Papers of the War Cabinet's Eastern Committee [‎254r] (507/544)

11
LORI) CURZON : I think you are stating your case much too high. In a good
many places we had to be careful about employing Mahommed^ns. Difficulties arose in
Gallipoli, and difficulties arose in Mesopotamia. 1 would like to put in a caveat against
accepting the proposition that we defeated the Turk by means of Mahommedans of
India. They lent valuable assistance but it was no more. The bulk of the fighting
was done by non-Mahommedan races. That is mv belief.
MR. MONTAGU : I base my argument upon the magnificent recruiting work ;
the staple part of the Indian army came from the Punjab, and was mainly Mahommedan.
I quite agree that there was trouble in the earlier stages of the war with certain
regiments because they were fighting the Turks, which shows that, despite the fact
that they loyally assisted us in our war against, the Turk, there was a terrific strain
upon their loyalty. I view with horror the argument that because continuous strains
have been put upon the loyalty of the Mahommedans, which they have magnificentlv
withstood, therefore von are not to consider their views in the settlement of this
question. The argument that people have threatened rebellion and outbreak if certain
things were done which might put a strain upon the Mahommedan loyalty, but that
that prophecy has not been fulfilled, is all the more reason why we should consider
Mahommedan feeling. It is not really Constantinople that I am afraid of. It is the
idea that this country has become an anti-Mahommedan State, which h;(S led all through
the Balkan wars, which you referred to, to the gradual downing of Mahommedanism
and driving it eastward—the war of the Italians in Tripoli and the Balkan war. I was
in India at the time, or just afterwards, and I remember the tremendous grief with
which certain speeches of Mr. Asquith, Mr. Lloyd George, and Mr. Winston Churchill
were commented upon by the Indian newspapers as showing that this country was
anti-Mahommedan. When you come to talk about the Khalifate and the extreme
unlikeliness of the Sultan of Turkey remaining Khalif if he is turned out of Constanti
nople, l would say with great respect that we have solemnly declared that we are not
going to interfere in any way with the free choice of Khalif, and therefore 1 do
not think that we ought, even in privacy, to allow that argument to affect the decision
in the least. We ought to stick to our declaration that we still express no opinion,
whoever the Mahommedans choose to elect as their Rhaiif.
LORD CURZON : That does not prevent us from forecasting the possible
consequences.
MR. MONTAGU : The last thing that I would say is this. If you remember,
when His Majesty went to address Parliament and the representatives of the Dominions
in the House of Lords, he referred to the rescue of Palestine for Christianity. There
were several comments upon that at the time. We had used Mahommedan troops.
MR. BALFOUR : It was only the guardianship of the Holy Places, surely?
MR. MONTAGU : No, the question of Palestine.
MR. BALFOUR : No. 1 heard the speech. I am sure that I should have stood
up with horror if 1 had understood that it was to be conquered from Arabs, and from
Jews, and from Turks in order to turn it into a Christian country. I do not believe
that that was ever suggested.
MR. MONTAGU : l cannot find it at the moment because I have not got it, but
I am sure that my memory is accurate on the subject because it gave rise to so many
representations to me, and it seemed to me to show how careful we ought to be.
Finally, I would remind you of this, the Prime Minister has appointed two
representatives of India to take their share in the Imperial deliberations on Peace. By
an accident it so happens that both these gentlemen are Hindus, and there is nc
Mahommedan representation directly accessible to me, and therefore it seemed to me
that it behoves us to be all the more careful that Mahommedan interests are not
forgotten. It does seem to me that Lord Curzon has shown us satisfactorily that there
is no good solution by driving out the Turk, and that we are in a position to consider
Mahommedan feeling which is so loyal and which is likely to remain loyal, and we have
every re ison to consider it in the solution.
MR. BALFOUR: I have no doubt that the question is one of extreme difficulty.
As regards the particular objection raised by Mr. Montagu, I am not at all qualified to
speak. I have no knowledge of Mahommedan sentiment in India, and it would be folly
for me to offer an opinion on the subject. But 1 would like to make this observation.