AND THE CONSEQUENCES WILL BE— T HE world would be a
much more agreeable place ,for politicians, for they would find it much easier to excuse themselves, if certain results did not invariably follow certain courses of action. " Things are what they are, and the consequences will be what they will be, why then should we wish to be deceived ? ' One cannot get away from Butler's smashing truism. Probably, how- ever, politicians do not really wish to be deceived. They deceive themselves without knowing it ; or they flatter themselves, just for the sake of tiding over some immediate difficulty and compounding with their moral creditors, that the truths of history will somehow be reversed for their benefit—on this occasion only. It is always necessary, therefore, for onlookers who are sincerely concerned about the affairs of the Empire to remind politicians that to bank on the unexpected is mere gambling, and that it is a particularly wicked form of gambling because it is trifling with trust deeds.
One might think that men who accepted the responsibility of dealing with Ireland and who then made such a bad mess of their job that they ultimately reached the position of rewarding murder while withholding all reward from, if not inflicting injury upon, law-abiding and loyal citizens, would have learned their lesson and would be safe enough for the future. But, unfortunately, we cannot feel any assurance of this. We want now to take a hasty glance at Egypt, at India, at Palestine and at Mesopotamia and to point out that there broods over all these countries the Nemesis of the Irish settlement. Whether we think that the Irish negotiations were desirable or not desirable—and for ourselves we agree that in the end they were inevitable —we must admit that people all over the world who are directly or indirectly under the British Government have been looking on at Irish affairs and are applying the moral to their own cases. No individual remark in the debates on the Irish settlement was more significant than the reflection of that stout Liberal, Lord Bryce, that every- where people who were demanding new rights had observed that the British Government had made concessions to a policy of murder. The necessary consequences of this, he said, must be expected. We have no doubt that they will duly appear. But whether the final outcome is to be good or ill will depend upon the consistency and grasp of principle which the Government may display. We are not now arguing for any particular solution in any particular country. We freely recognize that the Government know more about the facts than we do. What we do say is that in none of the countries for which we are responsible and in which there is now ominous unrest must there be a repetition of the treatment of Ireland. It would be dis- astrous if there should be first a going forward and then a falling back ; first a Nay and then a Yea. Whatever the policy is it must be 'simple, intelligible, consistent. Consider Egypt. The Milner Commission recommended that Egypt should be given a very large measure of inde- pendence. Reservations to secure British Imperial interests and the interests of the nationals of the various Powers were to be reduced to a minimum. The Egyptians . did not dispute that we must safeguard the Suez Canal. They did not dispute that as we have become responsible for the safety of the nationals of other Powers we must maintain a certain control over the administration of justice. Nor did they dispute that a supervision of the foreign policy of Egypt was the natural corollary of the British guarantee of protection for Egypt. Whether this offer of freedom, with nothing more than a few obvious conditions, was right or wrong, it was earnestly thought to be necessary by Lord Milner, a statesman of great experi- ence, who notoriously has good same and moderation as well as courage. But what freakish imp worked in the brain of our Government to induce them first to publish -the Milner Report—to dangle it under the Egyptian nose —and then to snatch it away ?
Further reservations were made and -the result was that Adly Pasha returned to Egypt, having refused to accept -the latest proposals of Lord Curzon, and he resigned the Premiership. The main reason of the breakdown in the negotiations was evidently the British condition that an army of occupation should remain in Egypt. Our military experts here apparently insisted that the Canal zone would not be safe unless we coramaffded the supply of fresh water from the interior. It may be so, though one is left wonder- ing why this was not discovered earlier. On the other hand, there may be something in the contrary arguments that a freshwater supply could be established in the Canal zone itself, and that the Egyptians could not cut off the present supply to the Canal without also depriving a large part of Egypt of water. The wretched result of the way in which things have been managed so far is that when Lord. Allenby takes the necessary precautions to suppress • the rioting which has followed on the breakdown of nego- tiations, he is held up to obloquy as an arch-militarist. Of course, he could not do anything else but protect life and property when the rioting began. It seems to be for- gotten that France and other countries would have a deep grievance against us if, after having won their consent to our exclusive position in Egypt, we did not protect their nationals. We incline to think that in Egypt it is already too late to go back. • A handsome offer was made and cannot be forgotten by the Egyptians. Nor are they blind to the spectacle of Mesopotamia and Arabia, which they consider vastly inferior to themselves on the plane of intelligence, enjoying the unripe fruits of freedom. All we ask is that when the Government have made up their mind what it is right and safe to grant to Egypt they should not chop and change again, but should pursue a policy which cannot be mistaken by anybody.
