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.