Chapter 7, Part 1: Kikhya's First Term: Arab Unity, Alexandretta and Aleppo's Water

Rushdi al-Kikhya was elected a member of the Chamber of Deputies in the elections of 30 November 1936 on the list of the National Bloc. He, God have mercy on him, believed in its principles, which were the principles of the whole Syrian people, and he remained loyal to it as long as its efforts were focused, on the one hand, on wresting the country's independence from the jaws of greedy France and, on the other, on building a free and democratic state on the foundations and general rules of the new constitution, and on spreading complete equality among citizens, without any distinction or discrimination on grounds of race, origin or belief.

If we go back to Rushdi al-Kikhya's positions during this term, to shed light on his political and social activity, we are bound to look for them above all in the proceedings of the Chamber of Deputies, as the honest and reliable source for writing political history in the absence of more authoritative documents. That is what we have done, so that what is said is documented by official references.. These activities cannot be gathered under a single heading, because it is in the nature of parliamentary work to deal with public questions at different times and on different occasions.

Yet despite this variety, the source of them all remains one: the spirit of the deputy al-Kikhya, from which clear water springs to quench thirst and bring the earth to life.

I have studied the minutes that contain his words and the matters on which they were spoken, and found that they deal with the questions that occupied the people and the politicians in those burning years of our national history.. I will review them briefly in the following pages, to show any fair-minded reader what occupied the mind of this young and ardent deputy and claimed his attention, in the order in which they arose.. This is the method that also reveals how a man's thinking develops as he grows older and responds to the events and turns of the days.

1. The idea of Arab unity occupied a large place in Rushdi al-Kikhya's thinking, and this firm conviction held the very core of his heart until he left this world. His concern with it began at the start of his first term.

When the Syrian-Iraqi treaty on the movement of tribes between the two countries, signed on 24/4/1937, was put before the Chamber for ratification, al-Kikhya supported it warmly and made a speech in the Chamber in which he said:

"I ask the honorable deputies to approve this treaty unanimously, as the Iraqi Chamber of Deputies did, so that we prove to the whole world that the Arab nation is a single bloc, with no difference between the Iraqi, the Hejazi, the Yemeni or the Syrian region. If there is something in this treaty to our disadvantage, we are not the losers and they are not the gainers. And I ask our wise government to work with all speed to conclude new agreements between us and the other sister Arab governments, so that cooperation between us and all the Arab countries may be more complete."[1]

The first of the rain is a drop, and then it pours..

2. What dominated his thinking a great deal was the question of the ratification of the Syrian-French treaty of 1936, which in his eyes represented the road to deliverance from bondage. In fact the Chamber had scarcely assembled when French evasion became plain to every sharp eye, as the French Chamber of Deputies began to stall over ratifying the treaty the French government had signed, even though the government had a sufficient majority there.. and the rotten smell of the conspiracy against Syria began to fill the nostrils of its free deputies.

The event that exposed the conspiracy against us was the cutting off of the Sanjak of Alexandretta, as we set out in detail in the previous chapter. Rushdi al-Kikhya warned those in charge against accepting any surrender of this sanjak.. and raised his voice under the dome of parliament at the session of 17 April 1937, so that everyone who had ears might hear the voice of the conscience of the Syrian people, saying:

"This sanjak is our sanjak, and there is no life for Syria without it, economically or militarily. The nation will not accept any solution that does not secure its complete sovereignty over this Syrian Arab region. And if the solutions are to come against our wishes, relying on our weakness and the strength of the Turks, we will draw from our weakness the strength to defend the sacred den of Arabism. We have struggled for our country for eighteen years, strong in our faith and our convictions, and international law supports us in our right."[2]

His speech was met with loud applause from all the deputies, as the minutes of that session record. It made a deep impression on the members of the government, so much so that the Foreign Minister, Saadallah al-Jabiri, associated himself with what he had said and supported him, saying:

"The government shares this concern with you, and is devoting all its strength to this question."

But he remembered that he was speaking as a responsible man, and addressed a tactful word to Turkey, saying:

"As for our relations with our dear neighbor Turkey, they are relations of friendship and affection, and we want to keep them so always."[3]

This statement was mere official courtesy, because Turkish policy remained hostile to Syrian interests, whatever the leanings of its governments, and especially of the liberal government.

