The Egyptian khedival court’s authority rested on British patronage, not its own legitimacy.

Evidence

Although the circumstances required Fawzï to later label the Uräbï movement a fitna (disturbance), his narrative reveals an even greater uneasiness about Tawfïq's government. He admitted that he kowtowed with great flourish before the khedive, but he admitted this only after satirizing the khedive's entourage, among whom he was forced to wait before his appointment with Tawfïq. With the exception of one, these officers, all contemporaries of Fawzï's, either refused to return his greeting or rudely stared at him in disbelief at the boldness of this former Urabist daring to face the khedive. The one officer who did greet him immediately warned him of the khedive’s residual fury over the rebellion. But when Fawzï Pasha showed everyone the letter General Gordon had sent on his behalf, and when it was announced that the khedive would receive him, there was a sudden clamor of greetings from his formerly condescending peers.And Fawzï writes,“But I did not turn to them or respond to any one of their greetings, saying to myself, what goes around, comes around.” — Eve M. Troutt Powell, A Different Shade of Colonialism_…, 595

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s ongoing comparison of Egyptian vs Sudanese colonial governance — this passage shows Egyptian officialdom’s hollow authority derived from British backing, a key theme in chapter 64.
• QUESTION: Fawzï’s labeling of Urabi as fitna despite sympathy suggests complex internal Egyptian politics around the 1882 rebellion worth chasing.