In India, fortunately, we have not gone so far that it is impossible to do at once and to do quickly what the situa- tion obviously demands. Here is the situation—the Government, on the ambitious and highly academic advice of Mr. Montagu, introduced a system of reforms for which the country was not ready. This system was based on the assumption that India= could move naturally and easily among democratic forms. It was based on the assumption that as the capacity of the - people for self-government developed powers which had been reserved to the British rulers could be quietly transferred to the provincial par- liaments—though we should think that any cautious person ought to have shied at this principle of dyarchy which actively encourages incompetent politicians to hide their own failings under abuse of those who have the reserved powers in their hands. It was further based on the assumption that Hindus and Moslems would peacefully co-operate. Yet all experience proves that though highly • educated Hindus and Moslems may indeed co-operate the masses of those who are lower down have not emerged from the stage of wishing to give jealousy a point by cutting one another's throats.
In these circumstances the one hope was that those Indians who call themselves Moderates would work so industriously and so loyally at the new forms of Govern- ment that they would make them a tolerable reality ; that, in short, moderation would be so successful that there would be no place left for the Extremists. But what do we see ? We observe that the Moderates are without backbone. Those on whom all hope was centred are failing. They evidently want to have a foot in both camps. They are willing to be officials and members of Parliament and yet—encouraged by dyarchy—they adopt towards the whole administration of India the attitude of detached and cynical critics; When violent rioting freaks out under the preaching of Mr. Gandhi—it is caused by Mr. Gandhi none the less becauie he does penance and lives on bread and water when people behave violently—the Modeiates join with the Extremists in declaring that the Government are adopting cruel and repressive measures. The " cruel repression " is simply the arresting and locking up of dangerous persons who would be removed for their own good and for the good of the community in any Western country. Mr. Gandhi was present at the meeting of the All-India Moslem League Alien active rebellion and civil war were advocated and we do not learn that he felt able to protest. The case of India, however, is different from the case of Egypt, because we have given to India what we promised, and the blame for the unrest is not with us but with the irreconcilables and the invertebrate Moderates who make so poor a use of their new political possessions. Lord Reading cannot do wrong in arresting the revolution- aries, for that is the merest act of governing. We shall say very little about Mesopotamia. There are many seeds of trouble. We learn from a recent series of articles in the Times by a returned visitor that the Arabs of Mesopotamia are by no means contented with the kingship of Feisal. Apparently they consider that he was forced upon them, though in form he was given the throne by the free choice of the people. Every Mesopotamian Shish is jealous of the power that resides at Mecca. It would indeed be remarkable if the Shiahs forgave Feisal for being the son of the King of the Hedjaz. No doubt most Englishmen, thoroughly dissatisfied with their very expensive responsibilities in Mesopotamia, would like to 'leave the country altogether. But then there is our mandate. We accepted that as a trust and we could not throw it over without proper sanction. Let us hope that the Government are looking ahead. In Palestine the struggle goes on continually between the Zionists, who would like to direct the whole country, and the Arabs, who form over ninety per cent, of the total population. It would not profit us to examine the intricate controversy which never ceases about the pledges which are said to have been given to both sides. It may be that the promises attributed to Sir Henry MacMahon, Lord Allenby, the Prime Minister, and Mr. Churchill are all eclipsed and replaced by the agreement between the Allies at San Remo which was the basis of the idea of the Zionist State. The only thing on which it is necessary for us to insist is that Mr. Balfour's declaration of November 2nd, 1917, which is the Charter of Zionism, is expressly worded so as to safeguard. the rights of the Arab majority. It is unthinkable that the Allies who worked the principle of self-determination almost to death should really have proposed that 60,000 Jews should dominate 700,000 Arabs.
The Arabs are not by any means anti-Semitic by nature. All they demand is their proper rights in their own country. We will quote Mr. Balfour's declaration :- " His Majesty's Governmont view with favour the establish- ment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object : it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and the religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
The Arab delegates who stayed for some time in London have departed dissatisfied and feeling that they were cold- shouldered. These are very simple facts. The Arab grievance is a very real one. It is too obvious for the Government to overlook it, and we sincerely hope that in this case again the Government will not forget that if they do overlook it, because they are too busy with a General Election, the consequences will be what they will be.
Previous page
