Asquith’s
promise, he is out to punish Turkey and punish it
in the name of justice.
He expounds the principle of self-determination
and justifies the scheme of depriving Turkey of its
territories one after another. While justifying
this scheme he does not exclude even Thrace and this
strikes the reader most, because this very Thrace
he had mentioned in his pledge as predominantly Turkish.
Now we are told by him that both the Turkish census
and the Greek census agree in pointing out the Mussulman
population in Thrace is in a considerable minority!
Mr. Yakub Hussain speaking at the Madras Khilafat
conference has challenged the truth of this statement.
The Prime Minister cites among others also the example
of Smyrna where, he says, we had a most careful investigation
by a very impartial committee in the whole of the
question of Smyrna and it was found that considerable
majority was non-Turkish.’ Who will believe
the one-sided “impartial committee’s”
investigations until it is disproved that thousands
of Musselmans have been murdered and hundreds of thousands
have been driven away from their hearths and homes?
Strangely enough Mr. Lloyd George, believes in the
necessity of fresh investigations by a purposely appointed
committee in Smyrna as the most authenticated and
up-to-date report, whereas he would not accept Mr.
Mahomed Ali’s proposal for an impartial commission
in regard to Armenian massacre! Doubtful and
one-sided facts and figures suffice for him even to
conclude that the Turkish Government is incapable of
protecting its subjects. And he proceeds to suggest
foreign interference in ruling over Asia Minor in
the interests of civilization. Here he cuts at
the root of the Sultan’s independence.
This proposal of appropriating supervision is distinctly
unlike the treatment meted out to other enemy powers.
This detraction of the Sultan’s
suzerainty is only a corollary of the Premier’s
indifference towards the Muslim idea of the Caliphate.
The premier’s injustice in treating the Turkish
question becomes graver when he thus lightly handles
the Khilafat question. There had been occasions
when the British have used to their advantage the Muslim
idea of associating the Caliph’s spiritual power
with temporal power. Now this very association
is treated as a controversial question by the great
statesman.
Will this raise the reputation of
Great Britain or stain it? Can this be tolerated
by those who fought against Turkey with full faith
in British honesty? Mere receipts of gratitude
cannot console the wounded Mussalmans. There
lies the alternative for England to choose between
two mandates a mandate over some Turkish
territories which is sure to lead to chaos all over
the world and a mandate over the hearts of the Muhomedans
which will redeem the pledged honour of Britain.
The prime minister has an unwise choice. This
narrow view registers the latest temperature of British
diplomacy.
THE MUSSULMAN REPRESENTATION
Slowly but surely the Mussulmans are
preparing for the battle before them. They have
to fight against odds that are undoubtedly heavy but
not half as heavy as the prophet had against him.
How often did he not put his life in danger?
But his faith in God was unquenchable. He went
forward with a light heart, for God was on his side,
for he represented truth. If his followers have
half the prophet’s faith and half his spirit
of sacrifice, the odds will be presently even and will
in little while turn against the despoilers of Turkey.
Already the rapacity of the Allies is telling against
themselves. France finds her task difficult.
Greece cannot stomach her ill-gotten gains. And
England finds Mesopotamia a tough job. The oil
of Mosul may feed the fire she has so wantonly lighted
and burn her fingers badly. The newspapers say
the Arabs do not like the presence of the Indian soldiery
in their midst. I do not wonder. They are
a fierce and a brave people and do not understand
why Indian soldiers should find themselves in Mesopotamia.
Whatever the fate of non-co-operation, I wish that
not a single Indian will offer his services for Mesopotamia
whether for the civil or the military department.
We must learn to think for ourselves and before entering
upon any employment find out whether thereby we may
not make ourselves instruments of injustice.
Apart from the question of Khilafat and from the point
of abstract justice the English have no right to hold
Mesopotamia. It is no part of our loyalty to help
the Imperial Government in what is in plain language
daylight robbery. If therefore we seek civil
or military employment in Mesopotamia we do so for
the sake of earning a livelihood. It is our duty
to see that the source is not tainted.
It surprises me to find so many people
shirking over the mention of non-co-operation.
