Coll 20/2 'Administration: Question of abdication of Sultan; Succession and Subsidies; Question of abrogation of treaties with USA and France' [‎13r] (25/757)

• s < .
i *.
Extract of paragraphs 1-4 of Confidential letter No* 70-S of 1932 from the
Hcn'ble Lt. Colonel H. V. Biscoe, I.A., Political Kesident in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. ,
to the Foreign Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi.
British 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. A Consulate-G<5ieral,
Bushire, the 12th February 1932.
With reference to the correspondence ending with my telegram No. T. 11, dated
the 8th January 1932, I have the honour to address the Government of India
regarding the subsidies which are at present paid to the Muscat State.
•
2. These subsidies are two in number, the "Zanzibar" subsidy of Rs. 86,400, and
the Arms Traffic of Rs. 1,00,000 per annum, and the question of their continuance
arises in connection with the abdication of Saiyid Taimur and the accession of
his son Saiyid Said.
3. As regards the former subsidy there would seem to be no doubt that it is an .
absolute'subsidy, conditional only on the new Ruler promising friendship and the
maintenance of his treaty obligations. This subsidy was granted to the Sultan
of Muscat under Lord Canning' s sward of 1861, as compensation for the abandonment
of his claims over Zanzibar, and was originally payable by the Sultan of Zanzibar.
Owing however to constant deisms in payment by the latter ruler responsibility
for its payment was assumed in 1873 by the Government of India so long as the
Sultan "continued faithfully to fulfil his treaty engagements and manifest uis
friendship towards the British Government", the cost being divided equally between
the British end Indian Governments. In Lorimer Volume 1, page 500 it is pointed
out that in the discussions which took place in 1868-70 between His Majesty's
Government and the Government of India the former impugned and the latter maintained
the indefeasible right of the Sultan of 'Oman to a subsidy under the award of
1861, and that no definite conclusion was reached. Ther fore the subsidy, of
which payment to Turki began in lB73, “ay be regarded either as a new subsidy
or a continuation of that decreed by Lord Canning, but the latter view which was
supported by the Government of India, appears to be the juster, and having regard
to the origin of the payment would seem to be correct. The subsidy was at thefc
time converted into rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. and paid at the rate of Rs. 86,^400 a year. From
1s t September 1883 the date on which His Majesty's Govemment assumed the
exclusive direction of Zanzibar affairs the subsidy became an exclusively Indian
" charge . On the accession of Saiyid Faisal payment of the subsidy was continued
to him, but owing to his unsatisfactory behaviour was suspended from the
beginning of December 1898, but in October 1900 the Government of India eventually
decided to liquidate all their claims against the Sultan from the accumulated
arrears of the subsidy, and a small balance was paid to the Sultan.
4. On the death of Saiyid Taimur confusion seems to have arism regarding the
two subsidies, and they were discussed as though they were on the same basis, which
is not the case, and owing to the Zanzibar subsidy being linked with that of the
Arms Traffic subsidy the Govemment of India did not treat it as an absolute
subsidy, but sanctioned its continuance only on condition that the Sultan agreed
to the post ponement of the revision of the Muscat Commercial Treaty - vide
Foreign and Political Department telegram No. DS.67 of 20th January 1914, and
also DS.76, dated 26th January 1914. In 1921 however, in considering the
question of the reduction of the Arms Traffic subsidy, 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. , Muscat,
expressed the view that the Zanzibar subsidy was, subject to certain not very
clear conditions, the right of any Sultan recognised by the British Govemment -
a view which was concurred in by the Resident, vide Bushire letter No. 138-S
of 13th June, 1921, and it may be assumed that the Government of India also
concurred as they instructed the Resident to explain to the Sultan the terms of
both the Zanzibar and the Aims Tralfic subsidy - vide their memorandum No.
1543-E.A. , dated 29th December 1921. Whether any communication was made to
the Sultan at the time my records do not show, but presumably some verbal
intimation at rate was given to His Highness, since in his letter No. 32-S
dated 22nd September, which formed an enclosure to Bushire letter No. 790-S of 22nd
October 1922, 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. reported that the Sultajn had discussed with
him the nature of the Arms Traffic subsidy. No further reference now ever is
made/