Glimpses of World History

by Jawaharlal Nehru

  In April 1936 the Palestine Arabs declared a general strike which lasted for nearly six months, in spite of every attempt by the British authorities, through military force and reprisals, to crush it. Huge concentration camps grew up after the well-known Nazi pattern. Failing in this endeavour, the government appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into Palestine affairs. This Commission reported that the mandate had been a failure and should be surrendered, and suggested a partition of the country into three areas—a large area under Arab control, a small one near the sea under Jewish control, and a third area, including Jerusalem, under direct British control. This scheme of partition was objected to by almost everybody, Arab and Jew, but many of the Jews were prepared to work it. The Arabs, however, would have nothing to do with it, and their national resistance grew. During the last few months this has taken the form of a vast national movement, aggressively hostile to British rule, and gradually displacing it in large areas of Palestine, which passed under the control of the Arab Nationalists. The British Government has sent fresh armies for the re-conquest of the country, and a state of terror and frightfulness exists there.

  The Arabs unfortunately indulged in a great deal of terrorism. To some extent the Jews did likewise against the Arabs. The British Government has pursued and is pursuing a ruthless policy of destruction and killing, thereby seeking to crush the national struggle for freedom. Methods which are even worse than those employed in the Black and Tan era in Ireland are being practised in Palestine, and a heavy censorship hides them from the rest of the world. Yet what comes through is bad enough. I have just read of Arab “suspects” being herded together by the British military forces in huge barbed-wire enclosures called iron cages, each of these “cages” holding 50 to 400 prisoners, who are fed by their relations, literally like animals in a cage.

  Meanwhile the whole Arab world is aflame with indignation, and the East, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, has been deeply affected by this brutal attempt to crush a people struggling for their freedom. These people have committed many wrong and terroristic deeds, but it must be remembered that they are essentially fighting for national freedom and have been cruelly suppressed by the forces of British imperialism.

  It is a tragedy that two oppressed peoples—the Arabs and the Jews— should come into conflict with each other. Everyone must have sympathy for the Jews in the terrible trials they are passing through in Europe, where vast numbers of them have become homeless wanderers, unwanted in any country. One can understand them being attracted to Palestine. And it is a fact that the Jewish immigrants there have improved the country, introduced industries, and raised standards of living. But we must remember that Palestine is essentially an Arab country, and must remain so, and the Arabs must not be crushed and suppressed in their own homelands. The two peoples could well co-operate together in a free Palestine, without encroaching on each other’s legitimate interests, and help in building up a progressive country.

  Unfortunately Palestine, being on the sea and air route to India and the East, is a vital factor in the British imperial scheme, and Jews and Arabs have both been exploited to further this scheme. The future is uncertain. The old scheme of partition is likely to fall through and a larger Arab federation with a Jewish autonomous enclave is in the air. It is certain, however, that Arab nationalism in Palestine will not be crushed, and the future of the country can only be built up on the stable foundation of Arab-Jew co-operation and the elimination of imperialism.

  168

  Arabia—A Jump from the Middle Ages

  June 3, 1933.

  I have been writing to you about the Arab countries, but I have not so far dealt with the fountain-head of the Arabic language and culture and the birthplace of Islam, Arabia itself. The source of Arab civilization though it was, it has remained backward and medieval, and has been far outstripped, according to the tests of our modern civilization, by the neighbouring Arab countries—Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and Iraq. Arabia is an enormous country; in size and area it is about two-thirds as big as India. And yet the population of the whole country is estimated to be 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 only—that is, about one-seventieth or one-eightieth of the population of India. It is obvious from this that it is very thinly populated; most of it is indeed a desert, and it was because of this that it escaped the attentions of greedy adventurers in the past, and remained a relic of medievalism, without railways or telegraphs or telephones or the like, in the midst of a changing world. It was largely inhabited by wandering nomad tribes—the Bedouins they are called— and they travelled across the desert sands on their swift camels, the “ships of the desert”, and on the backs of their beautiful Arab horses, known the world over. They lived a patriarchal life which had changed little in a thousand years. The World War changed all this, as it changed many other things.