There is no instrument so clean, so harmless and yet
so effective as non-co-operation. Judiciously
hauled it need not produce any evil consequences.
And its intensity will depend purely on the capacity
of the people for sacrifice.
The chief thing is to prepare the
atmosphere of non-co-operation. “We are
not going to co-operate with you in your injustice,”
is surely the right and the duty of every intelligent
subject to say. Were it not for our utter servility,
helplessness and want of confidence in ourselves,
we would certainly grasp this clean weapon and make
the most effective use of it. Even the most despotic
government cannot stand except for the consent of
the governed which consent is often forcibly procured
by the despot. Immediately the subject ceases
to fear the despotic force his power is gone.
But the British government is never and nowhere entirely
or laid upon force. It does make an honest attempt
to secure the goodwill of the governed. But it
does not hesitate to adopt unscrupulous means to compel
the consent of the governed. It has not gone beyond
the ‘Honesty is the best policy’ idea.
It therefore bribes you into consenting its will by
awarding titles, medals and ribbons, by giving you
employment, by its superior financial ability to open
for its employees avenues for enriching themselves
and finally when these fail, it resorts to force.
That is what Sir Michael O’Dwyer did and that
is almost every British administrator will certainly
do if he thought it necessary. If then we would
not be greedy, if we would not run after titles and
medals and honorary posts which do the country no good,
half the battle is won.
My advisers are never tired of telling
me that even if the Turkish peace terms are revised
it will not be due to non-co-operation. I venture
to suggest to them that non-co-operation has a higher
purpose than mere revision of the terms. If I
cannot compel revision I must at least cease to support
a government that becomes party to the usurpation.
And if I succeed in pushing non-co-operation to the
extreme limit, I do compel the Government to choose
between India and the usurpation. I have faith
enough in England to know that at that moment England
will expel her present jaded ministers and put in
others who will make a clean sweep of the terms in
consultation with an awakened India, draft terms that
will be honourable to her, to Turkey and acceptable
to India. But I hear my critics say “India
has not the strength of purpose and the capacity for
the sacrifice to achieve such a noble end. They
are partly right. India has not these qualities
now, because we have not shall we not evolve
them and infect the nation with them? Is not the
attempt worth making? Is my sacrifice too great
to gain such a great purpose?”
CRITICISM OF THE MUSLIM MANIFESTO
The Khilafat representation addressed
to the Viceroy and my letter on the same subject have
been severely criticised by the Anglo-Indian press.
The Times of India which generally adopts an
impartial attitude has taken strong exception to certain
statements made in the Muslim manifesto and has devoted
a paragraph of its article to an advance criticism
of my suggestion that His Excellency should resign
if the peace terms are not revised.
The Times of India excepts
to the submission that the British Empire may not
treat Turkey like a departed enemy. The signatories
have, I think, supplied the best of reasons.
They say “We respectfully submit that in the
treatment of Turkey the British Government are bound
to respect Indian Muslim sentiment in so far as it
is neither unjust nor unreasonable.” If
the seven crore Mussulmans are partners in the Empire,
I submit that their wish must be held to be all sufficient
for refraining from punishing Turkey. It is beside
the point to quote what Turkey did during the war.
It has suffered for it. The Times inquires
wherein Turkey has been treated worse than the other
Powers. I thought that the fact was self-evident.
Neither Germany nor Austria and Hungary has been treated
in the same way that Turkey has been. The whole
of the Empire has been reduced to the retention of
a portion of its capital, as it were, to mock the
Sultan and that too has been done under terms so humiliating
that no self-respecting person much less a reigning
sovereign can possibly accept.
The Times has endeavoured to
make capital out of the fact that the representation
does not examine the reason for Turkey not joining
the Allies. Well there was no mystery about it.
The fact of Russia being one of the Allies was enough
to warn Turkey against joining them. With Russia
knocking at the gate at the time of the war it was
not an easy matter for Turkey to join the Allies.
But Turkey had cause to suspect Great Britain herself.
She knew that England had done no friendly turn to
her during the Bulgarian War. She was hardly well
served at the time of the war with Italy. It
was still no doubt a bad choice. With the Musssalmans
of India awakened and ready to support her, her statesmen
might have relied upon Britain not being allowed to
damage Turkey if she had remained with the Allies.
