File 600/1905 Pt 4 'Aden Hinterland: Proposed Treaties with the Sultans of Beda and Audali; Treaty with Beda held in abeyance' [‎209v] (50/158)

2
(2) Perhaps our treaty with Behan-al-Kasab was an error, but to it the
Turks have never demurred and so it is not understood how a treaty
with Beda wou d wound their susceptibilities—Beda and Audali ly
ing far south of Behan-al-Kasab and within our border.
(3) It seems to be a matter for consideration whether we should defer to
Turkish susceptibility in case of places well within our sphere, and the
fact that we have all along done so has weakened our prestige notably
along the Turkish-Subehi border. This has been lately Reported
to Government. We see that the Turkish Arabs are emboldened to
harass the tribes within our borders by cutting off “ kat ” ^supplies,
simply because they note our indifference which is sometimes translated
to mean our non-possumus.”
The proces verbal shows that Beda and Audali are both within our bor
der and so no question of Turkish objections can arise.
By the Secretary of State’s Secret Despatch No. 20, dated the 4th May
1906, new treaties were disallowed because it was not considered
advisable to incur fresh responsibilities with the tribes; but the two
treaties now proposed with Beda and Audali will incur no fresh respon
sibilities as regards any prospective intervention on our part in Arab
tribal affairs. It would be as true to say that existing treaties spelt
intervention, which is not the case. Inter-tribal affairs are left to the
Chiefs concerned and only advice is tendered on all occasions, witness
the Kaiti-Bir Ali-Balahaf engagements inter se. So that with tribes
clearly within our border the despatch quoted above is not germane
to the point at issue.
(6) Beda and Audali are two important tribes within our border with whom no
treaties exist, though they are hedged in on all sides by tribes with
whom we have concluded treaties, as will be seen from the enclosed
maj^in which the tribes with whom we have treaties are underlined
in red ink. This isolation is displeasing to the two Sultans who cannot
understand our preferential dealings to their exclusion. Hav ng given
our word to both, it will be considered a breach of faith if we draw
back ; and our action furthermore will most likely give rise to retalia
tion on their part along their trade routes along which a considerable
volume of trade passes nto Aden. It will be difficult under these cir
cumstances to maintain such cordial relations with Beda, as wou d be
effected by a treaty that would so gratify the Sultan and impose no
further responsibilities on us than those connected with ^other Chief-
ships.
(7) Finally I would state that treaties with Beda and Audali are proposed
not because the Turks may snap them up—this the prcces verbal of
1905 precludes—but because they have been promised to the Sultans
who have been led to expect and desire them and because our circle
of friendly relations is ncomplete by the exclusion of these two very
important alliances.
4. In Conclusion I have only to add that the instructions issued by Govern
ment will be strictly carried out and I have only made this representation so that
the Government may be put in possession of facts that may not have been fully
placed before them.
P. D. letter No. 5939, dated the 15th September 1910.
From—The Secretary to the Government of Bombay From c. 1668-1858, the East India Company’s administration in the city of Bombay [Mumbai] and western India. From 1858-1947, a subdivision of the British Raj. It was responsible for British relations with the Gulf and Red Sea regions. ,
To—The Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. , Aden.
I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter No. C.-250, dated the 6th
August 1910, recommending that protectorate treaties may be concluded with the
Beda and Audali Sultans.
2. In reply I am to state that the Bombay Government see no particular
objection to the conclusion of treaties with the Sultans of Beda and Audali and
recognize that their conclusion might have advantages^; but in view of the policy