Al-Ahram Weekly | Chronicles | Because of the BritishBecause of the British

A declaration by British Foreign Secretary Samuel Hoare, to the effect that Egypt should not have a constitutional life, provoked mass demonstrations on Egyptian streets in the mid-1930s. Professor Yunan Labib Rizk examines the Guildhall statement and the popular disturbances it triggered

The disturbances that took place in Egypt in late 1935 and early 1936, culminating in a mass general strike, have been the subject of diverse studies, including one produced by this author more than 30 years ago. Entitled, The 1935 Disturbances in Light of British Documents, the study attempted to probe the motivations and those behind the disturbances as it traced their demonstrations in Cairo and the provinces and the acts of government repression that claimed many young men as its victims, such as Abdel-Meguid Mursi, Abdel-Karim El-Garahi and Ali Taha Afifi.

However, a closer reading of these events through the eyes of the newspapers of the time, led by Al-Ahram, reveals that the phenomenon was much broader than previously portrayed. Not only did it extend from urban centres into the countryside but it included a strong female element. Hundreds of women, particularly female secondary and university students took part in the demonstrations, this mass nationalist uprising, a fact that has been curiously overlooked in most studies.

Another facet we discover is the broad array of parties that took part in the movement, whether directly, such as the political parties and the press, or indirectly as was the case of the judges who tried the demonstrators brought before them and the doctors who treated the wounded.

In addition few are aware of the controversy in the British press provoked by that reckless statement on the Egyptian situation issued by British Foreign Secretary Samuel Hoare. Indeed, the statement and its fallout were among the immediate causes of Hoare's downfall and replacement by Anthony Eden before the year was up. British public opinion then as now carries considerable weight.

In short, the 1935 disturbances reached well beyond the clashes in the streets between demonstrators and government forces. It was a full-scale comprehensive confrontation at diverse levels, as Al-Ahram of the period confirms.

As we know, the Wafd and other Egyptian parties had been patient for as long as they could for the Tawfiq Nasim government to fulfil its pledge to restore the 1923 Constitution. Only a week before the events erupted, Liberal Constitutionalist leader Mohamed Mahmoud cautioned that people's patience was wearing thin despite the measures the government took to appease the public. By the end of autumn 1935, the general restlessness escalated into the open.

Much of this frustration was being vented by the Wafd, but it was not the great populist party that issued the starting signal for the confrontation. Other parties, notably the Liberal Constitutionalists, the National Party, the Shaab and the Ittihad, as well as a number of breakaway elements from the Wafd such as Hamed El-Basel Pasha, attempted to steal the Wafd's spotlight. They knew the Wafd Party chief Mustafa El-Nahhas was scheduled to declare his position on 13 November on the occasion of Jihad Day and that this position would bring the Wafd into open opposition to the government. Therefore, they decided to hold a rally a week in advance. According to Al-Ahram, the Gezira Casino where the assembly convened was jam packed, with more 10,000 participants spilling out from its conference hall onto the outer wings and the garden.

Mohamed Mahmoud, the keynote speaker, "launched an attack on the government for surrendering and ignoring Egypt's rights, describing it as the 'government of negligence'," Al- Ahram reports. "He stated that the reinstatement of the constitution and the revival of parliamentary life is a fundamental national right and that any British intervention in this regard constitutes a flagrant assault on this right which is recognised by the British themselves. He added that all British intervention in Egyptian governmental administration is another violation and that their monopolisation over Egypt's national defence is an encroachment on its political integrity and a threat to its security."

Al-Ahram was unreserved in its praise for the speech. But what most impressed it was that Mahmoud had not spoken as a party leader but rather as an Egyptian in a gathering of other Egyptians. Indeed, Mahmoud himself stressed that this remarks "emanated from the heart of an Egyptian who holds the rights of his country sacred".

If the anti-Wafdist parties thought they had accomplished their aims, they were in for a surprise. Two days later, in London's Guildhall, Sir Samuel Hoare declared: "It is absolutely not true that we oppose the return to constitutional life in Egypt in a manner that conforms to that country's needs. We, in accordance with our customs, could not nor would not take such a stance. Therefore, when we were consulted on the issue, we advised against the return to both the 1923 Constitution and that of 1930, as the former proved itself unviable and the latter entirely against the wishes of the people."

