File 3579/1916 'Turkey: the future of Constantinople' [‎31r] (70/530)

Circulated by the Secretary of State for India. ^ i u
SECRET . • ^30^ 0
The Future of Constantinople.
x
I have read Lord CuiWs Memorandum on this subject and would offer a few
observations.
(1) 1 think that. Indian Mohammedan opinion is entitled to greater consideration
Jhe very tact that the misfortunes of Turkey during the war have been borne by
them without excitement is only a testimony of their loyalty to the British Throne
and .does not mean m tiro least that there has not been a conflict between their
tempolal and spnitual allegiance which lias placed upon them a severe strain. They
aie entitled to Recognition of then demeanour under this strain, and it would surelv
be an act of mg latitude and of cynicism to say to them i 41 Because you were so
loyal, because } ou did not show more excitement, because you have
helped us in our ^ war, because you have actually ' provided soldiers to
“ fight against the Turkish arms, we are going now to expel your fellow
Mohammedans fiom Luiope. I would argue directly in the opposite
direction. 1 would say that in making peace with Turkey we have got to
teach the lurk that lie is beaten, we have got to deal with him firmly,
we have not got to allow him to regard himself as in any way triumphant, and
it was for that reason that I have always been anxious to sever his connection with
Mesopotamia and Arabia, and that 1 am so anxious that lie should be compelled
to obey completely the terms imposed upon him in the armistice concluded with him.
But we are not turning the Austrians or the Germans out of their capital. I do not
see why we should for these purposes turn the Turk out of his capital. It is not that
the Indian Mohammedan has sanctity or reverence for Constantinople; it is that we
ought not to deal this blow to a Muslim Power when we have achieved victory over
it with the assistance of Muslim arms, and I would remind the Cabinet that the
Prime Minister himself said : “ We are not fighting to deprive Turkey of its capital,”
and again, “ Great .Britain did not challenge the maintenance of Turkey, or of the
“ Turks in the homeland of the Turkish race with its capital of Constantinople.”
1 would add that notwithstanding the self-restraint of our Muslim fellow-subjects
during the war, notwithstanding the active participation of Muslim troops in many
theatres, it has been impossible to include a Muslim representative of India in partici
pation in the Councils of the Empire. This point‘has been constantly brought to my
notice in many communications from India, and now that we are dealing with
something of such great interest to Islam, it would seem to me to behove us to
consider Islamic interests all the more because the Muslims are not directly
represented in our Councils.
2. 1 would next point out that if we are to turn the Turk out of Constantinople
despite these arguments, let us be sure that we have some satisfactory alternative.
Lord Curzon has stated so fairly the arguments for and against any solution of this
difficult question that 1 would venture to say that we had better leave the Turk there
simply because we can find no satisfactory alternative. I do not mean by this that
I do not regard it as vital that the navigation of the Straits, including the Dardanelles,
the Sea of Marmora and the Bosphorus, should in future be open in peace and war
to the ships of all nations, nor do I mean that the Turks should he left any of the
territory that they now occupy in Europe. But I would point out that Lord Curzon
argues that America is unlikely to accept the charge. He shows clearly the objections
to any other great Power and to a small neutral State, and he has to fall hack upon
an international Commission, hut he suggests that it is impossible to conceive of this
with the Turks still in Constantinople. I agree with Lord Curzon that if the remedy
which he suggests were adopted, it would probably entail the return of San Sophia
to Christianity. Now to my mind it is not a question of history ; it is a question of
the actual condition of affairs, and it seems to me inevitable that to interfere with
the Mosque of San Sophia or any other mosque must he regarded as a deliberate
anti-Muslim act. 1 am perfectly certain that whatever might be thought of turning
the Turk out of Constantinople, this action would he very much resented in India,
and I therefore ask whether it is worth while to remove the Turk from Constantinople
to embark on new anti-Muslim action which will he resented by those who have stood
by us loyally in India, however patiently they may bear it, in order to adopt any of
the solutions which have been suggested by Lord Curzon and others who have written
on the subject.
8th January 1919.
10 SS 31 45 1/19
e. s. m;