Glimpses of World History

by Jawaharlal Nehru

  Early in 1919 the intrigues and rivalries of the Afghan Court broke out on the surface, and there were two palace revolutions in quick succession. I do not know exactly what happened behind the scenes or who was responsible for these changes. The Amir Habibullah was assassinated, and thereupon his brother Nasrullah became Amir. But very soon Nasrullah was removed and Amanullah, one of the younger sons of Habibullah, became Amir. He followed this up in May 1919 by a petty invasion of India. Exactly what the immediate provocation for this was or who took the initiative I do not know. Probably Amanullah resented any kind of dependence on the British and wanted to establish the full independence of his country. Probably also he thought that the conditions were favourable. Those were the days, you will remember, of martial law in the Punjab and general discontent in India, and a growing agitation among the Muslims over the Khilafat question. Whatever the causes and inducements, an Afghan war with the British resulted. But this war was of a remarkably short duration, and there was very little fighting. In a military sense the British in India were, of course, far stronger than Amanullah, but they were in no mood for war, and some petty incidents were enough to make them come to terms with the Afghans. The result was the recognition of Afghanistan as an independent country, with full control of its foreign relations with other countries. Thus Amanullah had gained his object, and his prestige went up everywhere in Europe and Asia. Naturally he was not in the good books of the British.

  Amanullah began to attract still more attention by the new policy he pursued in his country. This was one of rapid reforms on Western lines— the “westernization” of Afghanistan as it is called. In this work his wife, Queen Souriyah, helped him greatly. She had been educated partly in Europe, and the seclusion of women behind the veil irked her. Thus began the strange process of changing a very backward country in quick time, of pushing and driving the Afghan out of his old ruts into the new ways. Mustafa Kemal Pasha was evidently Amanullah’s ideal, and he tried to copy him in many ways, even making Afghans put on coats and trousers and European hats, and making them shave off their beards. But Amanullah did not have the grit or the ability of Mustafa Kemal. Kemal Pasha had made his position perfectly secure, internationally and nationally, before he started his sweeping reforms. He had an efficient and hardened army at his back and a tremendous prestige with all his people. Amanullah went ahead without these precautions, and his task was far harder, for the Afghans were much more backward than any of the Turks.

  But it is easy to be wise after the event. In the early years of his reign, Amanullah seemed to be carrying everything before him. He sent many Afghan boys and girls to Europe for education. He started many reforms in his administration. He strengthened his international position by treaties with his neighbours and with Turkey. The Soviets had deliberately adopted a generous and friendly policy with all Eastern countries from China to Turkey, and this Soviet friendliness and help had been a great factor in the freeing of Turkey and Persia from foreign control. It must also have been an important factor in the ease with which Amanullah gained his object in his short war against England in 1919. In subsequent years quite a number of treaties and alliances were made between the four Powers: Soviet Russia, Turkey, Persia, and Afghanistan. There was no treaty between all of them jointly, or between any three of them. Each one made a separate, and more or less similar treaty with the other three.

  Afghanistan

  Thus arose a network of treaties in the Middle East strengthening all these countries. I shall give you just a list of these treaties with their dates:

  Turko-Afghan treaty .. .. February 19, 1921.

  Soviet-Turkish treaty .. .. December 17, 1925.

  Turko-Persian treaty .. .. April 22, 1926.

  Soviet-Afghan treaty .. .. August 31, 1926.

  Soviet-Persian treaty .. .. October 1, 1927.

  Perso-Afghan treaty .. .. November 28, 1927.

  These treaties were a triumph for Soviet diplomacy, and were hard blows to British influence in the Middle East. Needless to say, the British Government strongly disapproved of them, and particularly disliked Amanullah’s friendship with and leanings towards Soviet Russia.

