I'm reading Eugene Rogan's The Fall of the Ottomans, and its definitely fascinating, but his chapter that talks about the call for Jihad and the French/British muslim response ("A Global Call to Arms") doesn't really answer the question why they didn't respond. I'm by no means well versed in Islamic/Middle-Eastern history, but I have read a bit on the Algerian War and so I'm familiar with all the discontent/anger the Algerians had for the French colonial system, and Rogan describes a similar discontent the Egyptians had for the British and the legal muddle of whether they were to be considered as British subjects or Ottoman/enemy subjects. Yet neither (as far as I know, haven't finished the book) really launched any major rebellion? Most surprising of all to me was the overwhelming support of the Muslim princes in India in declaring loyalty to the British Crown. Again I'm not familiar with the colonial history here, but with 65 million muslims it seems shocking that there would be such unanimous support for the colonial system and war effort at all, without adding the sultan's call for Jihad on top of it.

If in Algeria and Egypt at least, muslim colonial subjects were so unhappy with the imperial system, why was there seemingly no attempt to join the Ottomans?

Also I am vaguely aware that Jihad is not exactly the same as a call to a Crusade, it just means 'struggle' and can be a purely internal/individual affair, but suffice it to say I'm not even too clear on what a call to Jihad from an Ottoman sultan would mean to Arabic and Indian/'Pakistani'/'Bangladeshi' people (would muslims in the British colony of India have thought of themselves as Indian?) in 1914