BSH 315

History of West Asia from Mid 19th Century to 1945 A.D.

Semester – V

By @Harshit Sharma

Unit I

Political, Economic and Social Condition of West Asia in Mid

19th Century
Political Condition

Introduction:

Conservatism, as a political and philosophical ideology, has been a prominent force in European
history, often playing a pivotal role in shaping the continent’s political landscape.

I. The Origins of Conservatism (Late 18th Century – Early 19th Century):

A. Reaction to the French Revolution:

The French Revolution (1789-1799) and its radical ideas, which aimed to transform
society and politics, spurred the emergence of conservatism as a reaction. Conservative
thinkers like Edmund Burke in the UK and Joseph de Maistre in France emphasized the
importance of tradition, hierarchy, and stability.

B. Traditionalism:

Early conservatives defended the traditional institutions of monarchy, church, and

aristocracy. They believed that these institutions provided stability and order in society.

II. Conservatism in the 19th Century:

A. Metternich and the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815):

Following the Napoleonic Wars, the Congress of Vienna sought to restore the pre-
revolutionary order in Europe. Prince Klemens von Metternich, the Austrian foreign
minister, was a leading figure in the conservative effort to suppress revolutionary forces
and uphold the legitimacy of monarchs.

B. Role of Religion:

Religion played a central role in 19th-century conservatism. The Catholic Church, in

particular, was seen as a pillar of order and authority. Conservatives were often
defenders of religious orthodoxy.

C. Romanticism and Nationalism:

In some cases, conservatism became intertwined with Romanticism, emphasizing the

beauty of tradition and the uniqueness of different national cultures. This connection
could take a more nationalist form, contributing to the rise of nation-states.
III. Conservatism in the 20th Century:

A. Response to World Wars:

The devastation of World War I led to a resurgence of conservative thought as people

sought stability and order in the aftermath of the conflict.

B. Interwar Period:

During the interwar period, conservatives were divided in their response to the rise of
authoritarian movements like fascism and communism. Some conservatives supported
these movements as a bulwark against socialism, while others resisted their radicalism.

C. Post-World War II:

After World War II, conservatism reemerged as a powerful political force. Figures like
Winston Churchill in the UK and Konrad Adenauer in Germany represented a more
moderate form of conservatism focused on rebuilding and maintaining democratic
institutions.

IV. Contemporary Conservatism (Late 20th Century – Present):

A. Neoconservatism:

In the late 20th century, neoconservatism gained prominence in the United States.
Neoconservatives advocated for a strong foreign policy and a commitment to spreading
democracy and free-market capitalism.

B. European Conservatism:

In Europe, conservative parties such as the Christian Democratic Union in Germany and
the Conservative Party in the UK have played pivotal roles in post-war politics. They
often combine conservative values with support for the welfare state.

C. Populist Conservatism:

The 21st century has seen the rise of populist conservative movements, which often
emphasize issues like immigration, national identity, and skepticism toward global
institutions. Figures like Viktor Orban in Hungary and Marine Le Pen in France
represent this trend.

Conclusion:

Conservatism in Europe has evolved significantly over the centuries. It originated as a response to
the upheaval of the French Revolution, championing traditional institutions and values. In the 19th
century, it was characterized by efforts to maintain order and resist radical change. In the 20th
century, conservatism responded to the challenges of two world wars, ideological conflicts, and the
demand for post-war reconstruction. In contemporary politics, conservatism has taken various
forms, from neoconservatism’s international interventionism to populist conservatism’s emphasis
on cultural and national issues. This adaptability is a testament to conservatism’s enduring influence
on the political and social landscape of Europe.

Economic Condition
The mid-19th century in Europe was a period of significant economic change, characterized by the
spread of industrialization, urbanization, and the expansion of global trade.

I. Industrial Revolution:

A. Technological Advancements:

The mid-19th century marked the peak of the Industrial Revolution, characterized by the
widespread use of steam engines, mechanization of factories, and innovations in
transportation, such as the development of railroads and steamships. These technological
advancements transformed the economic landscape.

B. Growth of Manufacturing:

Industrialization led to the rapid growth of manufacturing industries, particularly in

textiles, iron and steel production, and coal mining. These sectors saw the proliferation
of factories and the shift from cottage industries to large-scale production.

C. Urbanization:

The Industrial Revolution spurred a significant migration from rural areas to burgeoning
industrial cities. Cities like Manchester, Birmingham, and London in the United
Kingdom, and cities across the European continent, experienced explosive population
growth.

D. Social and Labor Changes:

The industrial workforce expanded, with laborers working long hours in often harsh
conditions. This era also witnessed the rise of trade unions and labor movements,
advocating for workers’ rights and better working conditions.

II. Global Trade and Colonial Expansion:

A. Imperialism:

European nations, particularly Britain and France, expanded their colonial empires,
seeking new markets, raw materials, and opportunities for investment. Imperialism had
significant economic implications, as it led to the exploitation of colonial resources and
the establishment of trade networks.

B. Mercantilism and Capitalism:

The mid-19th century saw a transition from the mercantilist economic model to
capitalism. Capitalism emphasized free markets, private enterprise, and the pursuit of
profit. This shift played a crucial role in shaping the economic conditions of the era.

III. Transportation and Communication:

A. Railroads:

The expansion of railroads revolutionized transportation, making it easier and more

cost-effective to move goods and people across vast distances. This connectivity
facilitated trade and economic growth.

B. Telegraph:

The invention and widespread adoption of the telegraph revolutionized communication,

enabling rapid transmission of information. This development was crucial for
 businesses, financial markets, and governments.

IV. Banking and Finance:

A. Financial Markets:

The mid-19th century saw the growth of modern financial systems, including the
development of stock markets and banking institutions. This expansion provided capital
for industrial projects and facilitated investment.

B. The Gold Standard:

Several European countries adopted the gold standard, which pegged their currencies to
a specific quantity of gold. This standardization promoted stability in international trade
and finance.

V. Economic Disparities:

A. Social Inequalities:

While industrialization brought economic growth, it also exacerbated income

inequalities. The working class often faced poor living conditions, low wages, and
limited social protections.

B. Agricultural Changes:

The agrarian sector experienced significant transformations, including the enclosure

movement in the United Kingdom and the shift from subsistence farming to cash-crop
production. These changes impacted rural economies and communities.

VI. Economic Theories and Ideologies:

A. Laissez-Faire Economics:

Classical liberal economic theories, including those of Adam Smith and David Ricardo,
advocated for minimal government intervention and free-market capitalism. These ideas
influenced economic policies and practices.

B. Socialism and Communism:

The mid-19th century also witnessed the emergence of socialist and communist
ideologies, led by thinkers like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. These ideologies
challenged the capitalist system and called for workers’ rights and social ownership of
the means of production.

Conclusion:

The mid-19th century in Europe was a dynamic and transformative period in economic history. The
Industrial Revolution reshaped the economic landscape, leading to urbanization, technological
advancements, and the growth of manufacturing industries. Global trade and colonial expansion
played a crucial role in the era’s economic development, while transportation and communication
innovations facilitated connectivity. However, the era also witnessed economic disparities and the
rise of new economic theories and ideologies, setting the stage for the economic and social changes
of the 20th century.

Social Condition
The mid-19th century in Europe was a period of significant social change and transformation,
characterized by the impact of industrialization, urbanization, political upheaval, and evolving
social norms. This essay provides an in-depth analysis of the social conditions in Europe during this
era.

I. Industrialization and Urbanization:

A. Migration to Cities:

The Industrial Revolution in the early to mid-19th century led to the rapid growth of
cities as people moved from rural areas to urban centers in search of employment in
factories and industries. Major European cities like London, Manchester, and Berlin saw
explosive population growth.

B. Working Conditions:

Factory work was characterized by long hours, harsh working conditions, and low
wages, particularly for women and children. Laborers often faced dangerous and
unhealthy environments, sparking early labor movements and trade union activities.

C. The Rise of the Working Class:

Industrialization led to the emergence of a working class with distinct identities and
concerns. Workers began to organize and demand better wages, working conditions, and
political representation.

II. Social Hierarchies:

A. Class Divisions:

European society in the mid-19th century was marked by rigid class divisions. The
upper classes, consisting of nobility and wealthy industrialists, held significant political
and economic power, while the working class struggled for basic rights and
representation.

B. Aristocracy:

Despite the rise of industrial capitalism, the traditional aristocracy still held significant
influence in many European countries. They owned large estates, maintained privileges,
and often occupied important positions in government and society.

III. Education and Enlightenment:

A. Access to Education:

Access to education remained limited, especially for the working class. The spread of
literacy and the availability of public education were often confined to specific regions
or social classes.

B. Enlightenment Ideals:

The Enlightenment ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity influenced the thinking of
many Europeans. These principles fostered a growing sense of political and social
consciousness among the general population.

IV. Women’s Rights:

A. Limited Rights:
 Women in the mid-19th century faced severe restrictions on their rights and
opportunities. They were largely excluded from political participation, higher education,
and most professions.

B. Emerging Feminism:

However, the mid-19th century also marked the emergence of feminist movements
advocating for women’s rights, including the right to education and suffrage. Pioneering
women like Florence Nightingale and the Seneca Falls Convention in the United States
contributed to the growing movement.

V. The Impact of Nationalism:

A. Nationalist Movements:

Nationalism was a powerful force in mid-19th-century Europe, with various ethnic and
cultural groups seeking self-determination and autonomy. These movements often
challenged existing social hierarchies and led to political changes, such as the
unification of Italy and Germany.

B. Ethnic Tensions:

Nationalism was not without its challenges. Ethnic tensions, particularly in regions with
diverse populations, sometimes led to conflict, as was the case with the Austro-
Hungarian Empire and the Russian Empire.

VI. Social Reforms:

A. Philanthropy and Social Movements:

Philanthropic efforts, social reforms, and the work of figures like Charles Dickens and
Victor Hugo shed light on the plight of the poor and vulnerable in society. These efforts
contributed to a growing awareness of social injustices.

B. Social Legislation:

Some European countries began to introduce social legislation aimed at improving the
conditions of the working class. These reforms included labor laws, public health
measures, and welfare programs.

VII. The Impact of Religion:

A. Secularization:

The mid-19th century witnessed a growing trend of secularization and a shift away from
traditional religious authority. Scientific discoveries, industrialization, and political
changes contributed to the changing religious landscape.

B. New Religious Movements:

The era also saw the emergence of new religious movements, such as the growth of
Methodism and the rise of the Bahá’í Faith. These movements often emphasized social
justice and spiritual renewal.

Conclusion:
The mid-19th century in Europe was marked by profound social changes, driven by
industrialization, urbanization, the rise of the working class, and the impact of political, nationalist,
and feminist movements. While these developments brought about economic growth and political
change, they also highlighted social disparities, class divisions, and challenges to traditional norms.
The social conditions of this period laid the groundwork for subsequent social reforms, the
expansion of women’s rights, and the emergence of new social and political ideologies.

Interest of Great Western Powers in West Asia

West Asia, also known as the Middle East, has long been a region of strategic importance to great
Western powers. This strategic interest stems from a complex interplay of factors, including the
region’s vast oil reserves, its geopolitical location, and its role in the global economy and politics.
Oil Reserves

West Asia is home to an estimated 67% of the world’s proven oil reserves and 44% of natural gas
reserves. This abundance of energy resources makes the region indispensable to the economies of
many countries, including the United States, Europe, and China. Great Western powers have long
sought to secure access to these resources in order to maintain their economic competitiveness and
energy security.

Western powers have a strong economic interest in West Asia’s oil reserves. Oil is a vital
commodity for the global economy, and West Asia is the world’s largest producer of crude oil.
Western countries import a significant amount of oil from West Asia, and this reliance on foreign
oil has made them vulnerable to price fluctuations and supply disruptions.

In addition to oil, West Asia is also a major producer of natural gas. Natural gas is a cleaner-burning
fossil fuel than coal, and it is becoming increasingly important in the global energy mix. Western
countries are investing in natural gas projects in West Asia in order to diversify their energy sources
and reduce their reliance on coal.

The abundance of oil and gas in West Asia has also made the region a focus of security concerns for
Western powers. The region is home to a number of unstable and conflict-ridden countries, and
these conflicts have the potential to disrupt oil production and distribution. In addition, the region is
a source of terrorism and piracy, which can pose a threat to Western interests.

To protect their economic interests, Western powers have invested heavily in security cooperation
with West Asian countries. This cooperation includes military assistance, training, and intelligence
sharing. Western powers have also taken steps to stabilize the region politically, such as supporting
democratic reforms and promoting economic development.

In addition to their economic and security interests, Western powers also have political ambitions in
West Asia. The region is home to a number of important strategic choke points, such as the Strait of
Hormuz and the Suez Canal. These choke points are vital for the global transportation of oil and
gas, and their control is a key geostrategic objective for Western powers.

Western powers also have a strong interest in promoting their values and interests in West Asia.
They support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, and they believe that these values are
essential for the region’s long-term stability and prosperity. However, these values are often in
conflict with the conservative and authoritarian governments that rule many West Asian countries.
Geopolitical Location

West Asia lies at a critical crossroads between Europe, Asia, and Africa, making it a strategically
important region for trade, transportation, and military power projection. The Suez Canal, for
instance, is a crucial maritime chokepoint that connects the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea and
the Indian Ocean. Great Western powers have historically sought to maintain influence in West Asia
in order to safeguard their maritime and trade routes.
West Asia occupies a central position in the Eurasian continent, bordering Europe, Africa, and Asia.
It encompasses the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, and the Persian Gulf. Its strategic location has
made it a geopolitical crossroads for centuries.

Historically valuable trade routes: West Asia has been a crossroads of trade routes
throughout history, connecting civilizations and cultures across the globe. The Silk
Road, a network of trade routes connecting China to Europe, passed through West Asia,
facilitating the exchange of goods, ideas, and technologies.

Access to critical waterways: West Asia lies along the eastern Mediterranean Sea, the
Red Sea, and the Persian Gulf, giving it access to important waterways for trade and
transportation. These waterways also serve as the main shipping routes for oil and gas
exports from the region.

Control over natural resources: West Asia is home to a vast amount of natural
resources, including oil, gas, and minerals. These resources have attracted foreign
powers and contributed to the region’s strategic importance.

Western powers have long had a keen interest in West Asia due to its geopolitical importance,
strategic location, and abundance of natural resources. These interests have shaped the region’s
political landscape and have led to significant involvement by Western powers in West Asian
affairs.

Energy security: Western countries are heavily reliant on oil and gas imports from West
Asia, making the region a critical source of energy security. The United States, for
instance, relies on West Asia for nearly 25% of its oil imports.

Trade and commerce: West Asia is a major trading partner for many Western countries.
The region exports a wide range of goods, including oil, gas, textiles, and agricultural
products.

Political influence and stability: Western powers are interested in maintaining stability
in West Asia to ensure the smooth flow of energy and trade. They have also intervened
militarily in the region to promote their political interests and support pro-Western
regimes.

Global Economic and Political Role

West Asia is a major trading hub, with significant exports of oil, natural gas, and other
commodities. The region is also home to a growing population, a rising middle class, and
expanding economies. This economic dynamism makes West Asia an attractive market for foreign
investment and a potential source of innovation. Great Western powers have sought to engage with
West Asia in order to tap into these economic opportunities and promote stability and prosperity in
the region.
Specific Interests of Great Western Powers

The specific interests of great Western powers in West Asia vary depending on their individual
circumstances and priorities. However, some common interests include:

Energy Security: Securing access to West Asia’s oil and gas reserves is a top priority
for many great Western powers. This is particularly important for the United
States, which is a major importer of energy but has limited domestic oil and gas
production.
Military Presence: Great Western powers maintain a significant military presence in
West Asia, primarily to deter aggression, counter terrorism, and maintain stability in the
region. This military presence is often seen as a necessary tool for protecting the
region’s oil resources and ensuring the free flow of commerce.
 Political Influence: Great Western powers seek to influence the political developments
in West Asia in order to promote their interests and values. This includes supporting
allies, encouraging democratic reforms, and countering the influence of rival powers
such as Russia and China.
Economic Investment: Great Western powers invest heavily in West Asia, both in the
oil and gas sector and in other industries such as finance, technology, and
construction. This investment helps to boost the region’s economy and create jobs.

Challenges and Tensions

Great Western powers face a number of challenges in pursuing their interests in West Asia. These
challenges include:

Regional Instability: West Asia is a region characterized by ongoing conflicts, political

instability, and sectarian tensions. These factors make it difficult for great Western
powers to effectively promote their interests and objectives.
Resource Nationalism: West Asian governments are increasingly asserting control over
their natural resources. This trend has led to tensions with foreign oil and gas
companies, and it has also made it more difficult for great Western powers to secure
access to the region’s energy resources.
Economic Diversification: West Asian economies are heavily reliant on oil and gas
exports, which makes them vulnerable to fluctuations in global energy prices. Great
Western powers are encouraging these countries to diversify their economies in order to
reduce their dependence on oil and gas and promote sustainable growth.
Counterterrorism: The rise of terrorism in West Asia poses a significant threat to the
region and to the interests of great Western powers. These countries are working
together to combat terrorism and promote security cooperation in the region.

