Let us now see how the wishes of the inhabitants were given effect to in Iraq, and how this country has marched to freedom under the British mandate. During the World War the English had made Iraq, or Mesopotamia as it used to be called then, their base for operations against Turkey. They flooded the country with British and Indian troops. They suffered one big defeat in April 1916, when a British army under General Townshend had to surrender to the Turks at Kutal-Amara. There was terrible waste and mismanagement in the whole of the Mesopotamian campaign, and as the Indian Government was largely responsible for this, it came in for a great deal of strong criticism for its inefficiency and stupidity. However, the great resources of the British told in the long run, and they drove the Turks north and captured Baghdad and later almost reached Mosul. At the end of the war the whole of Iraq was under British military occupation.
The first reaction of the grant of the Iraq mandate to England was seen early in 1920. There were strong protests against this, and the protests soon developed into disturbances, and the disturbances into a rebellion, which spread to the whole country. It is a curious and interesting fact that this first half of 1920 saw more or less simultaneous disturbances in Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, and Persia. Even in India in those days non-co-operation was in the air. The rebellion in Iraq was ultimately crushed, largely with the help of troops from India. It has long been the function of the Indian Army to do the dirty work of British imperialism, and because of this, our country has been made sufficiently unpopular in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The Iraq rebellion was put down by the British, partly by force and partly by assurances of future independence. They established a provisional government with Arab ministers, but behind each minister was a British adviser, who was the real power. Even these tame and nominated ministers proved to be too aggressive for British liking. British plans demanded a complete subservience of Iraq, and some of the ministers refused to be parties to this. Therefore, in April 1921 the British arrested and exiled the leading minister, Sayyid Talib Shah, who was the ablest of the lot, and another step was thus taken in preparing the country for independence. In the summer of 1921, Feisal, the son of Hussein of the Hejaz, was brought over by the British and presented to the Iraqis as their future king. Feisal, you will remember, was just then unemployed, as his Syrian venture had collapsed before the French attack. He was a good friend of the British, and had taken a leading part in the Arab revolt against Turkey during the World War. He was thus likely to be more amenable to British plans than the local ministers had so far been. The “notables”, the rich middle class and other leading personalities, agreed to have Feisal as king on condition that the government was a constitutional one with a democratic parliament. They had little choice in the matter. What they wanted was a real parliament, and as Feisal was likely to be king anyhow, they made this parliament a condition. The people generally were not consulted. So Feisal became king in August 1921.
But this was no solution of the problem, for the Iraqi people were very much opposed to the British mandate and wanted complete independence and then unity with the other Arab countries. Agitation and demonstrations continued, and matters came to a head a year later, in August 1922. The British authorities then gave a further lesson in independence to the Iraqis. The British High Commissioner, Sir Percy Cox, put an end to the power of the King (who was ill then) as well as that of the ministry and of the council which Iraq had been given, and took full charge of the government himself. In fact he became the absolute dictator, and he enforced his will and suppressed disturbances with the help of British forces, and especially the British Air Force. The old story, which we find everywhere with variations—India, Egypt, Syria, etc.— was repeated. Nationalist newspapers were suspended, the parties were dissolved, leaders were exiled, and British aeroplanes with their bombs established the might of the British Empire.
Again this was no solution of the problem. After a few months Sir Percy Cox permitted the King and the ministry to function outwardly, and got them to agree to a treaty with Britain. Assurances were again given that England would help Iraq to independence, and even make her a member of the League of Nations. Behind these beautiful and comforting promises lay the solid fact that the Iraq Government was made to agree to run the administration with the help of British officers, or those approved by Britain. This treaty of October 1922 was made over the heads of the people, and was condemned by them. It was pointed out that the Arab Government was a sham and that the real power continued to be the British authority. The leaders decided to boycott the elections to the National Constituent Assembly, which was called to draw up the future constitution. This non-co-operation was successful and the Assembly could not meet. There were also disturbances and difficulties in collecting taxes.
For over a year, right through 1923, these troubles continued. At length some changes, favourable to Iraq, were made in the treaty, and some of the leading agitators were exiled. The agitation lessened, and early in 1924 elections for the Constituent Assembly could be held. This Assembly also opposed the British treaty. Strong pressure was brought to bear upon it by the British, and at last the treaty was ratified by a little over a third of the members, a large number of the deputies not even attending this session.
The Constituent Assembly drafted a new constitution for Iraq, and on paper it seemed a fair one, laying down that Iraq was a sovereign and independent free State with a constitutional hereditary monarchy and a parliamentary form of government. But of the two houses of parliament one, the Senate, was to be nominated by the King. Thus the King had great power, and behind the King were the British officials who occupied the key positions. This constitution came into force in March 1925, and for some years the new Parliament functioned, but the protest against the mandate continued. A great deal of attention was concentrated on the dispute between England and Turkey about Mosul, for Iraq was also a claimant of this area. This dispute was finally settled in June 1926, by a joint treaty between England, Iraq, and Turkey. Mosul went to Iraq, and as Iraq itself lies in the shadow of British imperialism, British interests were thus safeguarded.
