 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 2 - 8 March 2000 Issue No. 471 
|
||
Published in Cairo by Al-Ahram established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 2 - 8 March 2000 Issue No. 471
|
||
| Published in Cairo by Al-Ahram established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Interview Features Focus Heritage Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Al-Ahram:
A Diwan of contemporary life (327)
Zaghlul in his Gibraltar exile
For the entire duration of nationalist leader Saad Zaghlul's exile by British occupation authorities, Egyptians agitated without let-up for his return. The protests during his 15-month incarceration, first on the Seychelles islands and later at Gibraltar, included demonstrations, telegrams, petitions and anti-British violence. Zaghlul was in ill-health and as his condition worsened, the British feared that his continued exile and the possibility of his dying away from home could trigger an upheaval in Egypt. This, in addition to pressure by the British community in Egypt as well as British members of parliament, led to Zaghlul's repatriation.Dr Yunan Labib Rizk* tells the story from reports published by Al-Ahram.
Clamour for idol's return
British colonial authorities exiled nationalist leader Saad Zaghlul twice, the first time from 8 March to 7 April 1919, to Malta, and the second time to the Seychelles and then to Gibraltar from 23 December 1921 to 31 March 1923 -- a period of more than 15 months. But apart from the duration, the circumstances of the two exiles could not have been more different.
On the first occasion exile was a routine measure to which British authorities had recourse in connection with World War I in order to remove individuals whom they felt constituted a threat to national security. The second exile, by contrast, took place under extraordinary circumstances and required careful consideration and planning on the part of British High Commissioner Lord Allenby and his superiors in London.
Allenby's correspondence with the Foreign and Colonial Offices reveal that British authorities this time were determined to remove that popular hero, and those who chose to accompany him, to somewhere that would not be as easily accessible as the venue of his first exile. Their initial choice was the same place to which they had exiled the famous leader of the Orabi revolution -- Sri Lanka, or Ceylon as it was known at the time. The location seemed particularly ideal in view of the fact that Ahmed Orabi only returned from that distant island as an elderly man who had lost all power to influence the Egyptian people.
However, the correspondence also revealed that the British governor-general of Ceylon had no desire whatsoever to host the Egyptian leader on his island. Zaghlul's reputation was far too widespread, he argued, and his presence in Ceylon, so close to India, would be certain to spell trouble for British authorities in that corner of the empire, which had seen serious disturbances in April 1919, inspired, according to some reports, by the Egyptian revolution that had erupted a month previously because of Zaghlul's first exile. Instead, the governor-general of Ceylon had an alternative recommendation to offer the Colonial Office. Send Zaghlul to the distant Seychelles, he wrote, "to prevent his getting into contact with Indian agitators, both in person and by correspondences".
Unlike the notorious Malta, Egyptians knew nothing of the Seychelles before Zaghlul was exiled to it. Al-Ahram, therefore, took it upon itself to enlighten its readers. These islands located in the Indian Ocean to the east of Madagascar, it wrote, "are indubitably blessed with a salubrious climate, which is why the British have selected it as the place for their soldiers in South Africa to recuperate should they fall ill". It adds, "During the war they built many large and luxurious buildings."
In a letter to his friends, written shortly after he arrived there, Zaghlul conveys something different from the depiction of an island paradise. "The terrain is tortuous, the houses are small, clustered in a disorganised jumble and lacking all imaginable conveniences for comfort. The range of food is limited. Sheep are non-existent and cattle are few. Poultry abounds and fish even more so. Fruit is sparse and vegetables sparser. There is only one doctor on the island, a surgeon by profession but he serves as a general practitioner as well. There is only one licensed pharmacy, although it is the doctor who generally prepares the medications. Certain essential pharmaceutical staples, such as aspirin, are virtually impossible to find."
Although Zaghlul was quickly spirited from Cairo to Suez on 23 December and from Suez to Aden on 29 December, it would take another two months before he was transported to the Seychelles. Deliberations between the various British authorities over the eventual selection of those islands accounted for the delay.
If, in 1919, Zaghlul was a budding national leader, by 1922 he had become the unrivalled champion of Egyptian national aspirations. It was essential to come up with an exile to match the status of that recalcitrant pasha whose repute extended to Europe and, more importantly, to the UK. While few Britons were familiar with the name of Saad Zaghlul at the time of his exile to Malta, his name now filled the pages of the British press. Decision-makers in London would at least have to be sensitive to those segments of British opinion concerned with the situation in Egypt.