  If you will look at the map you will find that the great Arabian peninsula lies between the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. To the south of it lies the Arabian Sea, to the north lie Palestine and Trans-Jordan and the Syrian desert, and to the north-east the green and fertile valleys of Iraq. Along the west coast, bordering the Red Sea, lies the land of Hejaz, which is the cradle of Islam, containing the holy cities Mecca and Medina and the port, Jeddah, where thousands of pilgrims land every year on their way to Mecca. In the centre of Arabia and towards the east up to the Persian Gulf lies Nejd. The Hejaz and Nejd are the two main divisions of Arabia. In the south-west lies Yemen, known from the old Roman times as Arabia Felix, Arabia the Fortunate, the Happy, because it was fertile and fruitful, in contrast with the rest, which was largely barren and desert. This part is, as one would expect, thickly populated. Almost at the south-western tip of Arabia lies Aden, a British possession and a port of call for ships passing between East and West.

  Before the World War nearly the whole country was under Turkish control or acknowledged Turkish overlordship. But in Nejd the Emir Ibn Saud was gradually emerging as an independent ruler and was spreading out by conquest to the Persian Gulf. This was in the years preceding the war. Ibn Saud was the head of a particular community or sect of Muslims known as Wahabis, which was founded in the eighteenth century by Abdul Wahab. This was really a reform movement in Islam, something like the Puritans in Christianity. The Wahabis were against many ceremonies and the saint-worship that had become so popular with the Muslim masses, in the form of worship of tombs and what were supposed to be the relics of holy men. The Wahabis called this idolatry, just as the Puritans of Europe had called the Roman Catholics, who worshipped the images and relics of saints, idolaters. Thus, even apart from political rivalry, there was a religious feud between the Wahabis and the other Muslim sects in Arabia.

  Ibn Saud’s Arabia

  During the World War Arabia became a hotbed of British intrigue, and British and Indian money was lavishly spent in subsidizing and bribing the various Arab chiefs. All manner of promises were made to them, and they were encouraged to revolt against Turkey. Sometimes two rival chiefs, who were fighting each other, were both receiving British subsidies! The British succeeded in getting the Sherif Hussein of Mecca to raise the Arab standard of revolt. Hussein’s importance consisted in the fact that he was a descendant of the Prophet Mohammad, and was therefore greatly respected. Hussein was promised by the British the kingdom of a united Arabia.

  Ibn Saud was cleverer. He got himself recognized as an independent sovereign by the British, accepted a tidy little sum of £6000 or about Rs 70,000 per month from them, and promised to remain neutral. So, while others were fighting, he consolidated his position and strengthened it, to some extent with the help of British gold. The Sherif Hussein was becoming unpopular in Islamic countries, including India, because of his rebellion against the Sultan of Turkey, who was also then the Caliph. Ibn Saud, by quietly remaining neutral, took full advantage of changing conditions and slowly built up a reputation for himself of being the strong man of Islam.

  In the south was Yemen. The Imam, or ruler, of Yemen remained loyal to th
e Turks right through the war. But he was cut off from the scene of operations and could not do much. After Turkey’s defeat he became independent. Yemen is still an independent State.

  The end of the war found England dominating Arabia and trying to use both Hussein and Ibn Saud as her tools. Ibn Saud was too clever to allow himself to be exploited. The Sherif Hussein’s family, however, suddenly blossomed out in full glory, backed as it was by British force. Hussein himself became King of the Hejaz; one of his sons, Feisal, became ruler of Syria; and another son, Abdullah, was made by the British the ruler of the small new state Trans-Jordan. The glory was short-lived, for, as we have seen, Feisal was driven out of Syria by the French, and Hussein’s kingship vanished away before the advancing Wahabis of Ibn Saud. Feisal, having joined the unemployed again, was provided by the British with the rulership of Iraq, reigning there by the grace of his patrons.

  During the brief period of Hussein’s kingship of the Hejaz, the Turkish Parliament at Angora abolished the Caliphate in 1924. There was no Caliph, and Hussein, greatly daring, jumped on to the empty throne and proclaimed himself the Caliph of Islam. Ibn Saud saw that his time had come, and he appealed both to Arab nationalism and to Muslim internationalism against Hussein. He stood out as the champion of Islam against an ambitious usurper, and with the help of careful propaganda managed to gain the goodwill of Muslims in other countries. The Khilafat Committee in India sent him their good wishes. Seeing which way the wind was blowing, and realizing that the horse they had so far backed was not likely to win, the British quietly withdrew their support of Hussein. Their subsidies were stopped, and poor Hussein, who had been promised so much, was left almost friendless and helpless before a powerful and advancing enemy.

