Date: January 1914
Location: London
Speaker: Aga Khan III
Source: Speeches of Aga Khan III – K K Aziz
Full Text
Crisis in the London branch of the Muslim League -·restlessness among Muslims – alleged Pan-Islamic agitation – recent press reports from India – Indian Muslims and intervention by Christian Powers in Muslim lands – roots of Muslim solidarity among all sects – British foreign policy and sentiments of 100 million Muslim subjects of Britain – British support for the Bulgarian aggression in Thrace – Indian Muslims favour friendship between Britain and the Ottoman Empire – need for a strong and stable Turkish government – independence of Persia – railways in Persia – impact of education on Indian Muslims – moderate elements in India work of the All India Muslim League and the London League rally the moderates – need to promote economic development provide opportunities to Indians to study in England – remove disabilities on Indians in South Mrica-allow loyal but free criticism – consider the general consensus of opinion. 1. The Preaching of Islam. By Professor T. W. ARNOLD, C.I.E.
Revised and enlarged edition. Constable. 1913. 2. Moral and Material Progress of India. Report for 1911-2.
H. o. C. 220. 1913. 3. “The Times” articles on Indian Mussulmans. April 19, October 7 and 31, November 8, 1913, and other dates.
During the present winter special attention has been directed to Indian Moslem affairs by an acute crisis in the London Branch of the All-India Moslem League, the organisation which repre sents the political views of the community.
For more than two years past the Moslems of India, in common with their co-religionists in other countries, have been going through most painful experiences. The Turkish loss of sover eignty in Northern Mrica and in the Balkans, the continued disintegration of Persia, the treatment of Indians in South Mrica, and certain matters of Indian administration, have all deeply affected Indian Moslems. The resulting restlessness among them has led to much searching of heart among their best friends, while in some quarters exaggerated ideas have been entertained as to the effect of these events upon the hearty loyalty hitherto shown by the community to the British Crown.
Lurid caricatures of the Moslem attitude, such as that drawn in “The Times” of October 7last by “A Correspondent in India,” are to be deplored, since they tend to suspicion and estrange ment on both sides. It might well be the duty of a writer anxious to awaken the British public from a fool’s paradise to be strident in tone, if his note of alarm was based upon full knowledge and free from prejudice. But this correspondent puts himself out of court as a competent and fair-minded witness in the very first sentence of his communication. He says: “It is probable that the Balkan war would not have greatly influenced the bulk of Indian Mahommedans had it not been for the efforts of the Pan-Islamic agitators and their organs in the Press.”
He does not produce, and I believe he cannot produce, a single quotation to show that there has been a Pan-Islamic agitation in the political sense which his words, taken in connexion with the general tone of his article, seem intended to convey. If he means only that the Moslem Press of India has made the troubles of Turkey a subject of constant lamentation and has strongly criti cised the policy of the Concert of Europe in general and of Great Britain in particular in that connexion, I accept the statement, though I take grave exception to the deduction drawn and to the prejudicial form in which it is conveyed. This correspondent might just as reasonably argue that Mr. Lloyd -George’s land campaign would attract no attention from the agricultural voter if the Liberal Press of England did not keep the question in view; or that the problem of Ulster would be non-existent but for the newspaper notice it attracts. He mistakes cause for effect, and forgets that even a Press so new and crude as that of the Indian Moslems, like the Press of other countries, has to give its readers information on public matters in which they are most interested and must more or less reflect their attitude upon them.
