Page 210 - Historical Summaries (Persian Gulf - Vol II) 1907-1953

195
permit to a Muscat subject unless he took out Persian papers. Apart from the
above, few matters affecting relations between Muscat and Persia have occurred
during the period under review. In 1933 a protest regarding the visit of a Persian
armed dhow to Khassab met with a categorical denial. In 1934 the Persian
Passport Officer at Quetta paid a visit to Gwadur without notice, being apparently
unaware that it was not covered by the permission he had received from the
Baluchistan authorities to visit Mekran. A protest was made to the Persian
Government against his visiting Gwadur without first obtaining a visa, and it was
stated that the Sultan had taken courteous exception to il.(,w) In the same year
a protest was lodged regarding the seizure by the Persians of a Muscat dhow. In
1937 the Persian Government complained informally that their subjects were
smuggling arms from Muscat, but the information furnished was too vague to
permit of adequate investigation. It appeared, however, that a trickle of arms
was reaching Persia from Muscat, the smugglers all being Persian subjects.C**)
(d) India
71. There are about 500 Hindus resident in Muscat territory, excluding
Gwadur, who have adopted Indian nationality and there is substantial trade
between Muscat and India, Muscat being largely dependent upon India for a
market for her dates. Since the transfer of power in 1947 the Sultan has treated
India with great respect and showed anxiety to be on good terms with her. As
the Government of India were a party to the Commercial Treaty of 1939, he
regarded it as still applying to India after the transfer of power at any rate until
that country became a republic when he expressed some doubts on the subject.
72. Early in 1949 the Government of India asked His Majesty’s Government
to seek the agreement of the Sultan under the Treaty of 1939 to the opening of an
Indian Consulate in Muscat, and stated that it was their intention in the first
instance to appoint a non-career Vice-Consul or Consul.(“*) The Sultan did not
object at first to the opening of a Consulate, but stated his preference for a career
Vice-Consul and that he would not in any case accept the appointment of a local
Hindu called Rai Bahadur Gokuldass who according to local rumour the
Government of India were proposing to select. Later in the year when it became
known that India was to become a republic the Sultan formed the opinion that it
was no longer possible for an Indian Consul to be appointed under the 1939 Treaty
and said that the matter must await the execution of a new treaty between Muscat
and India.C1') His Majesty’s Government held that the change of status in India
made no difference to her position under the Treaty and the Sultan was informed
accordingly, but refused to change his attitude.
73. Towards the end of 1949 the Sultan stayed in India for about six
weeks.(iai) He spent most of his time in Bombay where apparently he was not
altogether satisfied with the treatment accorded to him by the United Kingdom
Deputy High Commissioner although he made no official complaint on the
subject,(132) but also paid a visit to New Delhi where he had some official
discussions during which it was agreed that negotiations for a new Treaty between
India and Muscat should be undertaken when the 1939 Treaty had expired.(l33)
The Government of India accordingly expressed a wish that they should not be
made a party to the 1951 Treaty (paragraph 17 above), but agreed to the exercise
by His Majesty’s Consulate of the limited jurisdiction over their nationals then
conceded by the Sultan (paragraph 85 below). When the Treaty had been signed
they asked that the previous Treaty should be extended in respect of India, but
to this the Sultan would not agree.(,=') Two frigates of the Indian Navy visited
Muscat in 1950.
74. The Indian Ambassador at Tehran visited Muscat early in 1952 and a
draft Treaty between Muscat and India was prepared. After some amendments
had been negotiated the TreatyO”) was signed at Muscat on March 15, 1953 by
(*”) Teheran to F.O. 388 of August 23. 1934 (E 5690/3709/91 of 1934).
(m) I.O. to F.O. P.Z. 1198/38 of February 24. 1938 (E 1074/1074/91 of 1938).
(“•) C.R.O. to F.O. Pol. Ext. 6393/49 of February 25. 1949 (E 2710/1901 /19 of 1949).
(*”) Tel. from P.R. to F.O. 215 of May 13. 1949 (E 6191/1901/91 of 1949).
(l”) C.R.O. to F.O. X 1975 of November 21. 1949 (E 14004/1901/91 of 1949).
(1SJ) P.R. to F.O. 27/3/50 of January 6. 1950 (EA 1942/1 of 1950).
(m) P.R. to F.O. Despatch 9 of January 28. 1950 (EA 1942/2 of 1950).
(m) Tel. from Muscat to P.R. 150 of December 29. 1951 (EA 1053/173 of 1951).
(,:s) No. 10 VI, T.C.