Читать книгу: «Bonaparte in Egypt and the Egyptians of To-day», страница 20

All the old fears as to the real aim of the occupation were reawakened. Have not all the rulers of Egypt sought the conquest of Syria and the Hejaz? Was not this the object of the English?

And there were not wanting those who held that the aim of the English was to stop the construction of the railway to the Hejaz. So little did the people know of the question at issue that many believed Tabah to be a station on the route of the new railway to el Medina and that what the English really wanted was to secure the control of that route. These and many other ideas were freely circulated and discussed, and rumours of the wildest kind were echoed through the bazaars. The English had landed troops on the Syrian coast, a vast army was on its way from Turkey, the Arabs of Arabia were assembling for the protection of the holy lands of Islam. Nothing was too absurd to be repeated or believed. As to what was actually occurring the people had no means of knowing, and while the great majority could not, of course, understand the interests involved, it could and did understand that the English were threatening to make war on the Sultan, and that those to whom it looked for guidance held that it was not in the interests of Egypt, but in those of England, that the war was to be made. What more natural than that there should be excitement in the country? And seeing this the pro-English Press took the very course common sense should have taught it to avoid, and began crying out about "fanaticism" and Pan-Islamism, thus throwing oil into the fire that had begun to smoulder. That the real attitude of the people was wholly and entirely misunderstood by the English generally is beyond question. The one thing that the Egyptians were wishing for was the avoidance of war. The one thing that had given birth to the excitement that arose was the fear that war could not be averted, that the English were determined upon forcing the Sultan's hand. The one question the Egyptians were asking themselves was not, What shall we do if the war breaks out? but, How can war be prevented? Had it not been for the attacks of the pro-English Press upon Moslem sentiment and the oft-repeated statements made as to "unrest" in the country no other thought would have occurred to the people. Those who understood the questions at issue would have felt, as they did and do, aggrieved by the action taken by the English, but they would have given their thought no open utterance and would have trusted to time to see their wishes realised. There was, therefore, absolutely no "unrest" in the country, for I take it that "unrest" implies a desire for, or tendency towards, action, and this is precisely what did not exist. Agitation, uneasiness, and excitement, were visible clearly enough, but "unrest" no. But the wanton and utterly unprovoked anti-Islamic tone of the pro-English Press added one more to the unhealthy influences at work in hindering the progress it should be the first aim of that press to promote. And once more the Egyptian showed his self-control and gave proof of his desire to live in peace and harmony with all. Had this not been so the consequences might have been serious; on the one hand, the anger of a people naturally hasty and impulsive, was being awakened; on the other, a vague, unreasoning fear was beginning to seize the colonists generally.

Fear is a failing that shows itself with many faces and in many phases. There is the timid fear that starts back, "e'en at the sound himself had made"; the panic fear that overwhelms men's reason and sends them madly fleeing they know not where or how; the cowardly fear that palsies the arm, paralyses the brain, and turns men into craven, cowering creatures from whom all manhood has fled; and there is the fear that urges a man to wild, unreflecting action, to strike lest he be struck, the fear of the unbalanced mind that in the sudden presence of apparent danger loses its self-control, the fear of the brave man who for the moment has lost his presence of mind. This was the fear that was seizing many in Egypt when the Tabah excitement was at its height. The cry of alarm that had been raised when the reduction of the army of occupation had been proposed had disturbed the minds of many – good folk who cared nothing for politics, but much for their own peace and comfort. The weather was hot, heavy, brain-heating, and enervating. Had it been otherwise people would not have lost their heads and begun calling for an immediate increase of the army of occupation. It is true that at the prospect of a war between the English and Turkey some of the lower classes had spoken vaingloriously of what the Moslems would do, but that was an incident that no European knowing the people and living among them, thought of as anything but amusing. Yet many Europeans living in the country but, as indeed the great majority of them are, wholly out of touch with the people, scarcely ever meeting or speaking with an Egyptian, living entirely among Europeans, their servants even not being natives but Berbereen negroes, the most fanatical, bigoted, anti-English class in the country, as much out of touch with the Egyptians as the Europeans themselves – these Europeans became seriously alarmed and made their voices heard in the papers and elsewhere. So the cry of danger was echoed and re-echoed, even in official documents, until the announcement was made that the army of occupation was to be increased, and then, their end attained, the agitators began to admit that, after all, the danger from Egyptian fanaticism was a remote and far from pressing one!

