File 619/1907 Pt 10 'Arms traffic:- Persian Gulf. Prize Money for captures in Persian Gulf.' [‎126r] (256/424)

Do. Ill iepl> to the telegram of the 27th December 1909, the Government-
t9io° rd Moi ' ley s tele 8' rani of 1st January of India were instructed as follows on
4360/09 t ^ ie Januar y 1910 :—
“It is very undesirable to raise large general question, either with Persian
Government who have so far made no claim under agreement to
confiscated cargoes, or with Sultan of Muskat whose attitude is likely
to be difficult. It seems better to deal with each case on its merits as
it arises. In case of “ Badil ” and similar cases, Sultan should be
informed that we are prepared to give arms to him eventually, but in
meantime will keep them for him until we are satisfied that there is
no chance of their returning to dealers. In case of “ Khairi and
similar cases, he should be informed that his claim is untenable and
cargo should be destroyed. When a dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. is captured in Muskat
waters and her papers are in order, but there are good 'prima facie
grounds for believing that she is engaged in illegitimate traffic, she
may be detained pending further enquiry, Sultan being at once
informed ; if result of enquiry satisfactory she must be released, if not
cargo may be retained for eventual restoration to Saltan. Similar
procedure should be followed with Muskat dhows captured outside
Muskat waters if circumstances make destruction unadvisable. In
dealing with Sultan it should be explained to him that our intention is
not to make him suffer pecuniarily.”
The Government of India rather demurred to the last proposal (viz.,
assurance that the Sultan should not suffer pecuniarily), and expressed the
hope (in their telegram of 12th January 1910) that this question might lie
over. Meanwhile, the Political Agent A mid-ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Agency. at Muskat was instructed that if the
Sultan himself referred to the subject, “he should be told that the question
of pecuniary loss will be referred to Government of India.” These instruc
tions were approved by the Secretary of State on the 4th February 1910,
subject to a warning as to the importance of not throwing the Sultan into the
arms of the French, or “ exasperating him to point of withdrawing authority
he has given us to search dhows.”
In the same telegram (1st January 1910) the Secretary of State suggested
that, in order to “ close whole coast of Gulf outside Oman,” it might be
possible to persuade the Chief of Nejd to prohibit the import of arms. The
Government of India considered, however, that no useful purpose would be
served by approaching the Nejd Chief, who appeared to have no effective
jurisdiction on the coast.”
54 On the 6th January 1910 the Government of India were further
instructed that the blockade, if still
Commencsinent of Blockade : Ins true- considered essential, should begin at
tions to Admiral. once> the question of the incidence of
Viceroy’s telegram of 12th January its cost"” being left for future settlement.
1910 - Accordingly on the 11th January 1910,
the following instructions were issued to the Naval Commander-in-Chief
“ Government of India sanction blockade on lines originally proposed by
you, including use of eight launches, but in view of senous financial
position here desire to know whether you could not carry out operations
* The cost of the Blockade was estimated as follows in the Viceroy s telegram of 17th
January 1910:—
For 4 months :—
Home
Indian Army
Marine
£
57,260
13,273
21,613
Total - - - 92,146
For 12 months :—
Home
Indian Army
Marine -
166,574
25,300
58,106
249,980
Total