Moreover, while Zaghlul's first exile was the spark that ignited the fuse of the 1919 revolution, his second exile was, in effect, a product of the revolution's continued momentum. On the first occasion, the British were taken entirely by surprise by the outburst of public reaction in Egypt. This time they were going to take extra precautions. One, as we saw from the communication from the governor-general in Ceylon, was to minimise his contacts. This undoubtedly explains why, when transporting Zaghlul out of the country, the British authorities separated him from the five colleagues who opted to go into exile with him. Thus, Zaghlul was shipped off on the British warship Clematis while the others -- Sinout Hana, Mustafa El-Nahas, Makram Ebeid, Atef Barakat and Fathallah Barakat -- were moved on the commercial liner Neurralia.
This time, too, the British authorities decided that Zaghlul's exile would be for "an indefinite period". Official opinion in London was reflected by The Daily Express, which on 25 February 1923 wrote, "It is undesirable at present to consider the return of an influence that could stir up renewed turmoil and disturbances." In a similar vein, The Daily News of 6 March commented, "Permitting Zaghlul to return to his country would be a twofold mistake. It would make us look weak, which is hazardous in the countries of the Orient, and it would mean the return of the greatest divisive influence. Saad Zaghlul does not pursue the welfare of his country as much as he seeks to strengthen his party, which are two matters that do not necessarily coincide." Finally, in an interview with The Morning Post correspondent in Cairo, Lord Allenby said that he refused to consider allowing Zaghlul to return to Egypt. Zaghlul "has acted in a way that threatens renewed disturbances and his return would jeopardise the recently formulated development policy. It has been decided once and for all that he should remain outside the country."
No precautions, however, could stem the letters of condemnation that flooded the nation's newspapers, Al-Ahram included of course. Protest petitions were sent in by students and professional organisations. Letters and telegrams from "dignitaries and notables" were addressed to the editorial staff or sometimes to Zaghlul himself. Unique among these letters of protest was that sent by Abdel-Qader Hamza, a journalist who would eventually acquire great fame. Even at the time, Al-Ahram lauded it for having "recorded for history events the details of which many might forget. The preservation of history is the best legacy ancestors can bequeath to posterity." Nor did the newspaper omit at the end of its presentation of this letter to add that copies of the letter were on sale for five piastres and could be obtained from all bookstores and newspaper stands.
Zaghlul's exile also inspired the famous "Saad Zaghlul March" composed by Mansour Awad, one of Egypt's foremost composers of Arabic music. The song portrays the Egyptian leader calling out to his country from across the seas: "Peace to you Egypt, my country. If fate shoots its arrow, I'll protect you with my heart."
Exile associates El Nahas (l) and Makram Ebeid
Lord Allenby
Meanwhile, Zaghlul in his island exile was not faring well. Within a few weeks after his arrival in the Seychelles reports began to filter through to Cairo that his health was deteriorating rapidly. Al-Ahram relayed to its readers the news from the British press, reporting, for example, that, on 29 April, The Daily Herald wrote that King Fouad received a medical report stating that "the health of Zaghlul Pasha has declined due to the climate in his place of exile". It was not until a month and a half later, however, that the representative of the Colonial Office in the House of Commons admitted that for some time the Egyptian leader had suffered from diabetes. Although he gave assurances that Zaghlul's condition was not serious, British confidential documents say otherwise.
On 3 July, British officials in the Seychelles wrote to Lord Allenby that Zaghlul was in poor health. Not only did he have high sugar levels, but the inclement weather of the Seychelles was causing him heart problems. The High Commissioner immediately relayed the news to London, along with his fears that the Egyptian leader might die in the Seychelles, which would have serious repercussions in Egypt. Three weeks later, Allenby received further disturbing news. The doctor on the island reported that Zaghlul's health was not improving, that his blood sugar levels were still high and that his heartbeat was faint and irregular. Allenby had no choice but to have Zaghlul transferred to one of Britain's Mediterranean islands. At first he entertained the notion of Cyprus or Malta, but quickly discarded these options as uncomfortably close to Egypt. Instead, he opted for Gibraltar.