The truth is that the danger had been a very serious one. The agitation among the European colonists had begun to react upon the people of the country, and while there was no "unrest" among these, in the sense in which I have used the word, the excitement that was growing was such that the real gravity of the position was rather under- than over-stated in Lord Cromer's report upon the incident. At any moment the excitement that prevailed might have been turned by an unlucky incident into "unrest" of a deplorable and disastrous character. Happily the collapse of the agitation among the colonists reacted upon the people as strongly as the agitation itself had done. Seeing that the Europeans no longer feared an outbreak of hostilities, they themselves became reassured, for the cessation of the agitation among the Europeans was to them evidence that there was no longer any intention of forcing war upon the Sultan and that the English were as anxious for peace as they were.

Hardly had the heat of this incident passed when the country was startled by the report of the Denshawi affair. Telegrams appeared in the papers stating that English officers had been attacked and killed by some of the fellaheen. The Moslem papers, in publishing the telegrams, expressed regret that such an incident had occurred, hoped that the report was exaggerated, but withheld all comment until the facts should be more fully known. Not so the pro-English Press. This at once broke out about the "fanaticism rampant in the country," demanded "an exemplary punishment" and the instant ordering of reinforcements for the army of occupation.

Everywhere, among all classes, the excitement became intense, but the first full account of the affair published calmed the minds of all but a section of the English colony. There had been no murder. The fellaheen had interfered to prevent some English officers shooting pigeons close to their village, and had become very excited when a gun belonging to one of the officers went off and a native woman was accidentally wounded. The officers were attacked by the people and severely beaten with heavy sticks and some of them carried as prisoners, with much ill-treatment, to the village. One of them who had been badly beaten had set out for the camp and was found dead on the road at a considerable distance from the village, his death being due, as medical evidence proved, to the combined effects of the injuries received and exposure to the sun. This was the case as it was heard and understood in Cairo. All the Press condemned the fellaheen, but, with the exception of the pro-English Press, recognised that the affair was simply one of those unhappy occurrences that take place in all countries, and had nothing whatever to do with fanaticism. That the possibility of such incidents had been increased by the disturbed condition of public opinion was evident, but that this case was a direct result of fanaticism was not credited by any in a position to gauge the real feeling of the country.

The Egyptians were very far indeed from sympathising with the outrage, though it was well known that the fellaheen have much cause of complaint from the injuries they suffer at the hands of "sporting" Europeans who, in all parts of the country, trespass freely on their lands, damaging their crops and property, and only too often needlessly offending the people. Yet here again it was not the facts at issue but the tone of the pro-English press that was most abundantly productive of evil. The renewal of the unfounded charges of fanaticism, the repeated cry for "exemplary punishment," the hurry to try the prisoners, the formation of the special Court, various incidents at the hearing of the case, the severity of the sentences, the haste to carry them out – all these things tended to irritate the minds of the people, but of all these it was the tone of the pro-English press that was productive of the greatest evil.

As time passed on, though much soreness of feeling lingered, the agitation was dying out when some Englishmen at home decided to enter upon a campaign against Lord Cromer. These misled by their sympathy with the pretensions of the self-styled "National Party" and backed by a few journalists, rejoiced to find a new and prolific subject, almost simultaneously broke forth in an attack upon Lord Cromer. Taking somewhat different standpoints, they all preached the same moral – that the one thing evil in Egypt was Lord Cromer.