The best answer to his suggestion that the Moslems would have felt no interest in the fate of Turkey if they had not been stirred up by agitators of doubtful loyalty is to be found in the clear-cut statement of the skilful publicist who is the Bombay corres pondent of the same journal. Writing in “The Times” of the 19th of April 1913, when Moslem feeling was at its height and had not been mollified by the Turkish re-conquest of Adrianople, he said: “Let there be no misunderstanding of the real attitude of Indian Mahommedan opinion towards Turkey. There is much discussion in Europe of the position of the Sultan as Khalif. The Indian Moslem does not recognise the Sultan as Khalif, and offers him no allegiance in that capacity. But he does look upon Turkey as the embodiment of the temporal power of Islam, and he has no desire to see Islam reduced to the position of Israel, a religion without temporal status. This feeling affects all classes.” … “An old Mahommedan friend of mine, a graduate of an English university, assured me that when the news of the battle of Lulu Burgas arrived he felt that the only course for him was to commit suicide.” “A Correspondent in India” contrasts the position now with that of 1897 and admits that there is insufficient ground for the view, then entertained in some quarters, that the great frontier rising was largely attributable to Moslem feeling on the Turco Greek war. When, however, he goes on to say that internal India was hardly moved by that war, I deny his statement. Moslem India was not indifferent; far from it. It was the only topic of conversation or interest in Moslem society, and every mosque was illuminated throughout India, even in the small villages of the Deccan, to celebrate the success of the Turks. Nor does the “Correspondent in India” take into consideration the great and rapid changes which these sixteen years have brought, including the spread of education among Indian Moslems and the much fuller and more speedy dissemination of foreign news. Moreover, the Ottoman trouble in 1897 was limited to its relations with Greece, and no other Mahommedan State was involved; whereas in the last two or three years the Moslem world has watched with grave misgiving and concern the supersession or control of Mussulman sovereignty by the intervention of Christian· Powers in Morocco, in Tripoli, in the greater part of European Turkey, and in Persia. The cumulative effect of these continued losses of Moslem sovereignty on Indian Mahommedans has been reinforced by the spread of Western enlightenment among them.
It is idle for “A Correspondent in India” to lament the passing of the day when the Moslem community, in its apathy and ignor ance, did not concern itself with international politics – if indeed that day ever existed. The Hindus have no sentimental interests outside India, apart from those provided by the emigration of co-religionists to other portions of the Empire; their Mecca is Benares; their Holy Waters are those of the Ganges, not of the Euphrates or Tigris. In the days when they alone of the chief Indian communities interested themselves in public affairs it was natural that audible Indian opinion should be confined to the internal affairs of India and her relations with Great Britain. But the Mahommedans, newly awakened to national consciousness by the education England has given them, are not limited in their gaze by the vast ramparts of the Himalayas or by the waters of the Indian Ocean. There is between them and their fellow believers in other lands an essential unity, which breaks through differences of sect and country, for it is not based on religious grounds alone. Carlyle somewhere says that all men of the English-speaking race are subjects of King Shakespeare, and in the same way all Mussulmans are subjects of the “Arabian Nights.”
They share the glorious heritage not only of the Koran (which they are taught in early childhood to read in the original Arabic) but of the history and philosophy of Arabia, the incomparable poetry of Persia, and the romances and legends of Egypt and Morocco and Spain. Drinking from these imperishable springs, Moslems, whether Turks, Persians, Arabs or Indians, and whether or not they have also come to the Western wells of knowledge, are bound together by a certain unity of thought, of sentiment, and of expression. The feeling of brotherhood thus engendered is not dammed up within the confines of devout faith. On the contrary, agnostics and atheists of Moslem origin have felt the Turkish and Persian misfortunes just as much as the most orthodox mullah. To ask why the Indian Mussulmari, blest with a beneficent rule, should concern himself so much about inter national issues affecting co-religionists, is as futile as asking why men on the rack of torture cry out with physical pain. That the excitement has not been connected with the question of the Caliphate is shown by the fact that Shias have been moved by these emotions no less strongly than Sunnis. All sections of the Moslem world are moved by a deep sentiment, originally called into being by the Prophet’s summons of all the faithful into one great brotherhood and welded through the centuries into a lasting bond by a common faith, a common literatl}re, a common outlook, and a common history.
Discussing in the new edition of his erudite “Preaching of Islam” the causes of the continued spread of the faith in the almost entire absence of systematic missionary organisation, Pro fessor T. W. Arnold lays stress on the non-political Pan-Islamic movement rendered possible to a degree undreamt of by earlier generations by modem means of communication, and seeking to bind all nations of the Moslem world in a common bond of sympathy: “This trend of thought gives a powerful stimulus to missionary labours; the effort to realise in actual life the Moslem ideal of brotherhood of all believers reacts on collateral ideals of the faith, and the sense of a vast unity and of a common life running through the nations, inspirits the hearts of the faithful and makes them bold to speak in the presence of the unbelievers; … The spiritual energy of Islam is not, as has been so often maintained, commensurate with its political power.”