But this is all wisdom after event. Turkey made
a bad choice and she was punished for it. To humiliate
her now is to ignore the Indian Mussulman sentiment.
Britain may not do it and retain the loyalty of the
awakened Mussulmans of India.
For “The Times” to say
that the peace terms strictly follow the principle
of self-determination is to throw dust in the eyes
of its readers. Is it the principle of self-determination
that has caused the cessation of Adrianople and Thrace
to Greece? By what principle of self-determination
has Smyrna been handed to Greece? Have the inhabitants
of Thrace and Smyrna asked for Grecian tutelege?
I decline to believe that the Arabs
like the disposition that has been made of them.
Who is the King of Hedjaj and who is Emir Feisul?
Have the Arabs elected these kings and chiefs?
Do the Arabs like the Mandate being taken by England?
By the time the whole thing is finished, the very
name self-determination will stink in one’s nostrils.
Already signs are not wanting to show that the Arabs,
the Thracians and the Smyrnans are resenting their
disposal. They may not like Turkish rule but they
like the present arrangement less. They could
have made their own honourable terms with Turkey but
these self-determining people will now be held down
by the ‘matchless might’ of the allied
i.e., British forces. Britain had the
straight course open to her of keeping the Turkish
Empire intact and taking sufficient guarantees for
good government. But her Prime Minister chose
the crooked course of secret treaties, duplicity and
hypocritical subterfuges.
There is still a way out. Let
her treat India as a real partner. Let her call
the true representatives of the Mussalmans. Let
them go to Arabia and the other parts of the Turkish
Empire and let her devise a scheme that would not
humiliate Turkey, that would satisfy the just Muslim
sentiment and that will secure honest self-determination
for the races composing that Empire. If it was
Canada, Australia or South Africa that had to be placated,
Mr. Lloyd George would not have dared to ignore them.
They have the power to secede. India has not.
Let him no more insult India by calling her a partner,
if her feelings count for naught. I invite The
Times of India to reconsider its position and join
an honourable agitation in which a high-souled people
are seeking nothing but justice.
I do with all deference still suggest
that the least that Lord Chelmsford can do is to resign
if the sacred feelings of India’s sons are not
to be consulted and respected by the Ministers. The
Times is over-taxing the constitution when it
suggests that as a constitutional Viceroy it is not
open to Lord Chelmsford to go against the decision
of his Majesty’s Ministers. It is certainly
not open to a Viceroy to retain office and oppose
ministerial decisions. But the constitution does
allow a Viceroy to resign his high office when he
is called upon to carry out decisions that are immoral
as the peace terms are or like these terms are calculated
to stir to their very depth the feelings of those whose
affair he is administering for the time being.
THE MAHOMEDAN DECISION
The Khilafat meeting at Allahabad
has unanimously reaffirmed the principle of non-co-operation
and appointed an executive committee to lay down and
enforce a detailed programme. This meeting was
preceded by a joint Hindu-Mahomedan meeting at which
Hindu leaders were invited to give their views.
Mrs. Beasant, the Hon’ble Pandit Malaviyuji,
the Hon’ble Dr. Sapru Motilal Nehru Chintamani
and others were present at the meeting. It was
a wise step on the part of the Khilafat Committee to
invite Hindus representing all shades of thought to
give them the benefit of their advice. Mrs. Besant
and Dr. Sapru strongly dissuaded the Mahomedans present
from the policy of non-co-operation. The other
Hindu speakers made non-committal speeches. Whilst
the other Hindu speakers approved of the principle
of non-co-operation in theory, they saw many practical
difficulties and they feared also complications arising
from Mahomedans welcoming an Afghan invasion of India.
The Mahomedan speakers gave the fullest and frankest
assurances that they would fight to a man any invader
who wanted to conquer India, but were equally frank
in asserting that any invasion from without undertaken
with a view to uphold the prestige of Islam and to
vindicate justice would have their full sympathy if
not their actual support. It is easy enough to
understand and justify the Hindu caution. It is
difficult to resist Mahomedan position. In my
opinion, the best way to prevent India from becoming
the battle ground between the forces of Islam and those
of the English is for Hindus to make non-co-operation
a complete and immediate success, and I have little
doubt that if the Mahomedans remain true to their
declared intention and are able to exercise self-restraint,
and make sacrifices the Hindus will “play the
game” and join them in the campaign of non-co-operation.
