'File 8/67 MUSCAT STATE AFFAIRS: MUSCAT – OMAN TREATY.' [‎57r] (118/316)

Imam. This definite departure ocounvd when SuHan bin Alimed usurped tlie
power from his brother Said bin Alimed who had been elected Imam. The
latter retained the title of Imam till his death, but no temporal power.
The rule of Sultan and of his son Said which lasted from about 17dO till
1856 marked the growth of s*ea pow r er, foreign conquests, the most important of
which was Zanzibar, and the removal of the capital from Kustaq in the interior
to Muscat on the coast, and foreign treaties and interlerenc 0 , almost entirely
British, The removal of t'te capital to the coast cut off from the iiverior has
been stated by some as the beginning of the loss of hold by the Sultans over
the interior, and as such as an impolitic move. This is however open to question.
It is more probable chat tho Sultan knew they could hope better to control with
outside power and this outside power they obtained from their sea power and
their foreign possessions.
It is a fact however that from the death of Saiyid Said the power of the
Sultans over the interior became more nominal than ever. Attacks could only he
warded off by brib iry, no revenue was obtained, travel was dangerous and there
were several attempts by the Omani tribes to set up Imams of their own. An
att u mpt had actually been made in 1849. In 1SG8 Azzan bin Qais. an elected
Imam actually ruled in Muscat, and though latter ejected, many similar
attempts were made during the reign of Turki and the earlier years of the
reign of Faisal to depose the Sultan, who may have Slid to have been saved
only by our support.
Final'y in 1913, after an elaborate conspiracy of several years fostered by
the famous blind Ibadhi mullah Sheikh Abdullah bin Tlumaid as Salimi, the
Oman tribes rose in a body elected Salim bin Rashid-al-Kharusi as tbeir Imam
and by 191 j had obtained complete control of all Oman proper where they
organised a Government.
It will thus be seen that for more than 60 years there has been active
opposition to the ruling 1 ouse by the Oman tribes. The causes of this opposi
tion may be briefly summari'ed as follows:—
(1) Religion. —According to the Ibadhi religion their ruler must be
elected. The Sultans who had not undergone tins formality were
therefore userpers.
( 2 ) The personal character of the Sultans themselves. — rids deteriorated
at an alarming rate, and the repeated assertion of the Omani
tribes that they were unfit to rule does not lack justification.
( 3 ) The character of the Sultans' n/^.—This was corrupt to a degree,
and the element of personal control and touch by the ruler himself
which with the Arab will palliate even the worst forms of corrup
tion, was completely absent.
( 4 ) Foreign interfere nee.—This appeared in the eyes of the fanatical
and ignorant Omanis to be directed against their most cherished
rights such as the importation of arms and slaves. In these tho
Sultan acquiesced without consulting his subjects accepting large
sums of money for his acquiescence, not one p°nny oi which
money the Omanis ever saw.
At the same time our policy in Zanzibar lost nothing in the telling.
%
/
Several of the reasons why the Sultans were unable to cope with the rebel
lion arc eon f ained in these. But to them raoy be added three mure. I he loss
of Zanzibar and its revenues, the loss of sea power owdng to the introduction of
steam, and finally and most important of all the effects of British influence.
When considering our policy in Muscat and Oman this last point must
never be lost sight of. A brief perusal or the treaties and engagements
with the rulers of Muscat will show that our influence has been entirely self-
interested, has p id no regard to the peculiar political and social conditions of
the country and its rulers, and by bribing effete Sultans to .enforce unpalatable
measures which benefitled none but ourselves, and permitting them to misrule
CllFfD