"ملف ٦٢/٨ IV كبار شيوخ وقبائل عُمان." [و‎‎١‎٣‎٥] (٢٨٢/٢٧٣)

/12.
District
Tribe
Shaikh.
Sharqiyah and Ja’alan
Bani Bu ali
"Good terms with Sultan"
If
Al Habus
Khalid bin Hilal
n
Al Hajriyin
Hamdan bin Salim al Hajri
tf
Bani bu Hassan
Ilamud bin Pashid
If
Al Hirth
Sali bin Isa
tt
Al Hishirn
"Very friendly with
Sultan"
tt
Al Janabah
Yasir bin Hamud al
Maja’ali
Tf
Al Wahibah
Hamud bin Sultan bin
Mansur
Dhofar
Al Kathir
’Omar bin I ansur
tf
Qara
Salim bin I ahad
»»
Shara
Ajham bin Faraj.
9 . In the above list have been included only those tribes about
which some positive information ("visited Sultan in 1948", "friendly
with Sultan" and the like) is available. Included amongst them are
certain tribes whose principal shaikhs have fairly recently visited
the Sultan but would not support him in opposition to the present Imam
or, on the Imam’s death, support his candidature to the Iraamate. Not
included are numerous tribes of the coastal belt which are certainly
pro-Sultan, but have not recently been so reported.
10. It is pretty clear from the foregoing that the contention that
the Sultan’s real authority is limited to Dhofar and the coastal strip
as far north as the Hu’us al Jibal is well founded. ..oreover, irom
Thesiger’s and other evidence, the authority of the Ima in the central
belt would appear to be at least as well established as that of tne
Sultan in territory indisputably under his control. Arguments in favour
of talcing a more "realistic" view of the Sultan’s position have been
rejected by Sir E. Hay (Confidential Despatch No.36 of 23th April 1950^
on the ground of the difficulties in which such a policy would land us.
His reasoning is unanswerable and it is possible to suggest only that
the Sultan should be encouraged to pursue more energetically the forward
policy which he is believed already to be undertaking amongst tribes
who do not at present acknowledge his rule. But this process is bound
to be a slow one and cannot be expected to show any results in time
to reinforce our case on his behalf against the Sa’udi claims. These
claims in so far as the Oman is concerned, are indefinite and relate
to "shaikhdoms not in treaty relations with His Majesty*s Government". 11
11. In a note on the Sa’udi claim South and East of Buraimi written
on 15th February 1950 I suggested that if Ibn Sa’ud rejected _bu Dhabi’s
claim to Buraind (as he now does in the I erorandum of 23rd September
1950 ) we might regard ourselves as free to make such arrangements as
appeared desirable to us with the "independent " shaikhs. In the light
of the tribal information since received I am not sure that such a
sug g estion is of any immediate value - certainly not for purposes of
negotiation with Ibn Saud.