I feel equally certain that the Hindus will not assist
Mahomedans in promoting or bringing about an armed
conflict between the British Government and their allies,
and Afghanistan. British forces are too well organised
to admit of any successful invasion of the Indian
frontier. The only way, therefore, the Mahomedans
can carry on an effective struggle on behalf of the
honour of Islam is to take up non-co-operation in
real earnest. It will not only be completely
effective if it is adopted by the people on an extensive
scale, but it will also provide full scope for individual
conscience. If I cannot bear an injustice done
by an individual or a corporation, and if I am directly
or indirectly instrumental in upholding that individual
or corporation, I must answer for it before my Maker,
but I have done all it is humanly possible for me
to do consistently with the moral code that refuses
to injure even the wrong-doer, if I cease to support
the injustice in the manner described above.
In applying therefore such a great force there should
be no haste, there should be no temper shown.
Non-co-operation must be and remain absolutely a voluntary
effort. The whole thing then depends upon Mahomedans
themselves. If they will but help themselves
Hindu help will come and the Government, great and
mighty though it is, will have to bend before this
irresistible force. No Government can possibly
withstand the bloodless opposition of a whole nation.
MR. ANDREWS’ DIFFICULTY
Mr. Andrews whose love for India is
equalled only by his love for England and whose mission
in life is to serve God, i.e., humanity through
India, has contributed remarkable articles to the ’Bombay
Chronicle’ on the Khilafat movement. He
has not spared England, France or Italy. He has
shown how Turkey has been most unjustly dealt with
and how the Prime Minister’s pledge has been
broken. He has devoted the last article to an
examination of Mr. Mahomed Ali’s letter to the
Sultan and has come to the conclusion that Mr. Mahomed
Ali’s statement of claim is at variance with
the claim set forth in the latest Khilafat representation
to the Viceroy which he wholly approves.
Mr. Andrews and I have discussed the
question as fully as it was possible. He asked
me publicly to define my own position more fully than
I have done. His sole object in inviting discussion
is to give strength to a cause which he holds as intrinsically
just, and to gather round it the best opinion of Europe
so that the allied powers and especially England may
for very shame be obliged to revise the terms.
I gladly respond to Mr. Andrew’s
invitation. I should clear the ground by stating
that I reject any religious doctrine that does not
appeal to reason and is in conflict with morality.
I tolerate unreasonable religious sentiment when it
is not immoral. I hold the Khilafat claim to
be both just and reasonable and therefore it derives
greater force because it has behind it the religious
sentiment of the Mussalman world.
In my opinion Mr. Mahomed Ali’s
statement is unexceptionable. It is no doubt
clothed in diplomatic language. But I am not prepared
to quarrel with the language so long as it is sound
in substance.
Mr. Andrews considers that Mr. Mahomed
Ali’s language goes to show that he would resist
Armenian independence against the Armenians and the
Arabian against the Arabs. I attach no such meaning
to it. What he, the whole of Mussalmans and therefore
I think also the Hindus resist is the shameless attempt
of England and the other Powers under cover of self-determination
to emasculate and dismember Turkey. If I understand
the spirit of Islam properly, it is essentially republican
in the truest sense of the term. Therefore if
Armenia or Arabia desired independence of Turkey they
should have it. In the case of Arabia, complete
Arabian independence would mean transference of the
Khilafat to an Arab chieftain. Arabia in that
sense is a Mussulman trust, not purely Arabian.
And the Arabs without ceasing to be Mussulman, could
not hold Arabia against Muslim opinion. The Khalifa
must be the custodian of the Holy places and therefore
also the routes to them. He must be able to defend
them against the whole world. And if an Arab chief
arose who could better satisfy that test than the
Sultan of Turkey, I have no doubt that he would be
recognised as the Khalifa.