It was perhaps but natural that the Egyptian papers should follow suit. They did so, and for a time it seemed to me that all the progress they had been making towards healthy, honest journalism, was to be swept away. There was something to be said in their excuse. Were they not following the lead of Englishmen? – and of Englishmen who professed to sympathise with all their views? Surely these Englishmen knew how to influence their countrymen; and how, then, could the Egyptians do better than imitate their methods and manner? And for the Egyptian journalists we must remember that they work in the face of disadvantages and difficulties that would appal a London pressman. Their articles are for the most part sent hot from the pen to the press; they have no cautious, well-trained colleagues to advise or aid them in any difficulty, no accomplished, painstaking Readers to point out errors, slips, or inconsistencies in their articles; and the work of writing these articles is liable to a hundred interruptions. All these things must be allowed for; but even granting these as largely excusing the imperfections of the Egyptian journals, there is much left that is a just subject of reproach to the writers. They are far too anxious to swell the chorus of the moment, to harmonise their own ideas with those floating around them, to take the tone and colour of their articles from the reading or conversation from which they have just turned. In short, they lack a right sense of the responsibility of their position, and almost all the mental training absolutely indispensable to the journalist who would take a really honourable position in his profession. In the old days in England, when a man had failed in all else he bought a birch-rod and turned schoolmaster. To-day, the first idea of the young Egyptian who has not been caught up into the Government service, is to become a journalist, for Journalism is looked upon as the one happy profession exacting no other qualification than "the pen of a ready writer." Time will improve all this. The Egyptian press will one day yet be worthy of all that is best in the Egyptian people, and that will prove worthy of the esteem of all men.

Meanwhile, under the malign influence of their English "friends," the Egyptian journalists have done much to injure their own cause. They are crying out for a "representative government" while, by the very articles in which they make their demand, they show the want of self-restraint, of the capacity to appreciate facts, to weigh arguments, to form well-balanced judgments, which are the very first qualifications needed in men who would guide or rule others. And they err in other ways. No one more fully absolves them of all intention to promote or even countenance fanaticism than I do, but as I have said on page 61, when speaking of religious teachers, it is useless for men to preach toleration while they denounce others as "enemies," describe them as "filled with hatred to the people," and so forth. In the days of "Harry Lorrequer," when a greatly daring dun or bailiff ventured into the great square at Trinity College in Dublin, he was fortunate indeed if he did not hear the cry of "Oh! boys, boys! don't nail his ear to the pump." I do not think that the professed toleration of the Egyptian press is of this type, but I am certain that, accompanied with wild, unreasoning "criticisms," it is only too likely to have the same effect.

For the young Egyptian of the so-called "Nationalist" party there is also something to be said. His education separates him almost wholly from the bulk of his countrymen. His ideals, his aspirations are not theirs. He comprehends and understands them as little almost as do the foreigners in the country. With his lack of that home-training which forms the Englishman's character far more than aught else, and with his imperfect knowledge of French or English and of European life and thought, he falls an easy, self-sacrificing prey to that ultra-Radicalism which is the refuge of the brainless and uneducated in the political world of Europe. In doing so he belies his own nature, decries his countrymen, and disparages his religion. Rightly named the party to which he attaches himself should be termed the "Anti-Egyptian and Anti-Islamic" party, and yet this is the class that Lord Cromer's assailants would have Europeans accept as the representatives of the Egyptian people!

If there is a party in Europe essentially and wholly in all its forms and all its aspirations anti-Islamic, it is the ultra-Radical party. Yet it is this party that the "Nationalist" party of Egypt is pleased to accept as its ally. Radicals and Radicalism are the ideals that Mustapha Pacha Kamel holds out to the Egyptians. He does not use the terms, but the principles he advocates are those proper to the terms. He may call himself a Mahomedan but the policy he preaches is the policy of a Radical, and a man cannot be both a Radical and a Mahomedan. If, then, the "Nationalists" desire to promote reform, to protect and develop their own interests, let them fling their Radicalism aside and return to Islam.

As Spencer has shown, the social and political history of mankind is the history of an evolution. Whether created in the image of God, or slowly developed from some primitive amorphous atom, so far as we can trace our origin, man has been moving, on the whole steadily, though with many halts and set-backs, towards perfection. As yet our civilisation – the highest point yet reached – is but a miserable makeshift for that we should aim at. Let us hope that when the present agitation shall have died out Englishmen and Egyptians will find it possible to join hands in an effort for the mutual attainment of something better.