  Early in 1928 Amanullah and Queen Souriyah left Afghanistan for a grand tour of Europe. They went to many European capitals—Rome, Paris, London, Berlin, Moscow—and everywhere they had a great reception. All these countries were keen on winning Amanullah’s goodwill for trade and political purposes. He was also given valuable presents. But he played the diplomat and did not commit himself. On his return he visited Turkey and Persia.

  His long tour had attracted much attention. It had increased Amanullah’s prestige; and it had increased greatly Afghanistan’s importance in the world. But all was not well in Afghanistan itself. Amanullah had taken a great risk in leaving his country in the midst of big changes which were upsetting the old routine of life. Mustafa Kemal had never taken this risk. During Amanullah’s long absence all the reactionary people and forces ranged against him gradually came to the front. There were all manner of intrigues, and numerous rumours to discredit him. Money seemed to flow in for this anti-Amanullah propaganda, nobody knew from where. Many mullahs, the priestly ones, seemed to be paid for this work, and they spread all over the country denouncing Amanullah as a kafir, an enemy of the faith. Curious pictures of Queen Souriyah in European evening dress or some negligé were circulated by the thousand in the villages—to show how improperly she used to dress herself. Who was responsible for this widespread and expensive propaganda? The Afghans had neither the money for it nor the training; they were just suitable material for it. It was widely believed and stated in the Middle East and in Europe that the British Secret Service was at the back of this propaganda. Such things can seldom be proved, and no definite evidence was forthcoming to connect the British with this work, though it is said that the Afghan rebels were armed with British rifles. But it was obvious enough that England was interested in weakening Amanullah in Afghanistan.

  While his foundations were being sapped in Afghanistan, Amanullah was enjoying splendid receptions in European capitals. He returned to his country full of fresh zeal for his reforms, full of new ideas, and more impressed than ever by Kemal Pasha, whom he had met at Angora. He set to work immediately to push on these reforms. He abolished the titles of the nobility and tried to curtail the powers of the religious heads. He even tried to make a Cabinet council responsible for the government, thus reducing his own autocratic powers. The emancipation of women was also slowly pushed on.

  Suddenly the smouldering fire broke out, and rebellion flared up towards the end of 1928. Under the leadership of an ordinary water-carrier, Bacha-i-Saqao, this rebellion spread, and in 1929 it triumphed. Amanullah and his Queen ran away, and the water-carrier became the Amir. For five months Bacha-i-Saqao reigned in Kabul, when he was removed by Nadir Khan, a general and minister of Amanullah. Nadir Khan played his own hand, and when he had triumphed he took the ruler’s place himself as Nadir Shah. There were recurring troubles and disturbances in the country, but Nadir Shah continued as the ruler, as he was friendly to England and received help from her. The British Government lent him a large sum of money without interest and provided him with rifles and ammunition. The unsettled conditions in Afghanistan are largely due to its being a buffer State between two powerful rivals.1

  And now I have done with Afghanistan and with western and southern Asia. I shall tell you briefly about some recent happenings in the southeast corner of Asia, and then end this letter.

  East of Burma lies Siam, the only country which has managed to keep its independence in this part of the world. It is jammed in between British Burma and French Indo-China. The country is full of old Indian remains, and its traditions and culture and ceremonies still bear the old Indian impress. Till recently it was an autocratic monarchy, and social conditions were largely feudal, with a small and growing middle class. The title of the kings was frequently, I believe, Rama, another word which brings us back to India
. Thus they were Rama I, Rama II, and so on. During the World War Siam joined the Allies, when the victory of the Allies seemed assured, and later it became a member of the League of Nations.