Unit II

Tanzimat Era
The Tanzimat-i Hayriye (Auspicious Reorganization) was a series of governmental reforms
between 1839 and 1876 that sought to centralize and rationalize Ottoman rule and capture more tax
revenues for the military defense of the empire. The Tanzimat period is usually associated with
particular personalities in the central government: the sultans Abdülmecit II and Abdülaziz, and the
high-ranking bureaucrats Mustafa Reşid Paşa, Ali Paşa, and Fuad Paşa. The Tanzimat was preceded
by earlier reform efforts since the eighteenth century, particularly by Abdülmecit I and Abdülaziz’s
father, Mahmud II, between 1808 and 1839. And it would be followed by reforms in the early
reigns of Abdülhamit II and the Young Turks.
Order And Justice

The thirty-seven years of the Tanzimat period are significant in this long process for establishing
the basic principles and the governmental apparatus of reform. The bywords of the movement were
justice and order, which were seen as prerequisites to effecting substantial social and economic
change. The major product of the movement was a huge increase in the power of the central state.
The major edicts of the Tanzimat significantly enlarged the scope of government activity by
creating new fiscal, legal, and administrative instruments. For example, the edict that inaugurated
the Tanzimat, the 1839 Hatt-i Şerif of Gülhane, proposed replacing inefficient tax farms with a
centralized revenue service and establishing a new imperial council, the Meclis-i Vala, to formulate
and direct reform policy. Subsequent edicts sought to promote justice and confidence in
government, such as those of 1840, 1850, and 1870 to 1876 that laid out uniform codes of law for
commerce, civil transactions, and criminal cases. A series of provincial reforms culminating in the
1864 Vilayet Law regularized the structure of local government and strengthened lines of authority
to Constantinople (now Istanbul). And in the capital itself, government was reorganized into formal
departments and specialized ministries. During the Tanzimat period, the Ottoman state also began
to intervene in society in new ways. The 1839 Gülhane edict and other laws expanded military
conscription. And the state established new elite secular schools. The 1869 Regulation of Public
Instruction introduced an empire-wide school system intended to produce bureaucrats and military
officers at every level of government equipped with the skills necessary to implement policy.
Defense And International Affairs

But the Tanzimat was not solely a project of administrative reform. Its goals of order and justice
were often ancillary to other, more immediate goals. The 1839 Gülhane edict was issued when the
Ottomans were fighting to regain territory captured by Egypt in 1832. Greece had already won its
independence in 1839, and in the Crimean War (1853–1856) the Ottomans would again go to war
with Russia. Hence, the 1839 edict would promise to continue the military buildup begun
by Mahmud II to defend the empire from external threats. The military was reorganized in 1842 and
1869, producing a larger, more unified structure under the serasker, a combined chief of staff and
war minister. And many other reforms were explicitly intended to raise more revenue for defense.

Tanzimat goals were further complicated by international affairs with the growing influence
of France and England in the empire. The Ottomans sought European alliances for protection
against Russian and Egyptian invasions. This alliance was bought at a price. For their own domestic
reasons, and to further their interests in the empire, France and England pushed another set of often
contradictory goals. While the Europeans advocated equal rights and democratic participation in the
empire, they also acted to protect the privileges and separate status of non-Muslim millets. So,
while the Gülhane edict and the 1856 Hatt-i Hümayun proclaimed equality of all citizens regardless
of religion, and new secular courts were established to offset any prejudice in shariʿa (Islamic law)
courts, in fact, society remained divided by religion in subcommuni-ties with separate legal and
social institutions.
Economic Concerns

Missing from the great initiatives of the Tanzimat was serious fiscal and economic reform. Roger
Owen explains the neglect of economic reform thus: “Limited financial resources, the lack of
competent administrators, the growing technological gap between Europe and the rest of the world,
and the constraints imposed by Turkey’s social structure and weakened international position all
combined to set strict limits on the types of economic politics pursued” (Owen, p. 116). Restricted
in their development of policy, the Ottomans were also plagued by the misfortune that they were
attempting reform precisely during a period of economic boom in France and England.

The Tanzimat coincided with the first wave of industrial imperialism. France and England used
their diplomatic influence in Constantinople to facilitate imperialist expansion at the expense of
economic reform within the empire. For example, the 1838 Anglo-Turkish commercial convention,
which preceded British support in fighting Egypt, promoted the spread of European imports in
Ottoman markets. In the 1850s and 1860s, the British and French established new kinds of
investment banks equipped to funnel domestic savings into overseas loans and projects. These
banks played no small part in encouraging Ottoman indebtedness. The first foreign loan was taken
out in 1854, for 3 million British pounds, to pay war expenses. Twenty years later, the Ottoman
government would devote more than half of its budget to servicing foreign loans totaling 242
million British pounds.

The Tanzimat reforms had not yet produced a government apparatus capable of mounting an
economic defense. For example, attempts to increase collection of taxes (and avoid foreign loans)
faltered without trained personnel until well after 1859, when the Mekteb-i Mülkiye school to train
bureaucrats was established. And although the 1858 land code sought to encourage more efficient
exploitation of agriculture by promoting private land ownership, poor administration derailed it. In
many areas, wealthy absentee landowners succeeded in registering large tracts of land, taking
control away from the peasants who, if they had owned the land, might have found incentive to
improve efficiency in cultivation. Instead, sharecropping discouraged investment in the land.

This is not to say that there was no effort at economic development, but rather that these efforts
were overwhelmed by external factors. The Tanzimat period saw the first boom in building roads,
ports, and other economic infrastructure that facilitated the transport of goods. But the tariff
structure made the new transport more profitable to foreign traders than domestic merchants. While
Ottoman exports increased nearly 500 percent between 1840 and the 1870s, these exports
represented less than 10 percent of total production in the empire and were largely in the form of
raw agricultural materials sent to England and France. In the meantime, the empire’s terms of trade
with Europe actually worsened. Ottoman industry, especially textiles, was undermined by
unprecedented foreign competition. Although Ottoman officials established an industrial reform
commission in the 1860s, they produced no significant industrial policy. So while Ottoman port
cities boomed in this period, producing the first bloom of bourgeois culture, their wealth came from
the profits of international trade, not from local production. The empire still relied overwhelmingly
on an agricultural economy, and peasants remained as destitute as ever. And despite pockets of
prosperity, the empire as a whole would sink so far into debt that it would declare bankruptcy in
1875.

It would be misguided, however, to conclude that the Tanzimat was the handmaiden of European
imperialism. Older theories that it was primarily European pressure that forced the Tanzimat on the
“sick man of Europe” have been substantially revised. Scholars like Shaw and Ortayli have
suggested that the main impetus for reform came from bureaucrats, most prominently Mustafa
Reşid Paşa, author of the 1839 edict. They acted from alarm at internal corruption and weakness, as
well as from the desire to advance their own interests and protect their rights against the power of
the sultan. Hence the 1839 edict abolished the sultan’s right to confiscate property, commonly
practiced on bureaucrats. Disenchanted bureaucrats led a second reform movement, the Young
Ottomans, who in the 1860s and 1870s advocated liberalization and curtailment of the sultan’s
power. This led to a coup in 1876 that established a short-lived constitution and parliament.
European Influences And Internal Motivations

European influence, while not a primary motive of reform, was nonetheless significant. French and
British diplomats repeatedly contributed to drafts of the various Tanzimat reform edicts, particularly
those issued in times of war, as in the 1839 expulsion of the Egyptians and in 1856, at the end of
the Crimean War. And Ottoman reformers often turned to European institutions for inspiration, as in
the 1864 restructuring of provincial administration, the 1868 Council of State, and the
1869 Education Law, all modeled on French institutions.

Finally, a motive for reform came from the peoples of the empire. Dissatisfaction with Ottoman
military weakness and a growing perception of alternatives to the current regime promoted unrest.
This included not only the often cited Balkan nationalist movements, but smaller intermittent
outbreaks, like the 1860 riots in Mount Lebanon and in Damascus that grew out of economic
upheaval. Religious leaders, too, organized protest, as in the 1859 Küeli Incident in Constantinople.
And religious minorities agitated against the oppressive and often corrupt rule of their state-
sponsored patriarchs, leading to reform of the millets in the 1860s. Provincial notables used the
local councils established in 1840 as a forum for protest and as a vehicle for negotiating the path of
reform.
Design And Implementation Of Efforts

In assessing the success of the Tanzimat, it is important to recognize that it was not a coherent,
prefabricated plan; the Gülhane proclamation was not a blueprint. The Tanzimat took shape through
efforts in Constantinople and in the provinces of Ottoman officials and notables to reconcile the
many pressures on the empire. In Istanbul, the Meclİs-İ Vala, in concert with the grand vizier and
sultan, had to weigh a variety of simultaneous and often conflicting interests, including military
challengers like the Russians, Egyptians, and separatist movements in the Balkans; entrenched
interests like those of landowners and the religious hierarchy; and the expanding aims of France
and England. In the provinces, local representative councils and governors faced their own
spectrum of interests to satisfy: landowners, ulama (Islamic clergy) who resented the new secular
courts and schools, artisans hurt by European imports, and peasants who could not pay the new
taxes.

Tanzimat goals were thus formulated and implemented through bargains made among opposing
forces. Policy steered between the simultaneous aims of central control and provincial autonomy,
between the ideal of a universal and equal Ottoman citizenry and reality of divisive religious social
structures and nationalist particularisms, between the need to appease international challenges and
the need to protect domestic interests, and between the efficacy of autocratic, top-down reform and
the equally necessary participation of the public in effecting change.
Summary Of Accomplishments

In the end, the reform program succeeded most in its goal of order: reorganizing the central and
provincial bureaucracy, restructuring the military, and building infrastructure for trade and
transport. Less auspicious was its progress toward justice; while law codes were rationalized and
venality in office reduced through improved salaries, economic inequalities increased and political
participation remained minimal. The concentration of power in Constantinople lent itself to abuse.
The Tanzimat period would conclude with a far more effective administrative and legal apparatus,
but one that would be commandeered by an autocratic sultan, with the accession of Abdülhamit II
in 1876. And in some ways, the Tanzimat was too little, too late. Efforts to strengthen the military
and to integrate a population riven with religious and ethnic differences would not proceed quickly
enough to avert the dismemberment of the Balkan provinces and the disastrous Russo-Turkish War
of 1877/78.

The Tanzimat was, however, a bold and often impressive attempt to restructure the Ottoman polity;
it simply did not have the time or opportunity by 1876 to effect significant social and economic
change. Much of what the Tanzimat started, however, would bear fruit under Abdülhamit, who
continued the Tanzimat’s pursuit of order. And while Abdülhamit would leave behind other
significant aspects of the Tanzimat, like justice and political participation, these would be taken up
again with the rise of a new generation trained in the Tanzimat’s schools and the 1908 constitutional
revolution.

Abdul Hamid Policy of Reforms, Limitations

Sultan Abdul Hamid II was the last of the great sultans. He came on the stage of history at a time
when the empire was bankrupt and could not defend itself against its many enemies. In the face of
aggression from without and sabotage from within, hammered by forces of nationalism and
weakened by internal sabotage from some of the millets, he waged a valiant battle to preserve what
was left of the once mighty empire. In this effort, he was partially successful, preserving its Islamic
core for forty years and keeping the empire out of a major war for as long. But his methods and the
internal tensions built up by the very modernization processes he had fostered, finally did him in.

Abdul Hamid inherited an empire that was in dire financial straits. Beginning with the Crimean War
(1853-1856), the Ottoman debt mounted steadily. The burden of keeping a large standing army and
modernizing it in the face of perpetual foreign threats required continued borrowing, so that by
1878 the public debt stood at more than 13.5 billion kurush. The cost of servicing this enormous
debt was more than 1.4 billion kurush, a sum equal to 70% of all revenues. The heavy debt burden
cast a long shadow on all aspects of the Sultan’s reign, including international relations, education,
agriculture and political reform.

A militarily and economically weak Ottoman Empire was the object of European imperial
ambitions. Russia had emerged as a major Eurasian power, having swallowed up the Turkoman
territories of Central Asia and the Caucasus. The Russian Czar desired open access to the warm
waters of the Mediterranean to become a player in the great game of world domination. But the
Ottoman Empire, sitting astride a wide arc extending from the Adriatic Sea to the borders of Persia,
blocked this access. To achieve his aims and pressure the Ottomans into giving him concessions,
the Czar used a combination of direct military threats and indirect pressure through his Serbian and
Bulgar surrogates. France, after occupying Algeria, had her eyes on Morocco and Tunisia. The
Italians wanted Libya. The empire of Austria-Hungary sought Bosnia-Herzegovina. The interests of
Great Britain lay in Egypt and in the control of access routes to her Indian Empire. Only Germany,
which had emerged as the dominant power on the continent under Bismarck, preferred the status
quo. But she too was willing to sacrifice Ottoman territorial integrity to preserve her interests.
Realizing that a war between Russia and Austria-Hungary over their competing ambitions in the
Balkans would force him to take sides and shatter his domination of continental Europe, the Kaiser
of Germany engineered an alliance between himself, the Emperor of Austria-Hungary and the Czar
of Russia. This alliance was called the League of Three Emperors.

In the nationalistic mosaic of 19th century Europe, the Ottomans stood alone in their insistence on
maintaining a multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-national state. But the all too apparent fissures in
the empire, along national and religious lines were an invitation to foreign meddling. The European
powers, using these religious and ethnic divisions as political opportunities, were determined to
swallow up the Ottoman Empire A bankrupt Ottoman state, dubbed the “sick man of Europe” by
the Czar, could not defend itself and was constantly looking for allies who would guarantee its
territorial integrity. Against these heavy odds, Sultan Abdul Hamid waged a valiant struggle to
rescue the empire, if he could, or at least salvage its core Islamic component if he lost the
predominantly Christian provinces. In this pursuit, he substituted diplomacy for war, playing off the
ambitions of one European power against another, compromising where he could and buying time
to reform the institutions that held the empire together. To a large extent, he succeeded. But he had
arrived on the stage of history too late. His autocratic style won him the displeasure of his people.
And the very success of his reforms set in motion powerful forces that ultimately toppled him from
power and led the empire to its demise.

Abdul Hamid II (1842-1918) was the son of Sultan Abdul Majid (1823-1861) and a Circassian
mother. As a child, he received an education worthy of a caliph and Sultan. His tutors included
some of the leading ulema and shaykhs of Istanbul. He was well versed in the Qur’an, the Sunnah
of the Prophet and in the Hanafi school of Fiqh. He was trained in Sufi practices as well,
particularly the Naqshbandi and Helveti orders, which had a significant following in the empire. As
a prince, he sought out bankers, diplomats and leaders of the Tanzeemat reforms, discussing with
them issues that affected the empire and in the process, he acquired a broad understanding of
economics, administration and international politics. As a young man, he was retiring in nature,
avoiding the frivolities that so often consumed other princes. He was fastidious in prayer, reclusive
by nature, pious in his religious observances and charitable in disposition. These qualities were to
serve him well later, endearing him to the Muslim masses worldwide and enabling him, for the first
time in the 19th century, to provide a semblance of political focus for the global Islamic community.

Immediately after his accession, Sultan Abdul Hamid came up against the Russian ambitions in the
Balkans. The Czar, declaring himself the champion of all Slavs and the protector of the Eastern
Orthodox Church, encouraged an insurrection in Serbia. The Ottomans successfully put down the
uprising in 1876. Realizing that active intervention on behalf of the Serbs carried a risk of war with
Austria-Hungary, the Czar shifted his focus to Bulgaria. The excuse for intervention was the
supposed mistreatment of Christian Bulgars by the Ottomans, while the objective was the creation
of a greater Bulgaria, under Russian domination, extending south from the Danube all the way to
the Aegean Sea. The western shores of the Black Sea would then be under Russian domination and
the armed forces of the Czar would have access to the Mediterranean. However, this plan too
required the cooperation of the Austrians. During the Crimean War of 1853-1856, Austrian troops
had occupied Romania with the connivance of the Russians. For Russian troops to reach Bulgaria,
they would have to cross Romania, now under Hapsburg domination. Fearing that overlapping
Russian and Austrian ambitions might lead to war, Bismarck of Germany proposed a division of the
Ottoman Empire, with Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia going to the Hapsburgs while Romania and
an enlarged Bulgaria would come under Russian domination. The British, fearing that a further
expansion of Austrian and Russian influence towards the Mediterranean would threaten their own
interests, opposed this plan and proposed instead a conference in Istanbul to reconcile the
competing ambitions of the powers.

At the Istanbul Conference, held in November 1876, Britain proposed a series of “reforms” which,
while mollifying Russia and Austria-Hungary, would keep them out of the Mediterranean. Bulgaria,
while nominally staying within the Ottoman Empire, was to be partitioned into two provinces. The
governor of each province would be a Christian, appointed with the concurrence of the European
powers. Except for tobacco and customs duty, all revenues would go to the provincial government.
The judicial system would be overhauled and new judges appointed with the approval of the
powers. Separate police forces would be created for Christian and Muslim villages. Ottoman troops
would be withdrawn from the province and their place taken up by Belgian troops. Britain proposed
similar “reforms” for Bosnia-Herzegovina, where Ausstria-Hungary would provide oversight for
their implementation. These proposals, if implemented, would have meant virtual independence for
both Bulgaria and Bosnia-Herzegovina and would have legalized the intervention of the powers
into the affairs of these two important Ottoman provinces.

The Bulgarian issue had emerged as an important one due to a Russian engineered insurrection in
that province. The Bulgars captured a large number of towns and slaughtered thousands of Turks.
Unable to control the uprising, the Ottoman governor of the province, Nadim Pasha, organized
local militias to protect Muslim villages. Massacres and counter massacres followed. The
Europeans, always quick to point fingers when Christians were killed, while closing their eyes to
massacres of Muslims, played up the Christian casualties. In the British parliament, Gladstone, in a
rousing speech, referred to the Ottomans as “the unspeakable Turks” and demanded a concerted
European action to curb the Ottomans. The Czar threatened military action unless sweeping reforms
were implemented in the province under Russian supervision.

To preempt the European powers, the Ottoman Porte (the vizierate) pushed for the promulgation of
a constitution that would remove any pretext for foreign intervention. At the request of Midhat
Pasha, Chairman of the Council of State, Sultan Abdul Hamid authorized the formation of a
Constitution Commission. Working round the clock, the Commission produced a constitution,
which embodied far-reaching reforms and touched on every aspect of Ottoman administration.