I have thus discussed the question
academically. The fact is that neither the Mussulmans
nor the Hindus believe in the English Ministerial
word. They do not believe that the Arabs or the
Armenians want complete independence of Turkey.
That they want self-government is beyond doubt.
Nobody disputes that claim. But nobody has ever
ascertained that either the Arabs or the Armenians
desire to do away with all connection, even nominal,
with Turkey.
The solution of the question lies
not in our academic discussion of the ideal position,
it lies in an honest appointment of a mixed commission
of absolutely independent Indian Mussulmans and Hindus
and independent Europeans to investigate the real
wish of the Armenians and the Arabs and then to come
to a modus vivendi where by the claims of the
nationality and those of Islam may be adjusted and
satisfied.
It is common knowledge that Smyrna
and Thrace including Adrianople have been dishonestly
taken away from Turkey and that mandates have been
unscrupulously established in Syria and Mesopotamia
and a British nominee has been set up in Hedjaj under
the protection of British guns. This is a position
that is intolerable and unjust. Apart therefore
from the questions of Armenia and Arabia, the dishonesty
and hypocrisy that pollute the peace terms require
to be instantaneously removed. It paves the way
to an equitable solution of the question of Armenian
and Arabian independence which in theory no one denies
and which in practice may be easily guaranteed if
only the wishes of the people concerned could with
any degree of certainty be ascertained.
THE KHILAFAT AGITATION
A friend who has been listening to
my speeches once asked me whether I did not come under
the sedition section of the Indian Penal Code.
Though I had not fully considered it, I told him that
very probably I did and that I could not plead ‘not
guilty’ if I was charged under it. For I
must admit that I can pretend to no ‘affection’
for the present Government.
And my speeches are intended to create
‘dis-affection’ such that the
people might consider it a shame to assist or co-operate
with a Government that had forfeited all title to
confidence, respect or support.
I draw no distinction between the
Imperial and the Indian Government. The latter
has accepted, on the Khilafat, the policy imposed upon
it by the former. And in the Punjab case the
former has endorsed the policy of terrorism and emasculation
of a brave people initiated by the latter. British
ministers have broken their pledged word and wantonly
wounded the feelings of the seventy million Mussulmans
of India. Innocent men and women were insulted
by the insolent officers of the Punjab Government.
Their wrongs not only remain unrighted but the very
officers who so cruelly subjected them to barbarous
humiliation retain office under the Government.
When at Amritsar last year I pleaded
with all the earnestness I could command for co-operation
with the Government and for response to the wishes
expressed in the Royal Proclamation. I did so
because I honestly believed that, a new era was about
to begin, and that the old spirit of fear, distrust
and consequent terrorism was about to give place to
the new spirit of respect, trust and goodwill.
I sincerely believed that the Mussulman sentiment
would be placated and that the officers that had misbehaved
during the Martial Law regime in the Punjab would be
at least dismissed and the people would be otherwise
made to feel that a Government that had always been
found quick (and mighty) to punish popular excesses
would not fail to punish its agents’ misdeeds.
But to my amazement and dismay I have discovered that
the present representatives of the Empire have become
dishonest and unscrupulous. They have no real
regard for the wishes of the people of India and they
count Indian honour as of little consequence.
I can no longer retain affection for
a Government so evilly manned as it is now-a-days.
And for me, it is humiliating to retain my freedom
and be witness to the continuing wrong. Mr. Montagu
however is certainly right in threatening me with
deprivation of my liberty if I persist in endangering
the existence of the Government. For that must
be the result if my activity bears fruit. My
only regret is that inasmuch as Mr. Montagu admits
my past services, he might have perceived that there
must be something exceptionally bad in the Government
if a well-wisher like me could no longer give his
affection to it. It was simpler to insist on
justice being done to the Mussalmans and to the Punjab
than to threaten me with punishment so that the injustice
might be perpetuated. Indeed I fully expect it
will be found that even in promoting disaffection
towards an unjust Government I had rendered greater
services to the Empire than I am already credited
with.
At the present moment, however, the
duty of those who approve my activity is clear.
They ought on no account to resent the deprivation
of my liberty, should the Government of India deem
it to be their duty to take it away. A citizen
has no right to resist such restriction imposed in
accordance with the laws of the State to which he belongs.