In June 1930 there was a fresh treaty of alliance between Britain and Iraq. Again Iraq’s full independence, both in home and foreign affairs, was recognized. But the safeguards and the exceptions were such as to convert this independence into a veiled protectorate. In order to safeguard the route to India, Britain’s “essential communications”, as the treaty says, Iraq provides England with sites for air bases. Britain also maintains troops in Mosul and elsewhere. Iraq is only to have British military instructors, and British officers are to serve in an advisory capacity with the Iraq forces. Arms, ammunitions, aircraft, etc., are to be obtained from Britain. In case of war Britain is to have all facilities in the country in order to carry on warlike operations against the enemy. Thus from the strategic area round Mosul England can strike easily at Turkey, Persia, or at the Soviets in Azerbaijan.
This treaty was followed by 1931 by a Judicial Agreement between Britain and Iraq, in which Iraq undertakes to employ a British Judicial Adviser, a British President of the Court of Appeal, and British presidents at Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, and other places.
Besides these provisions it appears that British officials occupy many high offices. In effect, therefore, this “independent” country is practically a protectorate of England, and the treaty of alliance of 1930, which ensures this, is for twenty-five years.
Although the new Parliament functioned after the adoption of the new constitution in 1925, the people were far from satisfied, and in the outlying areas disturbances sometimes took place. This was especially the case in Kurdish areas, where there were repeated outbreaks, which were suppressed by the British Air Force by the gentle practice of bombing and destroying whole villages. After the treaty of 1930 the question arose of Iraq being made a member of the League of Nations under British auspices. But the country was not at peace, and disturbances continued. This was neither
to the credit of the mandatory Power, England, nor to that of the existing government of King Feisal, for these revolts were proof enough that the people were not satisfied with the government that had been thrust upon them by the British. It was considered very undesirable that these matters should come up before the League, and so a special effort was made to put an end to these disturbances by force and terrorism. The British Air Force was used for this purpose, and the result of its attempts to bring peace and order may be appreciated to some extent from the description of an eminent English officer. Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold Wilson, in the course of the anniversary lecture to the Royal Asian Society in London on June 8, 1932, referred to
the pertinacity with which (notwithstanding declarations at Geneva) the R.A.F. has been bombing the Kurdish population for the last ten years, and in particular the last six months. Devastated villages, slaughtered cattle, maimed women and children bear witness to the spread, in the words of the special correspondent to The Times, of a uniform pattern of civilization.
Finding that the people of the villages often ran away and hid themselves on the approach of an aeroplane, and were not sporting enough to wait for the bombs to kill them, a new type of bomb—the time-delayed bomb—was used. This did not burst on falling, but was so wound up as to burst some time afterwards. This devilish ruse was meant to mislead the villagers into returning to their huts after the aeroplanes had gone and then being hit by the bursting of the bomb. Those who died were the comparatively fortunate ones. Those who were maimed, whose limbs were torn away sometimes, or who had other serious injuries, were far more unfortunate, for there was no medical aid available in those distant villages.
So peace and order were restored, and the Government of Iraq presented itself under British auspices before the League of Nations and was admitted as a member. It has been said, truly enough, that Iraq was “bombed” into the League.
Iraq having become a member State of the League, the British mandate is over. It has been replaced by the treaty of 1930, which ensures effective British control of the State. Dissatisfaction at this state of affairs continues, for the people of Iraq want complete freedom and the unity of Arab nations. Membership of the League of Nations does not interest them much, for they consider, as do most other oppressed people in the East, that the League is just an instrument in the hands of the great European Powers to further their own colonial and other ends.1
We have now finished our survey of the Arab nations. You will have noticed how all of them, in common with India and other Eastern countries, were powerfully moved by waves of nationalism after the World War. It was like an electric current passing through them all at the same time. Another remarkable feature was the similarity of methods adopted. There were insurrections and violent rebellions in many of these countries, but gradually they came to rely more and more on a policy of non-co-operation and boycott. There is no doubt that the fashion in this new method of resistance was set by India in 1920, when the Congress followed Mahatma Gandhi’s lead. The idea of non-cooperation and the boycott of legislatures has spread from India to other countries of the East, and become one of the well-recognized and frequently practised methods of the struggle for national freedom.