While retaining the ultimate authority of the Caliph/Sultan and his privileges to mint coins and have
his name invoked in the Friday khutba, the reforms guaranteed individual liberty to all citizens,
equality before the law, freedom of worship, sanctity of privacy, the right to property and protection
from arbitrary arrest. There was to be no discrimination in government jobs and the civil service
was to be a meritocracy. A two-tier Parliament was established after the pattern of the liberal
European monarchies with a lower house, majlis e mebusan, consisting of elected delegates and a
smaller upper house, majlis e ayan, whose members were appointed by the Sultan. Freedom of
expression within the Parliament and immunity from prosecution of the deputies for their views
was guaranteed. The Sultan appointed the grand vizier and the council of ministers. The grand
vizier, as the chief executive officer of the empire, presided over the meetings of the ministers and
coordinated their activities. In times of emergency, such as those involving the security of the state,
he could issue emergency orders. The Parliament had the authority to approve annual budgets,
provide oversight for the expenditures of the various ministries and enforce fiscal discipline. It was
empowered to ratify legislation initiated by the Council of Ministers. If ratified, the legislation was
then submitted to the Sultan, through the grand vizier, for his final approval. The Council of State,
which had come into existence during the earlier phases of the tanzeemat, was retained to provide
assistance to the parliament and the Council of Ministers in the drafting, preparation and
documentation of legislation.

The deputies of the lower house were elected and had a term of four years, whereas those of the
upper house were appointed by the Sultan for life. Except in matters of personal law, wherein the
Shariah and millet courts were retained, the jurisdiction of secular courts was expanded to cover all
aspects of life. Representative councils were retained at the provincial, district and county levels to
provide inputs on education, agriculture, trade and commerce. A Supreme Court was set up with the
authority to try wayward judges, members of the parliament and ministers. Islam remained the state
religion but freedom of worship was guaranteed to all millets. All citizens were henceforth to be
considered Ottomans, irrespective of their ethnic or religious affiliation. Each millet was free to
elect its own representative council and organize its internal affairs. Thus a major move was made
towards parliamentary democracy that provided a voice to the people, guaranteed individual rights
and took significant steps towards mollifying European concerns about the rights of Christians in
the empire. To implement the reforms, Sultan Abdul Hamid appointed Midhat Pasha, who had
served as chairman of the Council of State and the principal architect of the reforms, as the grand
vizier.
The European powers were not interested in reforming the Ottoman Empire. The disaffection of the
Christians was merely a pretext for intervention into Ottoman affairs. Russia, in particular, was not
satisfied with anything less than an outlet to the Mediterranean. At the Istanbul Conference, the
European powers backed Russian demands to divide up Bulgaria and Bosnia-Herzegovina and
administer them under European oversight. Sultan Abdul Hamid knew the military vulnerability of
the empire and sought to avoid war. In addition to promulgating the constitution in December 1876,
he forwarded his own plan to appoint an inquiry commission, with international participation, to
look into charges of atrocities in Bulgaria and punish those responsible. Midhat Pasha, who was
serving as the principal Ottoman negotiator with the powers, did not present these plans at the
conference, but instead submitted the European demands to the Ottoman parliament. The newly
elected representatives were furious at this affront to Ottoman sovereignty and rejected the
demands. The Istanbul Conference broke up in disarray.

Even as negotiations were underway at the Istanbul Conference (December 1876-January 1877)
and the Ottoman parliament met (March 1877) to implement the reforms, the Russians made active
preparations for war. The Czar bought the neutrality of the Austria-Hungary Empire by promising
them the principality of Bosnia-Herzegovina and hegemony over Serbia. The Austrian military
contingent stationed in Rumania since 1854 was withdrawn, clearing the way for a Russian advance
upon Istanbul through Rumania and Bulgaria The British too, signaled their neutrality in the event
of a Russian-Turkish war by declaring that they would not interfere as long as the status of the
Straits or Istanbul was unaltered. Germany, whose principal preoccupation was avoidance of war
between Austria and Russia, went along with Austrian neutrality. Thus the road was cleared for the
Czar’s army to invade the territories of its neighbor to the south.

The Russians began the war in May 1877 with an attack on the Ottoman eastern provinces. The
following month, in June 1877, they opened a second front in the west across the Danube River.
The Russian invasion was in clear violation of the Treaty of Paris, signed in 1856 at the conclusion
of the Crimean War, by which the European powers had collectively guaranteed the integrity of the
Ottoman Empire. But this was the age of colonialism. Each treaty that the Europeans signed with
the Ottomans was but a ruse to subvert and occupy additional Ottoman territory.

The Russian objective in the east was a rapid drive on the city of Erzurum, from where they could
cut a swath through southern Anatolia and Syria to the Mediterranean, isolating the Turkish
heartland. In the west, the goal was a rapid drive on Istanbul through Rumania and Bulgaria to
force the Turks to capitulate before the European powers changed their mind about their professed
neutrality. The Ottomans, even though they had spent large sums on armaments since the Crimean
War, were hampered by a lack of trained officers. The Czar, through skillful propaganda as the self-
proclaimed protector of the Eastern Orthodox Church, took full advantage of the disaffection of the
large Christian population in the Balkans. In the eastern sector too, he incited the hitherto peaceful
Armenians to harass the Ottoman armies.

Aided by local Christians, the initial advance of the Russian armies was swift. Ardahan fell in May
1877; the Ottomans lost a sizable number of men and material. On the western front, the garrison
town of Sistova fell in June. Advance contingents of Russian troops crossed the Shipka Pass,
captured Sofia and Nicopolis and threatened Erdirne.

Large-scale massacres of Muslim peasants followed each of the Russian conquests. The Russians
distributed guns and ammunition captured from the retreating Ottomans to the local Christians who
turned on their Muslim neighbors. Village after village witnessed horror scenes of mass killings.
The haggard survivors of the slaughter streamed towards Istanbul. Over 250,000 refugees entered
Istanbul and Anatolia in the first three months of the Russian campaigns. Over the next two years
(1877-1879), this number doubled, imposing a tremendous burden on Ottoman resources. This was
the first of the large-scale massacres of Balkan Muslims, which continued on and off for more than
a hundred years, culminating in the Serbian massacres of Bosnians in 1990-1992.

These early reverses shocked the Ottomans. The Porte appealed to the European powers under
terms of the Paris Treaty to pressure the Russians to withdraw. The replies from Austria and
Germany were vague. The British cabinet issued equally vague statements and did nothing to deter
the Czar.

Meanwhile, the Russian aggression had to be met. The Sultan’s response was characteristically
Islamic. He took out the Prophet’s mantle from the Topkapi palace, declared the resistance to
Russia a jihad, proclaimed himself a ghazi after the example of the early Ottoman Sultans and
appealed to Muslims worldwide for support. This pattern of appeal to the global Muslim
community was to be repeated, time and again, during the reign of Abdul Hamid.

The response from the Turks, Arabs and Albanians was overwhelming. Men came out in droves to
join the armed forces. Women offered their jewelry to finance the war effort. The Sultan selected
the best available generals for the defensive campaigns. Ahmed Muhtar Pasha was appointed the
commander of the eastern forces. Muhtar reorganized his troops, dispersed over the eastern
districts, and stopped the Russian advance at Kars. On the western front, Sulaiman Pasha was
appointed the commander, while the defense of the Bulgarian passes was delegated to Osman
Pasha. Sulaiman brought reinforcements by sea to Alexandropolis, swiftly moved north through
western Bulgaria and drove the Russians back across the Shipka Pass. The Russians regrouped and
with a large horde of over 100,000 men, backed by the main Romanian regiments, made a thrust at
the strategic town of Plevna. Meanwhile, Osman Pasha had reinforced the town, built a fortress,
dug trenches and had brought in heavy guns to defend the surrounding terrain. From this bastion, he
held off repeated assaults by the combined Russian-Romanian forces, earning for himself and his
men the admiration of Europeans and the gratitude of his fellow countrymen. The Sultan, in
recognition of this heroic defense, conferred the title of ghazi on Osman Pasha.

The front lines were stable throughout the summer of 1877. But with the passage of time, the
weight of the vast Russian Empire and of their Christian sympathizers within the Ottoman Empire,
began to be felt. By October 1877, the Ottoman lines began to crack. On the eastern front, Kars fell
in November, although Mohtar Pasha was able to withdraw the bulk of his forces to Erzurum.
Azerbaijan, Armenia and eastern Anatolia were in Russian hands. On the western front, the heroic
defense of Plevna continued. The Russians surrounded the garrison and cut off the supplies of food,
hoping to starve the defenders into submission. Despite the lack of food and the harsh winter, the
Ottomans held on, hoping for fresh reinforcements from Istanbul. But the Russian juggernaut
tightened. In December, Osman Pasha ordered his troops to fight their way out. In hand to hand
combat, over 30,000 Ottoman troops died. Thousands more perished in the icy mountainous terrain.
Plevna surrendered. Showing no mercy, the Russians and their Romanian comrades butchered the
survivors in the city.

With the fall of Plevna, the bulk of the Russian army was free to move southward. Sofia and
Erdirne fell in rapid succession. An advanced detachment under Grand Duke Nicholas reached the
outskirts of Istanbul. The capital city, already swollen with hundreds of thousands of refugees,
braced for an assault. The rapid advance of the Russian armies towards Istanbul caused an alarm in
Vienna and London. Should the Russians occupy the empire, the Ottomans would default on their
loans to the European bankers. Panic set in in the London financial markets. Realizing the threat to
its financial interests and its imperial interests in Egypt, the British cabinet issued a stern warning to
the Russians not to advance on the Straits. A humbled Sultan Abdul Hamid wrote to Queen Victoria
asking her to arrange an armistice and requesting the British fleet to anchor in Istanbul as insurance
against Russian occupation. The Czar, exhausted from his campaigns against the Turks, was in no
position to wage a wider war with Britain and Ausstria-Hungary. He wrote to the Sultan assuring
him that the Russians had no intention of occupying Istanbul.

In March 1878, the Russians and the Ottomans signed a Treaty at San Stefano, a small village
located on the outskirts of Istanbul. By its terms, the Ottomans ceded the districts of Kars, Ardahan
and Batum in the east to Russia. The Straits would be open to Russian shipping. The independence
of Rumania, Montenegro, Serbia and Bulgaria was acknowledged. Montenegro and Serbia were
expanded to include large portions of Bosnia and Albania. Bulgaria was rewarded with all of
eastern Rumelia and northern Thrace and its territories grew more than three fold to extend from
the Danube River to the Aegean Sea. The dream of the Czars to create a Balkan political landscape
dominated by Russia was fulfilled. The Ottomans agreed to pay a war indemnity of 24 billion
kurush to the Czar over a period of 100 years. Summarily, the terms were nothing short of surrender
by the Ottomans.

The Treaty of San Stefano was unacceptable to the other European powers. Britain and France were
opposed to a Russian dominated Bulgaria extending to the Aegean Sea. Austria objected to Russian
influence over Serbia and Montenegro. Bismarck of Germany, allied with Austria and Russia in the
League of the Three Emperors, realized that unless rapid steps were taken to defuse the situation,
war might erupt between his two allies. Therefore, he agreed to convene a conference of the
principal powers in Berlin, in which all the terms of the Treaty of San Stefano would be
renegotiated. The Treaty of Berlin, which concluded in July 1878, divided Bulgaria into three parts.
The northern part would be autonomous under Russian guidance but would pay an annual tribute to
the Sultan. The second part, east Rumelia, would be under Ottoman control but with a mixed
Muslim-Christian administration supervised by the powers. The southern part, consisting of Thrace
and southern Rumelia were returned to direct Ottoman administration. Bosnia-Herzegovina was
placed under Austrian control. The independence of Montenegro and Serbia was affirmed. As a
“precaution” against further Russian military pressure against the Porte, Britain occupied Cyprus on
the pretext that it could rapidly respond to any future threats by the Czar. Ottoman war indemnities
to Russia were reduced to 350,000 kurush annually for 100 years. The Conference of Berlin thus
sealed the fate of the Ottoman Empire in Europe with only a rump swath of territory left to link
Istanbul with Albania. To the east, the Ottomans lost several districts in Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Perhaps, as significantly, the cost of the war exhausted them financially. The war indemnities to
Russia added to the already crippling debt payments to European bankers.

The Russian invasion of 1877-1878 and its aftermath had a profound impact on the young Sultan.
Abdul Hamid realized the futility of holding on to European territories in which the Christians were
a majority. His Christian vassals had rebelled and had aided the Russians, despite the reforms
instituted under the tanzeemat and despite the representation given to them in the new Ottoman
parliament. He was deeply disappointed with the principal powers which had let down the
Ottomans despite their treaty obligations. It became apparent that the principal powers desired
nothing less than total dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. These fears were soon confirmed by
French moves on North Africa and British moves on Egypt. The war had brought hundreds of
thousands of Muslim refugees into Istanbul, fleeing the mass slaughter that followed the Russian
advance. Having lost everything in their flight, these refugees were extremely bitter towards their
Christian neighbors. These factors made the Sultan turn his back on Europe and reorient his focus
towards the Muslim Middle East.

The question before the Sultan was this: How could the Caliph disengage from Christian Europe
without humiliation so that the Muslim core of the Empire was preserved and provided a nucleus
for future Islamic political renewal? This was a paradigm shift for the Ottomans who had carved
out their European empire (1350-1453) long before their thrust into Syria, Egypt and Arabia (1517).

The Sultan’s tilt towards the Islamic Middle East contrasted with the main thrust of the tanzeemat
towards multi-religious Ottomanism and introduced an element of tension in the Ottoman
governing circles which persisted well into the 20th century. Ottomanism was also challenged by
the rising tide of nationalism in the Balkans. This introduced a second element of tension in the
empire. A third element of tension was traditionalism versus modernism. There were those in the
empire, the ulema and the kadis, who desired a slow evolution of society and its institutions from
its Islamic past. And there were those among the more secular men of the tanzeemat and the non-
Muslim millets, who desired a more secular approach. These tensions were exacerbated by the
continuing imperial ambitions of the European powers.

To save what was left of the empire, the Sultan desired a faster modernization of the empire using a
centralized approach. The men of the tanzeemat, too, desired reforms, but despite the experience of
the war and the letdown by the Christians in the Balkans, they persisted in the belief that
constitutionalism was the best way to bring about change. The two approaches were bound to clash,
and they did. And in its aftermath, the empire first moved towards autocracy and pan-Islamism and
then swung back towards parliamentary rule and secularism.
The stipulations of the Berlin Treaty and the intentions of the principal powers to respect Ottoman
sovereignty were soon tested in Tunisia. The North African territories around Tunis were long
under the control of local beys. The Ottomans had maintained nominal control over the beys
through a provincial governor and a military garrison. The French, after consolidating their hold on
Algeria (1830), extended their ambitions to Tunisia. The first moves were made on the economic
and financial fronts. The free spending beys borrowed heavily from the French bankers and soon
found themselves in so much debt that they could not make payments on the interest and principal.
To extract the debt payments, the European powers established the Tunisian Debt Commission in
1869 and assumed control of its public services as well as raw materials. In 1881, the British
offered Tunisia to the French to buy their acquiescence to British occupation of Cyprus. Realizing
that a refusal would mean Tunisia would be offered to the Italians, the French army moved into
Tunis and declared it a French “protectorate”. Sultan Abdul Hamid protested under terms of the
Berlin Treaty, but in realpolitik only the voice of the powerful speaks. The European powers turned
a deaf ear to the Sultan’s pleas.

More serious was the British occupation of Egypt, the jewel of the Ottoman Empire. By 1878, the
focus of global history had shifted from the Mediterranean to Asia. The interests of Great Britain
were now focused on its Indian Empire. British interests lay in controlling the sea-lanes to India.
That meant control of Egypt, which was still nominally an Ottoman province. Egypt was the
cultural center of the empire and was, until its occupation by Sultan Selim I, the seat of the
Caliphate. It was the most populous of the Ottoman provinces and the gateway to Africa.

Economic penetration was the means for British entry into Egypt, as it was for the French
occupation of Tunisia. The Khedives of Egypt, Sait and Ismail, had contracted huge loans at
enormous discounts, first to build the Suez Canal, then to support their own lavish life styles. By
1875, the debt had increased to 100 million British pounds and it required more than two thirds of
all Egyptian revenues to keep the debts serviced. The financial condition of Egypt was thus a mirror
image of that of the Ottoman Empire. When the Egyptians defaulted in their debt payments, the
European powers formed the Egyptian Debt Commission with the authority to confiscate specific
revenues. To ensure compliance, the powers imposed an Armenian nationalist as the prime minister
of Egypt, while an Englishman became the finance minister and a Frenchmen, the minister of
public works.

The stipulations of the Egyptian Debt Commission meant the effective surrender of Egyptian
sovereignty to the Europeans, which caused a public uproar. Riding on popular resentment, a group
of Egyptian army officers forced the Khedive to remove the foreigners in the ministry and appoint
Egyptians instead. When the Khedive dismissed the foreigners, the British and French, in
consortium, demanded that Khedive Ismail be replaced by his son Tawfiq who was more compliant
and more willing to accept the British-French terms. However, since Egypt was technically an
Ottoman province, the dismissal of a Khedive still required the consent of the Sultan in Istanbul.
Sultan Abdul Hamid at first vacillated, but he had no choice; Ismail was dismissed and Tawfiq was
appointed in his place.

The Sultan sent a delegation to Cairo to discuss and resolve the financial issues with the European
powers. While negotiations were going on, a combined armada of British and French navies
appeared off the coast of Alexandria to put pressure on the negotiators. This was like pouring oil on
a fire. Egyptian nationalist sentiment flared up and mob violence claimed the lives of several
foreigners. This was the pretext the British were waiting for. Using the excuse of protecting
European lives, the British navy bombarded the undefended city of Alexandria, killing several
hundred people. The French, who had initially demanded military action against Egypt, became
concerned that a combined assault would only propel Britain into a dominant position in Egypt and
pulled out of the alliance. Undaunted, a British force landed in Alexandria and after occupying the
city, moved on Cairo. On September 3, 1882, the nationalist Egyptian forces met the invaders at the
battle of Tel el Kabir but were defeated. Four days later the British army was in Cairo.