Regrettably, the French state, backed by English policy, sacrificed the Syrian sanjak on the altar of the specter of war then looming on the horizon of international politics, beginning by obtaining a decision from the League of Nations granting the sanjak a special status.

Rushdi al-Kikhya's anger at this unjust conduct was fierce, and he expressed it in the speech he made in the Chamber of Deputies at the session of 31 May 1937, saying:

"The decision of the League of Nations approving the special status of the sanjak has in practice deprived us of the finest piece of the territory of the Syrian state. We have said many times from this rostrum that we will not give up a single inch of our land. But since our government has sent representatives to negotiate with France, I think the Chamber should take no measure that might hinder the work of this delegation. If our delegation succeeds in obtaining our rights, we shall be satisfied; if not, then just as we entered this Chamber with honor, we shall leave it with honor too."[4]

But the logic of force was sharper than the logic of right.

France lost patience with the group of free deputies, and with the whole national government, and the French High Commission in Syria set to work in secret and in the open to bring down this regime from its foundations. To achieve this aim it had to stab it in the back and make it look incapable of maintaining security and keeping order.

In fighting the national government it used as a pretext the stirring up of unrest in Syria.. The most dangerous of these disturbances were three:

A. In Hasakah the Assyrian bishop Habbi led a contemptible separatist movement, although Syria had been the hospitable country that opened its arms to receive the Assyrians fleeing the cruelty of their rulers, as it had earlier opened them to receive the convoys of Armenian refugees from Turkey. The Assyrian rebellion began when a group of rebels led by the insurgent Ilyas Murshu kidnapped the governor, who had set out from Deir ez-Zor for Hasakah.. and he remained missing for four days.

Al-Kikhya was enraged by this criminal and irresponsible act. He stood under the dome of parliament sounding the alarm and calling on the government to do its national duty to the full. He addressed it in words that did not cling to the usual courtesies of a supporting deputy, saying:

"This sinful attack was not aimed only at the governor who represents the government, but at the whole people, because this government represents the Syrian people. It must therefore strike these rebels with an iron hand, to make them an example to anyone who would learn.. A short while ago some leaders in the Jazira, headed by His Grace Bishop Habbi, stirred up trouble. I regret most deeply that compelling circumstances force me to mention names.. Bishop Habbi incited the people against the government and went to Paris with Cardinal Tappouni, and there he began stirring up trouble against the government and against the whole Syrian people. Regrettably, the propaganda of these two men rests on the false claim that the rights of the minorities in Syria are not protected and that the majority oppresses the minorities.. and they asked the French government to work to amend the treaty in a way that would protect the rights of these minorities."

At this point the deputy for Damascus, our teacher at the law institute, Fa'iz al-Khouri, spoke and called on the majority to bear every burden for the national cause and to show political maturity.

Al-Kikhya answered him, saying:

"I ask my brothers of the other communities to take a firm stand against these incidents, which paralyze the national movement, and to raise a loud protest in the face of those rebellious persons.

"I would like to go back a little into history to recall an incident that took place a short time ago in Iraq.. We remember well that the Assyrians rose some years ago against the Iraqi government.. and that those who stirred them up were the men of occupying England.. The brave Iraqi army managed to put down that rebellion, and the British government stood watching those wretched people without extending a helping hand to them in any way, even refusing to accept them in its own country or in its colonies."[5]

He ended his speech by blaming France, which was working to stir up trouble in the country to use as a pretext for backing out of its commitment to ratify the treaty, addressing it thus:

"If the French state that made a treaty with us has come to regret signing the treaty, we regret it no less."

These are the words of free men at decisive moments.

B. Likewise, in Aleppo the scorpions of another disturbance stirred, led by an Aleppine Christian named Abbud Qanbaz, who gave his movement the name of the "White Badge".. although some of the great men of the national movement were Christians, and it is enough to bow every head in respect to mention a few names, such as Faris al-Khouri, Edmond Rabbath and Naim Antaki, God have mercy on them, for services to the country that deserve to be written in letters of gold.

