'ملف رقم 13/166 أساليب المخاطبة في المراسلات مع الزعماء الأصليين في الخليج' [و‎‎١‎٧‎٦] (٤٦٣/٣٧٣)

COPY.
G0KFID3NTTAT,.
The Residency,
Bushire, the 30th January, 1937.
\]l~
119
P.O.Wo.146-3.
I"
Gould you please refer to correspondence ending with -
Walton's letter^ No.P.Z.8839/36, dated the 31st December, 1936, to
you, communicating His Majesty's approval of the proposal that the
Shaikhs of Kuwait and Bahrain should in future be addressed by all
British Authorities as "Your Highness". '
^• 'ith reference to the Ruler of Bahrain there has been some
correspondence as to whether the term 'Amir' as used by the Saudi
government when referring to this Ruler, is derogatory or not.
Briefly, the views of the various Authorities concerned have been
as follows:
(a) The Government of India understood that the term 'Amir',
as locally used in Saudi Arabia and the Arab Coast of
the Persian O-ulf, implied a degree of subordination to
the person by whom it is used, "'vide Menon's demi-offical
letter No.F.482-N/36, dated 27th August 1936, to
Walton.
(b) Loch, ^vide his demi-official letter No.751-S, dated the
12th October, 1936, to Clauson, copy to you under his
Printed Letter No.752-S, of same date, pointed out that
while it was true that the term 'Amir' was used for Bin
Saud's Governors in Hasa etc, the Ruler of Nejd used in
former days himself to be known as the wahabi Amir, that
in Kuwait the term appeared to be used as a high honorific,,
and that there v /as at present the 'Amir' of Transjordania.'
He did not think that exception need be taken to Bin
Saud's use of the term in connection with the Shaikh of
Bahrain. ^In a subseouent communication to me, however
Loch mentioned that the term was regarded in Bahrain as
suggesting subordination, but even so that exception need
not be taken to the Saudi use of the term.
(c) De G-aury, on the other hand, is of the opinion that if
the English style "His Highness" is inoroduced for the
Shaikh of Kuwait, it might be more suitable to use the
Arabic style 'Amir'. He considers, however, that it
would be preferable not to change the Arabic style at
present as it might prove rather "Too strong beer" for
the Shaikh,
(d) Bullard, vide his letter No,2144/306/26, dated the 15th
December, 1936, to Sterndale Bennett, a copy of which
I enclose, is of the opinion that Arabic nomenclature
was still too vague for any certain deduction as to
implied subordination to be drawn from the Saudi
reference to the Shaikh of Bahrain as 'Amir',
3, _ It will oe seen, therefore, that we have nothing definite
to guide us. On the one hand the term 'Amir' is applied to the
Ruler of Transjordania, who I suppose would take precedence of the
Rulers of Kuwait or Bahrain, and is regarded in Kuwait as a high
honorific; on the other, it is held in Bahrain to imuly subordination
My own opinion coincides with that of Bullard i.e. that Arabic
nomenclature is still too fluid for any conclusions to be drawn, and
tT.-L.-i I think,/
le Hon' Die
Sir Aubrey Metcalfe. KGIE., CSI.,
Foreign, Secretary to the Government
of India, New Delhi.
i