Mr. Candler seems to suggest that my goal is something more than merely attaining justice on the Khilafat.  If so, he is right.  Attainment of justice is undoubtedly the corner-stone, and if I found that I was wrong in my conception of justice on this question, I hope I shall have the courage immediately to retrace my steps.  But by helping the Mahomedans of India at a critical moment in their history, I want to buy their friendship.  Moreover, if I can carry the Mahomedans with me I hope to wean Great Britain from the downward path along which the Prime Minister seems to me to be taking her.  I hope also to show to India and the Empire at large that given a certain amount of capacity for self-sacrifice, justice can be secured by peacefullest and cleanest means without sowing or increasing bitterness between English and Indians.  For, whatever may be the temporary effect of my methods, I know enough of them to feel certain that they alone are immune from lasting bitterness.  They are untainted with hatred, expedience or untruth.

IN PROCESS OF KEEPING

The writer of ‘Current Topics’ in the “Times of India” has attempted to challenge the statement made in my Khilafat article regarding ministerial pledges, and in doing so cites Mr. Asquith’s Guild-Hall speech of November 10, 1914.  When I wrote the articles, I had in mind Mr. Asquith’s speech.  I am sorry that he ever made that speech.  For, in my humble opinion, it betrayed to say the least, a confusion of thought.  Could he think of the Turkish people as apart from the Ottoman Government?  And what is the meaning of the death-knell of Ottoman Dominion in Europe and Asia if it be not the death knell of Turkish people as a free and governing race?  Is it, again, true historically that the Turkish rule has always been a blight that ’has withered some of the fairest regions of the earth?’ And what is the meaning of his statement that followed, viz., “Nothing is further from our thoughts than to imitate or encourage a crusade against their belief?” If words have any meaning, the qualifications that Mr. Asquith introduced in his speech should have meant a scrupulous regard for Indian Muslim feeling.  And if that be the meaning of his speech, without anything further to support me I would claim that even Mr. Asquith’s assurance is in danger of being set at nought if the resolutions of the San Remo Conference are to be crystallised into action.  But I base remarks on a considered speech made by Mr. Asquith’s successor two years later when things had assumed a more threatening shape than in 1914 and when the need for Indian help was much greater than in 1914.  His pledge would bear repetition till it is fulfilled.  He said:  “Nor are we fighting to deprive Turkey of its capital or of the rich and renowned lands of Asia Minor and Thrace which are predominantly Turkish in race.  We do not challenge the maintenance of the Turkish Empire in the homelands of the Turkish