  In June 1932 there was a coup d’état in Bangkok, the capital of Siam, and the autocratic form of government was ended, giving place to the beginnings of democracy under the control of the Siam People’s Party. A group of young Siamese military officers and others, under the leadership of a lawyer, Luang Pradit, arrested members of the royal family and the principal ministers, and made King Prajadhipok accept a constitution. The King’s powers were limited and a People’s Assembly came into existence. This change had popular support, but it was not due to a mass upheaval. It resembled the military coup by which the Young Turks had ended the despotism of Sultan Abdul Hamid. The King’s quick submission ended the crisis, but the King’s readiness to submit to change was not genuine, and in April 1933 he suddenly dissolved the Assembly and expelled Luang Pradit. Two months later there was another coup d’état and the Assembly was revived. The new government in Siam has not developed any close contacts with England, but inclines much more towards Japan.2

  Nationalism has spread also, and is growing in strength, in French Indo-China to the east of Siam. In trying to suppress the nationalist movement, the French Government have had many conspiracy cases and given long terms of imprisonment to large numbers of people. A revealing statement was made in Geneva at a meeting of the Disarmament Conference in March 1933, by the French representative. This representative, M. Sarraut, had himself been the Governor of French Indo-China. He referred to “the development of nationalism in colonial possessions which were becoming extremely difficult to administer”. He gave the instance of French Indo-China, where 10,000 men were now required to maintain order, as compared to 1500 when he was Governor there.

  Lastly, Java in the Dutch East Indies, famous for its sugar and rubber, and famous also for the terrible exploitation of the people that used to take place on its plantations. With the growth of nationalism have come jointly, as in India, a small measure of reform and a great deal of repression. The great majority of the Javanese are Muslims, and they were affected by the events in western Asia during the World War and after. The growth of the Chinese revolutionary movement in Canton influenced them greatly and they were interested in the non-co-operation movement in India. In 1916 the Javanese were promised constitutional reforms by the Dutch Government, and a People’s Council was set up in Batavia. But this was largely nominated and had little power, and agitation against it continued. A new constitution was granted in 1925, but this made little change and failed to satisfy the people. There were strikes and riots in Java and Sumatra, and in 1927 there was a rising against the Dutch Government. This was crushed with great cruelty. The nationalist movement, however, went on and, on its constructive side, built many national schools and encouraged, as in India, cottage industries and craftsmanship. The struggle for freedom continues. The sugar industry of Java has suffered greatly owing to the world economic slump and the restriction of markets abroad by the imposition of heavy protective duties.

  Early in 1933 a curious incident took place in the eastern seas off Java. The crew of one of the Dutch warships, protesting against a wage-cut, took charge of the ship and sailed away. They did no damage, and they made it clear that they were merely holding out for their wages. It was a kind of aggressive strike. Dutch aeroplanes thereupon bombed this warship, killing many of the crew, and thus took possession of it.

  And now we must leave Asia with its ever-recurring conflicts between nationalism and imperialism, and go to Europe, for Europe demands attention. We have not considered post-war Europe yet, and you must remember that European conditions are still the key to world conditions. So our next few letters will be about Europe.

  Two parts of Asia remain to be considered, two huge areas, the Chinese area and the Soviet area in the north. We must come back to them some time later.

  171

  The Revolution That Did Not Come off

  June 13, 1933

  A well-known English writer, G.K. Chesterton, has said somewhere that the greatest event of the nineteenth century in England was the revolution which did not happen. You will remember that on several occasions during that century England was on the verge of revolution— that is, a social revolution brought about by the petty bourgeoisie and the workers. But always the ruling classes yielded just a little at the last moment, gave an outward share in the parliamentary structure by extending the vote, and also gave a small share in the profits of imperialist exploitation abroad, and thus kept down the impending revolution. They could afford to do so because of their expanding empire and the money they made out of it. The revolution therefore did not take place in England, but its shadow frequently lay over the country, and the fear of it shaped events. Thus a thing that did not actually happen is said to have been the greatest event of the last century.

