Page 121 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

105

MEMORANDUM.
Dependency of the Chaab Tribe.
There appear lo ho two separate questions involved in the dispute at
present pending betwoon the Governments of Persia and Turkoy on the subject
ot Mohammcrah. The one is the dopondoney of the tribe of Chaab. The other
the right of territory to certain lands, upon which portions of the tribe have
settled.
In discussing (ho question of the dependency of the Chaab, it will not bo
necessary to follow throughout with any
Dependency of tlio tribo of Chaab.
sustained minuteness the history and
movements of the tribe. The events which afford arguments to support
the claims of either Government to their allegiance alone require to bo particu­
larized.
A skeleton outline connecting those events together will suffice for the
remainder of their history.
It is not questioned then by Persia, hut that at the period of the conclu­
sion of the treaty between Sultan Moorad
Early hiatory of tho tribe.
and Shah Tahmasp, the Chaab were bond
fide subjects of the Turkish Government, for they are known at that time, and
„ ... .. . even long subsequently, to have dwelt in
rgma y ur is> an jee s. the raavshcsat the conlluence of the Tigris
and Euphrates, and like all the neighbouring Arab tribes, to have paid to the
Government of Bussorah a tribute named the Jleeri Kalameyuh for the right
of pasturing their buffaloes upon Turkish lands.
The question of dependency becomes first open to dispute, when, about the
year A. D. 1683, the Chaab, owing to a season of unusual drought, deserted
the marshes of Wasit, and migrated to the southward, fixing their abodes in
the tract of country, which at that time
Migration to Guban.
formed tho delta of tho Karoon. It is
contended by Persia that as the lauds which the Chaab now occupied were
situated within the territorial limits of Khuzistan, the tribe must be held, iu
virtue of their immigration, to have transferred their allegiance to the Persian
crown. Turkey, on the contrary, affirms that neither wore tho lands, upon
which the tribe settled within the Persian territory nor supposing this point to
be conceded, could the Chaab havo suddenly denationalised themselvos by
merely crossing the frontier. She further
Continued dependence upon Turkey.
shows, that practically, tho dependency of
the tribe upon Bussorah remainod after the immigration precisely the
same as before that event; for tho same amount of Mcen Kalameyuh was paid
by the Chaab to the Turkish Government for pasturage on the banks of the
Guban, as had been exacted for their old lands in the Wasit marshes, and tho
annual dross of investiture from Bussorah was continued to tho Sheikh with­
out any reference to bis change of residence.
Putting aside for the present, the question of territorial right to the lands
upon which the Chaab settled, it is clear to me, that on their first immigration to
the district of Guban, and for 50 or 60 years afterwards the tribe wore regarded
as Turkish subjects. Their numbers were too small and their country too poor
to attract much attention, but in those essential points which are considered
by the Arabs to prove dependency, the payment of the Mceri Kalameyah and
the annual receipt of a robe of office, it is certain that the Shoikh of the Chaab,
as late as the year A D. 1740, continued, as was to bo oxpeoted, a dependent of
the Government of Bussorah. Tho only connection, indeed, of tho tribe with
Persia up to this time was that they made cortaiu annual prosents of horses,
butter, etc., etc., to the Afshar Chief of Doorak on account of feos for pasturage
on the immediate bank of tho Guban brauch of the Karoon, tho lauds in that
quarter having been previous to thoir immigration in possession of effects of
the Afshar tribe, who as tho Chaab advanced foil back end rejoined their
brethren on tho Jerrahi,
[S939FD] EE