Letter from Sir Frederic Aarthur Hirtzel, India Office, to the Under Secretary of State, Foreign Office, dated 13 Sep 1922 [‎4v] (8/10)

effect to Prime Minister's promise that it will he made perfectly clear in final settle
ment with Turkey that there is no intention to interfere with spiritual power of
Caliph. Ion adhere, as I understand, to your proposal that word 4 ' temporal, 11 or
some similar expression, should be inserted in proposed clause quoted in my telegram
dated the iMst March, No. 1226, and in Article ( .)S (and also, 1 presume, in Articles
132 and 139). Setting aside objection to drawing in this connection distinction
between 45 temporal " and " spiritual," this proposal seems to me open to serious
objection that its adoption would imply that " Turkey," as such, has some powers or
rights other than temporal. Even if " Turkey " be read to mean the Sultan of
Turkey " it would imply identiiication of Sultan with Caliph, and a particular view of
attributes of latter. Also it would clearly imply in some degree maintenance' of a
spiritual authority irrespective of views of Arab rulers concerned. For these reasons
it seems to me much preferable if suitable wording can be found to add to treaty a
general saving clause negative in form and neither expressing nor implying any view
as to existing position or attributes of Caliphate. Formula proposed in my telegram
dated the 4th May, No. 17-17, was drafted with this object, and I do not at present
feel that your objection to it is decisive. Nor do 1 altogether understand it since
formula refers to privileges assigned to Caliph and says nothing about transmission
of Caliphate. Ihit perhaps you can suggest a better formula on the same lines.
Please telegraph your further views.
ENCLOSURE No. 9;— Telegram from. Viceroy to Secretary of State, 7l]i June 1922.
750 S. Your telegram of the 25th May, No. 2019. Khilafat. We agree with
your telegram down to the words " intention to interfere with spiritual power of the
Caliph."
We further admit the force of your contention that spiritual power which it is
desired to conserve is that of the Sultan Caliph and not of Turkey, but wo find some
difficulty in reconciling your expressed desire for conserving that power with your
implied reluctance to accept identification of Sultan with Caliph. We agree that such
identification should not be specifically mentioned in the treaty, but to us it is none
the less a fact beyond challenge. Throughout Moslem India and Central Asia, at
any rate, there is no Khilafat question in the sense " Who is the Caliph? " and sole
point at issue is the reconciliation of the Treaty of Sevres with Great Britain's
promise(s) regarding Caliphate which is vested in the Sultan of Turkey. But so long
as non-interference with the spiritual power of the Caliph is, in accordance with the
Prime Minister's promise(s), clearly enunciated in the treaty by the insertion of a
general saving clause, we now agree that inclusion of word " temporal " in Articles 92
and 132 is unnecessary, and indeed, on your showing, hardly tenable.
But our objections to the Foreign Office draft 0 remain unchanged, and we would
prefer wording somewhat on these lines
"Nothing in this Treaty purports to affect, or shall be held to affect, spiritual
authority of Caliph."
VTe have throughout assumed that Article 139 would disappear automatically on
the revisi on of the treaty as being directed mainly, if not wholly, against the religious
suzerainty of Sultan C^ntiphj ifannmj t <rr,u,p) which has been the cardinal point we
have consistently advocated. If it is to be maintained, utmost care will be required to
ensure that its wording does not in any way conflict with or impair essential force of
general saving clause, and thus stultify our main contention and neutralise any
advantage that we might otherwise acquire with Moslems over our preservation of
the Caliph's spiritual authority. Would it not be best to omit it altogether?
ENCLOSI RE No. 10:— Telegram from Secretary of State to Viceroii, Wth July
1922.
Your telegram dated the 7th June, 750. What is required is a formula which
will (1) fulfil the Prime Minister's pledge and be acceptable to Indian Moslems;
(2) not be capable of being made the basis of political claims under the cloak of
religion ; (3) not impose on the new Arab States any requirement to which they
might reasonably object and which His Majesty's Government as mandatory might be
called upon to enforce. As a result of further very careful consideration here 1
suggest that general saving clause might run : —
" Nothing in this treaty purports to affect or shall be held to affect any spiritual
privileges assigned to the Caliph by the tenets of the Moslem religion." This might
* See footnote on page 5.