Much less have those who sympathise with him.
In my case there can be no question of sympathy.
For I deliberately oppose the Government to the extent
of trying to put its very existence in jeopardy.
For my supporters, therefore, it must be a moment
of joy when I am imprisoned. It means the beginning
of success if only the supporters continue the policy
for which I stand. If the Government arrest me,
they would do so in order to stop the progress of
Non-co-operation which I preach. It follows that
if Non-co-operation continues with unabated vigour,
even after my arrest, the Government must imprison
others or grant the people’s wish in order to
gain their co-operation. Any eruption of violence
on the part of the people even under provocation would
end in disaster. Whether therefore it is I or
any one else who is arrested during the campaign, the
first condition of success is that there must be no
resentment shown against it. We cannot imperil
the very existence of a Government and quarrel with
its attempt to save itself by punishing those who place
it in danger.
HIJARAT AND ITS MEANING
India is a continent. Its articulate
thousands know what its inarticulate millions are
doing or thinking. The Government and the educated
Indians may think that the Khilafat movement is merely
a passing phase. The millions of Mussalmans think
otherwise. The flight of the Mussalmans is growing
apace. The newspapers contain paragraphs in out
of the way corners informing the readers that a special
train containing a barrister with sixty women, forty
children including twenty sucklings, all told 765,
have left for Afghanistan. They were cheered
en route. They were presented with cash,
edibles and other things, and were joined by more
Muhajarins on the way. No fanatical preaching
by Shaukatali can make people break up and leave their
homes for an unknown land. There must be an abiding
faith in them. That it is better for them to
leave a State which has no regard for their religious
sentiment and face a beggar’s life than to remain
in it even though it may be in a princely manner.
Nothing but pride of power can blind the Government
of India to the scene that is being enacted before
it.
But there is yet another side to the
movement. Here are the facts as stated in the
following Government Communique dated 10th July
1920:
An unfortunate affair in connection with
the Mahajarin occurred on the 8th instant at Kacha
Garhi between Peshawar and Jamrud. The following
are the facts as at present reported. Two members
of a party of the Mahajarins proceeding by train
to Jamrud were detected by the British military
police travelling without tickets. Altercation
ensued at Islamia College Station, but the train proceeded
to Kacha Garhi. An attempt was made to evict
these Mahajarins, whereupon the military police
were attacked by a crowd of some forty Mahajarins
and the British officer who intervened was seriously
wounded with a spade. A detachment of Indian troops
at Kacha Garhi thereupon fired two or three
shots at the Mahajarin for making murderous assault
on the British officer. One Mahajarin was killed
and one wounded and three arrested. Both the military
and the police were injured. The body of the
Mahajarin was despatched to Peshawar and buried
on the morning of the 9th. This incident has
caused considerable excitement in Peshawar City,
and the Khilafat Hijrat Committee are exercising
restraining influence. Shops were closed on
the morning of the 9th. A full enquiry has been
instituted.
Now Peshawar to Jamrud is a matter
of a few miles. It was clearly the duty of the
military not to attempt to pull out the ticketless
Mahajarins for the sake of a few annas. But they
actually attempted force. Intervention by the
rest of the party was a foregone conclusion.
An altercation ensued. A British officer was attacked
with a spade. Firing and a death of a Mahajarin
was the result. Has British prestige been enhanced
by the episode? Why have not the Government put
tactful officers in charge at the frontier, whilst
a great religious emigration is in progress?
The action of the military will pass from tongue to
tongue throughout India and the Mussalman world around,
will not doubt be unconsciously and even consciously
exaggerated in the passage and the feeling bitter
as it already is will grow in bitterness. The
Communique says that the Government are making
further inquiry. Let us hope that it will be
full and that better arrangements will be made to
prevent a repetition of what appears to have been a
thoughtless act on the part of the military.
And may I draw the attention of those
who are opposing non-co-operation that unless they
find out a substitute they should either join the
non-co-operation movement or prepare to face a disorganised
subterranean upheaval whose effect no one can foresee
and whose spread it would be impossible to check or
regulate?