The loss of Tunisia to France and of Egypt to Britain meant that the Ottoman Empire was now an
Asian entity consisting of its Anatolian heartland and the Arab provinces of Syria, Iraq and Arabia.
The war with Russia and the loss of Egypt and Tunisia had cost the Empire more than 60% of its
population. There was a large influx of Muslim refugees from the Balkans. These refugees, having
lost everything they had, were extremely hostile to the Christians and were determined to continue
their struggle against Russia.

The suffering of the Balkan Muslims elicited sympathy among Muslims elsewhere in the empire
and was the first reason for pushing popular opinion in the direction of Islamic solidarity. A second
reason for increasing pan-Islamic tendencies was the early upbringing of the Sultan himself. As a
young man Sultan Abdul Hamid was trained by the leading ulema and shaykhs of the time. He was
a pious man who avoided frivolities, was austere, kept his prayers and observed the injunctions of
the Qur’an and Sunnah. By instinct and by training, the Sultan was disposed to seek closer ties with
the Muslim world.

The third was an upsurge of revivalist feeling among the Muslims worldwide, expressed most
fervently by the Mahdi of the Sudan (d.1884). The Tijaniya movement in the Maghrib and the
Sanusiya movement in Libya increased religious fervor amongst the Muslims of North Africa. In
Afghanistan and Central Asia, the rhetoric of Jamaluddin Afghani had aroused pan-Islamic
passions. In the Caucasus, resistance to Russian aggression was led by the Naqshbandi Sufi tareeqa.
With the arrest of Shaykh Shamayl (1854), the movement had gone underground but antipathy
towards Russian rule continued.

A fourth reason was popular resentment at the economic exploitation of the empire through public
debt and the Capitulations. The public debt, incurred at enormous discounts, crippled the Ottomans,
consuming at times as much as 80% of all revenues. The Capitulations were used to obtain
favorable trading terms for mass-produced European goods. The young and undercapitalized
Ottoman industries could not compete with the European products, so the empire stayed primarily a
supplier of raw materials to Europe while consuming goods manufactured in Western Europe and
America.

Lastly, with the advance of colonialism, vast areas of the Islamic world had come under European
domination. France in North Africa, Russia in Central Asia, Britain in India and Austria-Hungary in
Bosnia had large Muslim populations under their rule. These powers were as vulnerable with
respect to their Muslim subjects as were the Ottomans with respect to their Christian subjects. The
Ottoman Sultan was also the Caliph of Islam. He occupied a position in the Islamic religious-
political space similar to that of the Pope in Rome with respect to Roman Catholics. The prestige of
this position could be used to pressure the Christian European powers and make them take their
hands off the only remaining independent Islamic state.

Conviction, hardened by realpolitik, impelled the Sultan to don the mantle of caliph with
unapologetic openness. Abdul Hamid made a concerted effort to cultivate close relationships with
Muslims not just in the empire but in Muslim India and Central Asia as well. He insisted on
exercising his privilege, as caliph, of appointing the principal religious dignitaries in the Balkans.
Writers like Namuk Kamal emphasized the Islamic origins of the empire and the contributions that
the Turks had made to the continuing unfolding of Islamic civilization. The Sultan made it a point
to go for Friday congregational prayers at the Aya Sophia in an open carriage so that the public
would see him. Ramadan, the month of fasting, became a special month of celebration. Each
evening, before breaking the fast at sunset, the Sultan sat on a brocade chair in the hall of audience.
Lining the hall on either side were rows of shaykhs, ulema and visiting dignitaries. The Sultan
made it a point to invite some commoners to join him for the breaking of the fast so as to establish
religious rapport with the masses.

The European powers viewed these moves with suspicion but were powerless to stop them. Implied
in this assertive religious posture was the threat that any further moves against the domains of the
caliph might result in a worldwide uprising of Muslims against their colonial masters. Wherever
there was the slightest injury to Muslims, whether it was in Russia, British India, or French Africa,
the Sultan sent a note of protest to the concerned power, thereby earning the respect and religious
loyalty of Muslims worldwide. The British were particularly concerned about the huge number of
Muslims in India and made their own propaganda efforts to portray themselves as friends and
protectors of the Ottoman Empire. The Sultan welcomed Muslim dignitaries from all over the
world into his palace where they were received with the honor and prestige reserved for heads of
state. One of the principal dignitaries so received was Jamaluddin Afghani, a reformer from
Afghanistan, who traveled throughout the Muslim world to forge political and cultural unity among
Muslims. Religious fervor rose and the Sultan won the support of the ulema worldwide and
established his legitimacy in the eyes of a majority of his subjects and also of a large number of
Muslims globally. Muslims around the world looked to him for guidance in matters ranging from
religious observances to the wearing of the fez.

The benefit of this assertive religious posture was that it kept the European powers off balance for
more than a quarter century. The empire was at relative peace. The European powers, instead of
seeking military occupation and colonial rule, were content to compete with each other for
economic benefits, raw materials and markets. The price paid for this pan-Islamic tilt was that it
took away whatever pretence the empire had as a multi-religious state. The disaffection of the
Christian minorities grew, even as the reforms of the tanzeemat gathered momentum, providing
equal opportunities for the millets.

Sultan Abdul Hamid was convinced that the only way to modernize the empire was through a
centralized structure directed by his own person. This conviction was reinforced by the events of
the first two years of his reign. He was deeply disappointed by Grand Vizier Midhat Pasha, widely
credited as the father of the Ottoman Parliament, over his handling of negotiations at the Istanbul
Conference of 1876. Midhat’s own experience with the European powers had led him to take a hard
stand at the Conference against the better counsel of the Sultan in favor of continued negotiations
and compromise. The breakdown of the Conference led to the Russian invasion and a humiliating
defeat. In addition, the politicians in the Parliament were more interested in enhancing their own
political careers than finding solutions to the pressing issues facing the empire. The Christian
nationalists used the floor of the Parliament as a platform to air their own demands for autonomy
for their regions, or independence. In January 1878, with the Russian army approaching Istanbul,
the Sultan sought the counsel of the Parliament to invite the British fleet into Istanbul harbor as a
precautionary deterrent to a Russian occupation of the capital. Instead of counsel, the Sultan got
lectures from petty citizens about the conduct of the war. A disillusioned Sultan lost his faith in the
integrity of the bureaucrats and concluded that the empire was not yet ready for parliamentary
democracy, that the best chance for a survival of the empire was through a centralized structure
directed by himself. In February 1878, he dissolved the Parliament in accordance with provisions of
the Constitution and directly assumed all powers.

What emerged in place of parliamentary rule was a highly centralized structure centered on the
palace. The Sultan was the focus of authority and power. The centralization of power required that
there be intermediaries between himself and the bureaucrats. The Sultan drew upon a model that
had evolved in the earlier Islamic empires. Just as earlier caliphs had used hajibs to distance
themselves from the ammah, so did Sultan Abdul Hamid use the mabayeen (intermediaries) to
convey his wishes to the civil servants. Mabayeen means in between. This was the equivalent of the
hajibs who had, in earlier centuries, separated the caliphs and Sultans from the ammah, the common
folk.

The principal mabayeen and the chief of staff of the Sultan’s staff, was called mabayeen mushiri.
Between 1878 and 1897 this post was held by Ghazi Osman Pasha, who had distinguished himself
at the battle of Plevna (1877) and had earned the respect and confidence of the Sultan. He was a
distinguished general. Ghazi Osman Pasha was a principal influence on the Sultan in matters
relating to the army and foreign affairs. The mabayeen mushiri chaired the Privy Council,
consisting of retired army officers and high-ranking bureaucrats, who provided advice to the Sultan
on important matters. Next in closeness to the Sultan was the katip or the scribe who communicated
the Sultan’s commands to the bureaucrats and influenced the Sultan through his involvement in the
communication process. The harem had its own influence on the Sultan through the chief eunuch or
the agha. These three positions were the principal mabayeen between the Sultan and the outside
world.

Abdul Hamid kept a close watch on all of his appointees, as well as on the extensive bureaucracy in
the state, through an efficient system of police and spy network. The police functions were
centralized and the department not only had the authority to maintain law and order, but to conduct
surveillance on travelers, the press and writers. The Sultan, to keep himself informed of the
minutest happenings in the empire, entrusted the Police Ministry only to his most trusted
confidants. In addition, various advisors served him in matters of personal finance and foreign
affairs.

The executive, legislative and judiciary functions were combined in the office of the grand vizier.
The grand vizier was responsible for coordinating the affairs of state and of the work of the
ministries. The grand vizier presided over ministerial meetings and chaired the important
commissions established by the Sultan such as the commission on refugees. Among the important
ministries were the Ministry of Internal affairs, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the War Ministry,
the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Awqaf
and the Ministry of Public Works. The legislative arm of the state, the Council of State, worked
through the grand vizier, as did the Ministry of Justice, which provided oversight for the secular
courts. One of the most successful of the grand viziers during the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid was
Mehmet Sait Pasha. He served in that capacity seven times between 1878 and 1909 and was twice
called upon by the Young Turks to assume the position of the chief executive after Abdul Hamid
was deposed.

The Shaykh ul Islam, as the chief religious functionary of the state, had oversight authority over
mosques, madrasas, orphanages and religious publications. He interpreted the Shariah and ensured
that its dictates were implemented in the Shariah courts. The shaykh, along with the grand vizier,
the khedive of Egypt and the prince of Bulgaria formed the highest echelon of functionaries at the
court of the Sultan.

The modernization programs sought by Abdul Hamid required sufficient funds for their
implementation. The Sultan was hamstrung by the enormous accumulated debt that he had
inherited. In 1876, the foreign debt alone stood at over 12 billion kurush. The Russian-Turkish war
of 1876-1878 and its aftermath added another 4 billion kurush to this enormous burden. Together
with unpaid interest, the total foreign debt stood at 23 billion kurush. In addition, the internal debt
stood at another four billion kurush. Interest payments alone consumed more than 80% of the
budget.

There was a real possibility that the Ottomans would succumb to this debt burden just as had Egypt
and Tunisia. Sultan Abdul Hamid’s first priority was to renegotiate the loans in conjunction with
much needed economic reforms. Through negotiations, the total foreign debt was reduced from 23
billion to 12 billion kurush. The interest payments were negotiated down to about 20% of the
budget. In return, specific revenues from tobacco, spirits, silk, salt, document fees and tributes from
Bulgaria, Montenegro, Cyprus and Greece were turned over a Public Debt Commission consisting
of representatives from the principal European powers and Ottoman functionaries.

To compensate for the lost revenues, the Sultan embarked upon a wide range of economic reforms.
He instituted a budgetary process and established an audit department. The department heads were
encouraged to trim their budgets. The Sultan removed his personal expenses from the budget and
met them through his own resources. The privy purses of the princes were reduced. To increase
revenues, agriculture and industrialization were encouraged. An agricultural bank was established
to provide low interest loans to farmers. Surplus from the bank was used to finance education, to
meet extraordinary budget requirements such as refugee resettlement and to pay for modernization
of the armed forces. Foreign investment was encouraged for building railroads, telegraph lines and
building silk, tobacco and fabric processing factories. The Hijaz railroad, linking Damascus with
Madina, was built entirely with domestic funds and contributions from Muslims worldwide,
facilitating the movement of pilgrims from the eastern Mediterranean regions to Mecca and
Madina. The net result of these reforms was that the Sultan succeeded in holding debt payments to
about 7% of the budget while increasing revenues by almost 40% between 1878 and 1908, the last
year of his reign. A side benefit of industrialization was that the European powers were deflected
from seeking political military hegemony over the Ottomans to economic competition for mutual
benefit.
The needs of the armed forces, and a civilian bureaucracy required to administer the vast empire,
demanded an efficient, trained work force. Sultan Abdul Hamid knew that the Ottomans could not
catch up with the West unless the educational system was reformed and expanded. Education was
therefore given the highest priority. The Sultan saw to it that the education reforms that were
initiated during the tanzeemat were completed during his reign. Since the debt burden was
overwhelming, the Sultan invested from his personal resources to upgrade the standards of
education in the Muslim religious schools, expanding their syllabus to include instruction in physics
and mathematics. The millet schools as well as the missionary schools run by foreigners witnessed
a similar increase in attendance. A surtax of 39% on agricultural produce was imposed, with two
thirds of the revenues so generated earmarked for agricultural improvements and the remaining
one-third for public education. Enrollment in the army Rushdiye schools was greatly expanded. The
army took the lead in improving technical education. With a better cadre of students available, the
War Academy, the Army Engineering School, the Army Medical School and the Merchant Marine
School embarked on a program of modernization. Army instructors from Germany and agricultural
instructors from France were brought in to upgrade the faculty. Enrollment in the technical schools
increased four fold. The University of Istanbul was reopened in 1900 with the faculties of
Mathematics, Physical Sciences, Religion and Social Sciences. Performance-based examinations
replaced the old system of favoritism for admission to the technical schools and the university. The
Sultan’s educational reforms opened the doors to children of the less affluent classes giving them an
opportunity to compete for the higher posts in civil service and the army. Predictably, the rise of an
educated class which sprang from the lower ranks of society gave rise to demands for increased
political participation and ultimately led to the Young Turk revolution and the overthrow of the
Sultan himself (1909).

The greatest tribute to Sultan Abdul Hamid is that even today many Muslims around the world
invoke his name with nostalgia for a bygone era when a venerated caliph provided a semblance of
political focus for the global Islamic community and gave it a sense of universal brotherhood.
Muslims as far away as India and Nigeria looked to him for guidance in matters small and large.
His office radiated religious, political, cultural and social influence across the Islamic world. The
Ottoman fez became not only a hat for the Turks but for Indian Muslims, Egyptians, Moroccans and
Malaysians. His failure was that he pursued his modernization program through a highly
centralized, personal style, which opened him to charges of despotism.

Limitations

Abdul Hamid II, who ruled the Ottoman Empire from 1876 to 1909, implemented a series of policy
reforms during his reign. While some of these reforms were aimed at modernizing the empire, there
were significant limitations and criticisms associated with Abdul Hamid’s policies. Here is a
comprehensive examination of the limitations of Abdul Hamid II’s Ottoman policy reforms:

1. Political Repression:

Abdul Hamid is often criticized for his autocratic rule and the suppression of
political dissent.
The establishment of a secret police force, the “Hamidiye,” was used to
monitor and suppress opposition.

2. Abdul Hamid’s Authoritarianism:

Critics argue that Abdul Hamid’s reign saw an increase in authoritarianism,

limiting political freedoms and stifling democratic initiatives.
The suspension of the Ottoman constitution in 1878 demonstrated his
reluctance to embrace constitutional governance.

3. Manipulation of Reforms for Personal Gain:

 Abdul Hamid’s implementation of reforms was at times seen as superficial,
with an emphasis on maintaining his personal power rather than genuinely
improving the Ottoman state.
Reforms were often used strategically to appease European powers rather
than to address the internal issues of the empire.

4. Resistance to Constitutionalism:

Despite initiating the First Constitutional Era in 1876, Abdul Hamid was
hesitant to fully embrace constitutionalism.
He dissolved the parliament in 1878 and suspended the constitution,
signaling a reluctance to share power with elected representatives.

5. Failure to Address Administrative Corruption:

The Ottoman bureaucracy was marred by corruption, and Abdul Hamid’s

reforms did not effectively address this issue.
Corruption continued to be a significant problem, leading to inefficiencies in
governance and hindering effective policy implementation.

6. Economic Challenges Persisted:

Abdul Hamid’s efforts to modernize the Ottoman economy faced limitations.

The empire struggled with financial difficulties, debt, and an inability to keep
pace with the rapidly industrializing Western powers.

7. Nationalism and Ethnic Tensions:

Abdul Hamid faced challenges related to rising nationalist sentiments within

the empire, particularly among different ethnic groups.
The Armenian Massacres of the 1890s occurred under his rule, contributing
to tensions and demonstrating the failure to manage the diverse ethnic and
religious communities within the empire.

8. Foreign Policy Failures:

Abdul Hamid’s diplomatic initiatives often faced setbacks, contributing to

the decline of Ottoman influence on the international stage.
The loss of territories, such as Cyprus and Crete, highlighted weaknesses in
the Ottoman foreign policy.

9. Ineffectual Military Reforms:

Despite initiating military reforms, the Ottoman military continued to face

challenges.
The defeats in wars, such as the Greco-Turkish War (1897) and the Italo-
Turkish War (1911-1912), underscored the limitations of military
modernization efforts.

10. Failure to Address Social Inequality:

The reforms initiated by Abdul Hamid did not adequately address social
inequality within the Ottoman Empire.
The divide between the ruling elite and the general population persisted,
contributing to discontent among various social classes.
In summary, while Abdul Hamid II initiated a range of policy reforms during his reign, these efforts
were often criticized for their limitations and the emperor’s authoritarian tendencies. Political
repression, economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and foreign policy setbacks all contributed to the
decline of the Ottoman Empire during this period. The failure to fully embrace constitutionalism
and address systemic issues within the empire ultimately weakened its position on the world stage.

Young Turk Movement

The Young Turk Revolution of July 1908 reversed the suspension of the Ottoman parliament by
Sultan the Abdul Hamid II, who abdicated, marking the return to Constitutional government. The
Young Turk movement brought together various intellectuals and dissidents, many living in exile
and officers in the army, especially those based at the headquarters of the Third Army Corps in
Salonika. Although inspired by the spirit of nationalism that was sweeping through Europe which
had already had cost the Empire most of its Balkan provinces, the movement promoted a vision of
a democratic multi-national state. Some support for the movement came
from Bulgarians, Arabs, Jews, Armenians and Greeks. Various Young Turk organizations combined
in 1906 forming the Committee on Union and Progress (CUP), which would govern the Empire
from 1908 until 1918.

