File 600/1905 Pt 1 'Aden Hinterland: Treaty with Dthala' [‎425r] (111/174)

- - . **m***mm* it
/.-? r*
1
ecoiifi
race toil
admiti!
) ib i
No. 76, dated Aden Residency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, established in the provinces and regions considered part of, or under the influence of, British India. , the 2nd April 1904.
From—M ajor-General P. J. Maitlano P-R p im.- i r,
To_The Honobe^ble Mk. S W. E D0 i ELE v'’ci F 4 ^ Ade "’
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. . .> • .H, Acting Chief Secretary to
Xu the letter fro m the GovermTiprit n-P t
N o. 464.E.A., dated 10th Eebruarv 190-1 ^ , the . Forei S a ^apartment,
19th February 1904, it wa/sShaf?^ rZ arded ^ th ^ No. 1280 of
disposed to agree to the conclusion of a frociw er , nor Geuera l in Council was
which should include the four condition r, 63 7 the Amir of Dth ala
Bombay, and also three others named in pari” ranh fi ’nf‘fl? Go . v ; ernment of
conditions were to he amalgamated in somp P pn^' P 6 a f . th , e letter * These
am directed in your letter quoted above to submit a^drafo^of 't^T’ f^- 1
accoriance with the suggestions Tn r!? 111 ? d . fc the treaty m
the treaty, the Government of India would be nrenararfo 1 ' ° f aecB P tin S
allowance of 60 dollars in place of the Darbar A public or private audience held by a high-ranking British colonial representative (e.g. Viceroy, Governor-General, or member of the British royal family). present ofn^ Um 3 monthl y
whicli are now specially given him bv the ResifA ^ f ,. the ? ame amount
in paragraph 2 of Foreign Department letted No C0 T ntaiued
1904, forwarded with your No £57 dafpd iqii r " dated /th January
the 50 dollars per 1^, Xh Kow ^btfoTn 4 * * 7 , 1904 J h3t is t0 Sa ^
revokable arrangement, would become a permanent stipend. 38 3 temi,0rary and
of 4 /r
entitled, but called upon, in view of all the expense and trouble which hav°e been
incurred m secunng the Amir of Dthala against violation of ht territories
territory UI)0n " 8reater lmmUnlt7 t0 the Caravan routes P a ^ a 3 thmuTb ImS
follows:
3. The four conditions proposed by 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.
are as
(1) free and safe transit for British officers or parties ;
(2) maintenance of the boundary pillars on the Amiri borders;
(3) the good conduct of the tribesmen within the border and promnt
information as to interference or disturbance from beyond the
boundary; also J
(4) the lease, if required at a later date, of a site for a sanifarium
and the grant of land necessary for railway purposes.
To these the Government of India add—
(а) acceptance of responsibility by the Amir for the safety of the cara-
van routes;
(б) the right of the British Government to station a political officer
and the necessary escort at Dthala whenever this is held to be
necessary; and
(c) the right, in the event of the Amir failing to keep order within his
borders, to introduce a levy system, the subsidy being propor
tionately reduced.
4. The various treaties which we have made with the Yaffai and Aulaki
tribes during the last nine months have all been practically identical in form.
They are treaties of peace and friendship, and protectorate treaties combined.
They were drawn up on the basis of existing treaties with other tribes, and the
protectorate clauses were taken by direction of the Government of India from
the Protectorate Treaty of 1st August 1895 with the Lower Yaffai. Almost
all treaties of peace and friendship stipulate that the Chief concluding the
treaty shall keep open the trade routes and protect persons using them. The
existing agreement with the Amirs of Dthala is no exception, and the present
Amir has always fully acknowledged his responsibility in this respect. I ven*
ture to submit that the essential thing about the proposed new treaty with the
Amir is that it should be a protectorate treaty, and, if so, the protectorate
clauses should no doubt follow, as closely as possible, those in the other treaties.