Rather than pacifying the situation in Egypt, the statement triggered outrage. Even the normally sedate Al-Ahram was incensed. In its editorial of 11 November it protested, "The British control our constitution!" "All who have read that statement were shocked. It shook all hope that British politicians were leaning towards peace and understanding," it wrote, adding, "We do not understand how the Egyptian government could grant the British that right, how it could collude with them in this flagrant violation and how it had not insisted upon the provisions of the 28 February Declaration which binds their hands in matters pertaining to the Egyptian constitution and parliamentary life."

Having come only four days before Jihad Day, the statement enabled the Wafd to recapture the spotlight. The venue for the Wafd's commemoration of this occasion was an enormous tent set up adjacent to the "House of the Nation", the name given to the home of the late nationalist leader and Wafd Party founder Saad Zaghlul. Describing the scene, Al-Ahram relates, "Surging waves of people thronged the grounds. So large was the crowd that it is impossible to even give an estimate. It would be safe to say that it numbered at least 25,000 but if you like you may add plenty more upon that without fear of exaggeration. So enormous and enthusiastic was the turnout that not even the number of tickets printed nor the confines of the place could restrict it."

The keynote speaker, of course, was "Leader of the Nation", Wafd chief Mustafa El-Nahhas. Reprinted in full across three pages of Al-Ahram the following day, the speech called upon all strata of the people, all sectors of society and all organisations not to cooperate with the British for as long as the British continue to oppose the constitution and independence. In keeping with this principle of non-cooperation, it was the patriotic duty of the current government to resign, for to remain in power now that it was clear that the British were bent on encroaching upon the Egyptian right to a constitution and independence was to condone that aggression. El-Nahhas went on to threaten that if the government did not resign the Wafd would withhold the support it had once given it.

The following day, demonstrators took to the streets. As the confrontations were so widespread it is impossible here to cover them in detail, and we will suffice instead with Al-Ahram headlines of that day: "Demonstrations yesterday in Cairo and provinces in commemoration of National Jihad Day -- Students strike and clash with police -- Police open fire on demonstrators -- Many students and police wounded -- In front of the High Commissioner's residence -- Demonstrators attack British consulate".

Beneath these banner headlines came others, on the preparations being taken by the Ministry of Interior and police, on the student rally in the university and their 10,000-strong march from there towards the centre of the capital and on the outbreak of gunfire and arrests. A glance at the headlines also informs us of the many demonstrations that were staged by students of other academic institutions: Fouad I Secondary School in Al-Zaher, the Royal Technical and Industrial School in Abbasiya, the Shobra Secondary School and Al-Azhar's primary and secondary schools and three colleges. The toll that day was 90 wounded, among whom 50 were students and the remainder police.

In an attempt to counter the outpouring of anger against him, Prime Minister Tawfiq Nasim issued "a statement to the people". He explained that in a meeting with the Wafd Party leader on 1 June, they had agreed that it would not be necessary for the government to resign and that he, the prime minister, would notify the British high commissioner that the constitution was a purely domestic matter. Although he had hoped that the situation would change in light of this understanding and the letter to the high commissioner, the following five months brought no progress.

Nasim's statement failed to restore calm. On the contrary, demonstrations continued and the clashes between demonstrators and police grew more violent, resulting in the death of several students. At the same time, the so-called "National Committee" issued a series of resolutions. It declared that the protests would continue as long as the government refuses to resign, and urged unity of ranks. It called upon the political parties to form a united delegation to present Egypt's demands to the League of Nations. Finally, it announced that a commemorative ceremony would be held for the people who died.

As mentioned above, only a handful of studies, such as that by Hamada Ismail, covered events outside of Cairo, the participation of women and the people and agencies that were involved indirectly, all of which gave the national movement its comprehensive character. The following reports from Al-Ahram of 18 November are indicative of how geographically widespread the demonstrations were.

From Shabin Al-Kom, the newspaper relates that a demonstration staged by students in that Delta town erupted into violent clashes with the police. Twelve students were injured, of whom three had to be rushed to hospital while the rest were treated by physicians. Five police also received minor injuries and, after being treated, they returned to their barracks.

In Tanta, two students, Mohamed Abdel-Maqsoud Shabaka and Mohamed Mahmoud El-Naquib, died in the clashes the previous day. Meanwhile, students from the boarding school section of the Ahmedi Institute staged a rally "in which they chanted various protest slogans". Students of Tanta Secondary rallied in the schoolyard that morning and the majority declared they would not be attending classes "in protest against the current situation".

