Coll 28/67 ‘Persia. Annual Reports, 1932–’ [‎201v] (402/644)

of the Governor in sending his message to Major Ryan while the matter was undei
(discussion in Tehran. M. Ansarie was profuse in his apologies. But no apo ogy
was made by the Governor. Eventually, after much pressure from His Majesty s
Legation, when Colonel Fowle was calling on the Governor for another purpose
on the 31st May, the latter raised this quesfion and, though still maintaining tna
he had never sent the message complained of, expressed his regret at the misun er-
standing. At Sir Trenchard Fowle’s suggestion it was decided that this should
be regarded as closing the incident.
Interference with Arab Dhows.
45. On the 25th January a Koweiti dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. named the Furat, bound for
Gwadur, was taking shelter from a strong easterly wind in Khassab Bay when
she was stopped about a mile from the shore by an Iranian gunboat, believed o
have been the Babr. The dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. carried a cargo of some 2,600 pieces of silk, but
her manifest showed her cargo as nil. The Iranian gunboat theietoie airese
the dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. and towed her to Lingah, where she was detained with her crew. Mis
Majesty’s consul at Kerman was able to arrange for the consulate interpreter
at Bandar Abbas to go to Lingah at the end of February, and to obtain from the
nakhuda an exact statement of the dhow’s position when seized, about whicn
there had been considerable doubt. The dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. and her crew were released on
the 28th February and left for Debai. The interpreter s report left little doubt
that the purpose of the dhow’s voyage was to smuggle the cargo of silk into India
through some small port in Baluchistan.
46. On the same day, the 25th January, the Babr stopped and searched in
Muscat territorial waters near the Quoins two out of three Debai dhows sailing
in company to the Batineh coast. The cargoes of both dhows were searched, being
prodded with a steel prong, and the baggage and clothing of the passengers were
also searched. Nothing incriminating was found. One of the passengers, who
was going to marry a daughter of the Sheikh of Kalba, had with him 600 icun s
of ammunition as a present to his future father-in-law, but these were jettisoned
when the gunboat was sighted. After the search the dhows were allowed to
proceed.
47 On the 16th February a Debai jolly-boat, sailing from Khassab to l)ebai
with a cargo of dried fish, was overtaken and stopped when 1 mile off Ghamda
on the Arab coast by an Iranian warship believed to have been the Shahrokh.
The nakhuda was ordered to go aboard the warship, where he was questioned
about the nationality of his boat, himself and his crew. He was then allowed
to proceed without his boat being seaiched.
48 At the end of March a report was received from 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.
in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. stating that on or about the 8th February a Koweiti sambuk
had been seized by Iranian customs officials m Iraqi territorial waters m th
Shatt-el-Arab off Qusbeh. The boat had carried a cargo of shingle to Abadan
and was returning empty when it was detained at Qusbeh, apparently on the
o-ronnd that the nakhuda, who like all the crew was an Iranian subject, was
evading Iranian dues A security of 6,000 rials was taken , from him to ensure
that he g did not leave. From the actual statements of the crew it appeared doubtful
whether the boat was actually seized in Iraqi territorial waters, and investigation
b v His Majesty’s vice-consul at Khorramshahr showed that the boat when seized
was in fact drawn up on the shore at Qusbeh and was being cleaned. The customs
authorit^s at Qusbeh therefore accused the Iranian nakhuda of buying and
fmporting 8 a & foreign boat without an import licence or the payment of duty
¥hey wefe apparently eventually satisfied of the boat’s Koweiti nationality and
the boat was released early in April.
49 Owing to the time taken for reports of some of these incidents to reach
His Majesty’s Legation, and to further delays due to uncertainty on the al -
important 8 point of the dhow’s position when seized or stopped some weeks
i ^ i in Jar*h rase before any action could be taken m lehran. In the case of
elapsed ir } , 1 V f i pta i ne( i a t Qusbeh, owing to the uncertainty about the facts
o/the^fzure His Majesty’s Minister confined himself, in his note to the Ministry
for Fote^n Affairs to a request for the boat’s release and an enquiry about the
for loie g , ’ • strong protests were made regarding the other three
cases^escribed above, the note regarding the dhow A term adopted by British officials to refer to local sailing vessels in the western Indian Ocean. detained at Lingah being