who does?  It is as if the German Roman Catholics made a demand in the name of Roman Catholicism with Rome and the Italians making a contrary demand.  But even if the religion of the Indian Mahomedans did require that Turkish rule should be imposed upon the Arabs against their will, one could not, now-a-days, recognise as a really religious demand, one which required the continued oppression of one people by another.  When an assurance was given at the beginning of the war to the Indian Mahomedans that the Mahomedan religion would be respected, that could never have meant that a temporal sovereignty which violated the principles of self-determination would be upheld.  We could not now stand by and see the Turks re-conquer the Arabs (for the Arabs would certainly fight against them) without grossly betraying the Arabs to whom we have given pledges.  It is not true that the Arab hostility to the Turks was due simply to European suggestion.  No doubt, during the war we availed ourselves of the Arab hostility to the Turks to get another ally, but the hostility had existed long before the war.  The Non-Turkish Mahomedan subjects of the Sultan in general wanted to get rid of his rule.  It is the Indian Mahomedans who have no experience of that rule who want to impose it on others.  As a matter of fact the idea of any restoration of Turkish rule in Syria or Arabia, seems so remote from all possibilities that to discuss it seems like discussing a restoration of the Holy Roman Empire.  I cannot conceive what series of events could bring it about.  The Indian Mahomedans certainly could not march into Arabia themselves and conquer the Arabs for the Sultan.  And no amount of agitation and trouble in India would ever induce England to put back Turkish rule in Arabia.  In this matter it is not English Imperialism which the Indian Mahomedans are up against, but the mass of English Liberal and Humanitarian opinion, the mass of the better opinion of England, which wants self-determination to go forward in India.  Supposing the Indian Mahomedans could stir up an agitation so violent in India as to sever the connection between India and the British Crown, still they would not be any nearer to their purpose.  For to-day they do have considerable influence on British world-policy.  Even if in this matter of the Turkish question their influence has not been sufficient to turn the scale against the very heavy weights on the other side, it has weighed in the scale.  But apart from the British connection, Indian Mahomedans would have no influence at all outside India.  They would not count for more in world politics than the Mahomedans of China.  I think it is likely (apart from the pressure of America on the other side.  I should say certain) that the influence of the Indian Mahomedans may at any rate avail to keep the Sultan in Constantinople.  But I doubt whether they will gain any advantage by doing so.  For a Turkey cut down to the Turkish parts of Asia-Minor, Constantinople would be a very inconvenient capital.