File 4011/1923 Pt 1 'PERSIAN GULF NEGOTIATIONS 1928-33. BASIDU.' [‎46v] (97/1306)

s
1794-1820.
fi In the vear 1794 the Imam of Muscat defeated the Bani Ma in rulers(‘)
of Kishm and Ormuz, and, consequent on this victory was able to secure the
♦ roncfpr to himself by Persia of the revenue lease of Bandai Abbas and its
“ iiS, "tal '»> "1““™ "H’"*""-,» “•>
very clear But there seems a very strong probability, almost amounting to a
certainty, that it included the Island of Kishm and so Basidu. Further, while
the Imam appears to have secured the lease as a result of h.s victory over the
B-ini Ma’in it is to be noted that he secured from Persia a lease and not a
grant that a substantial annual rental was paid for the lease and that according
to Lorimer “ a surety for payment seems to have been required by the 1 ersian
Government from the Saiyed and to have been provided by him in the person
of a Persian merchant or banker named Haji Khalat. 1 he rulers of Muscat
temporarily lost control of some, if not all, of the areas coveied >\ the lease,
on the death of Saiyed Sultan in 1804, and while they were to some extent
reinstated with British support in 1805 and again in 1809, the available records
do not make it clear whether thev, in fact, exercised effeitne dominion even as
tenants of Persia, in the whole of the area covered by their revenue lease of 1794
so late as 1818. In the latter year the pirate Arabs of the Tracial Coast, who
are not under Muscat control, were apparently proposing to establish themselves
at Basidu as a stronghold which could be held against the Egyptians, and were
led to abandon this intention largely because of the defeat by one of the
East India Company’s ships of one of their squadrons towards the end of that
VG£tr
7. This record suggests that, while the ruling family of Muscat did, indeed,
secure from Persia in 1794 a revenue lease which almost certainly included the
Island of Kishm. their effective occupation of that island prior to the grant
in 1820 by the Imam, quoted in paragraph 21 of the memorandum attached, was
subject to lengthy interruptions. It would be as difficult in these circumstances
to base any claim by Muscat to absolute ownership or sovereignty in Kishm on
the history of the period 1794 to 1820 as it would to base a similar claim on the
history of the island in the period 1720 to 1794.
Correspondence of 1819 to 1822.
8. When 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. decided in 1819 that in the interests
of the suppression of piracy it would be advantageous to establish a central
station in the Gulf and thai the Island of Kishm was geographically the best
situated for this purpose, the question of the status of the island at once came
up for consideration. The correspondence which passed between the local
government, their oflicers in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. and the Tehran Legation, the
relevant extracts from which are contained in the memorandum attached, makes
it clear that the views 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. as to the uncertainty of the
Persian title to Kishm were sincere and real, and that when they finally so far
deferred to the claims of Persia as to arrange that the British detachment should
be removed from Kishm, they did so formally without prejudice to the claims of
the Imam of Muscat over that island. 1 he leading document on the subject is
the report of the 14th August, 1821, by Dr. Jukes, who was specially sent from
Bombay to imestigate this, among other aspects of the Kisnm question; the
report, in view of its importance, is given in full in paragraph 29 of the
memorandum attached. Dr. Jukes, while elaborating the arguments in support
of the Muscat claim, and in particular emphasising the statement made to him
n the confidential secretary to the then Imam of Muscat that “ neither Kishm,
muz nor Larak are specified on the receipts annually granted by the Persian
tW 6 ™ 1 ?]? 11 ' i™ i 6 5n m P a id to them," and the Imam’s statement
ImL ^ f , Klshm ’ 0r V luz and Lara k belonged exclusively to the
F^ S ^ a farms S Ba ndar Abba^ 1 from "the
.... ould not be in existence; it is possible that it may have been
( ) Arabs, but Persian subjects.