The cause of the outbreak of unrest in Aleppo was the throwing of filth at a church.. Christian feeling was inflamed against this vile act, and the hirelings led by Abbud Qanbaz moved to turn the incident into an attack by the Muslims on Christian holy places, and began spreading the word that a shameful act like this left the Christians unsafe in practicing their rites.. The Muslims realized what the conspirators were after, and worked with their Christian brothers to calm the situation. The culprits were arrested, and the investigators established that they were Christians, hangers-on of the Mandate, driven to their vile deed by the ringleaders of the unrest.

This unrest, which became known as the Sunday Market disturbance because it broke out in that market on 11/10/1936, was quickly put down through the firm and resolute stand taken by the Minister of the Interior, Saadallah al-Jabiri, who was known as "the Lion of the North", as indeed he was. Al-Kikhya praised his courage and resolve, addressing him thus:

"I thank the Minister of the Interior and Foreign Affairs, who was able to strike at the hands of those traitors who set out to stir up trouble in the city of Aleppo, the impregnable stronghold of patriotism and guardian of the new national era.."[6]

Two Muslims and three Armenians were killed in the Sunday Market disturbance.[7]

C. The third disturbance was the one that stirred in Jabal Druze, carried out by some ignorant separatists at the instigation of the French authority. During the visit of the High Commissioner, Monsieur Puaux, to Suwayda, these rebels took down the Syrian flag from the government building (in Suwayda) and insulted it. The future will prove the truth of what historians attribute to the French High Commissioners: conspiring against the unity of Syria and creating unrest there for a fixed purpose they pursued, namely the destruction of the 1936 treaty, so that French influence would continue and the posts of its senior officials would be saved.. France thought that creating a rift in Muslim-Christian unity would achieve this aim for it.. But apart from the renegade few among the Christians, and among the Muslims too, the authority did not get what it had planned, and the unity of Christians and Muslims remained a solid rock that never crumbled, because both sides were content to live in dignity in their homeland, the common homeland of their forefathers, on a principle that everyone accepted: the homeland belongs to the people, and religion to God.

France's conduct angered the deputy Rushdi al-Kikhya, especially when its "ambassador" in Syria made a speech in which he threatened the Syrian people in an ugly way. Al-Kikhya answered him in the Chamber of Deputies, even though he was among the government's supporters, with a reply marked by the highest sense of dignity. He said:

"Gentlemen, France surprises us with a stand that shows it wants to take us back to the policy followed by General Gouraud, the policy of violence and conquest, and to the policy of partition that this general applied. It wants to take us back to the confederation that Weygand brought. It wants to take us back to the policy of stalling and procrastination that Ponsot followed.

"France's latest ambassador says in his speech that his state is strong. And who denies France its strength, especially compared with this small and disarmed country?

"We would have liked the ambassador to address these words to a strong and armed people. To say them to us does France no honor. We wanted him to say them to the Turkish army that occupied Alexandretta.. to say them to that Turkish soldier who shot a French officer dead in the street without the French army lifting a finger.. We wanted him to say them to Germany when it set about striking them in the heart of Europe.

"And the ambassador says: France is generous! Where is this generosity? Is it in our trade, which has gone bankrupt since the French entered this country? Or in agriculture, which has gone to ruin, so that the Syrian peasant now complains of hunger after living in comfort? Or in the great wealth that was here after the (First World) war, which shrank and melted away as salt dissolves in water? Or in these repeated pledges and dazzling promises they held out to us and then broke without shame or embarrassment?"

But France stopped its ears against hearing any word of truth! And fate gave it no more than two years' grace, for it suffered the greatest defeat in its history before the advance of the German hordes in 1940.

To cover all the circumstances, I quote what Dr. Bashir al-Azma[8] wrote about a move by a Syrian Jew, Eliahu Sasson. In 1937 he met Mr. Shukri al-Quwatli, the leader of the National Bloc and Minister of Defense in Mardam's government, offering to ease the signing of the French-Syrian treaty in exchange for the Syrians turning a blind eye to the creation of the Zionist national home in Palestine. Al-Azma says that al-Quwatli refused this offer, which we had not heard of before, though it is not surprising.

This statement exposes the Zionist role in obstructing France's ratification of that treaty.