During the currency of the Balkan war we were needlessly told that Great Britain could not allow her international policy to be dictated by the wishes of the King’s Moslem subjects. For this no sane Mussulman asks. It is obvious that a great variety of factors have to be taken into account in the shaping of British foreign policy; but surely one of these, which should be entitled to the fullest consideration is the sentiment of a people, nearly 100 millions of whom are under the sovereignty or protection of King George. It should at least be held as a working thesis for the Foreign Office that when British interests generally coincide with Moslem wishes, the combination is advantageous. But when the Prime Minister publicly lectured the Porte for reoccupying Adri anople by force of arms and warned her to clear out, Indian Moslems asked in vain what British interests would be served by turning Turkey out of Adrianople and installing the Bulgarians against the wishes of the inhabitants. I have a firm conviction that if important British interests were disturbed by Turkish policy – if, for example, we can imagine the Ottoman Government threatening the independence of Holland or Belgium – the Indian Moslems would give no moral support to such a policy, .’*; and indeed would loyally uphold England in taking active mea sures for its frustration. But why should England have gone out of her way to support Bulgarian aggression in Thrace, contrary to the strong wishes of her Moslem subjects, and to local senti ment and interests?
The events of the last two years have not shaken the conviction of Indian Moslems that Great Britain in her own interests should be the friend and supporter of the Ottoman power. It is all very well to say that the Young Turks have forfeited the hopes and good wishes entertained when they overthrew the Hamidian regime. It is not fair to judge the administrative capacity of a people unversed in the great art of constitutional government when they are engaged in a life-and-death struggle, brought upon them in the first instance by the unprovoked aggression of one of the Great Powers of Europe. Their dissensions, and at some critical moments their incompetence, have to be recognised; but they must be judged by their powers of statesmanship when there is some recovery from the exhaustion of the fighting and tumults of the last two years, and the great and difficult work of recon struction has been entered upon. Mter all, their misdeeds bear no comparison with those of the sanguinary Commune ushering in the Third Republic of France, which has now stood unshaken the test of more than forty years’ existence.
Indian Moslems strongly hold that in the reconstructive work before the Constantinople Government the moral support of Great Britain is called for in her own interests. The break-up of Turkey and the partition of her Asiatic provinces must be disadvantageous to Great Britain in any conceivable scheme of distribution. France would lay claim to Syria, Germany to Anatolia with Northern and Central Mesopotamia, and Russia to Kurdistan and Armenia. Great Britain would be left to take Arabia and Southern Mesopotamia, and would thus become possessed of another wild country without possibilities of great development and with a long and exposed frontier. Side by side with this cumbersome and barren increase of territorial responsibility, the British Empire would be brought into closer contact with the great continental Powers whose immense armies would be less dependent on the sea for their communications. The route to India, already removed from exclusively British keeping, would then be further exposed to attack by several other Powers. For these reasons a strong and stable Turkish Government in Asia ought to be a cardinal principle of British international policy.
To Mahommedans it is reassuring to know that the above considerations are duly recognised by the just and wise statesman who now rules India. Lord Hardinge won the grateful thanks of the community by the ready encouragement he gave to their practical sympathy with the Turkish troops and pe?ple by placing himself at the head of the Red Crescent movement, which was so splendidly responded to by all classes of Moslems. He has further consoled and gratified Mahommedans by the assurance he gave in the Imperial Legislative Council on the 17th of Sep tember last, that: “The British Government, who fully realise the importance of the existence of Turkey as an independent Power, and, in view of the religious interests of the Mahommedans of India, the necessity for the maintenance of the status quo as regards the Holy Places in Arabia, are still anxious and ready to help the Turkish Government to introduce reforms and good government, and to consolidate the position of Turkey. There is absolutely no reason why Turkey, while pursuing a steady policy of reforms, should not still be strong and powerful and the second greatest Mahommedan Power in the world.”
