Five years afterwards there was a sudden, unaccountable, and widespread display of hostility towards the government, in which almost all the border tribes from the Malakand to the Tochi were concerned; and it seems necessary to make something of the nature of a statement of the causes which have been put forward, at various times and by different persons, for an outbreak so serious and so wholly unexpected. It must, however, from the outset be borne in mind that, when we made our agreement for the safeguarding of the pass with and by the Khyber Afridis, they put the recognition upon record of the independence of their responsibility for the security of the road from any government aid in the matter of troops; while it was further by them admitted that “it lies with the Indian Government to retain its troops within the pass or withdraw them and to re-occupy it at pleasure.” In face of this admission it is not easy to see how the Afridis can justify their complaint (made to the Amir of Afghanistan), that our hold on the Khyber was an infringement of treaty rights. It may be admitted that a strong case is presented by those who hold that the real cause of the general Pathan revolt of 1897 is traceable to the policy which dictated the Afghan Boundary agreement of 1893. It is indisputable that one of the results of this measure—imperatively demanded by the difficulty, always present and ever increasing, of controlling the tribes immediately beyond our border—aroused a sense of distrust and uneasiness among the Pathans of the frontier. ‘They watched in impotent wrath the erection of the long line of demarcation pillars; they were told that henceforth all to the east of that line practically belonged to the British, and that the allegiance of all who dwelt within it must be to us; they saw their country mapped and measured; they witnessed the establishment of military posts, not merely on their borders, but in their very midst, as at Wana; and they came to a conclusion, not unnatural to an ignorant people ever hostile to any form of settled and civilised government, that their country was annexed and their independence menaced.’ The tribesmen themselves put forward many pretexts for their action—after the event; but religious fanaticism undoubtedly furnished the actual incentive, while there are not wanting indications that the discomfiture of the infidel (the Greek) at the hands of the followers of Islam (the Turk), furnished the spur which incited the tribesmen to try and throw off the yoke of the unbeliever.