Letter from Sir Frederic Aarthur Hirtzel, India Office, to the Under Secretary of State, Foreign Office, dated 13 Sep 1922 [‎5r] (9/10)

9
follow Article 139, which might be modified by substituting "The Turkish Govern
ment renounces formally all political rights " for lirst seven words and by inserting
"political" between " Turkish" and "authority." The two articles are intended to
be complementary, and I should deprecate the former without the latter. I hope you
will accept these formulae. Please telegraph whether there are any other articles of
treaty that you wish modified in this connection. What are your views regarding
Article 121 ?
ENCLOSURE No. 11 :— Telegram from Viceroy to Secretary of State, 24i /f, Juhj
1922.
907 S. 'lour telegram of 11th July, 2G'!6. We are grateful for the marked
approximation of our views aitorded by the formula you now propose for the general
saving clause, and it is only supreme importance of the subject that constrains us to
press for modifications. "Spiritual privilege(s) " i« an obviousl5 r inadequate
t description of the (Jaliph's spiritual power, which the Prime Minister promised was
not to be interfered with. If our own wording " spiritual authority" is still thought
unacceptable, we would urge, at any rate, the substitution of " spiritual rights and
privileges." Tenet by itself is inadequate, since such religious ceremonies as the
Kiswah and Mahmal, which Moslems desire to see restored {vide our telegram
No. 498), are matters ot" immemorial usage, not ol tenet; wording we recommend
therefore is " any spiritual rights and privileges assigned to the Caliphs by the tenets
or usage ot" the Moslem religion." With the incorporation of this general clause is / ,
there still any serious objection to the insertion of "political" W temporal " in ■
Articles 98 and 132? Combined eltect of these changes would, we believe, satisfy
Moslem sentiment all over the world that the Khilafat was sufficiently protected.
So vital is the general clause that we urge it should be given all possible prominence.
This might perhaps best be secured by placing the general provisions headed by this
article in the forefront of Part 3 of the treaty. The nearer the general clause stands
to the Iledjaz section the better, and the order of articles might, with advantage, be
reshuffled accordingly. \\ e accept your re-draft of the opening words of Article 139.
Does it not render superfluous retention of the words "or jurisdiction of any kind " ?
We are not clear on what principle the terms " Turkey " and " Turkish Government "
-are employed in the treat}*. If they are meant to be synonymous, we suggest that
the latter be used throughout. In any case we press that it should be used in the
re-draft of Article 132 and also in Article 98.
As regards Article 121, we obviously cannot endorse the renunciation of " rights
and privileges" secured to the Sultan in Libya under the Treaty of Lausanne, seeing
that it is precisely "rights and privileges" of this nature that we desire to see
safeguarded generally, nor can we imagine the Italian Government will now take a
different view.
As regards other articles, we have nothing further to urge in connection with
maintenance of Sultan Caliph's position. As regards territorial changes to be made
in the treaty, we abide, of course, by our telegram of the 28th February, No. 266 S.
In Article 100 we recommend "territory" be altered to "ports," not merely to bring
the treaty into consonance with the facts, but to avoid all possible loopholes for
misrepresentation that King Hussain is being forced to open Hedjaz to non-Moslems
at dictation of non-Moslem Powers.
ENCLOSURE No. 12 :— Telegram from Secretary of Stateto Viceroy, \2tli August 1922.
3125. Your telegram dated the 24th July, 967 S. As regards general saving
clause, one difficulty 1 feel i.-. that French and English terms when translated into
Arabic or Urdu may connote something quite different. Canyon tell me how terms
" spiritual rights" and "spiritual authority" would be translated, and what they
would mean to a Moslem as translated? If, as I am led to believe, nearest equivalents
in Arabic or Urdu are terms which would necessarily import the whole mechanism of
the Islamic State we are at once up against the difficulty that the use of such terms
may form the basis of fresh political claims in the future, which has notoriously been
the reason why the pan-Islamic party have tried to insist on them in the past.
It would also be convenient to know what are the rights or authority which would
thus be preserved to the Caliph. For example, do you contemplate that the Sultan
of Turkey while Caliph should appoint the Kazis in independent Arab States ?