In Mushtahir, students of the agricultural school went on strike in support of their colleagues in university. They then left the school grounds and thronged to Muntazah Square in Bandar Toukh for a rally.

Students of various schools in Zaqaziq declared a strike and staged a massive protest march that wended its way through the city. When the demonstrators reached the railway, police intercepted them and tried to disperse them. Some students began to pelt the police with stones, in response to which police opened fire and students scattered. Two were seriously wounded and taken to hospital where "they received visits from a number of notables and other people of standing, as well as doctors and lawyers".

In Fayoum students from the secondary school and the Industrial Training College staged a large march that proceeded through Mahmadiya School Street and South Youssefi Street. "When police attempted to arrest one of the demonstrators, the students converged threateningly around the police, although nothing occurred to disrupt public order."

Finally, from Alexandria, Al-Ahram reports that demonstrations included students from the Abbasiya, Ras Al-Tin and French schools and the Science Institute. "Police had anticipated this development and had taken the necessary precautions. As a result there were no clashes between the two sides, perhaps, too, because the Alexandrian police are not as harsh towards students as the police in Cairo and are better prepared to handle the temperament of youth and patriotic ardour."

That the protest movement extended to schools for girls is evident in numerous Al-Ahram reports. Perhaps the most important is that which appeared on 19 November under the headline, "Women demonstrate". It relates that while a group of young men were staging a silent protest march in front of Qasr Al-Aini Hospital, the sound of patriotic chants about Egypt and the memory of Saad Zaghlul and the martyrs in the independence struggle could be heard in the distance. "Suddenly, the chants were echoed by another group. People craned their necks to see where the chants were coming from and discovered that a procession of women and schoolgirls was approaching from the direction of the hospital, yelling chants with great passion. The young men joined ranks with the women and their voices chimed together in patriotic cries to the life of Egypt. At this juncture, the police appeared in order to prevent the marchers from advancing. Fighting broke out during which police lashed out at demonstrators with their heavy truncheons. However, the women's demonstration succeeded in forging its way to the House of the Nation." Elsewhere in Al-Ahram we learn that authorities became so anxious over the participation of schoolgirls in demonstrations that they ordered the Saniya Secondary School for girls temporarily closed.

As for the indirect participants, the government naturally directed its glare at the press above all. The day after the Jihad Day celebrations, Nasim issued a decree prohibiting "the publication of false or distorted reports or inflammatory writings or photographs". Under the act, the Ministry of Interior was empowered to suspend newspapers without advance notification. In addition, "If a publication is halted or confiscated more than twice, it will be suspended for a period not to exceed 15 days for newspapers which appear three days a week or more, 45 days for weekly periodicals and six months in other cases."

Al-Ahram, along with the rest of public opinion, was stunned by the act, "especially as it was promulgated less than 24 hours after the address delivered by His Excellency El-Nahhas Pasha". The newspaper continued: "One is also struck by the fact that His Excellency Nasim Pasha had issued a press release the same day stating that the press would be left free to say what it wants and that the government had no intention to apply the 1931 Press Law in spite of the fact that it had noted on more than one occasion that certain writers have abused the government's tolerance and constitutional spirit."

Several days later, on 20 November, managers of various Egyptian newspapers held a meeting and moved to halt publication for a day "in protest against British policy towards Egypt, the position of the Nasim government on this matter and the extraordinary laws it promulgated against the press".

The following day, Al-Ahram commented, "In view of the trials inflicted daily against the nation and the consequent disturbances, the press had no alternative but to express its anger in a manner different from that which excites comment every day. The manner it chose was a full day's silence and, if truth be told, that silence was more profound and eloquent than words or statements could possibly be."

Another indirect participant was the medical profession. The British high commissioner's office in Cairo remarked that hospital workers "gave students their fullest care and attention while injured policemen received nothing but neglect".

Then, too, there were members of the judiciary. In this regard the high commissioner's office noted that public prosecutors more often than not released student demonstrators without investigating the charges against them. Also, "judges were often very easy on the defendants, pronouncing them innocent in most of the cases that were brought to trial. Even in those instances when defendants were found guilty of major offences, judges would issue the minimal penalties possible and then suspend implementation or exact a token fine."