The Indian Moslems are also grateful to Lord Hardinge for the withdrawal of the regiment of the Central India Horse which was sent to Southern Persia some time ago, and for his recog nition in the speech just quoted of the anxiety of the Moslem peoples that no step should be taken calculated to further weaken the sovereignty and independence of Iran. But they feel that Great Britain has been far too complaisant in respect to the arbitrary proceedings of Russia in the north. Mindful of the history of Muscovite absorption of the Central Asian Khanates, they fear that annexation, in fact if not expressly in name, will be the inevitable sequel of Russian policy. If Russia took the north, England would have to make another Mghanistan, much less easily defensible, out of the south. The Indian Moslems are also concerned to see Great Britain taking part with apparent readiness in the formulation of projects for a trans-Persian railway that can benefit only Russia. Great Britain continually tlaims to be the friend of Persia, and it may be hoped that she will exercise the duties and privileges of friendship by giving moral and finan cial support only to railways designed for Persia’s commercial development instead of consenting to a strategical line through the unpeopled deserts of Yezd, Kerman, and Baluchistan. Any line designed to develop Persian or Anglo-Indian commerce would run from the head waters of the Gulf to the centres of population in Persian Irak and join the Russian section at Ispahan. But a trans-continental line for the convenience of trav ellers to India, and avoiding all the potentially rich parts of Persia, will do little or nothing to regenerate that country or further develop Anglo-Indian trade. In this matter also British and Moslem interests converge. A railway through Eastern Persia into India would be a constant menace on the frontier, and British participation or acquiescence therein would be at variance with the traditional policy pursued with watchful vigilance and at heavy if necessary cost to India for a century past.
The Indian Moslem does not ask for the surrender of any British interests; he simply points out that these interests are in accord with Moslem sentiment and wishes. Yet his incursion into international politics is frowned upon in reactionary Anglo Indian quarters as if it were in some mysterious and inexplicable way disloyal. People who make these charges might reflect that the Mussulmans of India gain absolutely nothing for themselves, in any material or political sense, from the preservation of the Moslem States; they are simply animated by the sentiments of unity and brotherhood above referred to, which are stronger than these unsympathetic and unimaginative critics can realise.
But with the Turkish reoccupation and retention of Adrianople the tension has been relaxed and the Indian Moslems are once more turning their thoughts to internal affairs. The critics have been perturbed by the appearance on the scene of a new type of Moslem, who, apart from Islamic religion and sentiment, has gone through exactly the same education and training as young Hindus of the same social class. This type did not formerly exist, for in the old days the Hindu and the Mussulman of the same social class were brought up on an entirely different educational basis. The young Mussulman had to make it his chief concern to be well cultured in Persian and Arabic. There were thus few points of contact between Mahommedan and Hindu, and, in the stage of political development India had reached, much less ground for and possibility of unity of effort than now. Take any typical young Mahommedan of the upper middle classes today, and it will be found that, apart from the traditional religion of his family inculcated by his mother, his edilcation has been entirely on the lines of a Hindu of the same class. Even in the case of a student from a Moslem institution like the Aligarh College, the course of studies, the training of the teachers and their outlook, and the probable profession of the student in the future, are the same as in a Government or a Hindu college.