Zaghlul was transferred from the Seychelles on board the warship Curlew. The ship's captain was under the strictest instructions to take all possible precautions as it passed through the Suez Canal to prevent any leakage of the news that the ship was carrying Egypt's famous leader. Thus, the ship was ordered only to stop in Suez long enough to bring on board a canal authority pilot, who would have to be British. The captain was also to pace his journey so as to arrive in Port Said at night and to embark again at the crack of dawn. Needless to say, Zaghlul and his servant were to be kept under the closest surveillance as the ship passed through the canal.
The British precautions succeeded perfectly. The Egyptian press only learned of Zaghlul's transfer after he had been resettled in Gibraltar. Moreover, it was the High Commissioner himself who informed the press of this development. Allenby's communiqué, which appeared in Al-Ahram on 5 September, read: "It has previously been announced that the current British government was looking into the matter of transferring his excellency Saad Zaghlul Pasha from the Seychelles to another location that would be more suitable to his health. The British government has now taken that decision. On 18 August, his excellency left the Seychelles, accompanied by his servant and cook, on a ship from the British Navy bound for Gibraltar where a residence has been prepared for him and where he will remain under custody as was the case in the Seychelles."
Out of concern for the Pasha's health and the impact of the news of his transfer, Allenby also wrote to his wife Safiya to inform her that he was prepared to facilitate procedures should she wish to travel to Gibraltar at any time to join her husband. Of course, she will be totally at liberty and unrestricted in her movements, he added.
Zaghlul's transfer to Gibraltar naturally raised hopes that the hero of the 1919 Revolution might soon be permitted to return to Egypt. Under the headline, "Zaghlul in Gibraltar -- Why not in Egypt?" Al-Ahram commented that "it would greatly ease the mind of the Egyptian people if Saad Zaghlul and his companions were allowed to return to their country, or at least to move freely in Europe. It is our fervent wish that normal life be restored to this country, a hope which will be impossible to realise as long as some of us are exiled, others are imprisoned, others are homeless and others are outcast."
Safiya Zaghlul did eventually decide to take up the High Commissioner's offer to join her husband. Naturally, the departure of "the mother of Egyptians" occasioned widespread demonstrations. Safiya arrived in Port Said on 8 October 1922, where she was to board a ship bound for Gibraltar. Al-Ahram's correspondent in the port city reports that a women's delegation arranged a reception for her "in which poetry and farewell addresses were delivered".
The demonstrations naturally aroused the attention of the British press. The Glasgow Herald commented, "These popular expressions of sympathy indicate that Zaghlul's influence continues to prevail over a large segment of the Egyptian public who believe that he is a victim of British persecution."
Curiously, at the same time, a rumour began to spread to the effect that the powerful national figure intended to renounce political activity. The rumour had originated in the British press and was relayed to the Egyptian public by Al-Watan. Lending it weight was the fact that Zaghlul had recently stopped responding to the constant stream of telegrams he received, contrary to his well-known custom of responding to correspondences of even minor importance. The Wafd Party denied the rumour.
Certainly such rumours helped little to allay Egyptian anxieties over the health of their leader. The Daily Telegraph correspondent in Cairo dispatched a report to his newspaper saying that a recent medical report released by the High Commissioner's office indicated that Zaghlul's health was improving in Gibraltar's more salubrious climate. However, he continues, "instead of alleviating the public's agitation, the report was given the worst possible interpretation, as a result of which numerous delegations sought to meet the king and the prime minister, who were also inundated with a flood of telegrams, while strikes and demonstrations broke out". Clearly the situation was becoming critical. British authorities would soon be compelled to draw the inevitable conclusion that they would have to release Saad Zaghlul. Developments in London moved in this direction.
Few are aware that, during his stay in Gibraltar, Zaghlul submitted a petition to the governor of that British colony in which he argued that officers of the British crown had no right to order the detention and subsequent exile of an Egyptian citizen who had been arrested for political reasons, but who had no charges brought against him and was denied the right to a trial. The governor of Gibraltar, he continued, did not have the authority to keep him in custody or to restrict his freedom in any way except on the basis of a verdict issued following a legal hearing.