Thirty years ago in India I preached the doctrine that the welfare of the Indian Empire and its peoples was to be sought in the mutual understanding and co-operation of rulers and ruled. Twelve years ago I began to preach the same doctrine to the Egyptians. To-day I repeat it. Some time ago, urging my views on a Moslem friend, he said, "There is only one thing needed to make your policy a success – that all the Egyptians should be angels and all the English archangels." There is an evident moral in the criticism that needs no pointing. Knowing Englishmen and Egyptians as I do, I believe that the flood of evil that has swept between them will pass away and that even out of all this evil some good will come. If Englishmen in Egypt and at home will but try to realise the patient forbearance, the manly self-control that the Egyptian has been and is practising under the steadily pressing burthen of the unhealthy influences of which I have written, I have so much faith in the English sense of justice, fairplay, and manly straightforwardness, as to believe that these qualities will compel them in the near future, if not now, to form a new estimate of the Egyptian, and to feel that, with all his faults, he has some sterling merits and is a man to whom all honest, right-thinking men may fitly hold out the hand of friendship. It is my hope that what I have written may tend to this effect, and help to bring about a good understanding between the two peoples.

The English can, if they will but do justice to their own better feelings, gain and retain the sincere friendship of the Egyptian people, and in gaining that friendship they will gain the friendship of all Islam, and thereby acquire a power and influence in the East such as they can gain in no other way – a power and influence that must prove of endless benefit not only to the British Empire but to the world at large. But if this result is to be attained the Egyptian must contribute his share of effort to realise it. That he should do so needs nothing more than that he should follow his own healthy and natural inclinations and the teaching of his religion, and in doing this he will be serving not only the cause of Egypt, but that of Islam; he will be benefiting not only his own countrymen, but all Mahomedans. In this way, and in this way only, will he find all his best aspirations become not merely possibilities, but actualities, and Egypt will take its rightful place as the great centre and fountain of all Mahomedan progress. If, on the other hand, he allows himself to be seduced by the plausible speech of Radical agitators and, following the advice of Mustapha Pacha Kamel and his party, abandons the teaching of Islam for the teaching of Radicalism, he will assuredly defeat his own aims and sacrifice the claim of his countrymen to be the true leaders in the world of Islam.

CHAPTER XXI
TO-DAY AND TO-MORROW

So far I have spoken of the Egyptians collectively, and I have aimed at sketching as faithfully as possible, not the views or ideas of a class but those which are common to the whole body of the people of all ranks and grades. Whether there is any one Egyptian, or any class of the Egyptians, to whom my description might be applied without any qualification or modification is probably doubtful, but that that description, taken in the sense and to the extent intended, is absolutely correct there is no doubt whatever. The Egyptians of to-day are divided in opinion upon many points, social, political, and religious; how much so is evident in the fact that of their many newspapers and periodicals not one is wholly and fully in accord with any other. To have attempted to give the reader a well-defined portrait of each and all of the classes thus formed – had it been possible to do so – could only have resulted in bewildering him; all the more so that, as yet, there is no one class in the country that is not undergoing, more or less consciously, a process of change. It is scarcely possible that it should be otherwise. I have written, so far, entirely in vain if I have not succeeded in conveying to the mind of my reader a clear conception of the fact that the people are as yet but slowly feeling their way towards the adoption of a definite social and political programme. In the maze of conflicting ideas resulting from this condition there are clear and indisputable evidences of a general tendency towards the final acceptance of certain principles that, once definitely adopted, must dominate the whole future of the people. Of these the most prominent is that internal and external peace are absolutely essential to the welfare of the country and of the people, collectively and individually. Of any one thousand Egyptians taken at random from among any grade or large class of the people, I am certain there are not ten who do not sincerely hold this opinion. One and all desire a greater or less change in existing conditions, but they desire that change to be wrought without any sudden or violent disturbance of those conditions. This, without any qualification whatever, is the fact that is the most essential to be realised at the present moment by anyone who would understand the Egyptian of to-day. It is the one influence that practically controls all the others that are affecting the people. The existence of the "Nationalist" party does not in the least disprove this, nor does the popularity of the organs of that party disprove it. The attacks upon the English occupation so widely spread in the country, and almost as widely applauded, have no more influence upon the people than a "transpontine" melodrama of the old type had upon the "gods" who roared themselves hoarse in rapturous applause of its most virtuous sentiments. All the Arab-speaking peoples are alike in this – that there is nothing else that can so stir their enthusiasm or so fill them with delight as the sonorous melody of well-turned phrases and sentences in their native tongue. If the sense of what they hear be clear and evident, they enjoy it the more, but however dense and impenetrable its meaning may be, the music, the rhythm and harmony of its sounds draws their applause. So even the most illiterate of the people will listen with keen enjoyment to a long political article of which the meaning of all but a sentence or two is wholly beyond their comprehension. Thus the glowing periods of the Nationalist Press find ready applause, but awaken no echo in the hearts of the people. Unfortunately it is only too much the same with the papers of a higher type, and these labour under the disadvantage that, of necessity, their articles dealing with prosaic topics do not admit of the ornate style of their rivals. None the less it is unquestionable that it is these papers which are exercising the greatest influence upon the thoughts and ambitions of the people, and their influence is, as I have said, almost wholly one for good. The great mass of the people listen to the reading of the newspapers just as the great majority of church-going people at home listen to sermons – as most edifying and commendable, but as having no practical bearing upon the affairs of life – yet, as I have already pointed out, the Moayyad has been, and is, exerting a wider and always growing influence, and is not only teaching the people to think, but teaching them to think clearly and well.

