Meaning
of "Friendship" in Colonial Lexicon
based on a writing of
Syed Abdul A‘la
Maududi
How
apt and factual is the observation of a Turk thinker that
nothing in the world inflicted so much harm to Turks as did
their trust in the friendship of the British and the vain hope
about their faithfulness.
When a
huge naval fleet of the king of Spain Philip II was on its way
to attack England in 1587, Queen Elizabeth thus beseeched the
Muslim ruler Murad for help:
If
His Highness does not want to commit the whole naval force of
his grand Sultanate, then he should at least send some 60 or
70 warships to punish the idol-worshipper king of Spain who
is all out to destroy England on the basis of help from the
Pope and all idol-worshippers. After conquering England, he
intends to attack the empire of His Highness and to become
the king of the world. If the majestic ruler of the Ottoman
Empire and the queen of England get united to suppress the
increasing lust of power of Spain, then not only its arrogant
king but also the Pope of Rome and his all associates would
be obliterated. God is the Protector of His righteous
subjects and will cleanse the world from the presence of
idol-worshippers through the Ottoman Empire and England.
Yet,
after a lapse of three centuries, when we look at the
conditions the progeny of this majestic ruler of the grand
Ottoman Empire, we confront a strange twist of times that even
though the descendants of Queen Elizabeth merely allow the
Ottoman ruler to live in Constantinople after taking from him
the Pearl of Daniel, Thrace and the Bay of Basphorus, "it is
their grace", according to Lord Chelmsford.
Can Colonial
Powers be Our Friends?
Anyone
who undertakes the study of Turkey’s history would bear out the
truth of "You bestow honor on whom You please, and You bring
low whom You please". The fortune of Turkey had started
declining in the beginning of the 18th century and
this "weak entity" would have been expelled from Europe even
one-and-half or two centuries earlier, but the fact is that it
was their trust in the friendship of the British and
entertaining vain hopes that proved to be most detrimental.
While
Peter the Great and Nicholas could only exhort that Turks
should be forced out from Europe, and died without seeing it
happen, the descendants of Queen Elizabeth, disguised as
sincere friends and truthful companions, have expelled them not
only from Europe but have vowed to remove them from the world.
But
the irony is that the British do not hesitate a bit in
declaring themselves as friends of the Turks even after
reducing the grand Turk sultanate into a vassal state. On the
other hand, when any Anglo-Indian feels the need to put the
blame of this war and destruction on the Turks, he says it out
with utmost composure that "we remained friends of the Turks,
but they showed animosity against us". Yet, I could not help
crying in agony when I heard a responsible person like
Chelmsford saying that the British had warm and friendly
relations with the Turks before this war. It is strange that
such a towering figure, whom the King saw fit to be sent to
India as his representative, could utter such an open lie in
these times of culture and decency. I cannot believe that Lord
Chelmsford has used the word of friendship to convey the
meaning that comes to our minds by the mention of this word.
Can we take those as friends who bombed Jeddah just one or two
years after having secured our help in Crimea? Can those be our
friends who got hold of Cyprus and gave out Bosnia and
Herzegovina to Austria in return of their pledge to lessen the
rigors of the San City Fano Accords? Can we befriend those who
ordered bombing on Alexandria in the rebellion of the Egyptian
ruler Mohammad Ali? Certainly, the definition of friendship in
our lexicon, which is bereft of political jargon, is quite
different from that of the British.
What
do they mean by "Friendship"?
If I
undertake to write the amazing history of friendship of the
British, it would run into many volumes. But I just want to lay
bare the truth of British friendship, corroborated by records
and facts, so that when one utters the word "friendship",
people face no difficulty in understanding the reality.
Here,
I would mention only a few events of the period from the 18th
century to the last Russian war.
It is
in common knowledge that Russia has always been a hostile enemy
of the Turks. This hostility was at its peak in Catherine, the
wife of Peter. Her advisor urged her for a naval attack on
Turkey, which had hitherto been subjected to land-attacks. So,
it was proposed to enter the Mediterranean Sea by crossing the
Europe through the Baltic Sea, then Constantinople be conquered
after mounting an attack on the Pearl of Daniel. As the British
were in favor of this proposal, it was decided that the Russian
fleet would be sent to British shores and would be equipped
there with all sorts of weaponry. Captains and sailors, too,
would be arranged from there. So, the Russian ships reached
England. The fleet was prepared, the naval chief and several
English captains boarded it, and the fleet set out on its
onward journey. This long distance could be covered only with
the help of the British!
In the
meanwhile, the British government warned the governments of
Spain and France that if they did any harm to the fleet in
their support to the Turks then they should deem it a
declaration of war. With the efforts of the British, the fleet
entered the Mediterranean in 1769. It reached the shores of
Syria in 1770. Though attack could not be mounted on
Constantinople, but it was the cleverness of the English
officers that while the fleet escaped unharmed, the Turk fleet
was completely destroyed at the Port of Chashma. This was
because of the skillful British maneuvers, as the Russian naval
chief had plunged the fleet into dire risks.
"Money is your
god, greed is your pursuit"
The
war continued for a long time. France wanted to help the Turks.
It looked for an opportunity to come to their aid, but felt
compelled to be silent for fear of angering the British.