  In the same way, perhaps, it might be said that the greatest event of the post-war period in Western Europe was the revolution that did not come off. The conditions that produced the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia were present in the central and western European countries also, though in a lesser degree. The principal difference between Russia and the industrialized countries of the West—England, Germany, France, etc.—was the absence of a strong bourgeoisie in Russia. As a matter of fact, according to the Marxist theory, a workers’ revolution was expected to break out first in these advanced industrial countries, and certainly not in backward Russia. But the World War smashed up the rotten old structure of Tsarism, and just because there was no strong middle class to step in and control the government through a parliament of the Western type, the workers’ Soviets seized the power. Thus, curiously enough, the very backwardness of Russia, the very cause of her weakness, became a reason for her to take a bigger step forward than the more advanced countries. The Bolsheviks under Lenin took this step, but they were under no illusions. They knew that Russia was backward and would take time to catch up to the more advanced countries. They hoped that their example in establishing a workers’ republic would spur on the workers of other European countries to revolt against the existing regimes. In this general European social revolution they felt, lay their only hope of survival, for otherwise the young Soviet Government of Russia would be suppressed by the rest of the capitalist world.

  It was in this hope and belief that they broadcast their appeals to the workers of the world in the early days of their revolution. They denounced all imperialist designs to annex territory; they said that they would not make any claim on the basis of the secret treaties between Tsarist Russia and England and France; they made it clear that Constantinople must remain with the Turks. They offered the most generous terms to the Eastern countries and to the many oppressed nationalities of the Tsarist Empire. And, above all, they stood out as the champions of the international working class, calling upon the workers everywhere to follow their example and establish socialist republics. Nationalism, and Russia as a nation, meant nothing to them, except as that part of the world where, for the first time in history, a workers’ government had been established.

  The Bolshevik appeals were suppressed by the German and Allied governments, but they managed to trickle down to the various fronts and the factory areas. Their effect was considerable everywhere, and a noticeable cracking up of the French army was visible. The German army and workers were even more affected. There were even risings and revolts in Germany and Austria and Hungary—the defeated countries— and for many months, or even a year or two, Europe seemed to be on the verge of a mighty social revolution. The victorious Allied countries were a little better off than the defeated ones, for success had toned them up and given them hopes (which were empty enough as subsequent events proved) of making good some of their losses at the expense of the defeated Powers. But even in the Allied countries there was the temper of revolution. Indeed, all over Europe and Asia the air was thick with discont
ent, and the fire of revolution smouldered beneath the surface, and often threatened to break out. There was a difference, however, in the types of discontent in Asia and Europe and in the classes which threatened revolution. In Asia the middle classes were the leaders in the national revolts against Western imperialism; in Europe the working classes threatened to upset the existing bourgeois capitalist social order and to seize power from the middle classes.

  In spite of all these rumblings and portents, nothing like the Russian Revolution broke out in central or western Europe. The old structure was strong enough to resist the attacks made upon it, but these attacks weakened it and frightened it sufficiently to protect Soviet Russia. The Soviets would, in all likelihood, have collapsed before the imperialist Powers in 1919 or 1920 but for this powerful help behind the lines.

  Gradually, as year followed year after the end of the World War, things appeared to settle down to some extent. The revolutionary elements were suppressed by a curious alliance of the reactionary conservatives, monarchists and feudal landlords on the one side, and the moderate socialists or social democrats on the other. This was indeed a strange alliance, for the social democrats proclaimed their faith in Marxism and a workers’ government. Their ideal thus appeared to be, on the surface, the same as that of the Soviets and communists. And yet these social democrats feared the communists more than the capitalists, and combined with the latter to crush the former. Or it may be that they feared the capitalists so much that they did not dare to go against them; they hoped to consolidate their position by peaceful and parliamentary means, and thus bring in socialism almost imperceptibly. Whatever their motives may have been, they helped the reactionary elements to crush the revolutionary spirit, and thus actually brought about a counter-revolution in many of the European countries. This counter-revolution in its turn crushed these very social democratic parties, and new and aggressively anti-socialist forces came into Power. Roughly, events shaped themselves in this way in Europe during the years which followed the World War.