Page 369 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

21
goncral rule, on right of prior conquest, not yet annulled by later events. And finally the
question of Gwadur is one between Musical and Kolat only, with which Persia has no concern,
and in which Government has already recorded an opinion though not declared to be
decisive.'
“On the subject of the claims of tho Imam of Mu skat, the only two possessions that seem
to requiro notice are Gwadur and Chou bar or Charbar. Those further to the west commence
from tho point where tho Mckran boundary (or at all events tho Bclooch Mel;ran boundary)
terminates. It is presumed that tho tract between this boundary and Persia proper must be
considered to be Persian Jlaluchislun, if not Eastern Kerman.
“ Of the history of Gwadur little is known prior to its first possession by Sultan Syed of
Maskat about the middle of the last century. 'From Albuquerque's Commentaries we learn
that one of the conditions which the Ambassador of the Siiah of Persia exacted from the
Portuguese in the Treaty made at Ormuz in about 1515 was that they should give their aid
in retaking Gwadur from a rebellious King of Mckran. The position of Gwadur is described
to be between Capo Jash and Siud, and it is called subject to the King of Ormuz. Albuquerque
gave the required aid. The name is also contained in several maps, and casually inserted in
several Gazetteers, both old aud recent, but I have been unable to obtain anything like a detailed
Memoir.
“ Major Greeu was of opinion that it was a mere temporary possession of the Tmam, lent
for a special occasion which no longer existed, and that it rightly belonged to Kclat. This
is the view also stated by the sou of the Darogha Gul Mahomed in his Memoir of Kelat,
translated by Captain Dickinson. Tho Iicvd. Mr. Badger thought it was a gift in perpetuum
from a former Sultan to a former Khan. The only evidence that I have been enabled to
discover, in addition to that obtainable in the records of Government, is that of Ilaji Abdul
Nubbi, published in the Asiatic Society’s Journal under the heading of Tour through parts of
Baluchistan in 1S3S and 1839. lie says: ‘the Brahui’s half of Gwadur was given in grant
by Mir Nussir Khan to the present imam's father Syed Sultan, who took refuge at Kelat
during some convulsion of the State.' Upon the whole, even setting aside prescriptive right
and present possession, I think the Imam’s claim a fair one. Viewed as a possession
of a 100 years, it seems quite indisputable.
“Choubar, Mr. Badger states, was taken by Syed Sultan, grandfnthcr of the present Ruler,
‘about a century ago, and has since remained in his possession.' AVith the limited experience
which I possess on Maskat and Persian Gulf affairs, compared to this gentleman, I could not
venture to argue upon other premises than these. And viewed in this light there can be no
cause to dispute the sovereignty of the Imam, acquired by right of conquest. Whether there
be any subsequent terms or Treaties modifying the title, I cannot, however, pretend to say.
Judging from the great stress laid by the Persian Government upon the non-extension of our
Telegraph westward of Choubar without the authority of the Shah, I should think it more than
probable that Choubar does belong exclusively to the Imam."
27. A perusal of this Report satisfied Government of the desirableness of
obtaining and placing on record with “ as little delay as possible all the oral
evidence procurable on tho spot relative to the question discussedand Colonel
Goldsmid was deputed to the Mekran
Bombay Government to Her Majesty’s Secre- Coast and Maskat to complete, “ by such
tary of Siato for India in Council, No. 2 of 13th
January 1864. oral enquiry as ho might find safe and
practicable, the collection of cvidonco to
tho actual exorcise of sovereign rights on the Mekran Coast with living
memory.”
(vi) Colonel Goldsmid’s First Report of 1S04.
28. Prom the first Report, written in
No. 6, dated Karachi, 22nd January 1861*
l'age 60 of Volume 8 of 1864. accordance with tho abovo orders, para­
graphs 7 to 12 may bo extracted :—
“ In paragraph 17 of my Report, dated the 19th ultimo, quoting from a diary of one
Haji Abdul Nubbi, I mentioned the * Brabui's
Gwadur. half of Gwadur' as having been given iu grant
by Mir Nussir Khau to Syed Sultan. In explana­
tion, and, I may add, in confirmation of this assertion, it is now stated that, in former days,
Gwadur was in the hands of tho Bolaidi Bcloochis. Nussir Khan, in consolidating his domi­
nions of Baluchistan into one Government, demanded the whole revenue, but a compromise was
admitted, under the-terras of which he restored half of the collections to theso Bolaidit*. AVhen
the Imam was put in possession, ho also paid this half to the same claimants ; but after a time,
finding his power more deeply rooted, ho refused to acknowledge the obligation, and the
iBolaidis were thrown out of possession altogether. I am not sure that the claim of Kelat or
of Kcdje upon Gwadur, so frequently discussed of late, would not, if thoroughly sifted, be
found to originate iu this former right of tho Baluchis to half the revenues raised by the Imam,
2186 P. D.