Tired
with the unceasing war and continuous losses, the Ottoman
officials requested Austria to effect reconciliation. While the
Austrians had yet to take a decision, the British readied
themselves to play mediators and submitted their request to be
accepted at intermediaries. The answer of the Turk Prime
Minister is worth pondering. He said:
Though the British ships and troops are part of the Russian
fleet, they feel no hesitation for requesting to be accepted
as mediators. It appears that they want to inflict more
damage to us.
In a
lengthy dispatch during this communication, the Prime Minister
wrote:
Other Christian nations prove to be truthful at certain
times, in no way the avowals and commitments of the British
be relied upon.
He
ended the letter with these words:
Money is your god. You are driven by greed… You have made
Christianity a garb for deception, which covers up your
wickedness and ill-will.
Though
the episode is ascribed to Russians as it were the Russians who
had first proposed for the attack, and most of the ships were
also Russain, this should, in fact, be termed as a British
offensive. As the officers "who mattered" were all British, the
weapons were British, the whole journey of the fleet was made
possible because of the efforts of the British, and success was
achieved only because of the British – why should not we call
it by its name!
The History of
Waging Wars without any Declarations
The
relations of Russia and Turkey were tense because of the
former’s meddling in the affairs of Serbia and inciting the
high officials of Dilasia and Moldova to revolt against the
latter. The Russians demands were to end Turkey’s rule in
Dilasia and Moldova. The British were with the Russians even at
this time – that is, "friends" of Turks, in the words of
Chelmsford! – and the British envoy Arthnaut was in
Constantinople to arrive at some settlement with the Russians.
The envoys were still negotiating and no settlement had been
reached when Russia launched an attack on Dilasia and Moldova
without any declaration and, conquering the other provinces,
started to advance towards Bulgaria. The offensive was an open
violation of established norms. The Russian envoy expressed his
regrets and left Constantinople. But, in sharp contrast, the
British envoy had the audacity to put forward strange demands
before the Ottoman Empire:
-
The emissary of
Napoleon (who was supporting the Ottoman Empire against the
Russains) be expelled from Constantinople.
-
Moldova and
Dilasia be handed over to Russia.
-
The fort of the
Pearl of Daniel and weaponry be surrendered to us, or we
would mount an attack on Constantinople, etc.
The
Foreign Minister of Bab-e-Aali heard the demands with utmost
patience and said:
You
should uphold justice. Russia attacked us without any
declaration of war and is continuously engaged in activities
that are against the law and norms. We are bearing all this
humiliation just for the sake of peace. The Sultan has agreed
to endure the ignominy of reinstating the governors of
Dilasia and Moldova just for the sake of restoration of
peace. Russia is still going on with its nefarious
activities. So, we feel compelled to declare war. It is our
obligation to defend ourselves. I hope that the British shall
value our peace-loving approach, patience and restraint. But
if they insist on siding with Russia even after its open
violation of law and norms, then they would find us
determined to defend ourselves. If destruction is the fate of
Turkey, then you should be assured that it would fight to the
finish for its dignity and honor.
The
ensuing correspondence continued in a very abusive manner. The
British fleet, at last, reached in the month of January of 1807
under the naval chief Duckworth. On 19th February,
when Turk Muslims were celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr, the fleet
entered the Pearl of Daniel without any declaration. This was
quite a critical time for the Ottoman Empire. When the fleet
reached Princes Islands, the British envoy Arthnaut repeated
his demands before Bab-e-Aali, warning that those be accepted
immediately or an assault would be launched on Constantinople.
The ministers counseled the Sultan to order the French emissary
to leave the Capital. But the French man passionately opposed
it and spoke so emotionally before the Sultan that he
immediately started preparations for a war of defense. All was
done in almost no time. When the British naval chief saw
Constantinople coming out of the danger and the British very
much striding to it, he left the Pearl of Daniel without
wasting any more time. Even then, some of his ships were
drowned. With significant loss at the Pearl of Daniel, the
British fleet headed towards Malta and started looking for an
opportunity to attack some other province of the Turks.
At
these times, Mohammad Ali Pasha and those who had been defeated
were fighting in Egypt. The British, always ready to take
advantage of such a situation, moved with 5,000 soldiers,
conquered Alexandria and advanced towards Cairo. Mohammad Ali
Pasha confronted them and pushed them back till he reached
Alexandria. After being encircled there for a few months, the
British withdrew with a loss of 1,500 lives.
Occupation of
Eden
In
1841, Mohammad Ali Pasha himself rebelled against the Sultan.
His forces were only a small distance away from Constantinople
when Sultan Muhammad reached a concord with him on very weak
conditions. But, he revolted again only after a few years and
refused to pay the ‘taxes’. He also removed Turks from the
mausoleum of the Prophet (pbuh) and appointed Egyptians in
their place. Sultan Abdul Majid was ready to settle the Haram
dispute and to ignore all the excesses. But the …states stopped
him and assured him of help. The British, too, had promised
with the …states for military help, but soon occupied the Port
of Eden in return of the price of their promise. A Russian
general has given an interesting account of this situation.
While
the responsibility for the authenticity of this episode is of
the Russian general, who can deny the fact that the British are
still occupying Eden!