To fully appreciate the Chanak crisis, one must first live the following scenario:

The country has lost a war convincingly. Its resources are depleted. The victors have hemmed the populace in and forced them to their knees. The young revolutionaries who forced the abdication of one of the most capable Caliphs are unable to handle the situation due to their lack of experience, and, perhaps, the tenacity it needs to defending a cause for which a dynasty struggled for 600 years. Many of these young zealots abscond, leaving power in the hands of an incompetent Sultan who they had used as a cover for all their intrigue. The Sultan, unfamiliar with the intricacies of international politics and the rough and tumble of life becomes a pawn in the hands of the victors. A humiliating ‘peace’ treaty is approved by a pliable monarch. The treaty strips most of the rich and fertile regions of the land and distributes them to the Greeks in particular and to other smaller nations of the Balkans. Others the victors wish to keep for themselves. Some of these regions that are sought to be dismembered even have a majority of people of the same stock as the populace. Meanwhile, promises are made that peace will return soon and that the nation will not be dismembered, provided the populace surrenders all its arms. The adversary asks the Caliph to appoint the leading army general to oversee the disarmament. Even as the disarmament is going on, atrocities against the unarmed people are launched, and the humiliating terms of the treaty slowly become widely known. But this general who has been appointed to disarm the populace secretly plots with the resistance, which has moved to the interior regions of the country. Things look hopeless. The army is disbanded and demoralized. The capital has been occupied by troops from nearly half a dozen victorious nations.

But, these are Turks. And they will not take the humiliation. They, too, take refuge in the interior of the country, a rather dry patch. They mobilize their proud countrymen who pool in their resources and put together a rag-tag fighting force, equipped with antiquated rifles. They must deal with a well-equipped Greek military entrusted to keep the population in check and one that puts down every uprising ruthlessly. The Turks are agonised that their capital has been occupied for the first time after it was won over from the Byzantines over 450 years ago. The treaty that their senile Sultan signed does not allow their nation to have a regular army, navy or air-force. Their countrymen decide that they will live a life of dignity rather than a dog’s life. The women, peasants and students are all mobilized and decide to take on the Greeks who were given chunks of land that actually belongs to them. (Edib, 2009, pp. 111-119)

Meanwhile their Sultan has created a force comprising of non-Muslims, ironically called the Caliphate force. The government of the Sultan establishes an extraordinary court that passes death sentences on the leaders of the resistance. The head of the religious authorities even promise heaven to those who will assassinate the people against whom the death sentence has been passed. The determination of the Resistance to fight only increases by the day; They along with their countrymen fight with the zeal of a people who have been wronged. And… they   prevail over a vastly superior force. This uprising unnerves the nations that were using the Greek army to keep the Turks in check. Some of these nations hasten to make peace with the Resistance since they have no appetite for more battles. (Edib, 2009, pp. 119-122)

The Greeks lost battle after battle, something their backers had not expected. But the military and political leaders had not forgotten the victory the Turks had scored in Gallipoli where they had routed the ANZACS, the Sikh and the Gurkhas a few years ago. How could the adversary forget the siege of Kut Ammara where 13000 British troops surrendered? The raw courage of the Turks delivered the message that their nation could not be bullied. Now, with these victories under their belt, they conveyed a stern warning to their adversaries to vacate their capital and made sure that it was heeded. The Greeks and their Allies came to know that the Turks   were dead-serious and could rain fire and brimstone on them. They realised they are not dealing with dandies. The forces which had ganged up against the Turks were jittery. They knew all too well what mattered in the battlefield. These so-called allies started ‘picking each other’s pockets’. They left one after the other, restoring Constantinople to its former glory. The Chanak crisis ended, leading to the singing of the Treaty of Lausanne in July 1923. The British, despite their external protestations to the contrary, and despite being the victorious party, agreed to terms favourable to the ‘vanquished’ Turks. (Edib, 2004, 119-122)

The biggest damage was to the esteem that the people had for the institution of the Caliphate, and the religious authorities. They could not swallow the fact that such hallowed institutions worked as cohorts to the occupying forces. (Qureshi, 1999, p. 275)

The resilient Turkish forces, virtually rising from the ashes, gained decisive victories over Greece to win back strategic areas lost in WWI. Their newfound strength, and advances exposed Allied naval units in the region and a war with the Turkish forces seemed inevitable. Britain and its allies were not in any mood for further war. History remembers this moment as the Chanak crisis[i].

The actual players in this high-octane drama are all too well known to find mention once again. However, what came as a surprise to this researcher was that Halide Edib was among the first four against whom the special court appointed by the Sultan had passed the death sentence.

(Paraphrased by Noor Mohammed Khalid, as part of his Master’s thesis)

[i] “Turkish nationalists under Mustapha Kemal were unhappy about the loss of territory to Greece under the Sèvres treaty of 1920. They expelled the Greeks from Smyrna by force in August 1922 and threatened to cross the Dardanelles. Britain feared for the security of the Straits”. http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095601576