Page 316 - Gulf Precis(II)_Neat

294 Part VII—Chap. LXX.

CHAPTER LXX.

QUESTION OF SHEIKH NASI It’S PRETENSIONS TO THE
ISLAND OF KAKRAK, 1842-1843.
580. In his letter dated 12th December 18*12 to Colonol Robertson,
Resident at Bushiro, Colonel Sheil asked to bo informed of tho nature of Sheikh
Nasir’s former tenure over tho Island of Karrak ; whether it was his hereditary
property, or whether he held the revonuo of it as a fief, what amount of
rovenuo ho derived from the island or its inhabitants, and whother ho has
received any equivalent for its deprivation.
581. Colonel Robertson’s interesting reply, dated 4th January 1848, is
quoted below in extenso—
I havp the honor in reply to tho third paragraph of your lotter, dated the 12th of December
last, to inform you that I can obtain no very precise account of tho nature of Shouli Nnsir’s
conncctiou with tho Island of Karrak.
2. Ho possc6FQs neither land nor a houso there, and I suppose ho cannot consider the
fortress as his private property—a garden which the English officers of tho Field Detach­
ment denominated Sbekh Nassir’s Garden is not his, but assigned for the support of tho tomb
of Mir Mahomed, aud denominated “Bin Nassir.” The similarity of the names no doubt gave
rise to the mistake of calliug it Shekh Nassir's garden.
8. I bog to refer you to the enclosed extract (fifth paragraph) of a letter from Captain
Hennell, No. 27, dated the 19th April 1889, to the Secretary to tho Government of Bombay,
as throwing light upon Shekh Nassir’s motives for wishing to retain Karrak, and to have it
considered as his own property. I also enclose copy of tho draft of tho letter written by
Captain Hennell to Shekh Nassir enclosed in that letter—you will not fail to remark the very
extraordinary fact that the reason of the Resident obliging Shekh Nassir to leave Karrak
was his dread of its being thought we were about to make war on Persia, if wo remaiued on
apparently good terms with Shekh Nassir, so decided a rebel as ho then was.
4. Captain Hennell in his letter No. 80, dated 31st May 1888, to the Secretary to the
Government of Bombay, after narrating the cause of Shekh Nassir and his uncle’s flying from
Bushire to Karrak the previous day, says, “ whether any attempt will be made to wrest the
possession of the Island of Karrak from Shekh Nassir remains to bo seen, but I am inclined
to think that the present authorities of Fars have neither the means nor the energy required
for the success of an effort of this description.”
5. I beg to refer you to Captain Bruce’s letter to McMoricr, dated the 7th of September
1815, and to its enclosures, as elucidating in some degree the nature of the power which >hekh
Mahomed (the grand uncle of the present Shekh Nassir) held over Karrak at that time
—you will observe that in the second paragraph of his letter, dated 5 th August 1815, to tho
Governor of Bombay, Captain Bruce adverts to Firmans of indemnity having been issued by
the Persian Government to Shekh Mahomed’s tribe, in consequence of which alone (he said)
they returned to their patrimonial Government of Bushire. It would be now expedient perhaps
to discover what assurances of rights these Firmans contained; and this you could probably do
at Tehran, as I have no hope of being able to do so here. Some Firman was also issued to
Shekh Mahomed when ho was conciliated by the Government and returned from Karrak
in 1815. J
6., The conclusion at which I have arrived from perusing these papers is that Shekh
Nassir s ancestors kept possession of Karrak not for the Crown of Persia but to enable them
to rebel against it with a certain degree of security to person aud property; and that th** King
of Persia has not in reality been King of Karrak except by infereucc or implication, as being
the Sovereign of the tribe who claim to be the hereditary Governors of Bushire.
7. Admitting then that Shekh Nassir is entitled to possess Karrak the question arises—
What is the nature of his tenure of it.
8. As I have said above he holds no land there Tho inhabitants are not of his tiibe
and are of a different sect of religion. The inland was conquered from the Dutch about 70 years
ago by Meer Mohunna, a Chief of Bunder Reigh, who defied the power of the King of Persia.
This Meer Mohunna became connected with the Great Shekh Nassir not Nassir or Nassir men
of whi-h names are descended from him by marriage ; but it was not through that connection
that Carrack fell into tho hands of the Governors of Bushire and fell out of those of Bunder
Reigh (the town on the coast exactly (opposite to Karrack) and I cannot trace any other origin
to their acquisition of the island than the transfer of it by the Iraaum of Muscat to Sliekb
Nassirson of Shekh Nawsir a few years after he had conquered it from the followers o
Meer Mohunna. Nor can I discover on what terms the Imaum gave it over to Shekh Nasir.
Some says he granted it as a present aud from friendship; some say Shekh Nasir took it in