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.