Page 313 - Gulf Precis (VI)_Neat

Chapter XVI. 281
2. As Ildr Majesty’s Govcrnraont has already obtained from Sir A. Ivcmball a narrative
showing the origin of this obligation, and the arrangements which wero successively ordered
in 1850 and 1852 for giving it effect, we refrain from further reference to those points.
3. With regard to the existing method of distributing fcho money in question, we find that
the amount is equally divided between Kurbullah and Nujjuff, and that, in either caso, the
ohief Moojlaliid, who has under him several sub-distributors, receives payment from tho
Political Agent. Sir A. Kemball further explains that, in order to koep at least the first stage
of ihc distribution free from abuses, lie takes receipts not only from the chief Moojtahids, but
aUo from their respeetivo 6uh-(listributors. Great misappropriation, he admits, novcrtholess
goes on. ” Nothing is assigned to the support, strictly speaking, of the shrines. The
Moojtahids arc virtually irresponsible ; their own friends, relatives, and adherents are of
course favoured, and, in any ease, the recipients are, for the most part, in the enjoyment of
independent means of subsistence ; while Indian noblemen and a crowd of Indian devotees and
pilgrims of all ranks exist on charity, and in a 6lntc of absolute destitution.”
4. In reviewing the Nawab Ikhal-ud-Dowla’s proposals, Sir A. Kemball rightly takes
no notice of the idea that it is possiblo for the British Government to withdraw tho money
from Turkish Arabia and apply it to tho benofit of tho province of Oudh. But provided the
deed of engagement presents no difficulty, and provided also he may havo an assistant for tho
purposo, lie would recommend tho Nawah’s proposals to be so far compliod with, that the
fund, either entirely or in great part, should bo reserved for tho benefit of Indian Moojtahids,
and Moojnwurs in really indigeut circumstances.
5. The English text of the engagement, given at page 168, Volume 2, of Aitchison’s
Treaties, is as follows :—” One-half to he given to the “ Nu jjufE Ushruff, and the other half
for Kurbullah, to the high priest and Mujawure, or persons who have its charge, on the part
of the said King, that Ilis Majesty might thereby derive its benefits.” But Sir A. Kemball
argues that the words ” or persons who have its charge ” arc an interpolation, not to be found
in tho Persian original of the document ; that, consequently, the r*al beneliciarioB of the trust
arc in general terms the Moojtahids and Moojawurs of eithor shrine, and not of necessity
those in charge ; and that therefore tho Government of India might unobjcctionably proceed,
in their praciical reading of the broad general expression, to confine the application of tho
fund to Indians exclusively.
6. On reference to the original Persian of tho deed of encragoment, the passage undor
notico may ba translated as follows :—” Of the remainder, half will be paid for the Najaf
*A Monjawur, wo may explain, ia n workhippor Ushruff, and half for Kcrhella, to the Moojtahids
who settle* nt n alirino for roligioui purposes. and Moojawurs* of those places, for ever, on
behalf of the said King, so that Ilis Majesty mny secure tho reward of .piety.” It is therefore
the case, as staled by Sir Arnold Kemball, that the explanatory sentence “ or persons who
have its chargo ” does not occur in the Persian original.
7. But this circumstance docs not bring us to the conclusion arrived at by Sir A. Kemball
as to the practical interpretation which the Government of India may give to King Ghazi-
ud-Din Ilyder’s wishes.
8 If Ilia Majesty had desired that the fund should be exclusively devoted to tho benefit
of Indian priests, ho certainly would have made specific provision to that effect. The absence
of any such provision is a distinct bar to the Government taking such action as Sir A. Kemball
advocates.
9. If tho money is misapplied by the priests, the fault lies on them and on the deficient
foresight of tho diseased Ghuzce-ood-Din Hyder ; tho British Government cau have no
responsibility at all in the matter. Ghazec-ood-Din Hyder, looking solely to his owu spiritual
welfare, and not to the temporal welfare either of pilgrims or of any one else, contracted with
tho British Government for tho investment in perpetuity of certain fuuds as an endowment for
theSheeah Shrines at Kurbullah and Nujjuff, and he indicated” tho Moojtahids and Moojawurs
of those places ” ns the perspns to whom the endowment should bo payable. Therefore, so
long ns thero may exist a class of pei60n9 recognizablo as the Moojtahids and Moojawurs of
Kurbullah nnd of Nujjuff, the Government of India, we consider, is bound to mako payment to
that class at either place, and could not modify or limit such mode of payment without betrayal
of its trust.
10. The only considerations which could, in our opinion, be admissible to an oqual bearing
with the specific terms of the trust, would bo tho general welfare of humanity and the preser­
vation of ‘peace among nations. By Sir Henry Uawlinson’s arrangement now in force, the
Government of India not only fulfil? the particular engagement it entered into with King
Gliazoe-ood-Din Hyder, but also satisfies its general political obligations towards allied nations
by 60 checking the distribution of the fund as to prevont the Shecah fanatics from embroiling
Persia with Turkey. It therefore soems to us that the present arrangement, on grounds alike
of justice and of expediency, ought to bo 6triotly maintained; and'that it is most undesirable
to allow any opening to further discussion on a subject to whiob, for sevoral reasons, it is not
desirablo to attract unnecessary attention.