And now we may look for a moment at the Egyptian as an individual. To do justice to this subject would need a volume, not a paragraph. Fortunately the reader can turn to "Lane's Modern Egyptians," in the pages of which he will find a wealth of detailed information needing but little modification to bring it up to date, though it fails to give a clear, well-defined idea of the Egyptian in his daily life. Let me attempt to supply this deficiency, by saying that, according to his class, the average Egyptian corresponds very closely with the average Englishman. Roughly, the whole of the people may be divided into five classes. First, the Ulema, the natural leaders of all the others; secondly, the wealthy landowners and others of independent means; thirdly, the "educated," mainly professional men and Government servants; fourthly, the great middle class of small land and house owners, lower grades of the Government services, merchants, and so forth; fifthly, the working classes, including artisans, craftsmen, labourers, and all who work for their living. Of each class a book might be written, yet I may sum up in broad but accurate outline the character of each by saying that it is in the main that of the same class at home. Let me take the middle-class man. Getting through his morning and the day's work, his one idea is to reach home. On his way by train or tram he greets cordially his acquaintances, discusses with them the news of the day, compares their business or official experiences, growls at the shortcomings of the Government or the tramways, deplores the growing cost of living, and laughs over the latest joke or jest. Once home, he has his favourite easy-chair and newspapers, and has an hour or so of rest with these, seasoned with the chat of the harem as to the misdoings of the children or of the servants, the coming of visitors, household finance, and a hundred other topics. Then out for an hour or so to this favourite café, where he reads the latest papers – Moslem and Christian – and has a game or two of backgammon, all the while taking an active part in the brisk fire of conversation going on around him. Then home again to the ease and comfort of the harem, or possibly to entertain some visitors with the unstinted hospitality of his race. Then supper, and then to bed. And through all the day, at home, in his office, on his way to and fro, if you could but follow his doings and his sayings, you would find him in both a very close copy of the man of the same class at home, interested in the same subjects, discussing the same matters, laughing at the same type of jest, grumbling at the same grievances, and withal a man anxious to please and be agreeable, and easily pleased and conciliated. Freer than the Englishman in his amities and friendships, ready to chat or joke with his barber or his baker, but, like the Englishman, most at ease and enjoying himself best in his own special circle.

And now I must hasten to a conclusion, and reply briefly to one or two questions that my reader may possibly be inclined to ask.

What has the occupation done for the Egyptians?

It has secured them the personal freedom they so highly prize, it has given them the liberty of getting, keeping, or spending wealth, a free Press, a knowledge and keen appreciation of the advantages of a properly organised Government, a clearer perception of the natural "rights of man" and of the personal dignity of the humblest, and, as a result of these, enlarged ambitions and aspirations, greater independence of spirit, and a better conception of the interdependence of each one upon his fellow-men.

Not much in mere words, but in the reality of the resulting whole an entirely immeasurable amount of good – an amount of good no living man can even approximately estimate, much less appreciate. Possibly some of our children's children will be able to form some adequate conception of its greatness. We of to-day can no more understand its meaning than did the Barons at Runnymede understand the meaning of the great charter they wrung from the unwilling John.