The Revolution restored the parliament, which had been suspended by the Sultan in 1878.
However, the process of replacing existing institutions with constitutional institutions proved much
more difficult than expected and before long power was invested in a new elite, led by the Grand
Vizier. The movement wanted to modernize and democratize on the one hand while on the other it
wanted to preserve what was left of the empire. The promised decentralization was abandoned
when the leaders realized that this compromised security. In fact, the periphery of the Empire
continued to splinter under pressure from local revolutions. Indifference from former allies such as
the British which, as did France had ambitions in the region, the Young Turks were compelled to
embrace Germany as an ally in the hope that this would preserve the empire. Instead, this alliance
led to the Ottoman defeat in World War I and to the end of their own power after the war. However,
they laid some of the ground on which the new nation-state of Turkey would be built under the
leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, himself a Young Turk. The potential democratization project
represented by the Young Turk Revolution had at the time no parallel among other imperial powers,
such as the British and French, whose leaders were nowhere near contemplating granting self-
determination to their African and Asian possessions.
Background

The Young Turk movement began among exiled Ottomans in places such as Paris and Geneva. It
was influenced by the French Revolution and in turn influenced the Constitution of 1876. That
Constitution had been suspended by the autocratic Sultan, Abdul Hamid II in 1878. The movement,
however, continued to gather momentum. The Young Turks wanted a democratic solution to the
Empire’s problems, which included the need for economic reform, tax reform and halting any
further disintegration. From 1881, Ottoman finances were handled by the Ottoman Public Debt
Administration, appointed by European creditors. Almost all Balkan provinces were now
independent states. Although nationalistic, the Young Turk movement opted for a multi-ethnic
understanding of the Ottoman space. By granting greater autonomy to different ethnic groups it
hoped to preserve the Empire. The movement was “fighting for the modernization and
strengthening of the Empire, under Western constitutional principles, and these included
the equality of all races.” On the one hand, Europe’s emerging constitutional monarchies provided
the model they wanted to imitate; on the other hand, they wanted to end European influence and
interference in Ottoman affairs. Support for the movement came from diverse groups, including
some of the different ethnic and religious communities.[2] In 1906, the various Diaspora-based
organization united with the Salonika-based Ottoman Society for Liberty to form the “Committee
of Union and Progress” (CUP), effectively a political party. This new organization was dominated
by the officers of the Third Army. Fearing the army, the Sultan was starving it of funds. In an effort
to “throttle the conspiracy” the Sultan deployed thousands of secret agents but it continued to
thrive. Although some members wanted to abolish the sultanate, most wanted to impose
constitutional limitations on the sultan’s power. From the outset, members believed that a
revolution would be necessary to end the sultan’s authoritarian rule.

Congress of the Ottoman opposition

Two congresses of opposition to the Ottoman regime were held, one in 1902 and the other in 1907.
The second occurred in Paris, France. The leadership included Ahmed Riza, Sabahheddin Bey,
Khachatur Maloumian. The goal was to unite all parties, including Young Turks, to advance the
revolution. The “Second congress of the Ottoman opposition” took place in Paris, France in 1907.
Opposition leaders including Ahmed Riza (liberal), Prince Sabaheddin, and Khachatur Maloumian
of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation were in attendance. During the meeting, an alliance
between the two parties was officially declared. The ARF decided to cooperate with the Committee
of Union and Progress (CUP), hoping that if the Young Turks came to power, autonomy would be
granted to the Armenians.
The Revolution

Revolt

It was, in the end, continued discontent in the 3rd Army Corps that sparked the revolt. Major
Ahmed Niyazi, fearing discovery of his political ideas by an investigatory committee sent from the
capital as part of the intensive campaign to crush the movement, headed for the capital on July 3,
1908 with 200 followers demanding restoration of the Constitution. The sultan’s attempt to
suppress this uprising failed, due to the popularity of the movement among the troops, who refused
to fight and among general population and the rebellion spread rapidly. The CUP issued its
revolutionary proclamation on July 6. On July 24, Abdül Hamid announced restoration of the
constitution. People took to the streets rejoicing, expressing the ideals of the revolution with
placards reading “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and Justice” in “red and white,” the colors of the
Ottoman flag, “aping the tricolor cockades in Paris in 1789.” Greek bishops were embraced by
Muslims as Turks embraced Armenians and even attended their memorial services for those
massacred in the bloody attacks of 1896, for which Abdül Hamid became known as the “red
Sultan.”

Reconvening of the Parliament

Elections were held and parliament was re-opened by the Sultan on December 17th. Although it has
spearheaded the revolution, the CUP only won 60 of the 275 seats. However, they were the largest
party. The first issue they faced was the general breakdown in law and order, the need to restore
stability. This included inter-ethnic conflict. The new leaders faced a stark choice; deal harshly with
unrest from the center and restore order or proceed with decentralization, which might endanger
security and the unity of what remained of the Empire. The reality was that while the movement
had preached the “gospel of harmony” even within parliament the different ethnic groups were
squabbling and demanding privileged. By March 31, 1909 a counter-coup took place, aiming to re-
instate the authority of the Sultan. A few days later, the Army regained power on behalf of the
Young Turks. Abdül Hamid was forced to abdicate 27 April 1909 and replaced by Mehmed V, who
died on the eve of the Ottoman defeat in 1918. He was succeeded by the last sultan, Mehmed VI,
who was deposed by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in 1922 when the Sultanate was abolished.

Turkification and the German Alliance

Before long, alliances of the Young Turks and expatriate organizations of various ethnic groups,
such as the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, began to fracture, and even the Young Turks
struggled to find consensus even among themselves. Power was in effect exercised by the Grand
Vizier and elite party members. According to Fromkin, real power was wielded by the CUP’s
Central Committee “of about forty members” and especially “its politburo of about twelve
members.” The so-called “coup of 1913” gave prominence to a triumvirate of three ministers, the
minister of the interior, Mehmed Talat Pasha, the minister of war, İsmail Enver, and the naval
minister, Ahmed Djemal, effectively ending democracy and reinstating the very type of centralized,
authoritarian rule that the Young Turk Revolution had set out to abolish.
Instead of enthusiastically supporting the policy of racial harmony, different groups saw the
revolution as a sign of the Empire’s weakness, and agitated for independence. Foreign powers also
took advantage of the situation; in 1908, Austria-Hungary formally annexed Bosnia and
Hercegovina “nominally still Turkish,” the “Balkan League” annexed almost all of “the territory
the Ottoman Empire still had in Europe” and Italy took Lybia, Rhodes and several islands.

Two consequences followed. First, the Young Turks decided that the best policy was to encourage
the development of Turkish identity across the Empire to create solidarity across the various ethnic
groups. This is referred to as Turkification, a reversal of the original multi-ethnic vision. They
passed measures that fixed the number of Armenians and representatives of other groups who could
sit in parliament and rigged election to “ensure that most of the deputies belonged to the
CUP.” Turkish was proclaimed the language of both education and of the administration, which
alienated almost all non-Turks, not least of all Arabs. Use of Turkish in the judicial system “led to
discontent, inconvenienced judicial officers and litigants and threatened the administration of
justice.” Various national movements as well as a pan-Arab national movement were already
popular in parts of the Empire. During World War I, the Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca and his
sons led an Arab revolt against the Ottomans, aiding the British in the Middle Eastern theater. The
CUP was soon associated with “Turkish despotism” just as the sultan had been, and regional leaders
warned of the dangers of Turkification which was also represented as anti-Islamic due to the
“personal impiety of CUP members.”

Second, the CUP became convinced that while they wanted to end European influence, without a
strong European ally “their domains were in mortal danger.” Britain already
controlled Cyprus and Egypt and had a string of capitulations, as did France. These were mini-
colonies, where foreign law not Ottoman law prevailed. Britain, formerly an ally, had washed its
hands of the Ottomans. Russia was considered but retained ambitions of its own in the region.
France was approached but rebuffed any alliance. In fact, Britain and France had more or less
picked out which provinces they intended to acquire, which they did after World War I. This
left Germany, a nation which had been cordial since the era of Otto von Bismarck. In August, 1914
the Ottoman Empire signed a mutual defense treaty with Germany. This led the Empire into World
War I as one of the Axis Powers, resulting in a humiliating defeat. Subsequently, the Paris Peace
Conference, 1919 stripped the rest of the Empire away. Under Atatürk, who had distinguished
himself by winning the Battle of Galippoli thus salvaging some Turkish pride, led an independence
movement against the CUP government, asserting that the Turkish people should not be blamed for
aligning the Empire with Germany and that the government, not the people, should accept blame
for excesses during the war. Following a war in which he defeated allied forces again, the nation-
state of Turkey was recognized by the Treaty of Lausanne in July 1923.
Legacy

Mazower describes the City of Salonika, where the Young Turks dreamed of creating a multi-
national state, as for over five centuries one of the most tolerant and diverse communities in
Europe. Clashes did take place from time to time but for much of its history Salonika showed how
different religions, cultures and ethnic groups could thrive and inter-act peacefully, with each
lending to and borrowing from the other. By the end of World War I, this community was
destroyed, along with the Ottoman Empire of which it had been a part.

The Young Turk Revolution in almost all respects failed to deliver what it promised. It
promised democracy and decentralization but delivered authoritarianism and centralization. It
promised racial-harmony and equality and participation in the state by all ethnic groups, but ended
up attempting to impose a single identity on everyone. As ethno-linguistic nationalism swept
through Europe, this became the basis for the emergence of many new states, including those that
broke free in the Balkans from Ottoman rule. World War I saw two multi-ethnic empires
disintegrate: the Ottoman and the Austro-Hungarian; both fractured into a series of independent,
homogeneous nation-states. Skeptics argue that only mono-cultural states can thrive, that wherever
a linguistic-ethnic group forms a majority, it ought to become a state. The failure, however, of the
Ottoman experiment was not entirely the fault of the Ottomans or of the CUP. The CUP wanted to
preserve the empire but faced both regional nationalism and the predatory ambitions of other
powers. The ethno-linguistic homogeneous nation-state was gaining popularity at the same time as
the multi-cultural empire was under external threat. The Young Turks might have coped with the
former threat by granting the autonomy they had promised, ensuring a just distribution of
wealth, employment and opportunity. It was in the face the external threat from jealous powers that,
in desperation, the Young Turks turned to centralization and what became known as Turkification.

If multi-cultural societies are doomed to disintegrate, this bodes ill for the future of an increasingly
inter-connected and inter-dependent world. Among others, Samuel P. Huntington argues against the
vitality or desirability of multi-cultural societies, arguing that “a country of many civilizations,
which is to say, a country not belonging to any civilization and lacking a cultural core” cannot
thrive. Only human cooperation can build a more just and peaceful world; a world where the
cultural and religious Other are only tolerated when they live somewhere else, or accept
discrimination unless they assimilate fully to the dominant group, will remain a divided, conflict-
prone world. The conditions in which the Young Turks attempted their experiment were
unfavorable. However, as migration and global trends produce more and more places like Salonika,
ways need to be found to enable multi-cultural and multi-religious communities not merely to
survive but to flourish and thrive.

Significant results of the 1908 Young Turk Revolution were:

The gradual creation of a new governing elite.

Opening a path for consolidation over the Ottoman civil and military administration,
especially after the Coup of 1913.
The Committee of Union and Progress became the new power center in Ottoman
politics.
The Armenian Revolutionary Federation replaced the pre-1908 Armenian elite, which
had been composed of merchants, artisans, and clerics who had seen their future in
obtaining more privileges within the boundaries of the state’s version of Ottomanism.
The Muslim Albanian elite, who had greatly benefited from the Hamidian regime in
return for their loyalty to the sultan, was also replaced by an intellectual-nationalist elite.
With members such as Bajram Curri, Nexhib Draga, and Myfit Libohova, the revolution
aimed at uniting Albanians of three different faiths and called for reforms for the benefit
of all Albanians.
In some communities, such as the Jewish, reformist groups emulating the Young Turks
ousted the conservative ruling elite and replaced them with a new reformist one.

Unit III

Turkey and First World War

The Ottoman Empire, ruled by Sultan Mehmed V during the First World War, played a significant
role in the conflict. The Ottoman Empire entered the war on the side of the Central Powers,
consisting primarily of Germany and Austria-Hungary. The decision to align with the Central
Powers was influenced by various geopolitical considerations, including shared opposition to
Russian expansionism and the hope of reclaiming territories lost in previous conflicts.

Early Stages of the War:

1. Gallipoli Campaign (1915-1916):
The Gallipoli Campaign of 1915-16, also known as the Battle of Gallipoli or the
Dardanelles Campaign, was an unsuccessful attempt by the Allied Powers of World War
I to control the sea route from Europe to Russia. The campaign began with a failed naval
attack by British and French ships on the Dardanelles Straits in February-March 1915
and continued with a major land invasion of the Gallipoli Peninsula on April 25,
involving British and French troops and the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps
 (ANZAC). Lack of sufficient intelligence and knowledge of the terrain, along with
fierce Turkish resistance, hampered the success of the invasion. By mid-October, Allied
forces had suffered heavy casualties and had made little headway from their initial
landing sites.

Launch of the Gallipoli Campaign

With World War I stalled on the Western Front by 1915, the Allied Powers were debating going on
the offensive in another region of the conflict, rather than continuing with attacks in Belgium and
France.

Early that year, Russia’s Grand Duke Nicholas appealed to Britain for aid in confronting a Turkish
invasion in the Caucasus. (Turkey, as part of the Ottoman Empire, had entered World War I on the
side of the Central Powers, Germany and Austria-Hungary, by November 1914.)

In response, the Allies decided to launch a naval expedition to capture Constantinople (now
Istanbul) and seize the Dardanelles Straits, a narrow passage connecting the Aegean Sea to the Sea
of Marmara in northwestern Turkey. If successful, the capture of the straits would allow the Allies
to link up with the Russians in the Black Sea, where they could work together to knock Turkey out
of the war.

Spearheaded by the first lord of the British Admiralty, Winston Churchill (over the strong
opposition of the First Sea Lord Admiral John Fisher, head of the British Navy), the naval attack on
the Dardanelles began with a long-range bombardment by British and French battleships on
February 19, 1915. Turkish forces abandoned their outer forts but met the approaching Allied
minesweepers with heavy fire, stalling the advance.

Under tremendous pressure to renew the attack, Admiral Sackville Carden, the British naval
commander in the region, suffered a nervous collapse and was replaced by Vice-Admiral Sir John
de Robeck. On March 18, 18 Allied battleships entered the straits; Turkish fire, including
undetected mines, sank three of the ships and severely damaged three others.

Gallipoli Land Invasion Begins

In the wake of the failed naval attack, preparations began for large-scale troop landings on the
Gallipoli Peninsula. British War Secretary Lord Kitchener appointed General Ian Hamilton as
commander of British forces for the operation; under his command, troops from Australia, New
Zealand and the French colonies assembled with British forces on the Greek island of Lemnos.

Meanwhile, the Turks boosted their defenses under the command of German general Liman von
Sanders, who began positioning Ottoman troops along the shore where he expected the landings
would take place.

On April 25, 1915, the Allies launched their invasion of the Gallipoli Peninsula. Despite suffering
heavy casualties, they managed to establish two beachheads: at Helles on the peninsula’s southern
tip, and at Gaba Tepe on the Aegean coast. (The latter site was later dubbed Anzac Cove, in honor
of the Australian and New Zealand troops who fought so valiantly against determined Turkish
defenders to establish the beachhead there.)

After the initial landing, the Allies were able to make little progress from their initial landing sites,
even as the Turks gathered more and more troops on the peninsula from both the Palestine and
Caucasus fronts.

In an attempt to break the stalemate, the Allies made another major troop landing on August 6 at
Suvla Bay, combined with a northwards advance from Anzac Cove towards the heights at Sari Bair
and a diversionary action at Helles. The surprise landings at Suvla Bay proceeded against little
opposition, but Allied indecision and delay stalled their progress in all three locations, allowing
Ottoman reinforcements to arrive and shore up their defenses.
The Decision to Evacuate Gallipoli

With Allied casualties in the Gallipoli Campaign mounting, Hamilton (with Churchill’s support)
petitioned Kitchener for 95,000 reinforcements; the war secretary offered barely a quarter of that
number. In mid-October, Hamilton argued that a proposed evacuation of the peninsula would cost
up to 50 percent casualties; British authorities subsequently recalled him and installed Sir Charles
Monro in his place.

By early November, Kitchener had visited the region himself and agreed with Monro’s
recommendation that the remaining 105,000 Allied troops should be evacuated. The British
government authorized the evacuation from Gallipoli to begin from Suvla Bay on December 7; the
last troops left Helles on January 9, 1916.

In all, some 480,000 Allied forces took part in the Gallipoli Campaign, at a cost of more than
250,000 casualties, including some 46,000 dead. On the Turkish side, the campaign also cost an
estimated 250,000 casualties, with 65,000 killed.
2. Caucasus Front:

The Caucasus campaign comprised armed conflicts between the Russian Empire and the Ottoman
Empire, later including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, the Mountainous Republic of the Northern
Caucasus, the German Empire, the Central Caspian Dictatorship, and the British Empire, as part of
the Middle Eastern theatre during World War I. The Caucasus campaign extended from the South
Caucasus to the Armenian Highlands region, reaching as far as Trabzon, Bitlis, Mush and Van. The
land warfare was accompanied by naval engagements in the Black Sea.

The Russian military campaign started on 1 November 1914 with the Russian invasion of Turkish
Armenia.

In February 1917, the Russian advance was halted following the Russian Revolution. The Russian
Caucasus Army soon disintegrated and was replaced by the forces of the newly established
Armenian state, comprising Armenian volunteer units and irregular units which had previously
been part of the Russian Army. During 1918 the region also saw the establishment of the Central
Caspian Dictatorship, the Republic of Mountainous Armenia and an Allied intervention force,
nicknamed Dunsterforce, composed of troops drawn from the Mesopotamian and Western Fronts.

On March 3, 1918, the campaign terminated between the Ottoman Empire and Russia with
the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and on June 4, 1918, the Ottoman Empire signed the Treaty of
Batum with Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia gaining independence. However, conflict continued
as the Ottoman Empire was still engaged with the Central Caspian Dictatorship, the Republic of
Mountainous Armenia, and the Dunsterforce of the British Empire until the Armistice of
Mudros was signed on October 30, 1918.

