File 4011/1923 Pt 1 'PERSIAN GULF NEGOTIATIONS 1928-33. BASIDU.' [‎52r] (108/1306)

[9208] D 2
vev er, the
ihility 0 f
'hs in the
there ever
^ing from
lone r^to
diffeient
o are far
^ extreme
my own
ed, by no
ons were
ments he
1821,can
i it is of
la ted the
course of
)f Kishm
a subject
on to the
Jukes’s
If for its
on to the
t Bombay
lia, in a
f Muscat
Jsfactory
it might
nd policy
his title
d he had
rguments
claims of
Jim from
lo title to
t owner?
master’s
•quainted
shin, but
vaive his
of Agha
iyond the
VIajesty‘s
side, and
ension to
(*upation.
squiet, if|
. . .
Imam, to
iould pa)
should
ver, they
da’s own
/ of our
19
avoid pronouncing an opinion on any claim which the Imam of Muscat mrdit
possess to Kishm. B
35. These views were approved by the Government of India, but owing to a Lor i 1944
sudden change of atmosphere at Tehran, which led the Charge d’Affaires to ask
loyJais passports, action was not taken on them; and rumours that the Shah had
dex aimed a substantial increase in the rent payable by Muscat for Bandar Abbas
and its dependencies (including Kishm) led to steps being taken to reinforce the
garrison ot Basidu—steps countermanded in June 1822 on the restoration of good
relations with the Shah, but too late to prevent the Charge d’Affaires from acting
on instructions to notify them to the Persian Government.
36. On the 1st September, 1822, Sir H. Willock accordingly informed the
Pei sian Government that it had been found necessary to augment the detachment
on the island ot Kishm as a temporary and precautionary measure, and received Precis, § 284
a reply in general terms.
36a While in the circumstances described above. Basidu was evacuated by
British troops in lebruary 1822, it proved impossible to secure an equally
convenient naval station in the Gulf. Basidu was accordingly reoccupied by His pg. 13 , p. ns.
Majesty s Government m 1823, from which year until 1878 it remained the
neadquarters of the British naval squadron in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. . No protest
against its reoccupation appears at the time to have been made by Persia
37 - On the 3rd September, 1822, Captain Bruce, the Resident at Bushire
reported to the Governor of Bombay the unauthorised agreement which he had
concluded in the preceding month with the Prince of Shiraz, in regard to Bahrein Lor i 1946-8
and Gull questions. I he agreement, which inter alia embodied an arrangement
in legald to the Island of Kishm, on the basis of Persian sovereignty, was at once
formally disowned by 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. , while the Persian Government
on their side, subsequently instructed the Prince of Shiraz that he had exceeded
his powers m entering into discussion with the Resident. The Government of
Bombay, in a letter of the 1st November, 1822, to the Resident, No. 1491, intimated
to Captain Bruce that he had acted without authority and was removed from
his appointment as a punishment. In informing him of the disavowal of the
treaty which he had concluded with the Prince of Shiraz and criticising its terms
they remarked : “ It admits the claim of the King of Persia to Kishm contrary to
all history, to the protections (? protestations) of His Highness the Imam of
Muscat and to the repeated declarations of this Government. It thereby admits
the occupation of that island without the King of Persia s consent to have been
an unjust aggression, and it agrees to admit a Persian force into Kishm, and to
make over to the Persians the island which we received from the Imam.”
38. The Governor of Bombay simultaneously addressed a letter to the Prince
Regent of Pars, in which, after repudiating the treaty, he remarked :—
“With regard to Kishm, I had long since applied to the Most Noble the
Governor-General for his consent for the withdrawal of the detachment, and
having now obtained it, the troops have been ordered to return, and the island
to be made over to the Imam of Muscat, from whom it was received by the
British Government; but in doing so this Government is actuated by
considerations of its own convenience; and with respect to the claims of the
Government of Persia on that island they have not as yet been proved.”
39. r I he instructions issued by 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. , in their letter
of the 12th November, 1822, No. 1584, to Captain Bruce’s successor as Resident at
Bushire, remarked :—
(4) l he effect of Captain Bruce’s proceedings is calculated to impress Lor. i, 1948-9.
the Imam of Muscat and the Sheikh of Bahrein with an apprehension that, Pr ® cis > §
instead of observing a perfect neutrality in the Gulf and limiting our inter
ference to a control of all measures likely to lead to a renewal of piracy,
founded on Major-General Sir William Keir’s treaties, we have thrown our
whole influence in the scale in favour of Persia in support of its general
views of supremacy over every island and possession in the Gulf of Persia.
“ (5) The enclosed letters from the Hon. the Governor to the Imam of
Muscat and the Sheikh of Bahrein are intended to remove any doubts or
apprehensions which the conduct of Captain Bruce may have excited in that
respect
Precis, § 289.
Lor. i, 1948.