3. Rushdi al-Kikhya took a special interest in the question of the Islamic religious endowments (awqaf), which were in a condition that worsened day by day. He raised the matter several times in the Chamber of Deputies, and among the things he said was:

"These endowments have unfortunately become a rich grazing ground for a large group of people, so that they have almost been destroyed altogether. I think it necessary that these endowments be handed over to their owners so that they may run them themselves in a way that serves the interest of the poor, as with the endowments of the other communities. For this reason the contracts concluded in the name of long lease (tahkir) at times and exchange (istibdal) at others must be reviewed, because they are all built on collusion and embezzlement.."[9] It is well known that Islamic law accepted the system of endowment for the benefit of Muslims in general.

In the language, waqf means detention. In the law it means detaining the property itself and devoting its fruit to good causes, or, to put it more plainly, detaining property and spending its benefits in the way of God. In the noble hadith as related by Ibn Majah: "What reaches the believer of his deeds and good works after his death: knowledge he spread, a righteous child he left, a copy of the Quran he bequeathed, a mosque he built, a house he built for the wayfarer, a stream he made to flow, or alms he gave from his wealth in his health and his lifetime, which reach him after his death."

Besides the charitable endowment mentioned above, there is the family endowment, meaning the endowment of a property or its usufruct to grandchildren and relatives, and after them to the poor.

Some jurists hold that family endowments increase in times when an unjust ruler seizes power and sets about confiscating people's property in violation of their rights. In such circumstances of fear, men of property tend to endow their wealth on their descendants to save it. "Once the endowment is binding, it may not be sold or given away, or disposed of in any way that would end its character as an endowment."[10]

In our country a law was issued dissolving family endowments and returning the property to those entitled to it.

This law was received with signs of joy, because it ended a period of corruption that had eaten away for many generations at the body of Muslims entitled to the endowments, and so the voice of Rushdi al-Kikhya was a warning to the colluding embezzlers and good news for those whose rights had been denied.

4. Rushdi al-Kikhya took a great interest in the question of drinking water in his home city of Aleppo, and his supporter in this effort was his comrade in the struggle, Dr. Nazim al-Qudsi. Their efforts thus joined those of their colleagues among the Aleppine deputies and ministers. One day al-Qudsi made a proposal asking for an allocation of ten thousand Syrian pounds to improve the Haylan canal, which supplied the city with drinking water, but the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Shukri al-Quwatli, opposed this allocation on the grounds that the state of the budget did not allow it.. Al-Kikhya spoke, saying: "The water in Aleppo is not fit to drink, because half of it is polluted, and most of the people of Aleppo drink it polluted because of poverty, or under the pressure of necessity."[11]

Minister Lutfi al-Haffar supported the proposal, commenting: "Aleppo has been very badly wronged in this respect.. ", and the Minister of Finance, finding nothing to say in reply, announced his agreement to the allocation.

This debate was a prelude to opening the doors, years later, to the great Euphrates project, which saved the city from thirst.. and al-Kikhya would be the champion of that arena, loyal to his city.

We shall return to this subject at length.

Endnotes:

[1] Session of 26/10/1937, p. 24.

[2] Proceedings of the Chamber of Deputies, second session, first sitting, p. 29.

[3] The same sitting, p. 36.

[4] From the minutes of session 22.

[5] Session 26 of 27/12/1937, Minutes of the Proceedings of the Chamber of Deputies, p. 488.

[6] Session of 26/10/1937, p. 25.

[7] Dr. Abd al-Rahman al-Kayyali, Al-Marahil, vol. 4, p. 311.

[8] Jil al-Hazima: Mudhakkirat bayn al-Wahda wa al-Infisal (The Generation of Defeat: Memoirs between Union and Secession), Riad El-Rayyes Books, London 1991, p. 171.
Bashir al-Azma was a minister in the union cabinet, then supported the secession and formed a secessionist cabinet in 1962; when the secession was ended, al-Azma was punished with political isolation in 1963.

[9] Eighth session, 31/12/1936, p. 208.

[10] Sheikh al-Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunna, vol. 3, p. 522.

[11] Session of 30 May 1937, p. 1059.