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 18^th 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 18^th 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:

1. The emissary of Napoleon (who was supporting the Ottoman Empire against the Russains) be expelled from Constantinople.
2. Moldova and Dilasia be handed over to Russia.
3. 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 19^th 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!

                          Index Isharat               Top

Translation and adaptation of the editorial of Tarjuman Ul Quran for March 2003.