'File 19/171 (C 37) Dowasir Tribe' [‎79r] (174/218)

rightly entitled to them. He feels that because the
original oonfisoation was made in his name ( an action
which he only took after considerable persuasion) it
is incumbent on him to return the money and as no
mention was made of the rents in the terms on which
the Dawasirs return g he supposes that the return of the
rents is taken for granted.
In my opinion, being as Financial Adviser, responsible
for the finances of the State, this large outlay from
the already overburdened revenues of the State in order
to buy the goodwill of the Dawasir is not justifiable,
unless it is the intention of the Government that all
measures that were previously taken against the Dawasir
by the Government are to be entirely wiped out, except
of course their three years exile which is past, in which
case I venture to suggest that a wrong impression will be
given, the impression that the Government have now decided
that it acted 7 /rongly in punishing the tribe in the way
that it did.
You kindly said that you would support me in an
endeavour to prevent large payments. My own position
here is difficult and were it generally knevn that I
was the deciding factor in preventing this payment, it
would be decidedly more difficult. I therefore ask that
a definite ruling should be given on these two points.
1. Whether the rents for the three years paid
into the State funds by tenants on the
confiscated estates must be handed back to
the Dawasir.
2. Thether the Bahrain State is to force the
divers of the Dawasir/who were freed from all
debts and obligation to dive with their
Dawasir ITarkhudaS /to return to the Dawasir,
or whether the State is to compensate these
ITarkhudas for the loss of the divers, and
the writing off of the divers' debts ( a matter
of probably two or three lacs One lakh is equal to one hundred thousand rupees ).