continued oppression of one people by another. When an assurance was
given at the beginning of the war to the Indian Mahomedans that the
Mahomedan religion would be respected, that could never have meant
that a temporal sovereignty which violated the principles of
self-determination would be upheld. We could not now stand by and see
the Turks re-conquer the Arabs (for the Arabs would certainly fight
against them) without grossly betraying the Arabs to whom we have
given pledges. It is not true that the Arab hostility to the Turks
was due simply to European suggestion. No doubt, during the war we
availed ourselves of the Arab hostility to the Turks to get another
ally, but the hostility had existed long before the war. The
Non-Turkish Mahomedan subjects of the Sultan in general wanted to get
rid of his rule. It is the Indian Mahomedans who have no experience
of that rule who want to impose it on others. As a matter of fact the
idea of any restoration of Turkish rule in Syria or Arabia, seems so
remote from all possibilities that to discuss it seems like
discussing a restoration of the Holy Roman Empire. I cannot conceive
what series of events could bring it about. The Indian Mahomedans
certainly could not march into Arabia themselves and conquer the
Arabs for the Sultan. And no amount of agitation and trouble in India
would ever induce England to put back Turkish rule in Arabia. In this
matter it is not English Imperialism which the Indian Mahomedans are
up against, but the mass of English Liberal and Humanitarian opinion,
the mass of the better opinion of England, which wants
self-determination to go forward in India. Supposing the Indian
Mahomedans could stir up an agitation so violent in India as to sever
the connection between India and the British Crown, still they would
not be any nearer to their purpose. For to-day they do have
considerable influence on British world-policy. Even if in this
matter of the Turkish question their influence has not been