The New World of Islam Part 14

Lapie, _Les Civilisations tunisiennes_ (Paris, 1898); P. Millet, "Les Jeunes-Algeriens," _Revue de Paris_, 1 November, 1913.

[157] A good a.n.a.lysis of the pre-revolutionary reformist movements is found in "X," "La Situation politique de la Perse," _Revue du Monde musulman_, June, 1914. See also Vambery, _Western Culture in Eastern Lands_; General Sir T. E. Gordon, "The Reform Movement in Persia,"

_Proceedings of the Central Asian Society_, 13 March, 1907.

[158] See W. Morgan Shuster, _The Strangling of Persia_ (New York, 1912). Also, for earlier phase of the revolution, see E. G. Browne, _The Revolution in Persia_ (London, 1910).

[159] E. G. Browne, "The Present Situation in Persia," _Contemporary Review_, November, 1912.

[160] Vambery, _La Turquie d'aujourd'hui et d'avant Quarante Ans_, pp.

11-12.

[161] For the Tartar revival, see S. Brobovnikov, "Moslems in Russia,"

_The Moslem World_, January, 1911; Fevret, "Les Tatars de Crimee,"

_Revue du Monde musulman_, August, 1907; A. Le Chatelier, "Les Musulmans russes," _Revue du Monde musulman_, December, 1906; Fr. von Mackay, "Die Erweckung Russlands asiatischen Volkerschaften," _Deutsche Rundschau_, March, 1918; Arminius Vambery, _Western Culture in Eastern Lands_; H.

Williams, "The Russian Mohammedans," _Russian Review_, February, 1914; "X," "Le Pan-Islamisme et le Pan-Turquisme," _Revue du Monde musulman_, March, 1913.

[162] For these activities, see article by "X," quoted above; also Ahmed Emin, _The Development of Modern Turkey as Measured by its Press_ (New York, 1914).

[163] For these Pan-Turanian tendencies in Hungary and Bulgaria, see my article "Pan-Turanism," _American Political Science Review_, February, 1917.

[164] See article by "X," quoted above; also his article "Les Courants politiques dans la Turquie contemporaine," _Revue du Monde musulman_, December, 1912.

[165] Ex-Chief of General Staff (Ottoman) Ernst Paraquin, in the _Berliner Tageblatt_, January 24, 1920. For Turkish nationalist activities and att.i.tudes during the war, see further I. D. 1199--_A Manual on the Turanians and Pan-Turanianism. Compiled by the Geographical Section of the Naval Intelligence Division, Naval Staff, Admiralty_ (London, 1919); E. F. Benson, _Crescent and Iron Cross_ (London, 1918); M. A. Czaplicka, _The Turks of Central Asia: An Inquiry into the Pan-Turanian Problem_ (Oxford, 1918); H. Morgenthau, _Amba.s.sador Morgenthau's Story_ (New York, 1918); Dr. Harry Sturmer, _Two War-Years in Constantinople_ (New York, 1917); A. Mandelstam, "The Turkish Spirit," _New Europe_, April 22, 1920.

[166] For Pan-Arab developments, see A. Musil, _Zur Zeitgeschichte von Arabien_ (Leipzig, 1918); M. Pickthall, "Turkey, England, and the Present Crisis," _Asiatic Review_, October 1, 1914; A. Servier, _Le Nationalisme musulman_; Sheick Abd-el-Aziz Schauisch, "Das Machtgebiet der arabischen Sprache," _Preussische Jahrbucher_, September, 1916.

[167] Literally "House of Islam." All non-Moslem lands are collectively known as "Dar-ul-Harb" or "House of War."

[168] _I. e._, the organized group of followers of a particular religion.

[169] Mohammed Ali, "Le Mouvement musulman dans l'Inde," _Revue Politique Internationale_, January, 1914. He headed the so-called "Khilafat Delegation" sent by the Indian Moslems to England in 1919 to protest against the part.i.tion of the Ottoman Empire by the peace treaties.

[170] A. Servier, _Le Nationalisme musulman_, p. 181.

[171] For Pan-Islamic nationalism, besides Servier and Mohammed Ali, quoted above, see A. Le Chatelier, _L'Islam au dix-neuvieme Siecle_ (Paris, 1888); same author, "Politique musulmane," _Revue du Monde Musulman_, September, 1910; Sir T. Morison, "England and Islam,"

_Nineteenth Century and After_, July, 1919; G. Demorgny, _La Question Persane_, pp. 23-31 (Paris, 1916); W. E. D. Allen, "Transcaucasia, Past and Present," _Quarterly Review_, October, 1920.

