afghanistanpossible additional military assistance, the Amir angrily refused to provide
the information. In the widely read English version of his autobiography,
the Amir was often critical of British policy and of successive Viceroys,
including Lytton and Lansdowne. 30
‘Abd al-Rahman Khan also violated the Lyall Agreement by corres-
ponding directly with Persia, Turkey, Russia and Germany, even though
Britain was meant to manage Afghanistan’s foreign relations. When Britain
began work on extending the Indian railway to Chaman, he claimed it
was like pushing a knife into his vital organs. ‘Abd al-Rahman Khan even
published a series of pamphlets calling for Afghans to prepare for jihad
against Britain and Russia, accusing both countries of secretly plotting to
dismember Afghanistan.
Lansdowne wrote and urged the Amir to moderate his ‘provocative
language’ about Russia and warned him it could lead to a ‘collision’. At
the same time he raised the issue of the Turkistan Atrocities, though in
a somewhat apologetic manner. If the reports prove correct, Lansdowne
wrote, such punishments were ‘abhorrent to civilisation’, yet at the same
time the Viceroy conceded that ‘severe measures may have been necessary’
against the rebels and ‘energetic action’ was ‘most necessary’. 31 Shortly after
sending this letter Griesbach and Warburton’s reports reached him, so
Lansdowne wrote a second, sterner letter to the Amir in which he pointed
out that the atrocities were ‘abhorrent to the ideals of civilised nations’ and
‘calculated to produce a bad impression’. The Viceroy also raised a number
of other issues that had led to strains in the Anglo-Afghan detente, and
hinted that if the Amir did not change his ways Britain would reconsider its
unconditional support. When the Amir read the Viceroy’s communications
he flew into a violent rage and in a very undiplomatic reply he accused
Lansdowne of addressing him in ‘a dictatorial manner’ and interfering in
Afghanistan’s internal affairs. ‘Abd al-Rahman Khan then went to great
lengths to defend his actions and showed not the slightest expression of
regret, claiming that, like Peter the Great, he was ‘reducing the disorderly
people to a state of new order’. 32
The Amir’s reply was highly unsatisfactory, but Lansdowne did not
pursue the matter any further and consoled himself by claiming the Amir’s
reply was ‘temperate in tone’ and that the atrocities were abating. In fact,
things were as bad as ever. A few years later a similar dilemma arose during
the Amir’s repression of the Hazaras, which led to more mass executions,
deportations and expulsions. Privately senior officials admitted it was
increasingly difficult ‘to justify to ourselves our actions in supporting upon
the throne of Afghanistan, for political reasons, a ruler so bloody and