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 be 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.