File 4011/1923 Pt 1 'PERSIAN GULF NEGOTIATIONS 1928-33. BASIDU.' [‎51v] (107/1306)

%
have adopted in occupying the Island of Kishm; when 1 consider, however, the
very heavy expense of supporting the estahlishnient, the impossibility of
employing the troops on any active service in the (iulf foi foui months in the
vear on account of the excessive heats, the sickness that has prevailed there ever
since the hot weather commenced, and the inefficiency of the force arising from
that cause alone, I confess I feel more doubts than I have heietofore done r^to
the expediency and utility of the measure; but, as I am aware that diffeient
sentiments have been, and probably still are, entertained by those who are far
1 L /11 Lo IltL V C- C 4 / 11 V 4 . A ^ 1 ^ 1 • • ^
more competent to decide than I am, I beg to oiler such a hint with extreme
diffidence and with the most perfect conviction of the fallibility of my own
Lor. i, 1940.
judgment/
30. Dr. Jukes’s report, while of great value, is, as will be observed, by no
means conclusive. Mr. Lorimer comments that, ‘ ‘ as his investigations were
conducted chiefly under the auspices of Omani officials, whose statements he
would naturally be inclined to accept, his report, dated the 14th August, 1821, can
hardly be regarded as other than an ex part# document, but as such it is of
interest.”
31. Dr. Jukes subsequently proceeded to Shiraz, in a letter dated the
25th October, 1821, from which he refers to the Prince Governor A Prince of the Royal line who also acted as Governor of a large Iranian province during the Qājār period (1794-1925). , in the course of
discussion, as having made some observations regarding the Island of Kishm
7 7 O # O O
being one of the dependencies of Pars, and that the Imam was only a subject
Lor. i, 1941.
Lor. i, 1943.
Precis,
$§ 276-8
~ . 1 ’ J "
of his. The prince, however, added that he had personally no objection to the
British detachment remaining in Kishm, since, in view of Dr. Jukes’s
explanations, it appeared to have the peace and tranquillity of the Gulf for its
only motive, and that he would so inform the Shah.
32. The Persian Government, however, maintained their opposition to the
maintenance of a British detachment in Kishm, and 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.
accordingly referred the general question to the Government of India, in a
despatch of the 9th March, 1822, No. 469. In the matter of the title of Muscat
to Kishm, they remarked that, while Kishm seemed much the most satisfactory
station from the point of view of suppressing piracy, however desirable it might
be to retain the island we could not overlook considerations of justice and policy
towards Persia; the King of Persia had not yet shown any proof of his title
whatever to Kishm, except its alleged authority [sic], on which ground he had
also claimed Muscat and the whole Province of Oman. Even the arguments
mentioned by His Majesty s Charge d’Affaires do not establish the claims of
Peisia. Sir John Malcolm on his first mission solicited a grant of Kishm from
Peisia, which was refused. If it had since appeared that Persia had no title to
the territory so solicited, what should prevent our applying to the right owner?
. * .® s a casual expression of one of the Imam s officers destroy his master's
ri vA ’A ever °? le - ^ Governor of Bombay in Council was not acquainted
with the nature of the Imam’s rights either to' Bandar Abbas or Kishm. but
supposing them equal, there seemed abundant reason why he should waive his
claim to Bandar Abbas, an integral part of Persia, and within reach of Agha
a ^ )m ® f an s ai rny; and retain it to Kishm, which was probablv bevond the
A/rfnLlc i^T 8 P°wer. A claim, however, to which His Majesty's
innn ^ J^ ran a p tache( ? Jmportance ought not to be hastily set aside, and
? - f e P? r . sla to possess any reasonable ground of pretension to
It dpAnp i’' 1 WOl i e at ^ eas C ^ °PP ose ^ by military occupation.,?
WP Hn CUmb ^L 0I l US t0 aVOld giving the Shah this ground of disquiet, if|
lemWH 6° h T a f ri0US sac rifice of our own interests. . . . It
considered how far our withdrawing would affect the Imam, to
every attention ^ ^ to ^ fiance required that we should pa)
Precis, § 279A. 3 ^ T fic Goveniment of Bombay’s opinion was, therefore, that we should
thought lf We Were to retire we should, however, they
Dr0 posal and adva £ tage . of . the time allowed by the King of Persia’s own
Ct&nffrZ^pSjX 186 ^ ° f th6 Pr ° bability ° f ^
reference To pwianJ 6 Sa A ^ had allowed for a
occupation was onlv tn tT 0 ! 1 Pr°fiably be sufficient for the purpose, as our
Majesty’s Government wm L? 1 ^ rar ^ ’ ari u tdat at ad events the decision of His^
but in this and in all ntL ’ ° c 011 ^ 86 ^ be binding on the authorities in India:
his and in all other communications the utmost care should be taken tol
Xor. i, 1943.
avoid
possess
35
sudden
fo^is
deL an<
and it?
gar rise
relatio
on inst
36
Persia]
on the
a reply
36
British
conven
Majest
headqu
against
37
reporte
concluc
and Gi
in rega
formal
on thei
his pov
Bomba;
to Cap
his apj
treaty i
they rei
all hist
Muscat
the occi
an unji
make o 1
38.
Regent
con
Go
39.
of the 1
Bushire