consenting its will by awarding titles, medals and ribbons, by giving you employment, by its superior financial ability to open for its employees avenues for enriching themselves and finally when these fail, it resorts to force.  That is what Sir Michael O’Dwyer did and that is almost every British administrator will certainly do if he thought it necessary.  If then we would not be greedy, if we would not run after titles and medals and honorary posts which do the country no good, half the battle is won.

My advisers are never tired of telling me that even if the Turkish peace terms are revised it will not be due to non-co-operation.  I venture to suggest to them that non-co-operation has a higher purpose than mere revision of the terms.  If I cannot compel revision I must at least cease to support a government that becomes party to the usurpation.  And if I succeed in pushing non-co-operation to the extreme limit, I do compel the Government to choose between India and the usurpation.  I have faith enough in England to know that at that moment England will expel her present jaded ministers and put in others who will make a clean sweep of the terms in consultation with an awakened India, draft terms that will be honourable to her, to Turkey and acceptable to India.  But I hear my critics say “India has not the strength of purpose and the capacity for the sacrifice to achieve such a noble end.  They are partly right.  India has not these qualities now, because we have not—­shall we not evolve them and infect the nation with them?  Is not the attempt worth making?  Is my sacrifice too great to gain such a great purpose?”

CRITICISM OF THE MUSLIM MANIFESTO

The Khilafat representation addressed to the Viceroy and my letter on the same subject have been severely criticised by the Anglo-Indian press. The Times of India which generally adopts an impartial attitude has taken strong exception to certain statements made in the Muslim manifesto and has devoted a paragraph of its article to an advance criticism of my suggestion that His Excellency should resign if the peace terms are not revised.

The Times of India excepts to the submission that the British Empire may not treat Turkey like a departed enemy.  The signatories have, I think, supplied the best of reasons.  They say “We respectfully submit that in the treatment of Turkey the British Government are bound to respect Indian Muslim sentiment in so far as it is neither unjust nor unreasonable.”  If the seven crore Mussulmans are partners in the Empire, I submit that their wish must be held to be all sufficient for refraining from punishing Turkey.  It is beside the point to quote what Turkey did during the war.  It has suffered for it. The Times inquires wherein Turkey has been treated worse than the other Powers.  I thought that the fact was self-evident.  Neither Germany nor Austria and Hungary has been treated in the same way that Turkey has been.  The whole of the Empire has been reduced to the retention of a portion of its capital, as it were, to mock the Sultan and that too has been done under terms so humiliating that no self-respecting person much less a reigning sovereign can possibly accept.