The Turkish genocide of the Armenians lasted from 1915-1923. It began in April 1915 when 250
Armenians were arrested. The official reason for the arrests was that the Armenians were in league
with the Russians and could serve as a potential “fifth column.”

The Arab Revolt and Lawrence of Arabia:

1. Arab Revolt (1916-1918):

The Arab Revolt of 1916-1918 stands as a pivotal chapter in the quest for Arab independence,
unfolding against the backdrop of World War I. At the heart of this rebellion was Sherif Hussein bin
Ali, ruler of the Hejaz region, whose aspirations for Arab autonomy were kindled by a series of
promises from the British government. This revolt, marked by key military engagements and
geopolitical intricacies, would significantly impact the course of the war and lay the foundation for
the reshaping of the Middle East.

The roots of the Arab Revolt trace back to Sherif Hussein’s discontent with Ottoman rule, which
had long marginalized Arab interests. The correspondence between Sherif Hussein and the British
government, notably through figures like Sir Henry McMahon, gave rise to promises of British
support for Arab independence in exchange for Arab assistance against the Ottoman Empire. These
pledges, however, would soon be overshadowed by conflicting agreements and interests.

A central figure in the Arab Revolt was T.E. Lawrence, immortalized as “Lawrence of Arabia.” His
military acumen and diplomatic finesse played a pivotal role in coordinating Arab forces and
implementing guerrilla tactics against the Ottoman occupiers. The capture of the strategically vital
port of Aqaba in 1917, achieved by Lawrence and Bedouin tribes, demonstrated the efficacy of such
tactics and bolstered Arab morale.

The Hijaz Railway emerged as a focal point of the Arab resistance. Regular attacks on the railway,
conducted by Arab forces with British support, disrupted Ottoman supply lines and showcased the
guerrilla warfare skills employed by the rebels. These engagements not only weakened the Ottoman
war effort but also showcased the unity and determination of the Arab fighters.

The turning point of the Arab Revolt came with the capture of Damascus in October 1918.
Coordinated efforts between Arab forces and the British, led by General Allenby, resulted in the
liberation of this historic city. This victory marked a symbolic triumph for the Arab forces and
signified a decisive shift in the regional balance of power.

However, the aftermath of the Arab Revolt was marked by geopolitical complexities and broken
promises. The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France contradicted the
assurances of Arab independence, outlining plans for the division of Ottoman territories in the post-
war era. Simultaneously, the Balfour Declaration expressed British support for a Jewish homeland
in Palestine, further complicating the aspirations of the Arab population.

In retrospect, the Arab Revolt, despite its military successes, did not fully achieve the envisioned
independence for the Arab territories. The geopolitical landscape shaped by the Sykes-Picot
Agreement and subsequent international treaties did not align with the aspirations of Sherif Hussein
and the Arab fighters. Nevertheless, the Arab Revolt played a crucial role in altering the dynamics
of the region, contributing to the eventual dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and setting the stage
for the establishment of nation-states in the Middle East. The echoes of this revolt would resonate
in the post-war negotiations and continue to influence the political landscape of the region in the
decades to come.

Balfour Declaration and the Sinai-Palestine Campaign:

1. Balfour Declaration (1917):

The Balfour Declaration, issued on November 2, 1917, by British Foreign Secretary

Arthur Balfour, represented a critical milestone in the trajectory of the Middle East and
the Zionist movement during the tumultuous era of World War I. This short but
influential document, expressing British support for the establishment of a “national
home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, had far-reaching consequences, shaping the
geopolitical landscape of the region and laying the groundwork for complex issues that
persist to this day.

Background and Context: The backdrop of the Balfour Declaration is rooted in several
factors, including the geopolitical considerations of World War I, the aspirations of the
Zionist movement, and the British pursuit of strategic interests in the Middle East. As
the war unfolded, the British government sought to gain support from various quarters,
 and the Zionist movement, led by figures like Chaim Weizmann, advocated for a Jewish
homeland in Palestine.

Zionist Aspirations: The Zionist movement, a late 19th-century political and cultural
movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, gained momentum in
the early 20th century. Theodor Herzl’s vision and subsequent Zionist congresses laid
the ideological groundwork for the establishment of a Jewish state. The Balfour
Declaration can be viewed as a response to Zionist lobbying and a recognition of Jewish
aspirations.

British Geopolitical Considerations: Strategically, the British government saw

potential advantages in supporting Zionist goals. The notion of a Jewish homeland in
Palestine aligned with British interests in securing support from Jewish communities,
both in Russia and the United States, and in gaining a foothold in the Middle East. The
belief was that such support could help influence the course of the war and facilitate
post-war arrangements.

The Balfour Declaration’s Content: The Balfour Declaration, addressed to Lord

Rothschild, a prominent British Zionist, stated, “His Majesty’s government views with
favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”
Importantly, it emphasized that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and
religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” This seemingly
ambiguous language became a source of contention and conflicting interpretations.

Impact and Consequences: The immediate impact of the Balfour Declaration was felt
in the Middle East. It contributed to a sense of disillusionment among Arab
communities, as it seemed to promise conflicting commitments to both Jewish and Arab
aspirations. The declaration played a role in the post-war settlement, with the League of
Nations granting Britain a mandate to administer Palestine in 1920.

As Jewish immigration to Palestine increased, tensions escalated between Jewish and

Arab communities, laying the groundwork for the Arab-Israeli conflict. The ambiguous
nature of the Balfour Declaration sowed the seeds for future disputes over land,
refugees, and the status of Jerusalem.

Legacy and Contemporary Significance: The Balfour Declaration remains a

contentious and debated historical document. Its legacy is intertwined with the complex
history of the Middle East, the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, and the
ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The issues of national identity, land ownership, and
the rights of different communities continue to shape the political discourse in the
region.

In conclusion, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 marked a pivotal moment in the history
of the Middle East and the Zionist movement. While expressing support for a Jewish
homeland, its consequences reverberated through decades, contributing to the complex
geopolitical landscape and conflicts that persist in the region today. The declaration’s
ambiguous language and the subsequent events that unfolded underscore the enduring
impact of this historic document on the modern Middle East.
2. Sinai-Palestine Campaign (1916-1918):

The Sinai-Palestine Campaign, waged between 1916 and 1918, stands as a crucial
chapter in the broader context of World War I, significantly shaping the geopolitical
landscape of the Middle East. This campaign, characterized by a series of strategic
battles and military maneuvers, was driven by British imperial interests, regional
rivalries, and the quest for control over key territories.

Background and Rationale: The campaign was initiated with the British aim of
securing the Suez Canal, a vital maritime route connecting the Mediterranean to the Red
 Sea and providing a lifeline to British imperial interests in India and the Far East.
Control over the Sinai Peninsula and Palestine was deemed essential for protecting
British strategic assets and ensuring the safety of vital supply lines.

The Early Phases: The campaign commenced in 1916 with the British forces, under the
command of General Archibald Murray, facing off against the Ottoman Empire, which
held sway over the region. The initial phases saw significant engagements, including the
Battle of Romani in August 1916, where British and imperial forces successfully
repelled Ottoman attempts to threaten the Suez Canal.

Leadership Changes and Challenges: As the campaign progressed, leadership changes

occurred. General Murray was replaced by General Edmund Allenby in June 1917.
Allenby brought a fresh strategic perspective and initiated reforms that would prove
crucial in later stages of the campaign. Challenges included the harsh desert conditions,
logistical difficulties, and the need to contend with Ottoman forces well-entrenched in
the region.

The Capture of Jerusalem: A turning point in the campaign was the capture of
Jerusalem in December 1917. General Allenby’s forces, employing a combination of
military tactics and psychological warfare, entered the city, ending Ottoman rule. The
capture of Jerusalem was a symbolic victory, resonating not only within the region but
also globally, as it marked the end of centuries of Ottoman control over the holy city.

Tactics and Strategies: Throughout the Sinai-Palestine Campaign, both sides employed
various military tactics. The British, learning from earlier setbacks, embraced a
combination of traditional infantry movements, cavalry charges, and effective use of
newly introduced technologies such as aircraft and armored cars. The Ottoman forces,
led by German commanders, relied on trench warfare and fortifications.

Legacy and Implications: The successful conclusion of the Sinai-Palestine Campaign

had profound implications for the post-war Middle East. The Ottoman Empire’s grip on
the region weakened, setting the stage for the eventual dismantling of the empire and the
emergence of modern nation-states. The British, who would eventually receive the
League of Nations mandate to administer Palestine, faced the challenge of navigating
complex ethnic and religious dynamics, laying the groundwork for future conflicts.

Collapse of the Ottoman Empire:

1. Treaty of Sèvres (1920):

The Treaty of Sèvres was one of a series of treaties signed by the Central Powers
after World War One. It ordered the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, which led to its
ultimate annihilation. The treaty, which liquidated the Ottoman Empire and virtually
abolished Turkish sovereignty, greatly angered the Turkish.

Signed on 10 August 1920 following 15 months of planning, the Treaty of Sèvres was
designed to strangle the ‘Sick Man of Europe’. Italy, Britain and France signed it on
behalf of the victorious Allies.

The Treaty of Sèvres divided the territory of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East.

France took over Lebanon, Syria and territory in southern Anatolia, while Britain took
possession of Palestine and Iraq, gaining generous oil concessions in the process.. These
terms were decided in the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1917.

Armenia was recognised as a separate sovereign state.

 The Treaty of Sevres also recognised certain areas as independent sovereign states. This
included the Kingdom of Hejaz and Armenia.

Greece was given control of Smyrna, although it technically remained within the
Ottoman Empire. The people of Smyrna were also given the option of a referendum on
whether the wanted to remain in the Ottoman Empire or join Greece.

Italy was given the Dodecanese Islands as well as influence in the coastal region of
Anatolia.

The treaty made the Dardanelles Straits an international waterway and stripped the
Ottoman Empire of its control over it. It also declared some ports near Constantinople
international ‘free zones’.

Kurdistan was a point of contention in the treaty. Nationalist Kurds rejected an initial
agreement on the boundaries of Kurdistan as it did not include a region called Van.

Similar to the other treaties signed by the Central Powers, the Treaty of Sèvres imposed
severe military restrictions on the Ottoman Empire.The Ottoman Army was reduced to
50,000 men, it was forbidden to have an air force and the navy was reduced to only
thirteen boats. Under the Treaty of Sèvres the Allies were given power to impose these
terms.

The Treaty of Sevres imposed equally as harsh financial terms on the Ottoman Empire.
However, while Weimar Germany was allowed to control its own economy, the Allies
were responsible for the Ottoman Empire’s finances. It took control of imports and
exports, the Ottoman Bank, the national budget and requests for loans and reform of the
tax system.

The Turkish nationalist leader organised a rebellion against the treaty just before the
Grand Vizier, Ahmed Pasha, of the Empire ratified it. Pasha was defeated and Kemal
refused to sign the treaty, which he saw as needlessly harsh.

Kemal argued that the treaty punished the people of Turkey and not the leaders of the
Ottoman Empire who had led the country into war. As a result, the Allies and newly
formed Turkey had to begin negotiations again.
2. Turkish War of Independence (1919-1922):

The Turkish War of Independence (19 May 1919 – 24 July 1923) was a series of
military campaigns and a revolution waged by the Turkish National Movement, after
parts of the Ottoman Empire were occupied and partitioned following its defeat in World
War I. It resulted in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the abolition of the Ottoman
monarchy and of the Islamic caliphate, and declaration of the Republic of
Turkey in Anatolia and Eastern Thrace. The conflict was between the Turkish
Nationalists against Allied and separatist forces over the application of Wilsonian
principles, especially national self-determination, in post-war Anatolia and Eastern
Thrace. In addition, it resulted in a transfer of vested sovereignty from the sultan-caliph
to the nation, setting the stage of Republican Turkey’s period of radical reform.

While World War I ended for the Ottoman Empire with the Armistice of Mudros,
the Allied Powers continued occupying and seizing land per the Sykes–Picot Agreement,
as well as to facilitate the prosecution of former members of the Committee of Union
and Progress and those involved in the Armenian genocide. Ottoman military
commanders therefore refused orders from both the Allies and the Ottoman
government to surrender and disband their forces. This crisis reached a head
when sultan Mehmed VI dispatched Mustafa Kemal Pasha (Atatürk), a well-respected
and high-ranking general, to Anatolia to restore order; however, Mustafa Kemal became
 an enabler and eventually leader of Turkish Nationalist resistance against the Ottoman
government, Allied powers, and separatists.

In an attempt to establish control over the power vacuum in Anatolia, the Allies agreed
to launch a Greek peacekeeping force into Anatolia and occupy Smyrna (İzmir),
inflaming sectarian tensions and beginning the Turkish War of Independence. A
nationalist counter government led by Mustafa Kemal was established in Ankara when it
became clear the Ottoman government was appeasing the Allied powers. The Allies
soon pressured the Ottoman government in Constantinople to suspend the Constitution,
shutter Parliament, and sign the Treaty of Sèvres, a treaty unfavorable to Turkish
interests that the “Ankara government” declared illegal.

In the ensuing war, Turkish and Syrian forces defeated the French in the south, and
remobilized army units went on to partition Armenia with the Bolsheviks, resulting in
the Treaty of Kars (October 1921). The Western Front of the independence war is known
as the Greco-Turkish War, in which Greek forces at first encountered unorganized
resistance. However, İsmet Pasha (İnönü)’s organization of militia into a regular
army paid off when Ankara forces fought the Greeks in the First and Second Battle of
İnönü. The Greek army emerged victorious in the Battle of Kütahya-Eskişehir and
decided to drive on the Nationalist capital of Ankara, stretching their supply lines. The
Turks checked their advance in the Battle of Sakarya and eventually counter-attacked in
the Great Offensive, which expelled Greek forces from Anatolia in the span of three
weeks. The war effectively ended with the recapture of İzmir and the Chanak Crisis,
prompting the signing of another armistice in Mudanya.

The Grand National Assembly in Ankara was recognized as the legitimate Turkish
government, which signed the Treaty of Lausanne (July 1923), a treaty more favorable
to Turkey than the Sèvres Treaty. The Allies evacuated Anatolia and Eastern Thrace, the
Ottoman government was overthrown and the monarchy abolished, and the Grand
National Assembly of Turkey (which remains Turkey’s primary legislative body today)
declared the Republic of Turkey on 29 October 1923. With the war, a population
exchange between Greece and Turkey, the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, and
the abolition of the sultanate, the Ottoman era came to an end, and with Atatürk’s
reforms, the Turks created the modern, secular nation-state of Turkey. On 3 March 1924,
the Ottoman caliphate was also abolished.

The ethnic demographics of the modern Turkish Republic were significantly impacted
by the earlier Armenian genocide and the deportations of Greek-speaking, Orthodox
Christian Rum people. The Turkish Nationalist Movement carried out massacres and
deportations to eliminate native Christian populations—a continuation of the Armenian
genocide and other ethnic cleansing operations during World War I. Following these
campaigns of ethnic cleansing, the historic Christian presence in Anatolia was
destroyed, in large part, and the Muslim demographic had increased from 80% to 98%
3. Treaty of Lausanne (1923):

The Treaty of Lausanne is a peace treaty negotiated during the Lausanne Conference
of 1922–23 and signed in the Palais de Rumine in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July
1923. The treaty officially resolved the conflict that had initially arisen between
the Ottoman Empire and the Allied French Republic, British Empire, Kingdom of
Italy, Empire of Japan, Kingdom of Greece, Kingdom of Serbia, and the Kingdom of
Romania since the outset of World War I. The original text of the treaty is in French. It
emerged as a second attempt at peace after the failed and unratified Treaty of Sèvres,
which had sought to partition Ottoman territories. The earlier treaty, signed in 1920, was
later rejected by the Turkish National Movement which actively opposed its terms. As a
result of the Greco-Turkish War, Izmir was reclaimed, and the Armistice of
Mudanya was signed in October 1922. This armistice provided for the exchange of
 Greek-Turkish populations and allowed unrestricted civilian, non-military passage
through the Turkish Straits.

Turkey ratified the treaty on 23 August 1923, and all other signatories did so by 16 July
1924. It officially took effect on 6 August 1924, when the instruments of ratification
were deposited in Paris.

Additionally, a declaration of amnesty was issued, granting immunity for crimes

committed between 1914 and 1922. Historian Hans-Lukas Kieser asserts that “Lausanne
tacitly endorsed comprehensive policies of expulsion and extermination of hetero-ethnic
and hetero-religious groups”.

Legacy:
The participation of the Ottoman Empire in World War I had profound and lasting consequences.
The war contributed to the eventual collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the emergence of modern
Turkey, and the reshaping of the Middle East under new national boundaries. Mustafa Kemal
Atatürk’s leadership during the Turkish War of Independence played a crucial role in shaping the
future of Turkey as a secular republic.

Emergence of Kamal Pasha

Mustafa Kemal was born 1881 in Salonica, as the son of a minor official who became a timber
merchant. In accordance with the then prevalent Turkish custom, he was given the single name
Mustafa. His father, Ali Rıza, was a customs officer who died when Mustafa was seven. As such, it
was left to his mother Zübeyde Hanım to bring the young Mustafa up. Four of the five siblings of
Atatürk died at early ages and only one sister, Makbule (Atadan) survived, and lived until 1956.

When Mustafa was 12 years old, he went to military schools in Salonica and Monastir, then centres
of anti-Turkish Greek nationalism. Mustafa studied at the military secondary school in Salonica,
where the additional name Kemal was bestowed on him by his mathematics teacher. Mustafa
Kemal entered the military academy at Monastir in 1895. He graduated as a lieutenant in 1905 and
was posted to the Fifth Army in Damascus.

