EGYPT AS A NATION.

Waikato Times, Volume 102, Issue 17222, 4 October 1927, Page 4

EGYPT AS A NATION.

ITS MODERN HISTORY. BRITAIN’S PART. The student of history is weR aware that nearly all novel movements begin with a renascence of the national language, legends and literature. The next step is rebellion with a view to independence or a more progressive policy. The peculiarity all out modern Egypt is that it has no language, no literature, no legends of its own. It had no bardic schools or ballad singers to carry on a literary tradition and fire the hearts of the people. Modern Egypt as a nation is one result of the Great War, although it was a really self-governing State since the days when the Napoleonic invasion brought with it a host of new ideas horn- of the French Revolution. ,

Mr George Young, a recognised authority on Eastern affairs, has just published a timely volume entitled “Egypt.” It is one of the very serviceable Modern World series, edited by the Rt. Hon. 11. A. L. Fisher, and is an outspoken and contentious volume, with much in it to set the Britisher on edge, yet containing such an amount of information on the inwardness of Egypt as to excite one’s sympathy and admiration.

Napoleon In Cairo. The French entered Cairo in 1798, and Napoleon began to set up bis empire by conciliating religious prejudices and spreading revolutionary principles He represented France as the liberator of Egypt from Mamelukes and Turks, and the missionary of European civilisation. These loud pretensions hastened rather than prevented the revolt. There was deep national antipathy to a foreign and infidel administration, and so numerous were the risings that Napoleon confessed he had to cut off five or six heads every day in the streets of Cairo. He completed the subjection of Egypt, but there was still Turkey and Britain to deal with, and he never got any nearer to his empire of the East. He hoped to reach Constantinople, and found a dynasty, but he only succeeded in reaching St. Helena.

Mehemet Ali was the next adventurer, and his service was to secure for Egypt complete administrative separation from the Ottoman Empire. Unfortunately he was as predatory as Napoleon, and wanted to make Egypt a stepping stone to the Empire of the East. But the nearer he got to Constantinople the more he imperilled his position in Egypt, and roused the opposition of England. Nevertheless, he united the Egyptians, and made their country independent alike of the Porte and the Powers. He secured financial autonomy and a hereditary dynasty, guarded by an Ottoman suzerainty, and guaranteed by an international treaty.

Ruthless Fraud.

His grandson Ismail’s rule brought the country to insolvency, and in 1875 the astute Disraeli bought, through Rothschilds’ for £4,000,000. Ismail’s founders’ shares, and thus Egypt lost enormous profits accruing lrom the canal. Egypt had to pay heavily for the concession of the site, and the construction of the greater part of the canal, and was finally' left with no share in the concern. Mr Young is strongly of opinion that the English and French treatment of Egypt in respect of the canal was a piece oi ruthless fraud. From that time the story of Egypt is largely financial. Distinguished authorities were sent from England to arrange matters, and finally a dual English and French control was established. Ismail thought himself an authority on high finance, and exploited the credit of his State with European capitalists, with disastrous results. Nubar Pasha, his Prime Minister, sanctioned a loan at 14 per cent and was dismissed in consequence. Liabilities increased. Treasury bills were discounted at 30 per cent. European Governments intervened; Ismail was deposed and his son Tewfik proclaimed Khedive. Then came the revolt of 1880 of Arabi Pasha, his defeat and banishment to Ceylon, and the series of later attempts to persuade the Khedive’s Government to rule according to British ideas. Britain had to resume exclusive responsibility in Egypt, and although Arabi and the Mahdi were smashed, it became evident that we had to face a strong Nationalist and Reform ist movement. British efficiency was undeniable, but British certainty of the incapability of Egypt to govern herself is to he considered in the light of later events.

Democratic Basis,

The new Anglo-Egyptian Stale as planned by Lord Duft'erin had an essentially democratic basis providing for a Legislative Council and a Legislative Assembly and provincial councils. The scheme never had a trial. Lord Cromer was very conservative, and at the end of twenty years of administration reported that he was not opposed to “cautious steps,” hut “any attempt to confer full Parliamentary powers would for a long Lime to come be the extreme of folly.” It is the old problem of how lo determine the moment at which a people is fit for self-govern-ment. The main motive of the British occupation of Egypt, says Mr Young, was to see that. Egypt paid its debts. Cromer saved Egypt from bankruptcy ,and increase of foreign control, but 'Egyptian Nationalists contend that if we had left them alone they could have secured a- reduction of the debt and a modification of all the conventions which made the burden so heavy. The nationalism of to-day originated 'in a new middle class, most of whom speak both French and Arabic. With extraordinary shortsightedness Britain did not in the first twenty years of her occupation encourage education in English. British officers drilled the army in Turkish, and corresponded with one another in French. It sounds incredible; anti-British agitation in French and Arabic journals spread propaganda like wildfire. The new movement included moderates and extremists. At this point Saad Zaglul, who died last week, comes upon the scene. He was made’ Minister of Education, and tried unsuccessfully to restore discipline and free the schools from propaganda. The coming of Kitchener in 1911 meant the iron hand without the velvet glove. Many Nationalists were interned; others were imprisoned; others lied the country. Zaglul was dismissed from office. The power of the British Empire was used to break down the Nationalist movement In the “eighties,” and seemed to he devoted to the same end a quarter of a century later. Gorst’s motto of “Egypt for the Egyptians” disappeared. British officials filled every vacanev in the Government. Abbas, the Khedive, did not approve of the new representative Assembly, and his hostilitv increased when, Zaglul was elected as first Vice-President.

A Progressive Spirit. When the armistice was signed, Zaglul made several attempts to have Egypt’s case submitted in London, hut in vain. A son of the people, of fellah in aeatt oolunmA

or peasant origin, he had risen to be a well-educated lawyer, with oratorical powers and raucji. experience in politics. Cromer thought him honest and capable, and likely to go far. He did. Twice deported and twice released, he became Premier in 1923, and the hisLory of new Egypt is largely the biography of Zaglul. His power was comparable almost to that of Mussolini.

“lie likes gambling, bad jokes and good food. He could thunder like a minor prophet, or chaff in dialect like a man of th<s people, and hail a disarming humility and sense of humor.” In 1922 Egypt was declared an independent sovereign State. England gave up the Protectorate and martial law. .The result was the disorganisation, and almost the disintegration, of the Nationalist movement, but much yet remains to be cleared up. The Nationalists wanted Britain to give up the Sudan, and Zaglul resigned when this was refused. The elections returned him with a huge majority. King Fuad is keen on personal government, but Parliament is showing itself efficient and energetic, and is slowly educating an emancipated Egypt. French is the language likely to he substituted for Arabic. Factory chimneys are likely to replace the minarets. Feminist associations arc numerous and active. Egypt is progressive, and the Nationalists are co-operating for the present.