File 600/1905 Pt 1 'Aden Hinterland: Treaty with Dthala' [‎428r] (117/174)

(Confidential)
From-
To-
refers to the
the Amir of
I
No. 30-M., dated Bombay Castle, the 18th April 1901.
-The Hon'ble Mr. S W. Edgeriey pip a ,•
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. , , • ■ Acting Chief Secretary to the
-L. W. Da ne , Esq.; Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Depart
I am now directed to reply to your letter TSTn d a ,
2. To simplify the correspondence so much of the letter as
partmuiar 1S sue of the conclusion of a protectorate treaty with
Dthala has been dealt with in a separate letter.
o. As desired I am to submit papers o ‘ivin o, in thpir* nw i ,. .
on the subject of M, FitzMaurioe.Voionei WaS and ^eneTa 0
will be seen that there is a considerable divoro-pn^o ^ . . 1 lv { aitlan d. It
officers reporting, but in the general drift of theWce tendered"nifr 611 u* h<S
cy the Governor in Council finds nothing which lectio
the policy which he has already commended to the consideration nf tZ o
ment of India. As regards General Maitland’s letter H 3 E “ el ety flf"'
fw° U f L ln v, real f DS ‘T ? lff f eoee betnee “ boundary under distussion and
that of Afghanistan As lie has already explained in my No 29 M n
1 th April 1904, he has also been under noTisapprdTTion f to’tt dufe
winch it is proposed to entrust to the levy. The real point to be decided is
whether a Political Assistant is to be at once permanently stationed at Dtlmli
or not secure the full fruit of the recent demarcation. It is, of course ob-
ymus that any British responsibility in the hinterland can be discharged
with a much greater sense of security when such discharge depends on
a highly intelligent British Agent posted actually on the spot, and if this
were the whole ot the case to be considered, His Excellency would have no
difficrUtym supporting the proposa! that a Political Assistant should be so
placed. That is, however, by no means the whole case for consideration • other
factors are the expectations formed in the minds of the Chief by our policy in
the past which was stated in paragraph 3 of my letter No. 219, dated the
12th January 1901, and which there is so far no indication that His Maiesty’s
Government desire to abandon until it has been proved by experience to be in
adequate to meet the increased responsibility consequent on the delimitation of
the frontier. What Colonel Wahab says in paragraph 5 of his letter of the
tribal levy seems to be no less true of the proposal to formally post a Political
Officer at Dthala. After all that is said and done it is clear that the presence
of an Assistant, whether assisted by the levy or not, must to some extent
weaken the responsibility of the Tribal Chief, and if his dealing direct with the
local Sheiks for the safety of the boundary marks were to be the policy approv
ed, it cannot be denied that it would constitute a considerable interference
with the past authority of the Amir of Dthala and with the internal adminis
tration of his territories. Mr. EitzMaurice’s memorandum shows the difficul
ties that will probably have to be met in the future; they are practically the
difficulties that have had to be faced in the past with this very considerable
amelioration that the boundary will be, in his opinion, an obstacle which the
Turkish officials will certainly respect and it will, therefore, not be necessary to
deal with episodes such as the tower of Addareja, the seizure and occupation
of Jalela or the tower of Auja. In Mr. Fitz Maurice’s paragraph 7 will also
be found a substantial support of the policy which 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.
have more than once pressed upon the Government of India in regard to the
moral and material support of the Sultan of Lahej in his dealing with the
Subaihi and Haushabi tribes. It is the same policy which His Excellency the
Governor in Council has now the honour to recommend towards the Amir of
Dthala as regards another part of the frontier ; and there is certainly no reason
to be found in these papers why that policy should be held to be a failure ;
nor is there any reason given to lead His Excellency to suppose that it may not