In Damascus, he soon joined a small secret revolutionary society of reform-minded officers

called “Motherland and Liberty” (Vatan ve Hürriyet), and became an active opponent of the
Ottoman regime. In 1907 he was posted to Salonica and joined the Committee of Union and
Progress commonly known as the Young Turks. He was the staff officer of the “Liberation Army”
(Hareket Ordusu) which entered Istanbul on April 19, 1909 to put down a revolt. He was sent to
Paris in 1910 where he attended the Picardie Maneuvers and the next year he started to work at the
High Command in Istanbul.

In 1911, he went to the province of Trablusgarp (modern-day Libya) to take part in the defense
against the Italian invasion. When the Balkan War started in October 1912, Mustafa Kemal joined
the battle with units from Gallipoli and Bulair. His contributions to the recapturing of
Didymoteicho and Edirne (formerly Adrianople) were considerable. In 1914, he was assigned to
Sofia as a military attaché, partly to remove him from the capital and its political intrigues. While
still at this post, he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel. His term as an attache ended in
January 1915. By that time the First World War had started and the Ottoman Empire was inevitably
involved. Mustafa Kemal was posted to Tekirdağ with the assignment of forming the 19th Division.

Mustafa Kemal played a critical role in the battle against the allied British, French and ANZAC
forces during the battle at Gallipoli during 1915, where he held off allied forces at Conkbayırı and
on the Anafarta hills. For this success, he was later promoted to the rank of Brigadier General, thus
acquiring the title of “Pasha” and gained increasingly greater degrees of influence on the war effort.
Mustafa Kemal gained much respect from his former enemies for his chivalry in victory; the
“Mustafa Kemal Atatürk Memorial” has an honoured place on ANZAC Parade in Canberra,
Australia. It includes words attributed to him: “Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their
lives… you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no
difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets where they lie side by side here in this country of
ours… You the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries wipe away your tears. Your
sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. Having lost their lives on this land they have
become our sons as well.”

During 1917 and 1918, Mustafa Kemal was sent to the Caucasus front to fight against Russian
forces, against which he had some success. He was later assigned to the Hejaz to suppress the Arab
Revolt (which was supported by Great Britain) against Ottoman rule. After resigning his
commission, he eventually returned to serve in the unsuccessful defense of Palestine. In October
1918, Turkey capitulated to the Allies, and Mustafa Kemal became one of the leaders of the party in
favour of defending the area roughly occupied by present day Turkey, while agreeing to withdraw
from all the other territories. When, following the Armistice of Mudros, Allied nations started to
disband the Turkish armies, Mustafa Kemal went to Samsun on May 19, 1919. With the circular he
published on June 22, 1919 at Amasya, he declared that “the freedom of the nation shall be restored
with the resolve and determination of the nation itself” and called the meeting of a congress. He
convened the Erzurum Congress during July 23-August 7, 1919 and the Sivas Congress during
September 4-11, 1919, thus defining the path to be followed towards the freedom of the
motherland.

Mustafa Kemal was met with great enthusiasm in Ankara on December 27, 1919. With the
initiation of the Turkish Grand National Assembly on April 23, 1920, a significant step was taken
on the way to establishing the Turkish Republic. Mustafa Kemal was elected as the head of the
national assembly as well as the head of the government. The Grand National Assembly started to
put into effect the necessary legislative measures so as to enable the War of Liberation to come to a
successful conclusion.

The Turkish War of Liberation started with the first gun shot on May 15, 1919 during the Greek
occupation of Izmir. The fight against the victors of the First World War who had divided up the
Ottoman Empire with the Treaty of Sevres signed on August 10, 1920, initially started with the
militia forces called Kuvayi Milliye. The Turkish Assembly later initiated a regular army and
achieving integration between the army and the militia, was able to conclude the war in victory.

On the military front, the conflict between nationalist movement and the Allied powers went on
three fronts. Which one of them with the Greece (west front), where the Turkish forces fell back in
good order to the Sakarya river, just 80 kilometers from the Grand National Assembly. Mustafa
Kemal took personal command and decisively defeated the Greeks in the twenty day Battle of
Sakarya in August-September 1921. Final victory over the Greeks came in the Battle of
Dumlupınar in August 1922. On the political front, Mustafa Kemal signed the Treaty of Kars on
October 23, 1921 with the Soviet Union, a treaty of friendship in which Turkey ceded the city of
Batumi, in present-day Georgia, to the Bolsheviks in return for sovereignty over the cities of Kars
and Ardahan, which were lost to Tsarist Russia in the Turkish-Russian War of 1877-1878.

The victory in the War of Liberation assured Turkey’s sovereignty. He ushered the Treaty of
Lausanne, signed on July 24, 1923, through which Turkey finally entered a period of peace after a
disastrous decade of warfare. On October 29, 1923, the Turkish Republic was formally proclaimed
and Mustafa Kemal was unanimously elected as its first President. The young republic began to
grow on the twin principles of “Sovereignty unconditionally belongs to the nation” and “Peace at
home and peace abroad”. Mustafa Kemal spent the next several years consolidating his control
over Turkey and instituting a variety of wide-ranging political, economic and social reforms. He
undertook these reforms to “raise Turkey to the level of modern civilization.”

Atatürk’s view of culture included both his own nation’s creative legacy and what he saw as the
more admirable values of world civilization, and he put an emphasis on humanism above all. He
once described modern Turkey’s ideological thrust as “a creation of patriotism blended with a lofty
humanist ideal.”

So as to assist in the creation of such a synthesis, Atatürk stressed the need to utilize the elements of
the national heritage of the Turks and of Anatolia—including its ancient indigenous cultures—as
well as the arts and techniques of other world civilizations, both past and present. He emphasized
the study of earlier Anatolian civilizations, such as the Hittites, Phrygians, and Lydians. The pre-
Islamic culture of the Turks became the subject of extensive research, and particular emphasis was
laid upon the fact that—long before the Seljuk and Ottoman civilizations—the Turks had had a rich
culture. Atatürk also stressed the folk arts of the countryside as a wellspring of Turkish creativity.

The visual and the plastic arts—whose development had on occasion been hindered by some
Ottoman officials claiming that the depiction of the human form was idolatry—flourished during
the presidency of Atatürk. Many museums were opened; architecture began to follow more modern
trends; and classical Western music, opera, and ballet, as well as the theatre, also took greater hold.
Several hundred “People’s Houses” and “People’s Rooms” across the country allowed greater
access to a wide variety of artistic activities, sports, and other cultural events. Book and magazine
publications increased as well, and the film industry began to grow.

According to the Law on Surames, the Turkish Grand Assembly gave the name “Atatürk” (Father
of Turks) to Mustafa Kemal on November 24, 1934. He was elected as the Speaker of the Grand
Assembly on April 24, 1920 and again on August 13, 1923. This was a position equal to that of the
president as well as the prime minister. Republic was proclaimed on October 29, 1923 and Atatürk
was elected as the first President. Elections for President were renewed every four years according
to the Constitution. In 1927, 1931 and 1935 Turkish Grand Assembly again elected Atatürk as the
president.

Atatürk took frequent trips around the country and inspected locally the works undertaken by the
state, giving directives where problems were faced. As president he was host to visiting foreign
presidents, prime ministers and ministers. He read his Great Speech, which covers the War of
Liberation and the founding of the Republic on October 15-20, 1927, and his 10th Year Speech on
October 29, 1933.

Atatürk married Latife Hanım on January 29, 1923. They took many trips to different parts of the
country together. This marriage lasted until August 5, 1925. He adopted girls named Afet (İnan),
Sabiha (Gökçen), Fikriye, Ülkü, Nebile, Rukiye and Zehra and a shepherd boy named Mustafa.

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk died on November 10, 1938 at 9:05 am at Dolmabahçe Palace, defeated by
the liver ailment he was suffering from. He was taken to his temporary place of rest at the
Ethnography Museum in Ankara on November 21, 1938. When the mausoleum was completed, he
was taken to his permanent resting place with a grand ceremony on November 10, 1953.

Reforms and Achievement

Reforms
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder and first president of the Republic of Turkey, initiated a series
of sweeping reforms in the early 20th century. These reforms were aimed at modernizing and
secularizing Turkey, transforming it from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire into a modern,
secular, and progressive nation-state. Atatürk’s reforms, collectively known as the Kemalist
Reforms or Atatürk’s Six Arrows, touched upon various aspects of Turkish society, including
politics, education, law, language, and culture.

1. Political Reforms: Atatürk’s political reforms were instrumental in establishing a democratic

and secular system of governance. The most pivotal was the abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate and
the establishment of the Republic of Turkey on October 29, 1923. Atatürk became the first
president, and a new constitution was adopted in 1924, emphasizing principles of secularism and
nationalism. The caliphate, symbolizing both religious and political authority, was abolished in
1924, severing the last ties between religion and the state.

2. Legal Reforms: To align the legal system with modern principles, Atatürk introduced the
Turkish Civil Code in 1926, modeled after the Swiss Civil Code. This revolutionary step replaced
the Islamic legal framework, granting equal rights to men and women in matters of marriage,
divorce, and inheritance. The penal code was also reformed in 1926, and new laws emphasized the
principles of equality before the law and individual rights.

3. Educational Reforms: Recognizing the role of education in shaping the future of the nation,
Atatürk implemented substantial changes in the education system. The Medrese system, rooted in
religious education, was replaced with a secular education model. The Law of Unification of
Education in 1924 aimed to standardize the curriculum and introduce modern subjects such as
science, mathematics, and social studies. The Latin alphabet replaced the Arabic script in 1928,
facilitating literacy and communication in a modern context.

4. Language Reforms: The adoption of the Latin alphabet was part of broader language reforms
initiated by Atatürk. This move aimed to break ties with the Ottoman past and facilitate
communication with the contemporary world. The Turkish Language Society (Türk Dil Kurumu)
was established in 1932 to purify and enrich the Turkish language, eliminating Arabic and Persian
loanwords and promoting linguistic unity.

5. Economic Reforms: Atatürk recognized the importance of economic strength for national
sovereignty. The first economic plan, known as the 1931 Industrialization Program, aimed to boost
economic self-sufficiency. State-led industrialization initiatives, agricultural reforms, and
infrastructure development were key components of Atatürk’s economic vision.

6. Cultural Reforms: Atatürk believed that cultural transformation was essential for the creation of
a modern and unified nation. The Turkish Historical Society (Türk Tarih Kurumu) was established
in 1931 to reinterpret Turkish history based on scientific principles, moving away from the
Ottoman-centered narratives. Atatürk also encouraged the arts and literature to embrace national
themes and modern perspectives.

Legacy and Criticisms: Atatürk’s reforms, collectively known as Kemalism, had a profound
impact on Turkey’s trajectory. They laid the foundation for the country’s modernization,
secularization, and transformation into a republic with a distinct national identity. However, these
reforms were not without controversy. Some critics argue that the rapid pace of change imposed
from the top down suppressed cultural diversity and stifled dissent.

In conclusion, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s reforms were a comprehensive and ambitious undertaking
that aimed to reshape every aspect of Turkish society. From political restructuring to educational
modernization, these reforms were driven by a vision of a secular, democratic, and modern state.
Atatürk’s legacy persists in modern Turkey, as his vision and principles continue to shape the
nation’s identity and trajectory.

Achievements
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, born in 1881 in Salonica (now Thessaloniki, Greece), rose to prominence
as a military leader and statesman, leaving an indelible mark on the transformation of the Ottoman
Empire into the Republic of Turkey. His achievements, spanning political, social, cultural, and
economic realms, were instrumental in shaping modern Turkey.
1. Military Leadership and Gallipoli Campaign (1915-1916): Mustafa Kemal first gained
international recognition during World War I, notably through his leadership in the Gallipoli
Campaign. His strategic brilliance and determination played a pivotal role in repelling Allied forces
attempting to seize control of the Dardanelles. The success at Gallipoli marked a turning point,
shaping his reputation as a military genius and a national hero.

2. Turkish War of Independence (1919-1922): Perhaps Atatürk’s most significant achievement

was his leadership during the Turkish War of Independence. Faced with the harsh terms of the
Treaty of Sèvres and the occupation of Anatolia by foreign powers, Atatürk galvanized the Turkish
people in a resistance movement. He founded the Turkish Grand National Assembly in Ankara in
1920, establishing an alternative government that would play a crucial role in the struggle for
independence. Through military victories, such as the Battle of Sakarya, and diplomatic efforts, he
secured international recognition and laid the groundwork for the Republic of Turkey.

3. Establishment of the Republic of Turkey (1923): Atatürk’s vision for a modern, secular, and
democratic Turkey culminated in the establishment of the Republic of Turkey on October 29, 1923.
As its first president, Atatürk initiated a series of radical reforms to transform the nation, with an
unwavering commitment to modernization and Westernization.

4. Abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate and Caliphate (1922-1924): To break with the Ottoman
past and establish a secular republic, Atatürk abolished the Ottoman Sultanate in 1922, ending
centuries of monarchical rule. In 1924, he also abolished the Caliphate, severing the political
influence of religious authorities. These measures were essential in establishing the principles of
secularism and separating state affairs from religious institutions.

5. Legal and Judicial Reforms: Atatürk’s reforms extended to the legal and judicial systems. He
introduced a new legal code based on Swiss and Italian models, replacing the previous Islamic legal
system. The judiciary underwent a comprehensive overhaul, emphasizing the principles of equality
and justice. These reforms aimed to create a modern and efficient legal system.

6. Educational Reforms: Recognizing the importance of education in nation-building, Atatürk

implemented sweeping educational reforms. The unification of the education system, the
introduction of compulsory education, and the establishment of secular schools aimed at fostering a
generation with a modern and scientific mindset. Atatürk emphasized the role of education in
shaping a progressive and enlightened society.

7. Alphabet Reform (1928): One of Atatürk’s boldest moves was the introduction of a new Latin-
based alphabet in 1928, replacing the Ottoman Turkish script. This reform aimed at increasing
literacy rates, breaking from the Arabic script, and fostering a sense of national unity. The alphabet
reform was a symbolic step toward creating a modern and accessible language for all citizens.

8. Economic Policies: Atatürk implemented economic policies to modernize Turkey’s economy. He

encouraged industrialization, agricultural reform, and infrastructure development. State intervention
in key sectors, such as finance and transportation, helped lay the foundation for a more robust and
self-sufficient economy.

9. Women’s Rights: Atatürk was a pioneer in advocating for women’s rights. His legal reforms
granted women the right to vote and run for office in 1934, ahead of many Western countries. He
believed that the emancipation of women was crucial for the progress of the nation and encouraged
their active participation in all spheres of life.

10. Cultural Renaissance and National Identity: Atatürk fostered a cultural renaissance,
emphasizing Turkish national identity. He promoted Turkish language and culture, encouraging
artistic and literary endeavors that celebrated the nation’s heritage. The cultural reforms aimed at
forging a cohesive national identity, distinct from the multicultural Ottoman legacy.

Legacy: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s legacy is profound and enduring. His achievements in creating a
modern, secular, and democratic state have shaped Turkey’s identity for nearly a century. Atatürk’s
principles, known as Kemalism, continue to influence Turkish politics and society. While his
reforms faced criticism and challenges, Atatürk’s visionary leadership laid the foundation for
Turkey’s evolution into a regional power and a bridge between East and West. His contributions to
the nation-building process, commitment to secularism, and emphasis on education and progress
solidify his place as the founding father of modern Turkey. Atatürk’s legacy resonates not only
within Turkey but also serves as a source of inspiration for those advocating for political and social
reforms globally.

Unit IV

Growth of Anglo-French Imperialism in Egypt

The late 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed a surge in imperialistic endeavors, with major
European powers vying for dominance in various regions. Egypt, strategically situated at the
crossroads of Africa and the Middle East, became a focal point of Anglo-French imperial interests.
The story of the growth of Anglo-French imperialism in Egypt is multifaceted, involving economic
interests, geopolitical maneuvers, and the interplay of imperial rivalries.

1. Economic Interests and the Suez Canal: The Suez Canal, completed in 1869, emerged as a
critical geopolitical and economic asset. Connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea, it
significantly shortened the maritime route to British India. Recognizing the canal’s strategic
importance, both Britain and France sought to secure control and influence over this vital waterway.
The Suez Canal Company, initially a Franco-Egyptian venture, found itself in financial distress,
leading to intervention by British and French banks, marking the beginning of their economic
involvement in Egypt.

2. The Dual Control Period (1879-1882): Economic troubles and political instability in Egypt
prompted both Britain and France to intervene militarily, ostensibly to protect their financial
interests. The Dual Control Period (1879-1882) saw British and French controllers overseeing
Egypt’s finances. While initially portrayed as a temporary measure, this period laid the groundwork
for increased imperial involvement in Egyptian affairs.

3. The British Occupation (1882): The British, alarmed by the rise of nationalist sentiments and
fearing a threat to the Suez Canal, unilaterally occupied Egypt in 1882. The pretext was restoring
order following anti-European riots, but the occupation became a de facto imperial takeover. The
British asserted control over Egyptian finances, administration, and military affairs, while the
French, reluctant to engage in outright conflict, gradually ceded influence.

4. Economic Exploitation and Financial Control: The British occupation brought about profound
changes in Egypt’s economic structure. British economic interests expanded, with the development
of large-scale agriculture, facilitated by the construction of the Aswan Dam. The country’s
economic resources were exploited to serve British imperial needs, further entrenching their
dominance.

5. Geopolitical Rivalries and the Entente Cordiale (1904): The Entente Cordiale between Britain
and France in 1904 marked a significant shift in imperial dynamics. While the agreement aimed at
settling various colonial disputes, including in North Africa, it implicitly recognized Egypt as
within Britain’s sphere of influence. France, focusing on its interests in Morocco, opted for a
cooperative approach, tacitly allowing Britain to consolidate its dominance in Egypt.

6. World War I and Aftermath: The geopolitical landscape shifted again during World War I. The
Ottoman Empire’s alliance with the Central Powers prompted the British to officially annex Egypt
in 1914. With the war’s conclusion, the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 confirmed British control over
Egypt. However, Egyptian nationalists, fueled by discontent with imperial rule, continued to resist.
7. Interwar Period and Continued Resistance: The interwar period saw persistent Egyptian
nationalist movements, demanding self-determination and the end of foreign domination. The
British responded with occasional concessions, such as the recognition of Egyptian sovereignty in
1936, but retained control over strategic areas and military facilities.