Has the occupation failed in any respect?

It has in two vitally important matters. It has not in any way qualified the people or any class of the people to undertake the government of the country. It has not educated the people, or done anything whatever to ensure the permanency of the good that has been done.

As to these failures, I do not think that any other result could have been attained under the circumstances that have prevailed. Lord Cromer, as a sincere well-wisher of the people and a man of advanced liberal opinion and progressive mind, was the man of all others to work for these things directly and openly if it had been possible for him to do so; but it was not possible, or has only become so since the evacuation of Fachoda. Up to that event the only possible form of Government by which the welfare of the country and of its people could be secured, was that which Lord Cromer adopted – a "benevolent despotism." No other form of Government could by any conceivable possibility have attained the results that have been attained, and that form of Government could only attain those results when in the hands of a man such as Lord Cromer. None the less, as Mill has said, a benevolent despotism "is an altogether false ideal… Evil for evil, a good despotism, in a country at all advanced in civilisation, is more noxious than a bad one; for it is more relaxing and enervating to the thoughts, feelings, and energies of the people." In Egypt, however, this effect is modified by the attachment of the people to the Turkish Empire, by their objection to non-Moslem rulers, and by all the unhealthy influences of which I have spoken; but while the great mass of the people would much prefer to see the administration of the country entirely in the hands of Mahomedans, they have absolutely no desire for any other change in the present form of the Government.

To-day, in spite of all that has been done, Egypt in one most vital matter stands absolutely far behind the position it occupied when the English occupation commenced. Then there was a governing class in the country – a "misgoverning" class, if you will, yet a class that had some conception of, and experience in the art of governing; a class the members of which were accustomed to bear the responsibility of Ministers. To-day that class, and those men, have ceased to exist.

If there had been no foreign intervention at the time of Arabi's revolt, if the Egyptians had been left to work out their own destiny, there would in all probability have been a long period of wild disorder and anarchy such as followed the French evacuation. That in its turn would have been followed by the rise of a new Mahomed Ali. The occurrence of this sequence of events would have been absolutely certain and inevitable, the only doubtful point being how long the anarchy might have lasted. As it was, there was no man in the country competent to deal with the crisis. Nor was there one in Europe. England was the only country that had a man willing to face the task, and he undertook it under conditions that for a long time rendered it an almost impossible one. The success Lord Cromer has attained is the one and only justification of the occupation as far as its initiation is concerned. In itself the occupation was essentially a blunder. Having been undertaken, only British pluck and resolution could save it from disaster, and even these, without a man like Lord Cromer to guide them, would very certainly have failed. But the Egypt of 1906 is not the Egypt of 1882. A new revolt, could we imagine its occurrence, would now bring a party, not an individual, into power. There is no man in the country who could by any possible combination of favouring circumstances establish himself as a despotic ruler. Nor is there any one party that could seize the government of the country and hold it. Anarchy would therefore be inevitable, yet it would not be the helpless, hopeless anarchy of former days, but that of rival parties with more or less definite aims and more or less stable cohesion. The only possible salvation of the country after the departure of the French was the rise of a despot like Mahomed Ali. The only possible salvation it could have after a collapse of the existing system, would be the triumph of a party, or a renewed occupation by England or some other Power. But omitting all consideration of the latter contingency, the rivalry of parties would be a rivalry of systems; the men engaged in it would fight – as do those of all parties – largely and mainly for their own interests, but they would fight under the banner of some principle through the profession or adoption of which they would seek the support of the people, and they would, one and all, at least profess a standard consistent in the main with European ideas. The struggle would be a long and exhausting one. The country and the people would suffer heavily, but in the end the Egyptian – if left to do so – would work out his own salvation and a strong Government, built upon sound and healthy lines, would start a new era. Unfortunately the one condition necessary to the attainment of this result – the non-interference of any outside Power – this one condition would be wanting. Hence the collapse of the British occupation would be fatal to all the interests of the country and its people. Nor would the withdrawal of the occupation with all adequate precautions for the preserval of order and a capable administration be much less disastrous, if prior to that something has not been done to qualify the people for self-government.