Page 203 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

59
ao6. No attempt at exercising jurisdiction over Sirri island had been made
until 1887 when Haji Ahmed Khan, a needy
External A,, September 1888, N01. 85*90.
adventurer anxious to advertise himself
and carry out what he understood to be the Sadr Azam’s policy at that time,
went about the Gulf trying to assert Persian claims to control and jurisdiction over
Bahrein and the Pirate Coast, and the islands between that coast and the coast
of Pars.
207. When the British Legation at Tehran asked the Persian Foreign
Minister to state on what grounds the Persian Government had annexed the
island, the answer was that the Governors of I-ingah had always held posses­
sion of the place and exacted taxes from its people and exercised jurisdiction over
it (see letter from the Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs to the British Legation,
dated 10th March 1888). The British Legation pointed out in reply that it was quite
true that the Deputy Governors of Lingah had exercised jurisdiction over the
island of Sirri, but this was not in their capacity as Governors of Lingah, but as
Joasmi Sheikhs, that they had traditional rights over the island of Sirri apart from
the position as Governors of Lingah under the Persian Government, which had
been never disputed, and that their Arab kinsmen on the Oman Coast shared
in these rights, which the Persian domicile of the Lingah Joasmi Sheikhs could not
take away from them.
208. The Amin-es-Sultan maintained that' for nine years previously the
Sirri and Tamb Islands had paid taxes to the Persian Government and that
documents in support of this could be produced at Bushire by Malek-ut-Tujjar.
When the Resident made enquiries as to what documents he possessed, he declared
he had none. As a matter of fact the statement as to payment of taxes was
made only by one Yusuf Khan, dependent and servant, of the Joasmi Chief
Shaikh, Ali bin Khalifa, whom he had murdered in order that he might himself
become Governor and Chief of Lingah.
209. The discussion on the subject was continued till August .1888, when
it was postponed by the British Legation,
External A, September 1888, Nos. 85*90.
in order to facilitate the conclusion of the
Hastadan boundary negotiation, which was then in progress. The latter question
was settled in 1892.

XXVIII.—Question about Persian claim to sovereignty over Sirri discussed in 1894-99.
210. The question about the exercise of Persian jurisdiction over Sirri was
raised again in 1894 by Colonel Wilson.
External A. March 1895 N01 55*67.
Certain Arab subjects of the chief of Deb^i
after receiving advances for pearl fishing had fled to the island of Sirri, and the
Debai Chief applied to the Political Resident for assistance in claiming in re­
covering the claims against the fugitives. The Political Resident thereupon asked
the Government of India for instructions as to how he should deal with the matter.
The point was referred to the British Legation by telegram with theo bservation:—
“ Persian claim still more untenable by removal of the Jaosmi Sheikhs from office at
Lingah and I trust you will press for removal Persian flag.”
211. The British Minister Mr. C. Greene wrote to the Sadr Azam, refer­
ring to the previous correspondence and the note received from the Minister for
Foreign Affairs dated 25th September 1888, and stated :—
“ In the note above referred to, His Excellency stated that the Persian Government
considered that no further proof was necessary in support of this claim, but no refutation
was put forward in it of the argument of Her Majesty’s Government that although the
Government of Lingah had exercised jurisdiction o\cr Sirri, they had not done so in this
capacity as Governors but as Joasmi Sheikhs. Her Majesty’s Government maintain the
view that the custom of the Arabs is sound and that the Joasmi Sheikhs represented the
family only and derived no right from their position towards the Persian Government
211. The facts and arguments stated in the Viceroy’s telegram were also
repeated, and the Persian Government re­
External A, March 1895, No». 55*67.
quested to give the necessary orders for
the removal of the flag.
The following translation of the Sadr Azam’s reply dated 6th November
1894 is characteristic of the Persian
External A, March i89r, No. 67.
method of arguing and stating facts :—