Page 351 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

53
3. I now proceed to dcscribo the main features of the Fnjeyrah question.
4. Tho strip of sea coast of the Batinah in which Fajeyrah is situated cxtonds from Dibba
to Khor Kelbab, a distance of about forty-five
Bombay Government Selections, Nos. 21*P., miles. It appears to have formerly formed part
134, aud 127. of the Muscat territory, and was forcibly taken
possession of by the Joasmi Chief Sultan-bin-Sakar, just fifty years ago. An appeal
seems to have been made at the time to the British Government by tho Sultan of
Muscat, but though a nnval force was sent to “ preserve the integrity ” of His Hignness’s
dominions, for some reason Government declined to interfere to compel restitution of this
slice of territory treacherously filched apparently by the Joasmi. But a fuller history of the
matter, if available, would probably show that some flaw existed, in the Musoat title to the
territory. Of this however I find no record.
5. The question of tho status of this territory may therefore be regarded as a three-
cornered one. The Muscat State has a dormant claim, the Joasmi Chief claims it as a
possession, whilst the peoplo seek to play the one agaiust the other and secure virtual
independence.
6. As the disputes which have of late years arisen have been chiefly about the village
of Fajeyrah, in this report 1 will speak of Fajeyrah only, though some of the remarks would
apply to the whole 6trip of coast above described.
7. The title to possession of Fajeyrah may be considered as between (1) Muscat and
Shargab, and (2) between Shargah and the inhabitants.
8. His Highness Seyyid Toorkee in 1870 wrote to the Political Agent at Muscat, stating
that the Fort of Fajeyrah had been built by bis ancestor, Seyyid Sultan-bin-el-Imam Ahmed,
who made it over to the inhabitants to guurd. His Highness however did not claim a right
of sovereignty over the place or people, but appealed against Shargah beiug allowed to hold
possession. In forwarding the correspondence to the Government of India, I expressed an
opinion that Fajeyrah had been subject to the Joasmis from the time of Sultan-bin-Sakar
(Sugar), and that there was do reason at the timo to interfere. The Government of India,
whilst inclining to accept this view, directed it to be explained to Seyyid Toorkee, in view to
ascertaining whether His Highness had any reasonable grounds for demurring to it. In
reply, His Highness reiterated bis opiuion that “ the tract of country ” was not a possession
of Shargah, but thought tribute was due by Fajeyrah to the Joasmi Chief. The Shargah
Shaikh bolds a paper sealed by Seyyid Toorkee, dated 1871, stating that all the territory
west of Khor Kelbah, except Kba6ab, belonged to the Joasmi, but Seyyid Toorkee repudiates
this documont on the 6core that it was written before he was Saltan, and was to be a return
for certain promised services which wore never performed. On the whole, it appears that the
Sultan of Muscat has not adequate grounds for interfering in the affairs of Fajeyrah, but his
opinion and his wishes are entitled to weight and deference.
9. There seems no question of complote independence of Fajeyrah, a position which would,
if attainable, be undesirable in the geueral interests.
10. The relations between Fajeyrah and Shargah have next to be described. In the
time of the Joasmi Chief Suhau-bin-Sakar, the local Chief of Fajeyrah, used to pay a fixed,
annual tribute to him. On Sultan-bin-Sakar's death the tribute was stopped. Later the
present Chief of Shargah sent a force to garrison Dibba, and establish bis authority over the
district. The inhabiting tiibe?, called Sharkieen, were averse to this proceeding, and leagued
themselves to resist under the Chief of Fajeyrah, aud formed an offensive and defensive
alliauce with the Shibiyeen tribe, nomially subjects ot Muscat. These allies besieged
Dibba, and the Joasmi garrison applied for reinforcement! As the mountain passes were
held by the Shihiyeen, Shaikh Salim 6ent his brother to Dibba to negotiate, and a reconciliation
was effected, aud tribute paid by the Sharkieen. Some time afterwards the Governor of
Dibba seized twelve of the Sharkieen, and this caused a fresh combination and siege of Dibba
in 1876. On this occusiou Shaikh Salim, without permission, relieved the garrison of Dibba
by 6ea. A force was seut by land also, and fighting occurred. Her Majesty's S. Arab
appeared before Dibba, and recommended cessation of fighting, and as regards Dibba this
advice was followed. In spring 1879, the inhabitants of Fajeyrah expelled a Governor named
Seroor, who had been appointed by the Shaikh of Shargah, and set up ono Marzoog without
consulting Shargah. Afterwards a deputation of Fajeyrah people was sent to Shargah to
inform the Chief of the measure. Tho six members of the deputation were imprisoned, and the
Chief prepared to send an expedition by land to punish the Fajeyrah people. It was snooess-
ful, and the fort of Fajeyrah was garrisoned by Biluchi9. One of the local Shaikhs of Fajeyrah
Hamad-bin-Abdullah-bin-Saif, who had previously offended the Chief of Shargah, fled to
Musoat, whence he returned, and, aided by those disaffeoted inwards Shargah, gained posses­
sion of the fort of Fajeyrah. Iu this affair eight of the Joasmi garrison were slain. The
Chief of Shargah complained that Hamad-bin-Abdnlluh had been allowed to move by sea, but
although he personally returned from Musoat by sea, and was no doubt secretly encouraged
by Musoat, there was nothing of the nature of a naval expedition nor any active
support.
II. In this situation, the requests made personally to me by the Chief of Shargah were
(1) that he should be allowed to send a force by land to retake Fajeyrah ; (2) that a British
man-of-war should be sent to Fnjeyrah to support his authority ; (3) that the Sultan of
Muscat should be reatruiued from supporting ilumad-biu-Abdulluh. Whilst disclaiming any
4433 F. D.