  Within a few months, in October 1924, the Wahabis entered Mecca and, in accordance with their puritan faith, destroyed some tombs. There was a good deal of consternation in Muslim countries at this destruction; even in India much feeling was aroused. Next year Medina and Jeddah fell to Ibn Saud, and Hussein and his family were driven away from the Hejaz. Early in 1926 Ibn Saud proclaimed himself King of the Hejaz. In order to consolidate his new position and to keep the goodwill of Muslims abroad, he held an Islamic World Congress at Mecca in June 1926, to which he invited representative Muslims from other countries. Apparently he had no desire to become Caliph, and in any event he was not likely to be accepted as such by large numbers of Muslims because of his Wahabism. King Fuad of Egypt, whose anti-national and despotic record we have already examined, was keen on becoming the Caliph, but nobody would have him, not even his own people of Egypt. Hussein, after his defeat, had abdicated from the Caliphate he had assumed.

  The Islamic Congress held at Mecca did not come to any important decision, and it was perhaps not meant to do so. It was a device adopted by Ibn Saud to strengthen his position, especially before foreign Powers. Indian representatives of the Khilafat Committee, and I think Maulana Mohammad Ali was one of them, returned disappointed and angry with Ibn Saud. But this did not make much difference to him. He had exploited the Indian Khilafat Committee when he wanted its help, and now he could well do without its goodwill.

  Ibn Saud was soon master of nearly the whole country with the exception of Yemen, which continued as an independent State under its old Imam. But for this corner in the south-west, he was lord of Arabia and he took the title of King of Nejd, thus becoming a double king, King of Hejaz and King of Nejd. Foreign Powers recognized his independence, and foreigners were not allowed any special privileges, as they are in Egypt still. Indeed, they could not even take wines and other alcoholic drinks.

  Ibn Saud had succeeded as a soldier and a fighter. He now set himself the much harder task of adapting his State to modern conditions. From the patriarchal stage it was to jump into the modern world. It appears that Ibn Saud has met with considerable success in this task also, and has thus shown to the world that he is a far-seeing statesman.

  His first success was in the putting down of internal disorder. Within a very short time the great caravan and pilgrim routes were perfectly safe. This was a great triumph, and was naturally welcomed by the large numbers of pilgrims who had so far often had to face robbery on the highways.

  An even more striking success was the settling of the nomad Bedouins. He started these settlements even before his conquest of the Hejaz, and in this way he laid the foundations of a modern State. It was not easy to settle the restless and wandering and freedom-loving Bedouins, but Ibn Saud has largely succeeded. The administration of the State has been improved in many ways, and aeroplanes and motors and telephones and many other symbols of modern civilization have appeared. Slowly but surely the Hejaz is becoming modernized. But it is not an easy matter to jump from the Middle Ages to the present day, and the greatest difficulty lies in changing people’s ideas. This new progress and change were not to the liking of many of the Arabs; the new-fangled machinery of the West, their engines and motors and aeroplanes, struck them as the inventions of the evil one. They protested against these innovations, and they even rose against Ibn Saud in 1929. Ibn Saud tried to win them over by tact and argument, and succeeded with many. Some continued in their revolt, and were defeated by Ibn Saud.

  Another difficulty then faced Ibn Saud, but this was a difficulty which all the world had to face. From 1930 onwards there has been a tremendous slump in trade everywhere. The great industrial countries of the West have felt this most, and are still struggling in its ever-tightening grip. Arabia has little to do with world trade, but the slump made itself felt in another way. The chief source of revenue of Ibn Saud has been the income derived from the great annual pilgrimage to Mecca. About 100,000 pilgrims from foreign countries used to visit Mecca every year. In 1930 there was a sudden drop to 40,000 and the fall continued in subsequent years. This resulted in a complete upsetting of the economic structure of the State, and there was great misery in many parts of Arabia. The lack of money has handicapped Ibn Saud in many ways and put a stop to many of his schemes of reform. He would not give concessions to foreigners, for he rightly feared that foreign exploitation of the country’s resources would lead to an increase of foreign influence. And this would mean foreign interference and a lessening of independence. His fears were perfectly justified, for most of the ills from which colonial dependent countries have suffered have arisen from this foreign exploitation. Ibn Saud preferred poverty and freedom to a measure of progress and riches minus freedom.