These considerations are even more applicable to the increasing throng of Moslems coming to England and joining Hindu fellow-countrymen at the Universities, the Inns of Court, and the Technical Schools. This potent change, which has attracted much less attention than it has deserved, is not much if any older than the still youthful twentieth century, and it has only begun to make itself felt effectively in actual political life within the last two or three years. The men brought up under the new system are coming to the front, and have influenced the increasing approximation of political views and sentiments among educated men of the different communities. This unity is a measure of the growth of Indian nationhood, and it is the part of wise statesmanship, British and Indian, in the domain of internal affairs, to seek, not so much to satisfy the Mussulmans as Mussulmans or the Hindus as Hindus, as to win the hearty co operation of all moderate, loyal, and reasonable opinion, wher ever it exists. It is the only policy that will succeed, in Lord Morley’s phrase, in “rallying the Moderates,” and thus forming the most effective instrument in the discomfiture and impotence of the small but active element in Indian life which, as Lord Sydenham has said, must be reckoned as permanently hostile to British rule. While at the one extreme there is a handful of revolutionaries, at the other there is a worthy, substantial but decreasing class of men of the old school who think it right to accept whatever the Government, or even the officials, may decree without exercising any critical faculty thereon. But between these two there is a vast mass of Indian opinion passing through a transition stage, alert, sometimes fault-finding, perhaps suspicious, perhaps not very clearly knowing what it wants, and greatly perplexed and disheartened by such questions as the treatment of Indians in South Mrica, greatly anxious and worried about the future of Indians in East Mrica and in the ‘island of Zanzibar. With all his weaknesses, this type of man, if rightly handled, is essentially reasonable at bottom, loyal to the King, and fully aware that India’s welfare and happiness depend on the continuance of British rule.
The Moslem community may co-operate with the Hindus on a vast number of public questions, but they have their own special needs and outlook, not confined to the international issues to which I have referred. Both the educational and political con dition of the Hindus is far in advance in time and also in relative extent, of that of the Mahommedans; and it is not to be forgotten that the difference of religion between them goes to the roots of their social polity.
It has been the work of the All-India Moslem League to give the Mussulmans a political platform and to prevent their disap pearance as a national entity on account of the indifference to political issues which formerly characterised them. The League came into existence only some seven or eight years ago, and so far from its work being done, it has reached a stage of evolution in which, if wise counsels prevail, it can do greater service than in the past. The crisis in the affairs of the London League, brought to a head by Mr. Ameer Ali’s resignation,* confirms my conviction that the time has fully come for the Indian Mussulmans to realise that the future of the community depends not upon this or that particular leader but upon the people themselves. If there is any danger that excitable younger men may lead the League to an attitude of suspicious impatience, it is for the calmer and more reasonable section to bestir itself and to keep the organis ation in its own hands, and meet the opposite party, not with abuse but with argument. The situation is one in which talents hitherto undiscovered may be drawn out for the good of the community in the country as a whole. I am confident that the great mass of educated Moslem opinion is sound and sober, and I believe that in India open discussion on the platform of the League, freed from the restraint of a permanent president ship, will be the best means of bringing the weight of this opinion to bear on the questions of the day. But the situation of the London League is different, for there the community consists exclusively of two classes- elderly men of weight and standing on the one side, and inexperienced students on the other. It is obviously impossible for the latter to instruct and influence English opinion on Moslem affairs without the guidance from the former. Hence, while I am most anxious to see a reconstruction of the London League I feel it is essential that this should be based upon co-operation with the residents and I, for one, could never join or support an institution run by students only.
To the work of rallying the Moderates of Indian political life, whether Hindu or Mussulman, the British Government can materially contribute by the maintenance of the (~ympathetic and * Since the above article was written, the moderate section of the All-India Moslem League has asserted itself, and in response to telegrams from important centres of the League in India Mr. Ameer Ali has consented to resume his presidency of the London League, and H. H. the Aga Khan has consented to become honorary president of that League -EDITOR [of the journal]. progressive policy pursued by Lord Hardinge. Statesmanship should aim at alleviating legitimate discontent, duly recognising the intense national sentiment and pride of educated India, and encouraging it to follow right channels. Articulate In~ian opinion has to be allied more and more closely with British rule in a spirit of mutual respect and co-operation. One of the most potent forces in this direction is that of promoting the economic devel opment of the country. We have the lamentable admission that considerable numbers of educated youths in Bengal terrorise remote villages by forming bands of dacoits for purposes of plunder, because they have no other means of livelihood. How this situation arises is shown in a suggestive statement in the decennial “Moral and Material Progress and Condition” Report presented to Parliament a few months ago. The chapter on the condition of the people states (page 377) that in the Bengals: “The economic development of the country has not kept pace with the educational progress of the people. An ever-growing number of youths are leaving the schools and the University, but fresh avenues of employment are few. Altogether 580,000 persons have a knowledge of English in the two provinces of Bengal and Behar and Orissa, the number having increased by over 200,000 since 1901; but a special census of industrial concerns employing twenty persons or more shows that the total number of Indians engaged in direction, supervision, and clerical work is only 20,000.”
