Page 538 - PERSIAN 8 1912_1920_Neat

20 ANNT7AL BEPOET OP TUB PERSIAN GULP POLITICAL RESIDENCY

Tho remaining less important districts were held partly by “ pr*,
men *' and partly by '* Sardar Nusrat’s men” whoso names it is nee*!
to reoord.
During tho first five months of tho year little was heard of tho Democrat
in the town They wore evidently allj,
Dcnocnta.
in tho chastened mood inducod k
their defeats of the previous year and the fines and deportations—modems
and limited enough—which followed tho return of the British. - Tire format^
however, of Ala-us-Sultaneh’s Cabinot, early iu Juue, following the collar^!
of monarohy in Russia, caused a marked revival of Democratic activity,
release of tho Kermani prisoners at 8hiraz and reports from Tehran of th!
strong Democratic sympathies of the new Cabinet greatly encouraged the parr*
at Kerman. All sorts of wild anti-Ally rumours began to spread abroad- it
became known that the Governor-General was afraid of what was regarded*
the rising tide of Republicanism, and was arranging a strategic retreat to
India; meetings were held nightly at one or other of the houses of leading
Democrats such as Muin-ush-Shariya, Agha 8aiyid Jawad, Mirza Shahhab
and Shariat Madar, while Majtahids such as Agha Saiyid Ali and 8haikh
Muhammad Taki secretly espoused the cause. A powerful ally .was found in
Ihtisham-ud-Dowleh, the Prince’s Secretary, while at Tehran the party was
ably represented by Hu’ayid-ul-Islam (brother of Muin-ush-Shariya), Saiyid
Mustafa (ftr-Raia-i-Muarif), Muham-ul-Mulk (or-Karguzar), Ali Khan
Qariat'ul-Arabi and others, who corresponded regularly with their confreres at
Kerman.
Judging by events, the main items of the Democratic programme were
the following:—
(1) Obstruction and, if possible, removal of the South Persia Rifiea.
(2) War to the knife against Sardar Musrat and his family Haji
Mirza Ali Muhammad Mujtahid and his brother Haji Him
Mnrtcza and one or two other Anglophiles who had the
courage to oppose the party during the disturbances.
(3) Amnesty for all persons who took part in the pro-German disturb­
ances of 1916-16 and return of exiles to Kerman.
(4) Employment of Democrats in Government departments.
Evidence of the first item is to bo found in tho series of reports hostile
to the South Persia Rifles which were sent from Kerman to Tehran and were
reflected in the newspapers of the Capital, mainly malicious accusations of
all 60rts of aggressiveness, arbitrariness and disregard of Persian rights and
independence. The Tehran Government encouraged these accusations and on
several occasions took up complaints, on which His Majesty’s Consul had
ultimately to report. The burning of Fatehabad under Captain Merrill's
orders in March, the operations in September against Dehaj and the expedi­
tion in October against Javazm, Marvas, Herat-i-Khurreh and Shahr Babak
(vide below) were of course made great grievances. The persistent refusal of
ihe Persian.. Government to recognise the South. Persia Rifles as a Persian
department is part ofithe same policy.
Attacks oa 8ardar Nusratrand the other Anglophiles began to be marked
in- August;*. They frightened the Sardar at any rate, if not the others, into an
attempt at compromise, which, however, thanks partly to the nncompromis*
ingness of the Democrats and partly to warnings from His Majesty's Co®*
sulate, the Sardar • soon gave up. Democrat hostility was at first confined to
" popular *’ telegrams to Tehran and violent newspaper articles against hi®*
but after Major Lorimer’s departure it crystallized into a sustained attempt
humiliate and ruin bim, as desoribed above, through the agency of the Gev­
er nor-GeneraL
The return of several of the worst pro-German agitators was pressed
His Majesty's Consulate during the latter half of the vear and in 80®eca^
notably those of 8aivid Ali Nunwa (banished for seditious talk in A
1916), and Mirza Ahmad Khan (leader of a band of so wars employed by
Germans), opposition had eventually to be withdrawn. The release, **