File 345/1908 Pt 2 'Mohammerah: situation. Sheikh's dispute with the Vali of Basra. decoration for Sheikh. renewed assurances to Sheikh.' [‎151r] (306/566)

9
police, and, as far as the Sheikh can make out, the story of his or of his Agent’s
life being threatened by Muhammad Chanan is based solely on Mishri’s word, or
that of the police, Muhammad Chanan did not no so, nor any responsible
person.
8. The Sheikh replies that Muhammad Chanan is a Persian subject, that he
Reference above complaint, the Turkish police
were informed when they tried to arrest
Muhammad Chanan that he and all his people
belonged to Sheikh, and could not come to Basrah
(to be imprisoned), and if arrest was insisted on,
Mishri’s Agent would he killed like Chelmeran.
(Mr, Crow’s Despatch No. 22, of 22nd April
1910).
wrote as much to the Wali at the time.
The Tabur Agassi, (police sergeant),
went to Zain to arrest Muhammad Chanan,
but alleged no specific offence, except
that he had been annoying Mishri, who is
a tyrannical and grasping man. Tabur Agassi and Muhammad Chanan both
came in the same helium to visit the Sheikh at Failiyah and to discuss what
should be done, over a friendly cup of tea. Tabur Agassi made no
complaint of any kind whatever as to threats, but simply said that Muhammad
Chanan said he was a Persian—r would the Sheikh write to this effect to the Wali?
Sheikh at once wrote a friendly and polite note to the Wali, saying that
the Tabur Agassi had seen him on the subject of Muhammad Chanan, that
the latter was a Persian subject, but that nevertheless the Sheikh would
bring him up to Basrah in two days’ time to discuss the matters at issue,
and arrange a settlement. He added that he would be going up the Karun
shortly, and would take the opportunity to M ask permission to take his depar
ture,” a particularly deferential and courteous phrase. He was, he says, under
the impression, when he wrote the letter, that the Wali was on the best of terms
with him. He went up to Basrah two days later and found to his surprise that
the Wali now refused to receive him at all unless Muhammad Chanan was
forthwith handed over to the police. The Sheikh pointed out in vain that he was
accused of no specific offence, that he was a Persian, and that the case of Mishri
was eminently one for amicable settlement. The Wali was obdurate.
Wali said he distrusted the Sheikh. His influ
ence as a landowner and tribal Sheikh was great,
and he thought most of the Mukhtars from Gurnah
to Fao were in his pay. or pledged to his interests.
(Mr. Crow’s Despatch No. 22, dated 23rd April
1910).
He had no alternative but to return to Mohammerah with Muhammad
Chanan, who, it should be added, is his brother-in-law, and head of the most
important of the tribes round Mohammerah.
9. The Sheikh replies that more than half of the tribes from Gurnah to Fao
happen to be of the Sheikh’s tribes and
are Persian subjects: the Sheikh in
consequence has great influence, and since
Mukhtars are always chosen, by the Turks,
from the headmen of the locality, it is not
surprising if they are in a way pledged to the Sheikh’s interests. But, he points
out, there is no reason to suppose that the Mukhtars are in any way hostile to
the Turks influence, and in support of this, and of his own consistently peaceful
policy, he points out that the Arab tribes from Gurnah to Fao are the only ones
who never give any trouble to the Turks ; they pay their taxes regularly, and are
probably as law abiding a community, in their stage of civilisation, as can be
found anywhere. The limit of the Sheikh’s influence, Gurnah, is also that of
the Turks’ authority. Beyond the point at which the Sheikh’s influence ends,
the Turkish authorities have failed to collect revenue for the last three years,
and are still engaged in ineffective punitive operations.
10. The Sheikh’s reply shows that he himself has always attributed the
“Wali attributed all the river troubles from
Fao to Basrah to Sheikh’s influence, and was
putting in his own men as “ Mukhtars in place of
Sheikh's men ”
(Fide supra.)
river troubles to the same cause as Mr,
Crow did in his Despatch No. 17, of 10th
March 1909, of which the following is an
extract
u As long as action is confined to mere perfunctory police enquiries, and
reference is made to a so-called criminal court, where no justice is
obtainable, while local authorities are allowed to throw dust in our
eyes by arresting offenders and sentencing them to expiate the
offences of guilty defaulters, the lawless condition of Basrah will
not improve.”
11. In this connection it may not be out of place to refer also to Mr. Crow’s
Despatch No. 8, of January 30th, 1907, to Sir N. O’Conor, reporting a piracy