Al-Ahram reports confirm British officials' assessments. In its coverage on 20 November of the trials of students arrested in the demonstrations of Boulaq, Al-Ahram relates that only five were found guilty of demonstrating and acquitted of all other charges. They were sentenced to 15 days detention but then let off on a caution. All the other defendants in that trial were acquitted.

The British press also took part in the confrontation. While some newspapers faulted the Wafd for having triggered "the recent disturbances in Egypt", most were harshly critical of Samuel Hoare, whose ill- timed statement was one of the major reasons for his dismissal just over a month later.

The first volley was delivered by the Manchester Guardian whose correspondent in Cairo described the demonstrations as the worst the Egyptian capital had experienced for many years. The Daily Herald of the same day was more explicit, charging that Hoare's speech at Guildhall had triggered the situation. For no clear reason, he admitted that the British government had advised against the restitution of the 1923 Constitution, thereby sparking the anger of the Egyptian people. The newspaper added, "All of Egypt has learned from Sir Hoare that the British government is the obstacle to the restoration of the constitution. Then, the reason he gave -- that the 1923 Constitution is not viable -- incensed Egyptians further, because everyone knows that by 'not viable' it means that the constitution's electoral provisions permit for a huge majority for the Wafd, which Downing Street regards with contempt. It was thus that Samuel Hoare and his advisers triggered a first-rate crisis in Egypt, and at a time in which our relations with Egypt should be as close as possible."

The Star was even harsher in its criticism of the British foreign secretary. The anti-British disturbances that had broken out in Egypt had exposed a previously unknown foreign policy error committed by the national government, it wrote, adding, "Yes, many are right to be amazed at how Egyptians and British could come to odds at a time when both are commiserating over events in Ethiopia and have reasons to mistrust Italy's intentions... However, the fact of the matter is that our current prime minister, the people of the high commissioner's office and the British Foreign Office are reactionaries when it comes to Egypt... Sir Samuel Hoare could not have made a more grievous mistake than to go to Guildhall with a speech in his pocket about Egypt's 1923 Constitution, the choice of which in all events is an Egyptian domestic matter in which we have no right to interfere."

That the London Times, with all its prestige and its inside contacts in the British government, should participate in the campaign against the foreign secretary perhaps best indicated that the majority of British opinion felt he had overstepped his bounds. The newspaper wrote, "The British people are at a loss to understand why a seemingly innocent statement by Sir Hoare about the Egyptian constitution could have muddied waters in Cairo to that extent. However, anyone who has been following political affairs in Egypt over the past few years could have told the secretary that that type of comment is precisely what he should avoid and that it is better not to say anything at all. His remark gave the Wafdists the opening to claim that Britain is intervening in Egypt's domestic affairs and it exposed the Egyptian prime minister to the charge of going to the high commissioner's office to ask for advice on domestic issues, the responsibility for which should be his alone."

However, it was perhaps the article by Mr Spender, the well- known writer who had participated in the Milner Commission at the time of the 1919 Revolution, which did the most to shake the British foreign secretary's position. Appearing in several British newspapers, the article said, "Those in Britain who are unfamiliar with the state of public opinion in Egypt were baffled by the direction events have taken there. They were entirely dumbfounded when they saw how a seemingly innocent statement by Sir Samuel Hoare could so inflame public opinion in Cairo. Nevertheless, anyone who has visited Egypt recently or had kept in touch with national opinion there could have predicted exactly what has transpired and that the Egyptians would proclaim, 'The British foreign secretary has encroached upon our domestic independence by telling us what should and should not be our constitution.'"

The same commentator would also have predicted the relief with which Egyptians received the news of Hoare's resignation and his replacement by Mr Eden. Al-Ahram 's editorial of 25 December 1935 entitled, "The Egyptian question is indivisible: on the policy of the new British foreign secretary", reflected the new breath of optimism. The editorial cited reports from the British press to the effect that Eden was eager to remedy the Egyptian question and that he wanted to establish a military cooperation pact with the countries of the eastern Mediterranean for the protection of the charter of the League of Nations, which would entail close cooperation with Egypt.

A new climate was thus at hand, and this had already been reflected on the ground. Only a few days earlier the Nasim government reinstated the 1923 Constitution, bringing an end to that confrontation that extended well beyond the streets of the Egyptian capital.

		30 September - 6 October 2004 Issue No. 710 Chronicles	Current issue Previous issue Site map
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875

Al-Ahram: A Diwan of contemporary life (565)

Because of the BritishBecause of the British