The governor turned down the appeal on the grounds that he was empowered to keep certain political detainees in custody. However, Zaghlul's lawyer was persistent and it was not long before his case was brought before the Royal Council, which convened on 23 January 1923 in Downing Street for that purpose. Appealing on behalf of his client, Mr Egon again maintained that the governor of Gibraltar did not have the right to deprive an individual of his liberty "on the mere suspicion that that individual might constitute a threat to peace and order". Moreover, "a man should not be condemned without first being accorded the right to defend himself in court".
Al-Ahram's correspondent in London, who was present throughout the hearing, reported that the court deliberated at length over "whether or not the governor of Gibraltar had the right to detain an individual he believed would constitute a threat to public order". He continued, "It became clear that everyone present knew little of the laws of Gibraltar, as a result of which the hearing was postponed."
In the opinion of Al-Ahram, the entire strategy of Zaghlul's lawyer was inadequate. In its editorial of 25 January it remarked, "It is difficult for an Egyptian from a fully sovereign and independent nation to comprehend how its most important national leader can be detained by a foreign authority which plays no part in his nation's system of government and has no business being there."
Furthermore, the writer wonders on what possible grounds Zaghlul's case was being deliberated by British lawyers and judges when, "in his own country there are laws and judges empowered to prosecute the highest Egyptian officials".
Some sections of the British press shared Al-Ahram's view. On 27 January The New Statesman pointed out that the crux of the issue lay in whether officers of the British crown had the right to detain for political reasons an Egyptian who had been condemned to exile without trial. Clearly sympathetic with the Egyptian point of view, The New Statesman editorial added that, while Lord Allenby was still convinced that Zaghlul had to remain abroad, "Egyptians and British residents in Egypt are now convinced that he should be allowed to return to his country".
Subsequent developments, however, would soften Allenby's stance. The first was the dispute that arose between the High Commissioner and King Fouad over the formation of the Tawfiq Nasim government. Allenby had not been consulted on the formation of the government, and this doomed it to a rapid end when Fouad received a British ultimatum. The new government that was formed under Yehia Ibrahim on 15 March 1923 met with Allenby's approval and, in order to strengthen its position, Allenby made a number of concessions among which was his pledge to terminate Zaghlul's second exile.
Seven days later Allenby received an update on Zaghlul's health in which the national leader's attending physician recommended that his patient be sent to one of Europe's mineral-water spas for treatment. Allenby had no alternative but to agree, but on the condition that Zaghlul renounce political activity and that he pledge not to return to Egypt without first having obtained the consent of the British government.
In London, meanwhile, the court that had been hearing Zaghlul's case ruled that it was unable to arbitrate on that case, which, as The Glasgow Herald observed, meant that the issue of his continued detention was passed back to the political authorities. These authorities, for their part, would come under the increasing pressure of the British community in Egypt, which was alarmed by acts of violence targeting British expatriates, the most recent of which was the assassination of a British official in January 1923. According to The Daily News correspondent in Cairo, British opinion in Egypt "supports the release of Zaghlul Pasha as a means to restoring tranquillity to Egypt". The correspondent continues, "It is the unanimous opinion that it is in the best interests of both Egypt and Great Britain that the question of Zaghlul's exile be resolved because it is impossible to make any progress as long as this problem remains pending."
At the end of March 1923, Egyptian newspapers reported three successive communiqués. The first came from the Colonial Office announcing that Zaghlul's attending physician insisted that a change in regime and treatment in a mineral spa in Europe was vital to his patient's recovery. The second, issued by the office of the High Commissioner in Cairo, announced that it had given its approval for the release of Zaghlul. The third was the prime minister's statement welcoming the decision of the British government, a decision hastened by a petition signed by 97 British MPs declaring, "The Egyptian people have determined that Zaghlul Pasha is the only man who can obtain for them what they want." The petition went on to contend that Lord Allenby's policy had proved a failure and that "the worst mistake the British government could make was to allow Zaghlul to die in exile". Conversely, "if he were to be returned to his country that would be a gesture enabling Egyptians to renew their warm feelings toward our people and a signal of our desire to reach an agreement based on mutual trust and good feeling".
Saad Zaghlul's second exile came to an end on 31 March. Notifying its readers of this event the following day, Al-Ahram stressed that his release was unconditional and unrestricted. Two months later the High Commissioner decided that he could see no justification for keeping the other Egyptian leaders in exile and they were brought back from the Seychelles at the end of May.
* The author is a professor of history
and head of Al-Ahram History Studies Centre.