I should like to draw your attention to an interesting contrast between English and French methods of imperialist control. England, in all her colonial countries, tried to form an alliance with the feudal, the landowning, and the most conservative and backward classes. We have seen this in India, in Egypt, and elsewhere. She created shaky thrones in her colonial countries and put reactionary rulers on them, well knowing that they would support her. Thus she put Fuad in Egypt, Feisal in Iraq, Abdullah in Trans-Jordan, and she tried to put Hussein in the Hejaz. France, on the other hand, being herself a typical bourgeois country, tries to find support in some parts of the bourgeoisie of the colonial countries, the rising middle classes. In Syria, for instance, she looked to the Christian middle classes for support. Both England and France in all the colonial countries under them rely principally on the policy of weakening the nationalism opposed to them by dividing it and creating minority, racial, and religious problems. Nationalism is, however, gradually surmounting these divisions all over the East, and nowhere more so perhaps than in the Arab countries of the Middle East, where religious groups are becoming weaker before the ideal of a common nationality.
I have told you above about the activities of the British R.A.F. (Royal Air Force) in Iraq. For the last dozen years or so it has become the definite policy of the British Government to use aeroplanes to do “police work”, as it is called, in their semi-colonial countries. This is done especially where a measure of self-government is given and the administration is largely indigenous. Armies of occupation are not kept now in these countries, or are reduced greatly. This has many advantages. A great deal of money is saved, and the military occupation of a country is less in evidence. At the same time aeroplanes and bombs give them complete control over the situation. In this way the use of bombing from aeroplanes has increased greatly in independent areas, and the British probably use this method far more than any other Power. I have told you about Iraq. The same story can be repeated for the North-West Frontier of India, where this kind of bombing is a regular and frequent occurrence.
This method may be cheaper and more expeditious than the old one of sending an army. But it is a terribly cruel and ghastly method. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine anything more disgustingly barbarous than to throw bombs, and especially time-delayed bombs, on whole villages, and destroy innocent and guilty alike. This method also makes an invasion of another country very easy. So an outcry has arisen against it, and eloquent speeches are delivered at Geneva at the League of Nations against the barbarity of attacking civilian populations by air. All the nations, including the United States, were in favour of the total abolition of aerial bombardment. But the British insisted on reserving the right to use aircraft for “police purposes” in the colonies, and this prevented agreement in the League as well as at the Disarmament Conference held in 1933.
170
Afghanistan and Some Other Countries of Asia
June 8, 1933
To the east of Iraq lies Iran or Persia, and to the east of Persia lies Afghanistan. Both Persia and Afghanistan are India’s neighbours, for the Persian frontier touches India (in Baluchistan) for several hundred miles, and Afghanistan and India lie side by side for about 1000 miles from the extreme western tip of Baluchistan to the northern mountains of the Hindu Kush, where India rests her snowy head on the heart of Central Asia, and looks down upon the territories of the Soviets. Not only are these three countries neighbours, but racially they are akin, for the old Aryan stock dominates in all of them. Culturally, as we have seen, they have had much in common in the past. Till recently, Persian was the language of the learned in northern India, and even now it is popular, especially among the Muslims. In Afghanistan Persian is still the Court language, the popular language of the Afghans being Pashtu.
About Persia I do not wish to add to what I have already told you in previous letters. But recent events in Afghanistan deserve a brief mention. Afghan history is almost a part of Indian history; indeed, for long Afghanistan was part of India. Since its separation, and especially during the last hundred years or more, it has been a buffer State between the two great empires of Russia and England. The Russian Empire has gone and given place to the Soviet Union, but Afghanistan still plays its old part of buffer, where Englishmen and Russians intrigue and try to gain the mastery. The nineteenth century saw these intrigues develop into wars between England and Afghanistan, which resulted in many British disasters but the ultimate supremacy of England. Many Afghan detenus, members of the Afghan royal family, are still scattered about northern India, and remind us of England’s interventions in Afghanistan. Amirs friendly to the British came to rule, and Afghanistan’s foreign policy was definitely put under British control. But, however friendly these Amirs were, they could not be wholly rel
ied upon, and subsidies of large sums of money were given to them annually by the British. Such was the Amir Abdur Rahman, who had a long reign, ending in 1901. He was followed by the Amir Habibullah, who was also well inclined towards the British.
One of the reasons for Afghanistan’s dependence on the British in India was the position of the country. You will see in the map that it is cut off from the sea by Baluchistan. It was thus like a house with no means of reaching the highway except through someone else’s grounds, and this is a troublesome affair. Its easiest way of communicating with the outside world was through India. There were no proper communications in those days in the Russian territory to the north of Afghanistan. I believe that the Soviet Government has recently developed these communications, both by building railways and encouraging air and motor services. India thus being Afghanistan’s window to the world, the British Government could take advantage of this fact by exerting pressure in many ways. This difficulty of Afghanistan’s access to the sea is still one of the major problems confronting the country.
Glimpses of World History Page 115
