'File 8/67 MUSCAT STATE AFFAIRS: MUSCAT – OMAN TREATY.' [‎50r] (104/316)

Imam. This definite departure occurred when Sultan bin Ahmed usurped the
power from his brother Said bin Ahmed who had been elected Imam. r ihe
latter retained the title of Imam till his death, but no temporal power.
The rule of Sultan and of his son Said which lasted from about 1<90 till
1856 marked the growth of sea power, foreign conquests, the most important of
which was Zanzibar, and the removal of the capital from Kustaq in the interior
to Muscat on the coast, and foreign treaties and inter!erenc a , almost entirely
British, The removal of t 'e capital to the coast cut off from the in'erior has
been stated by some as the beginning of the loss of hold by the Sultans over
the interior, and as sueh as an impolitic move. r lhis is however open to question.
It is more probable chat the Sultan knew they could hope better to control with
outside power and this outside power they obtained from their sea power and
their foreign possessions.
It is a fact however that from the deaUi of Saiyid Said the power of tne
Sultans over the interior became more nominal than ever. Attacks could only be
warded off by brib iry, no revenue was obtained, travel* was dangerous and there
were several attempts by the Omani tribes to set up Imams of their own. An
attempt had actually been made in 1819. In 1868 Azzan bin Qais an elected
Imam actually ruled in Muscat, and though latter ejected, many similar
attempts were made during the reign of Turki and the earlier years of the
reign of Eaisal to depose the Sultan, who may have said to ha^e been saaed
only by our support. *
Finally in 1913, after an elaborate conspiracy of several years fostered by
the famous blind Ibadlii mullah Sheikh Abdullah bin llumaid as SaLmi, tie
Oman tribes rose in a body elected Salim bin llavhid-al-J£liarusi as their Imam
and by 191 i had obtained complete control of all v)man proper where toey
organised a Government.
It will thus be seen that for more than 60 years there has been active
opposition to the ruling 1 ouse by the Oman trioes. The causes of this opposi
tion may be briefly summarised a* follows:—
(1) According to the Ibadhi religion their ruler must be
elected. The Sultans who had not undergone this v formality were
, ' therefore userpers.
( 2 ) The personal character of the Sal tins themselves *—deteriorated
at an alarming rate, and the repeated assertion of the Omani
tribes that they were unlit to rule does not lack justinoation.
(3) The character of the Sultans' rule .—This was corrupt to a degree,
and the element of personal control and touch by the ruler himstl
which with the Arab will palliate even the worst forms of corrup
tion, was completely absent.
•( 4 ) Foreign interference.—TUs appeared in the eyes of the fanatical
anil ignorant Omanis to be directed against their most cherished
rights such as the importation of arms and slaves. In these the
Sultan acquiesced without consulting his subjects accepting
sums of money for his acquiescence, not one penny of which
money the Omanis ever saw.
At the same time our policy in Zanzibar lost nothing in the telling.
Several of the reasons why the Sultans were unable to cope with the rebel
lion are contained in these. But to them may be added three more. The loss
of Zanzibar and its revenues, the loss of sea power owing to the ictrouuction ot
steam, and finally and most important of all the effects of British influence.
When considering our p n licv in Muscat and Oman this last point must
never be lost sight of. A brief perusal of the treaties and engagements
with the rulers of Muscat will show that our influence has bf^n entirely self-
interested, has p dd no regard to the peculiar political and social conditions o
the country and its rulers, and by bribing effete Sultans to enforce unpa a a, e
measures which benefitted none but ourselves, and permitting them to misiu.c
C11FPD
/