File 869/1904 Pt 2 'Arms Traffic: - Red Sea, Africa and Aden' [‎80v] (169/540)

is very severe, the crops are probably og the ground, the inhabitants of the
teuton are, unless detained by their crops, very nomadic in their habits, and an
expedition at the moment would probably be very expensive in every way and
possibly ineheetive. But at the same time it is undesirable to delay action too
Iono«, and I am to submit that it is possible to take immediate action, the effect
of which can be maintained during the hot months, which will reach the Attifi
sub-tribe, and which will at the same time serve our purposes in other respects,
e.g,, the arms traffic.
6. I am, therefore, to recommend that the first step to be taken should be
to send out a force by sea and to occupy Ras-al-Arrah and Turan at as early a
date as possible. These places are the principal villages of the Attifi tribe to
whom the murderers of the postal runner belong. Notice should then be given
to the various sub-tribes of the Subaihi, whose conduct it has been necessary
to criticise, that, unless before November next they give satisfaction to the
Resident’s demands against them, further action will follow^ Ras-al-Arrah
and Turan should be held under the civil control of the Assistant Political
Resident at Perim, and the occupation should be utilized to obtain what
information is possible as regards the arms trade from Jibouti into that part of
the Protectorate.
7. The next question for consideration is as to the action that should
follow if the tribes are still unwilling to meet the Resident s demands. There
are two policies possible. The first is one as to which the Government of India
up to this time have not made any very certain pronouncement, which the Gov
ernment of Bombay would recommend, and which has been stated more than
once. I am to refer to this Government letter No. 30-M., dated the 18th April
1904, which recommended that the most powerful of the Chiefs in the Hinter
land, the Sultan of Lahej and the Amir of Dthala should be utilised to carry
out our policy by subsidising them and giving them both moral and material
support as might be necessary. I am to point out that this is the policy
favoured in paragraph 7 of Mr. Pitz
*Submifctecl with Bombay Government letter Maurice’s Notes* of March 19th, 1904,
No. 30-M., dated th. 18th April 1901. an(J it ig witMn tlie knowledge of 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. that it is the policy which had the support of Colonel
Wahab. So far as the Amiri country and the North-East Frontier are con
cerned, it has been adopted in the appointment of Major Jacob and the instruc
tions which he has received. The matters under discussion in the present
letter all arise in the Subaihi country which falls within the sphere of
influence, which in pursuance of that policy would be assigned to the Sultan
of Lahej, and 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. would recom
mend in the first instance to the Government of India is to afford
to the Sultan of Lahej that “ material backing of Government ” the
absence of which in the past led, in Mr. FitzMaurice’s opinion, to the
failure of the policy when previously enunciated, as for instance by the Subaihi
Treaty of 1881, and [on the necessity for which stress was laid in paragraph 7
of my letter No. 5151, dated the 14th July 1902. Applied to the parti
cular facts now under consideration the recommendation is to subsidise Lahej
specially with arms, ammunition, money, and, if necessary, with the presence of
the Aden troop, and, while holding Ras-al-Arrah and Turan as further evi
dence of support, to call upon him to identify his interests with ours and
to deal^ with the^e tribes over whom the Government of India have at times
recognised bis overlordship. Such recognition, for example, was contained in the
Subaihi Treaty of 1881, which, as noted in your No. 935-E. B., dated the 27th
February 1906, has never been cancelled. No doubt this proposal involves
the payment ^ of sums of some magnitude to the Sultan, but it is, in the
opinion of His Excellency in Council, at once the most effectual action,
the cheapest in the long run, and also that which involves the Resi
dent in the smollest amount of direct responsibility in the Hinterland.
It is also a policy which will be entirely agreeable to the Saltan himself.
am to point out that a further effort to establish][this policy in effi
ciency was recommended to the attention of the Government of India in the
letter of this Government No. 7603, dated the 1st November 1901. I am to
invite the special attention of the Government of India to the letter of the Resi
dent which was then submitted and to Government of India letter No. 1856-E.,