Another requirement is to remove the unfortunate impression that Indian students are discouraged from coming to England, and that the facilities formerly open to them at Oxford and Cambridge are restricted for that purpose. Young Indians do not make sufficient allowance for the practical difficulties which arise from the great increase in their numbers since the distant days when an Indian student was given special attention as an interesting novelty in the life of the University. No doubt the system of exotic preparation for professional or official life has grave drawbacks, but until India is much better equipped edu cationally than at present, ambitious youths will inevitably go abroad in increasing numbers to fit themselves for future success.
This being so, nothing can be more foolish than to lead them to direct their gaze to Japan, to the United States, or to Germany, under the apprehension that they may be cold-shouldered in England. Any well-behaved Indian youth coming here should feel and know that he is welcome. Every encouragement should be given to him to mix freely with British contemporaries in study, and to see English life at its best. Mter all, the great work of the British people in India has been that of broadening and expanding Indian ideals, and it is clearly advantageous that Indians studying outside their own country should come here to absorb English ideas at first hand, rather than spend their most impressionable years elsewhere.
An even more serious matter is the treatment of Indians in South Mrica, Canada, and other parts of the King’s dominions.
This is a source of constant irritation, and is a most powerful weapon in the hands of anti-British extremists. The renewal of passive resistance in South Mrica, and the wholesale arrests of Indians for the quiet assertion of rights, taken from them contrary to pledges given, have been most unfortunate from the standpoint of Indian good-will. It is amazing that Colonial statesmen should continue a situation which is utterly inimical to the solidarity of the British Empire; and to the average Indian it is a matter of pained astonishment and doubt that his Majesty’s Government – the powerful arbiter of Imperial issues ~ appeals in vain for justice to be done. And still worse is the grave danger that Zanzibar and Pemba may be handed over to Germany, and that in East Mrica a handful of white settlers may repeat some of the injustices that have already made of South Mrica a running sore in the relations of England and India. The pros perity of Zanzibar has been made by its Indian merchants and traders . . . Should this island be handed over to Germany for some so-called advantage in the Persian Gulf, a region all Indians are most anxious to see remain in Turkish hands, the shock of this light-hearted way of dealing with an essentially Indian interest would be so great that I, for one, cannot foresee its consequences.
Just as disastrous would be a repetition in East Mrica generally of the conditions that now exist in South Mrica. May the British people realise that the time has come for a decisive cry of “Hands off!” from East Mrica, to be addressed to the thoughtless people who wish to repeat the conditions of South Mrica there!
Another matter upon which strong feeling prevails is that there should be fuller scope in local affairs for loyal but at the same time free criticism. The widening of the powers and func tions of the Legislative Council has done much to give point and force to public sentiment on the larger issues, and this is neces sarily reflected in the comments of a Press which, with all its great imperfections, is advancing in ability and is beginning to be really responsive to public needs. The days when not merely the considered will but even the capricious whim of the collector of a district was received without question and obeyed without hesitation have gone by, and in the sphere of every-day adminis tration, no less than in the more conspicuous firena of the Legislatures, Supreme and Provincial, it is necessary for those in authority to give due weight to the general consensus of opinion.
The district officer should at least know the direction in which public opinion tends, whether or not he can act upon it with due regard to the wider issues of which he has to take account.
Through varying stages of Indian evolution British rule has shown that power of adaptation which is essential to organic vigour.
This has been strikingly exemplified in the marked success with which the Morley-Minto reforms have been woven into the administrative fabric. I look to the future with hope. and confi dence, because I am convinced that British statesmanship will continue to respond to the growth of national consciousness in India, and will thus bring an awakened people into still closer sympathy and co-operation with the aims and ideals of the enlightened rule that has revolutionised the conditions and the ideals of Indian life within living memory.
Source: The Edinburgh Review, Edinburgh, January 1914, pp. 1-13.