  The pressure due to the trade slump, however, led Ibn Saud to revise his policy a little, and he began to give some concessions to foreigners. But even so he was careful to safeguard his independence, and conditions were laid down for this. For the present concessions are only to be given to foreign Muslim groups. Thus one of the first concessions to be given was to an Indian Muslim group of capitalists for the building of a railway between the port, Jeddah, and Mecca. This railway is a tremendous thing in Arabia, for it revolutionizes the annual pilgrimage. It not only benefits the pilgrims, but also helps greatly in modernizing the Arabs’ outlook.

  I have already told you in a previous letter of the one railway which exists at present in Arabia—the Hejaz Railway, which connects Medina to the Baghdad Railway in Aleppo in Syria.

  I have mentioned in the early part of this letter that Yemen in the south-west was known as Arabia Felix. As a matter of fact this name was also applied to a great part of Southern Arabia, stretching almost to the Persian Gulf. But the name is most inappropriate for this area, as it is an inhospitable desert. Perhaps it was not known sufficiently in the past, and thus a mistake was made. Till recently it was unknown territory, one of the few places on the earth’s surface which had not been charted and mapped out.

  169

  Iraq and the Virtues of Aerial Bombing

  June 7, 1933

  One Arab country remains for us to consider. This is Iraq or Mesopotamia, the rich and fertile land between the two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, the land of old story, of Baghdad an
d Haroun-al-Rashid and the Arabian Nights. It lies between Persia and the Arabian desert; to the south is its principal port Basra, a little way up the river from the Persian Gulf; in the north it touches Turkey. Iraq and Turkey meet in Kurdistan, the area inhabited by the Kurds. Most of these Kurds are in Turkey now, and I have told you of their struggle for freedom against the Turks. But many Kurds are in Iraq also, and they form an important minority there. Mosul, which was long a bone of contention between Turkey and England, now lies in this northern Kurdish area of Iraq, which means that it is under British control. Near Mosul lie the ruins of ancient Nineveh of the Assyrians.

  Iraq was one of the countries for which England received a “mandate” from the League of Nations, a “mandate” being, in the pious language of the League, a “sacred trust” of civilization on behalf of the League of Nations. The idea was that the inhabitants of the mandated territory were not advanced enough or capable of looking after their own interests, and were therefore to be helped in doing so by the great Powers. A comparable procedure perhaps would be to appoint a tiger to look after the interests of a number of cows or deer. These mandates were supposed to be given at the desire of the people concerned. The mandates of the countries freed from Turkish rule in western Asia fell to the lot of England and France. The governments of these two countries declared, as I have already told you, that their sole aim was “the complete and definite emancipation of the peoples . . . and the establishment of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations”. What steps have been taken to realize this noble aim during the last dozen years, we have briefly seen so far in Syria, Palestine and Trans-Jordan, where there were repeated disturbances and non-co-operation and boycott. The “initiative and free choice” of the people were then encouraged by shooting them down, deporting and exiling their leaders, suppressing their newspapers, destroying their cities and villages, and often proclaiming martial law. There is nothing novel in such happenings. Imperialist Powers have indulged in violence and destruction and terrorism from the earliest days of historic record. The novel feature of the modern type of imperialism is its attempt to hide its terrorism and exploitation behind pious phrases about “trusteeship” and the “good of the masses” and “the training of backward peoples in self-government” and the like. They shoot and kill and destroy only for the good of the people shot down. This hypocrisy may be perhaps a sign of advance, for hypocrisy is a tribute to virtue, and it shows that the truth is not liked, and is therefore wrapped up in these comforting and deluding phrases, and thus hidden away. But somehow this sanctimonious hypocrisy seems far worse than the brutal truth.