'XXII/17 Boundary between Koweit & Katif Territory' [‎9r] (19/78)

CONFIDENTIAL
No. 1727 dated Bushire, the 4th (received 12th) August 1912.
From —Lieutf.nant-Colonel Sir Percy Cox, K.C I E., C.S.I., Political
Resident in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , Bushire,
To—The Secretary to the Government of India in the Foreign Department,
Simla.
I have the honour to refer to the Secretary of State’s telegram of the
26th July, calling for evidence demonstrating the control over tribes exercised
by Shaikh Mubarak within the limits referred to in Mr. J. G, Lorimer’s Gazetteer
of the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. .
2. A reference to 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 Kuwait on the subject has been
necessary, and on receipt of his reply Government will be addressed by telegraph.
Meanwhile I have the honour to state that a careful study of records since 1897
bearing on the question of the limits of the Shaikh’s effective influence, inclines
me to the view, as I shall proceed to explain, that, if it is still possible to arrange
for the adoption of a slight modification of Mr. Lorimer’s line, it would be expe
dient to do so.
I would explain in this connection that both when telegraphing to the
Government of India on 26th March 1911 and on 6th July 19*2 (No. 690), I was
absent from my headquarters and archives and had to reply without reference
to them.
3- I may commence by inviting reference to the line which Captain
Shakespear indicated, in a report on his tour in the Kuwait hinterland, as being
in his opinion the boundary of the principality. It is somewhat less extensive,
but to the southwards, a good deal more
definite, than that indicated by Mr. Lorimer,
upon such scanty information upon the
subject as was available to him. It, however, includes Anta’a (Nta’), a group of
villages of considerable importance, which
Captain Knox’s reports of 1908 give good
grounds for regarding as within the
domains of Shaikh Mubarak; and the statement of the Porte that it is part of the
vilayat of Basrah is presumably on all fours with their claim that Kuwait is also
in that province. Its headman in 1908, at
any rate, was a nominee of the Shaikh of
Kuwait.
No. 153 of 23rd March JQio, forwarded to Gov
ernment of India under Resident’s letter No. 977,
dated 14th April 1910.
Vide map of the Kuwait hinterland, Survey of
India, June 1910. 8 miles «=*i inch.
Rifaat Pasha’s Memorandum of May 6th, 1908,
received under Foreign Department endorsement
No. 2191-E.B., dated 19th June 1908.
4. It will be seen that Captain Shakespear also includes within the limits
of Kuwait district, Jazirat ’al Amayir, an island inside Musallamiyah Bay. This
No. 138, dated 25th March 1908, forwarded to is identical with the Bay of Balbul, which
Po7:3."a" , 5t"Ap% un , d 9 'i. R .nd d N^ £: e d£d was described by. Mr- J- C. Gaskin, in his
23rd May 1908, forwarded to Government of India report to the Resident on 6th September
under Resident’s No. ,8.4, dated8th June .908. i897j as the Southern Boundary of Kuwait.
This report, it would appear, was not forwarded to Government, though an
account of the results of Mr, Gaskin’s visit, in connection with which the
report was made, will be found in 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. letter No, 90 of 20th September
1897 1 ° th e Government of India.
This testimony, given at a date considerably anterior to our assurances, is of
considerable value. It is true that the Political Resident A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. expressed doubts as to
the validity of the Shaikh’s claim to the island when forwarding it to the Govern*
Resident to Foreign, No. 95, dated 26th April ment of India in 1902, but he gave no
I902, reasons for doing so, and the fact that the
attempt of the Turks made about that time to place troops on the island failed,
would seem to give us ground to include the island within the principality. There
are no Turkish troops on the island at the present time.
In making these observations, however, I do not overlook the fact that the
view has been expressed by His Majesty’s Foreign Office and concurred in by the