[172] _Egyptian White Book_: Collection of Official Correspondence of the Egyptian Delegation to the Peace Conference (Paris, 1919).

[173] G. Civimini, in the _Corriere della Sera_, December 30, 1919.

[174] Madame Jehan d'Ivray, "En egypte," _Revue de Paris_, September 15, 1920. Madame d'Ivray cites other picturesque incidents of a like character. See also Annexes to _Egyptian White Book_, previously quoted.

These Annexes contain numerous depositions, often accompanied by photographs, alleging severities and atrocities by the British troops.

[175] Contained in the press statements previously mentioned.

[176] Sir M. McIlwraith, "Egyptian Nationalism," _Edinburgh Review_, July, 1919. See also Hon. W. Ormsby-Gore, "The Future in Egypt," _New Europe_, November 6, 1919.

[177] For unfortunate aspects of this delay, see Sir Valentine Chirol, "Conflicting Policies in the East," _New Europe_, July 1, 1920.

[178] For a good account of Lawrence and his work, see series of articles by L. Thomas, "Lawrence: The Soul of the Arabian Revolution,"

_Asia_, April, May, June, July, 1920.

[179] A notable example is General Maude's proclamation to the Mesopotamian Arabs in March, 1917.

[180] Article xxii.

[181] From a speech delivered September 19, 1919.

[182] For examples of this pre-war imperialist propaganda, see G.

Poignant, "Les Interets francais en Syrie," _Questions diplomatiques et coloniales_, March 1-16, 1913. Among other interesting facts, the author cites Premier Poincare's declaration before the Chamber of Deputies, December 21, 1912: "I need not remark that in the Lebanon and Syria particularly we have traditional interests and that we intend to make them respected." See also J. Atalla, "Les Trois Solutions de la Question syrienne," _Questions diplomatiques et coloniales_, October 16, 1913; L.

Le Fur, _Le Protectorat de la France sur les Catholiques d'Orient_ (Paris, 1914).

[183] Quoted by Senator E. Flandrin in his article "Nos Droits en Syrie et en Palestine," _Revue Hebdomadaire_, June 5, 1915. For other examples of French imperialist propaganda, see, besides above article, C. G. Ba.s.sim, _La Question du Liban_ (Paris, 1915); H. Baudouin, "La Syrie: Champ de Bataille politique," _La Revue Mondiale_, February 1-15, 1920; Comte Cressaty, _La Syrie francaise_ (Paris, 1916); F. Laudet, "La France du Levant," _Revue Hebdomadaire_, March 1, 1919.

[184] Baudouin, _supra_. For other violent anti-British comment, see Laudet, _supra_.

[185] For sharp British criticisms of the French att.i.tude in Syria, see Beckles Wilson, "Our Amazing Syrian Adventure," _National Review_, September, 1920; W. Urinowski, "The Arab Cause," _Balkan Review_, September, 1920. Both of these writers were officers in the British forces in the Arab area. See also strong articles by "Taira" in the _Balkan Review_, August and October, 1920.

[186] For accounts of French severities, see articles just quoted.

[187] B. G. Gaulis in _L'Opinion_, April 24, 1920.

[188] _Le Populaire_, February 16, 1920.

[189] For the details of these events, see my article on Persia in _The Century_, January, 1920.

[190] Statement given to the press in August, 1920.

[191] Henri de Chambon, editor of _La Revue Parlementaire_. Quoted by Beckles Wilson, "Our Amazing Syrian Adventure," _National Review_, September, 1920.

CHAPTER VI

NATIONALISM IN INDIA

India is a land of paradox. Possessing a fundamental geographical unity, India has never known real political union save that recently imposed externally by the British "Raj." Full of warlike stocks, India has never been able to repel invaders. Occupied by many races, these races have never really fused, but have remained distinct and mutually hostile, sundered by barriers of blood, speech, culture, and creed. Thus India, large and populous as Europe or China, has neither, like China, evolved a generalized national unity; nor, like Europe, has developed a specialized national diversity; but has remained an amorphous, unstable indeterminate, with tendencies in both directions which were never carried to their logical conclusion.