8. World War II and the Postwar Era: World War II marked a pivotal moment. British forces
defended Egypt against Axis powers, and the wartime cooperation with Egyptians, combined with
changing global dynamics, accelerated the move toward Egyptian independence. In 1952, the Free
Officers’ coup led by General Muhammad Naguib set the stage for the end of British influence,
culminating in the establishment of the Republic of Egypt in 1953.

Conclusion: The growth of Anglo-French imperialism in Egypt was a complex interplay of

economic interests, geopolitical maneuvering, and the dynamics of imperial rivalries. The strategic
importance of the Suez Canal, economic exploitation, and shifting alliances during World War I all
played crucial roles in shaping the imperial narrative. Ultimately, the nationalist fervor of the
Egyptian people, coupled with global changes in the aftermath of World War II, led to the
dismantling of imperial control and the emergence of an independent Egypt. The story of Anglo-
French imperialism in Egypt serves as a nuanced example of the intricate relationships between
economic motives, geopolitical strategies, and the aspirations of colonized peoples during the age
of imperialism.

Rise of Nationalism: Causes and Results

Egyptian nationalism is based on Egyptians and Egyptian culture. Egyptian nationalism has
typically been a civic nationalism that has emphasized the unity of Egyptians regardless of
their ethnicity or religion. Egyptian nationalism first manifested itself as Anti-English sentiment
during the Egyptian revolution of 1919.
History

Late 19th century

Both the Arabic language and the ancient Egyptian language are Afroasiatic languages sharing a
common origin. The rule of Muhammad Ali of Egypt led Egypt to a more advanced level of
industrialization in comparison with Egypt’s neighbors, along with more discoveries of relics of
ancient Egyptian civilization. The Urabi movement in the 1870s and 1880s was the first major
Egyptian nationalist movement that demanded an end to the alleged despotism of the Muhammad
Ali family and demanded curbing the growth of European influence in Egypt, it campaigned under
the nationalist slogan of “Egypt for Egyptians”.

One of the key figures in opposing British rule was the Egyptian journalist Yaqub Sanu whose
cartoons from 1870s onward satirizing first the Khedive, Ismail the Magnificent, and then Egypt’s
British rulers as bumbling buffoons were very popular in the 19th century. Sanu was the first to
write in Egyptian Arabic, which was intended to appeal to a mass audience, and his cartoons could
be easily understood by even the illiterate. Sanu had established the newspaper Abu-Naddara Zarqa,
which was the first newspaper to use Egyptian Arabic in March 1877. One of his cartoons mocked
Ismail the Magnificent for his fiscal extravagance which caused Egypt’s bankruptcy in 1876,
leading Ismail, who did not appreciate the cartoon, to order his arrest. Sanu fled to Paris, and
continued to publish Abu-Naddara Zarqa there, with its issues being smuggled into Egypt until his
death in 1912.

The period between 1860 − 1940 was characterized by El–nahda, renaissance or rebirth. It is best
known its renewed interest in Egyptian antiquity and the cultural achievements that were inspired
by it. Along with this interest came an indigenous, Egypt-centered orientation, particularly among
the Egyptian intelligentsia that would affect Egypt’s autonomous development as a sovereign and
independent nation-state. The first Egyptian renaissance intellectual was Rifa’a el-Tahtawi. In 1831,
Tahtawi undertook a career in journalism, education and translation. Three of his published
volumes were works of political and moral philosophy. In them he introduces his students
to Enlightenment ideas such as secular authority and political rights and liberty; his ideas regarding
how a modern civilized society ought to be and what constituted by extension a civilized or “good
Egyptian”; and his ideas on public interest and the public good.

Tahtawi was instrumental in sparking indigenous interest in Egypt’s ancient heritage. He composed
several poems in praise of Egypt and wrote two other general histories of the country. He also co-
founded with his contemporary Ali Mubarak, the architect of the modern Egyptian school system.

20th century

After the British occupation of Egypt began in 1882, Egyptian nationalism became focused upon
ending the occupation. They had support from Liberals and Socialists in Britain. Wilfrid Scawen
Blunt, an anti-imperialist, criticized the British occupation in three widely circulated books: The
Secret History of the English Occupation of Egypt… (1907), Gordon at Khartoum (1911), and My
Diaries: Being a Personal Narrative of Events, 1888-1914 (2 vols. 1919–20). Historian Robert O.
Collins says:

The most vigorous English advocate of Egyptian Independence, Blunt was both arrogant and
irascible, his works scathing, discursive, and at times utterly ridiculous. Immature and
unfair, both he and his writings must be used with caution, but even the dullest of men will
come away stimulated if not aroused and with fresh insights to challenge the sometimes
smug attitudes of British officials in Whitehall and Cairo. Of course, to them Blunt was
anathema if not disloyal and Edward Malet, the British Consul-General at Cairo from 1879
to 1883, replied to Blunt’s charges in his posthumously published Egypt, 1879-1883.

Mustafa Kamil Pasha, A leading Egyptian nationalist of the early 20th century, was greatly
influenced by the example of Meiji Japan as an ‘Eastern’ state that had successfully modernized for
Egypt and from the time of the Russian-Japanese war consistently urged in his writings that Egypt
emulate Japan. Kamil was also a Francophile like most educated Egyptians of his generation, and
the French republican values of liberté, égalité, fraternité influenced his understanding of what it
meant to be Egyptian as Kamil defined the Egyptian Identity in terms of loyalty to Egypt. Kamil
together with other Egyptian nationalists helped to redefine loyalty to al-watan (“the homeland”) in
terms stressing the importance of education, nizam (order), and love of al-watan, implicitly
criticizing the state created by Mohammad Ali the Great, which was run on very militarist lines.
After the Entente Cordial of 1904 ended hopes of French support for Egyptian independence, a
disillusioned Kamil looked east towards Japan as a model, defining Egypt as an “Eastern” country
occupied by “Western” Great Britain, and suggested in terms that anticipated later Third World
nationalism that Egyptians had more in common with people from other places controlled by
Western nations such as British India (modern-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) and the Dutch
East Indies (modern-day Indonesia) than they did with the nations of Europe.

Egyptian nationalism reached its peak in popularity in 1919 when revolution against British rule
took place in response to wartime policies imposed by the British authorities in Egypt during World
War I. Three years of protest and political turmoil followed until Britain unilaterally declared the
independence of Egypt in 1922 that was a monarchy, though Britain reserved several areas for
British supervision. During the period of the Kingdom of Egypt, Egyptian nationalists remained
determined to terminate the remaining British presence in Egypt. One of the more noteworthy cases
of Egyptian nationalism occurred in December 1922 when the Egyptian government laid claim to
the artifacts found in the tomb of King Tutankhamun, which had been discovered by a British
archaeologist named Howard Carter in November 1922, arguing that they belonged to Egypt and
Carter could not take them to Britain as he planned. The dispute finally led to the Egyptians posting
an armed guard outside of Tutankhamun’s tomb to prevent Carter from entering it. In February
1924, the Egyptian government seized control of the tomb and with it all of the artifacts found
there, saying that they belonged to Egypt. On 6 March 1924, the Prime Minister Saad
Zaghloul formally opened the site of Tutankamun’s tomb to the Egyptian public in an elaborate
ceremony held at night with the sky lit up by floodlights, which reportedly attracted the largest
crowd seen in Luxor. The reopening turned into an anti-British demonstration when the British
High Commissioner, Field Marshal Allenby, arrived when the crowd was demanding immediate
British withdrawal from Egypt. The dispute over who owned King Tutankhamun’s treasures took
place against the backdrop of a movement in the Egyptian liberal elite known as Pharaonism which
extolled ancient Egypt as a national symbol and portrayed Egypt as a Mediterranean nation.

The nationalistic Young Egypt in the 1930s led by Ahmed Hussein advocated British withdrawal
from Egypt and the Sudan, and promised to unite the Arab world under the leadership of Egypt,
through the Young Egyptian Society made it clear in the proposed empire, it was Egypt that would
dominate, as it was later seen with the brief unification with Syria in 1958. At the same time, It was
condemned by Hassan al-Banna, the founder and Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, as
glorifying a period of jahiliyyah. In a 1937 article, Banna dismissed “Pharaohism” for glorying the
“pagan reactionary Pharaohs” like Akhenaten, Ramesses II the Great and Tutankhamun instead
of Muhammad and his companions and for seeking to “annihilate” Egypt’s Muslim identity.

In January 1952, British forces surrounded an Egyptian police station and demanded they surrender
a group of fedayeen guerillas who had taken shelter there and leave the canal zone. After the
Egyptians shot and killed a British negotiator, the British commander present ordered an attack on
the police station; 50 policemen were killed in the ensuing firefight, and the rest were captured. The
capital of Egypt, Cairo, overflowed with anti-British violence in a riot on 26 January 1952 known
as the “Black Saturday” riot. The Black Saturday riots led to the development of the Free Officer
movement, consisting of a thousand “middle-level” officers, overthrowing King Farouk. After
the Egyptian Revolution of 1952 that overthrew the monarchy and established a republic, Gamal
Abdel Nasser rose to power on themes that was based on Arab nationalism. Nasser saw Egypt as
the leader of the Arab states and saw Egypt’s role as promoting Arab solidarity against both the
West and Israel.

In 1952 Nasser produced a half programmatic entitled The Philosophy of the Revolution. It offers
and account to how he and other officers who overthrew the monarchy on July 23 of that year came
to a decision to seize power and how they planned to use their newly won power. Under Nasser,
Egypt’s Arab identity was greatly played up, and Nasser promoted a policy of pan-Arabism,
arguing that all of the Arab peoples should be united together in a single state under his leadership.
Egypt was briefly united with Syria under the name the United Arab Republic from 1958 until 1961
when Syria abandoned the union. Nasser saw himself as the successor of Mohammad Ali Pasha,
who had sought to found a new dynasty to rule the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. Nasser
came to embrace pan-Arabism as the best way to Liberate Egypt and the Arab world from
imperialistic control and to achieve great power status as Nasser viewed the Arab world as so
interwined that it is effectively “One Nation divided by colonial powers”.

Nasser’s successors, Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak continued to emphasize Arab nationalism
and identity but based on Egypt’s distinctiveness within the Arab world as Sadat changed Egypt
official name from “United Arab Republic” to “The Arab republic of Egypt”. Sadat upon taking
office in 1970 announced that his first policy would be “Egypt first”. In December 1970, Sadat
announced in a speech that Egypt would be willing to make peace with Israel provided the latter
returned the Sinai peninsula, making no mention of the West Bank, Gaza Strip or the Golan
Heights. Sadat in a speech said

Let there be no more war or bloodshed between Arabs and Israelis. Let there be no more
suffering or denial of rights. Let there be no more despair or loss of faith.

After the 1973 October War had boosted his image and the Egyptian army’s image in Egypt, Sadat
began a wholesale attack on Nasser’s legacy, including his Pan-Arabist policies, which were
portrayed as having dragged Egypt into poverty, a long grinding war in Yemen, and subservience to
the Soviet Union. In contrast to the secularist Nasser, Sadat began a policy of playing up Egypt’s
Muslim identity, having the constitution amended in 1971 to say that Sharia law was “a main
source of all state legislation” and in 1980 to say that Sharia law was the main source of all
legislation which ended up as very controversial in Egypt and many opposed it, although over time
Egypt would become more conservative following the discovery of oil in Gulf states which led to
Egyptians going there for work and returning with an extremally conservative ideology
“Wahhabism”. Through Sadat was not an Islamic fundamentalist, under his rule Islam started to be
portrayed as the cornerstone of Egyptian national identity. Sadat had chosen to launch what
Egyptians call the Ramadan/October War in 1973 during the holy month of Ramadan and the code-
name for the initial assault on the Israeli Bar Lev Line on the Suez Canal was Operation Badr, after
Muhammad’s first victory, both gestures that would have been unthinkable under Nasser as Sadat
chose to appeal to Islamic feelings. Sadat and Mubarak also abandoned Nasser’s conflict with Israel
and the West. Sadat chose to engage in Islamism as he released Islamists from prisons to
combat Communist influence.

Unit V

Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936

The Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936 (officially, The Treaty of Alliance Between His Majesty, in
Respect of the United Kingdom, and His Majesty, the King of Egypt) was a treaty signed between
the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Egypt.

Under the terms of the treaty, the United Kingdom was required to withdraw all its troops from
Egypt, except those necessary to protect the Suez Canal and its surroundings, numbering 10,000
troops plus auxiliary personnel. Additionally, the United Kingdom would supply and train Egypt’s
army and assist in its defence in case of war. The treaty was to last for 20 years; it was negotiated in
the Zaafarana palace, signed in London on 26 August 1936 and ratified on 22 December. It was
registered in the League of Nations Treaty Series on 6 January 1937.
Background

In November 1918, seven prominent Egyptians from the landed gentry and the legal profession,
including Sa’d Zaghlul, formed a delegation, or wafd, whose chief goal was the complete
independence of Egypt from British rule. But when the wafd asked the British High
Commissioner in Egypt if they could represent the country at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, he
refused. As a result, the delegation organisers took their message of independence to the people of
Egypt and this led to the founding of one of the most popular political parties in modern Egyptian
history.

Wafdist leaders thought that the ideas of independence and constitutional government were closely
related and they had someone to model themselves after – the British. In 1923, a constitution was
proclaimed, and in January 1924 the first elections were held to decide who would be a part of the
new parliament. Many European-educated Egyptians believed that the mere existence of a
constitution and a parliament would legitimise Egyptian claims for complete independence.

But Egyptian democratic independence ran into many obstacles; the nature of the constitution gave
many powers to the king, including the power to dissolve parliament. So the king used this
constitutional power to get rid of parliament when they went against his wishes, culminating in
many periods of royal rule. The British also continued to meddle in Egyptian politics, and they did
not allow for a fully independent political apparatus to develop. Also the Wafd party and other
minor political parties never created a coalition to stand together against the British, instead they
held each other in contempt. The result of these obstacles was a constant struggle for power
between the British-backed King Fuad, and the Wafd party that sought complete independence from
the British.

The intense desire for real independence was only partially fulfilled in 1936, when Britain agreed to
renegotiate the 1922 declaration of independence, because of Italian expansionism into Ethiopia in
1935.
Among the pretexts for the treaty was the Second Italo-Abyssinian War, which had started in
1935. King Farouk feared that the Italians might invade Egypt or drag it into the fighting. The 1936
treaty did not resolve the question of Sudan, which, under the terms of the existing Anglo-Egyptian
Condominium Agreement of 1899, stated that Sudan should be jointly governed by Egypt and
Britain, but with real power remaining in British hands. With rising tension in Europe, the treaty
expressly favoured maintaining the status quo. The treaty, however, was not welcomed by Egyptian
nationalists like the Arab Socialist Party, who wanted full independence. It ignited a wave of
demonstrations against the British and the Wafd Party, which had supported the treaty.
Treaty signing

The Treaty was signed in the Locarno Room at the Foreign Office building in London on 27 August
1936.[4] The principal signatories were Egyptian premier Nahas Pasha and British Foreign
Secretary Anthony Eden.

Other signatories included Ramsay MacDonald, Mahmoud Pasha, Lord Halifax, Sir John
Simon, Ismail Sidky Pasha, Makram Ebeid Pasha, Sir Miles Lampson and Amin Osman.
Treaty provisions

Removal of military forces from the Egyptian cities to the Suez Canal area but British
soldiers in Sudan remain unconditionally.
The number of British troops in Egypt to number no more than 10 thousand soldiers and
400 pilots with the staff required for administrative and technical work in peacetime
only, while during a state of war the UK has the right to increase the number.
British forces are not transferred to new areas until new barracks are built.
British troops remain in Alexandria eight years from the date of the Treaty
British air forces remain in the camp in the Canal Zone and are entitled to use Egyptian
air space and the same right is given to Egyptian aircraft.
In case of war the Egyptian government is committed to provide all facilities and
assistance to the British forces including the right to use Egyptian ports and airports and
roads.
After 20 years from the implementation of the Treaty parties it shall be determined if the
presence of British troops is necessary as the Egyptian army may be able to guarantee
shipping in the Suez Canal safely. Disagreements may be submitted to the League of
Nations.
Egypt has the right to demand the abolition of foreign privileges.
Cancel all agreements and documents contrary to the provisions of this Treaty including
the February 28 statement
The return of the Egyptian army to Sudan and the recognition of joint management with
Britain.
Freedom of Egypt to make treaties with foreign countries, provided that these are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Treaty.
Exchange ambassadors with Great Britain.

Aftermath

On 23 September 1945, after the end of World War II, the Egyptian government demanded the
modification of the treaty to terminate the British military presence, and also to allow the
annexation of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. In 1946, Britain agreed to withdraw all remaining troops
in Egypt into the Suez Canal Zone. In 1947, UK troops officially withdrew from all other Egyptian
bases outside the Suez Canal Zone. Following the Wafd Party’s victory in the boycotted 1950
election of Egypt, the new Wafd government unilaterally abrogated the treaty in October 1951.
Three years later, and with new government leadership under Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser, the UK
agreed to withdraw its troops in the Anglo–Egyptian Agreement of 1954; the British withdrawal
was completed in June 1956. This date is seen as when Egypt gained full independence, although
Nasser had already established an independent foreign policy that caused tension with
several Western powers.
Following the abrupt withdrawal of an offer by Britain and the United States to fund the building of
the Aswan Dam, Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal on 26 July 1956, ostensibly to pay for the dam,
although in reality the Soviets provided most of the funding. The nationalisation was technically in
violation of the international agreement that Nasser had signed on 19 October 1954, although he
agreed to pay compensation to the shareholders. Some months later, France, Israel and
Britain colluded to overthrow Nasser, and the Suez Crisis ensued.