File 4011/1923 Pt 1 'PERSIAN GULF NEGOTIATIONS 1928-33. BASIDU.' [‎489v] (983/1306)

*
* Sir H. Willocks’
Desp., May 10 1820,
p, 35. “
Persian Note of
Dec. 9 1820. p. 36
(16).
p. 49 (3).
p. 52.
pp. 15. 59.
p. 4.
Pol. Res. to G. of I.,
Aug. 14 1926,
P. 3847/26.
t Aitchison, xii,
Ixi, article 6 .
Lor. i, 2106.
Precis, pp. 14, 16.
p. 18.
reckon those dominions as-appertaining to me hut as appertaining,.,.
Honourable Company.” The Imam simultaneously instructed the Shritl .
Kishm to ^ive every assistance in the enihai kation and conveyance f i
troops. Various places were occupied in the island for the p u ' tle
question, before a decision was finally taken in favour of Basidu in jjg 111
6 An immediate protest in strong teims was received from the Per’
Government against the British occupation of Kishm, and a reference to?
lease granted by the Imam was met by a statement that Muscat was itself
dependency of Persia, and a fortiori Kishm and Henjam, which dependj
from Bunder Abbas* Sooner than risk a rupture of friendly relationswib
Persia, it was decided to remove the British detachment from the town of
Kishm. This was done in February 1822, but 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 repudiating the unauthorised agreement which had been
entered into by Captain Bruce with the 1 i nice fio\einor of bars, which had
inter alia recognised Persian sovereignty in Kishm, made it clear to the
Persian Government that their action was without prejudice to the decision
on the question of the respective rights in the island of the Imam of Muscat
and of Persia, and that the island would he restored by His Majesty’s
Government to the Imam, from whom they had leased it. As, however, no
equally convenient naval station could be found in the Gulf, Basidu was
again occupied in 1823, from which year until 1879 it remained the head
quarters of the naval squadron in the G ulf. Ko protest appears at the time
to have been made by Persia against its re-occupation, since the date oi
which the British flag has flown in the concession.
7. In 1853 the Persian Government expelled the Muscat representative
from Bunder Abbas and its dependencies (including apparently Kishm),
and the agreement finally reached between Persia and Muscat in 1856
involved not only the payment of an increased rent to Persia by the Sultan
of Muscat, but the recognition as Persian territory “of the two islands of
Ormuz and Kishm, which had been dependencies of Oman.”
8. During the Anglo-Persian War of 1855 Basidu was constantly used as a
British depot, but neither in 1853, 1856, 1864 (wlien the British occupation
was confirmed under Article 6 of the Telegraph Agreement with Sultan
Thoweymee of Muscat,! then lessee of the island from Persia], on the
renewal of the Persian lease to Muscat in 1868, or on the forcible termination
of that lease in the same year by Persia, was any exception taken by Persia
to the British occupation.
9. The legal position of Basidu, which had been raised in 1863 by a claim
from the Persian authorities, which would appear to have been rejected, for
the surrender of a slave who had taken refuge in the concession, was again
raised by a similar demand in the spring of 1868, and by a murder committed
in the same year in the Naval Station.
10. The question was exhaustively considered by the Government of
India, who as a result, on 8th September 1868, informed the Government of
Bombay that in their opinion “the station in question cannot properly be
considered as British territory. It is perfectly true that we have occupied
Basidu either as a naval or coaling station for half a century. But the
island has always been treated by us as a dependency of Bunder Abbas,
and Bunder Abbas and its dependencies, including the island of Kishm,an
consequently Basidu, have been leased to the Sultan of Muscat by the a
of Persia under circumstances with which 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. is
perlectly familiar. ... It follows in such circumstances . • / . as
the British Government holds possession of the town of Basidu by permission
oi the Sultan of Muscat, while that potentate derives his lease of h is j
which includes Basidu, from the Shah of Persia . . . that Kishm must sm
he considered as Persian territory. There mav be some obscurity 1°
exact nature of our derivative title to the town of Basidu, and it may w
been thought that our rights over the town existed by continued .
that we had obtained a prescriptive title; but, in lo° kin ^ closely ,crat
question, it becomes evident that our rights are subordinate to those o
which again are, admittedly, entirely subordinate to those of Persia, an