Page 244 - UAE Truncal States

Social Aspects of Traditional Economy
would then be lired out before Ihe main season started, thus
diminishing the boats’ chances of getting a good catch. Ignoring the
protest of the “notables” and even threatening them, Sultan bin Saqr
stipulated that each boat should pay 75 Rupees in tax; over 30 boats
went, and “the amount which the sheikh earned on this occasion was
2,500 Rupees." ’5 Similarly the ruler of 'Ajman, Humaid bin 'Abdul
'Aziz, was alleged to have ordered the crews of locals belonging to
the Bin Lulah who then resided in 'Ajman, as well as other crews
who owed them money, to go diving for him before the proper
season.40 A rivalry had certainly developed in the pearling business
between the Ruler and the Bin Lulah, which led to allegations such
as that the Ruler had forbidden some 160 divers of the Bin Lulah to
continue to work for them and that they had decamped to Dubai and
Sharjah to join pearling boats there.47

Effects of the declining demand for pearls
The decline in the demand for Gulf pearls on the world markets had a
particularly disastrous effect on the diving communities in towns
because of the uncontrolled expansion which had taken place
previously. It was reported in July 1929 that “about 60 diving ships of
Dubai failed to put to sea owing to financial difficulties. The number
of pearling boats has increased out of all proportion to the catch, and
the pearl merchants do not find it possible to subsidise all the
boats.”48 In the same report several pearl merchants are mentioned
as being in severe financial difficulties, in particular Muhammad bin
Ahmad Dalmuk, who had in 1928 sold pearls worth several lakhs of
Rupees to Hajji Muhammad 'Ali Zainal of Bombay but had not yet
received his money “owing to delay in disposal of pearls in Paris”. In
order to re-equip his pearling fleet for the diving season of 1929 he
had to borrow 200,000 Rupees from a Hindu at the exorbitant
interest rate of 36 per cent per annum. The same leading merchant of
Dubai returned from Bombay in March 1930 after selling his stock of
pearls at a loss, and it was later reported that he had to “reduce his
establishment, dismissing beduins and camels”.49 There must have
been many similar cases of sudden loss of employment by retainers,
servants and people in lowly jobs who worked for merchants. This
bleak story was repeated throughout the Gulf; in Kuwait the catch of
1930 was poor, and prices were 50 per cent below those of 1929.50 In
Bahrain, too, the total value of sales in 1930 was estimated at 28 to 30
lakhs of Rupees, which was one quarter of the 1929 value; there the
219