India's history has been influenced mainly by three great invasions: the Aryan invasion, commencing about 1500 B.C.; the Mohammedan invasion, extending roughly from A.D. 1000 to 1700, and the English invasion, beginning about A.D. 1750 and culminating a century later in a complete conquest which has lasted to the present day.

The Aryans were a fair-skinned people, unquestionably of the same general stock as ourselves. Pressing down from Central Asia through those north-western pa.s.ses where alone land-access is possible to India, elsewhere impregnably guarded by the mountain wall of the Himalayas, the Aryans subdued the dark-skinned Dravidian aborigines, and settled down as masters. This conquest was, however, superficial and partial. The bulk of the Aryans remained in the north-west, the more adventurous spirits scattering thinly over the rest of the vast peninsula. Even in the north large areas of hill-country and jungle remained in the exclusive possession of the aborigines, while very few Aryans ever penetrated the south. Over most of India, therefore, the Aryans were merely a small ruling cla.s.s superimposed upon a much more numerous subject population. Fearing to be swallowed up in the Dravidian ocean, the Aryans attempted to preserve their political ascendancy and racial purity by the inst.i.tution of "caste," which has ever since remained the basis of Indian social life. Caste was originally a "colour line." But it was enforced not so much by civil law as by religion. Society was divided into three castes: Brahmins, or priests; Kshatriyas, or warriors; and Sudras, or workers. The Aryans monopolized the two upper castes, the Sudras being the Dravidian subject population. These castes were kept apart by a rigorous series of religious taboos. Intermarriage, partaking of food and drink, even physical propinquity, entailed ceremonial defilement sometimes inexpiable. Disobedience to these taboos was punished with the terrible penalty of "outcasting," whereby the offender did not merely fall to a lower rank in the caste hierarchy but sank even below the Sudra and became a "Pariah," or man of no-caste, condemned to the most menial and revolting occupations, and with no rights which even the Sudra was bound to respect. Thus Indian society was governed, not by civil, but by ceremonially religious law; while, conversely, the nascent Indian religion ("Brahminism") became not ethical but social in character.

These things produced the most momentous consequences. As a "colour line," caste worked very imperfectly. Despite its prohibitions, even the Brahmins became more or less impregnated with Dravidian blood.[192] But as a social system caste continued to function in ways peculiar to itself. The three original castes gradually subdivided into hundreds and even thousands of sub-castes. These sub-castes had little or nothing of the original racial significance. But they were all just as exclusive as the primal trio, and the outcome was a shattering of Indian society into a chaos of rigid social atoms, between which co-operation or even understanding was impossible. The results upon Indian history are obvious. Says a British authority: "The effect of this permanent maintenance of human types is that the population is heterogeneous to the last degree. It is no question of rich and poor, of town and country, of employer and employed: the differences lie far deeper. The population of a district or a town is a collection of different nationalities--almost different species--of mankind that will not eat or drink or intermarry with one another, and that are governed in the more important affairs of life by committees of their own. It is hardly too much to say that by the caste system the inhabitants of India are differentiated into over two thousand species, which, in the intimate physical relations of life, have as little in common as the inmates of a zoological garden."[193]

Obviously, a land socially atomized and politically split into many princ.i.p.alities was destined to fall before the first strong invader.

This invader was Islam. The Mohammedans attacked India soon after their conquest of Persia, but these early attacks were mere border raids without lasting significance. The first real Mohammedan invasion was that of Mahmud of Ghazni, an Afghan prince, in A.D. 1001. Following the road taken by the Aryans ages before, Mahmud conquered north-western India, the region known as the Punjab. Islam had thus obtained a firm foothold in India, and subsequent Moslem leaders spread gradually eastward until most of northern India was under Moslem rule. The invaders had two notable advantages: they were fanatically united against the despised "Idolaters," and they drew many converts from the native population. The very ant.i.thesis of Brahminism, Islam, with its doctrine that all Believers are brothers, could not fail to attract mult.i.tudes of low-castes and out-castes, who by conversion might rise to the status of the conquerors. This is the main reason why the Mohammedans in India to-day number more than 70,000,000--over one-fifth of the total population. These Indian Moslems are descended, not merely from Afghan, Turkish, Arab, and Persian invaders, but even more from the millions of Hindu converts who embraced Islam.