Page 380 - Gulf Precis(VIII)_Neat

66
No. aa, dated Bmhiro, the 14th February 1903.
From—Liiutbwant-Colon*m. C.A. Kimball, C.I,E., Officiating Political Resident in the Persian
Gulf,
To—Tho Officiating Secretary to the Government of India in the Foreign Department.
I have the honour to invite a reference to my letter No. I5-S. A., dated the 20th July
1902, on the subject of the jurisdiction of the Sultan of Maskat in the direction of Cape M04-
andim. In paragraph 5 of this letter, I referred to the question of the Joasmi jurisdiction
over the strip of the Batineh Coast, and I alluded to the dispute which was in progress be­
tween the Chief of Shargah and the headman of Fujeyrah. 1 have now the honour to submit,
for the information of the Government of India, a detailed report regarding this disputo.
a. The main features of the Fujeyrah question, as regards the history and political
status of Fujeyrah, were explained in the letter No. 97, dated the 26th May 1881, from tho
Political Resident in the Persian Gulf to the Secretary to the Government of India in tho
Foreign Department. It will be seen that Colonel Ross stated the opinion that the Chief
of Shargah is in his right in exacting submission and tribute in the strip of country referred
to, that is to say, the Sea Coast of the Batineh in which Fujeyrah is situated. In other
words, the Shcikh.of Fujeyrah was considered to be a feudatory of the Joasmi ruler of Shar­
gah.
3. The long standing quarrel between Shargah and Fujeyrah was settled in 1881, and
the settlement was reported to the Government of India in Lieutenant-Colonel Ross's letter
No. 204, dated the 14th October. 1881. This settlement was brought about by the good
offices of the Political Resident, the offered arbitration of the Chief of Ras-el Kheimah
being taken as the basis of negotiations. It was not, however, in any way guaranteed, by
British authority, and a note to this effect was recorded at the time by Colonel Ross.
4. In 1883 Sheikh Sakar-bin-Khalid, the present Chief of Shargah, deposed’ his uncle
Sheikh Salim-bin-Sultan with whom the settlement rofcrred to in the preceding paragraph
was made. The agreement between Sheikh Salim and Hamid-bin-Abdulla.of Fujeyrah did
not long remain in force, and, in the year. 1884, it appears that this same Hamid-bin-
Abdylla, who, in his position.as Sheikh of Fujeyrah, had made the arrangement in 1881
with Sheikh Salim-bin-Sultan, then Chief of Shargah, seized the forts of Gherefah and
Bathna from Sheikh Salim's representative. Sheikh Salim appealed to. the Resident, but
Colonel Ross declined to discuss the matter with him, apparently on the grounds that the
places concerned, Gherefah, Bathna and Fujeyrah, were dependencies of the Ruling Chief.of
Shargah and that Sheikh Salim having been ousted from the Chiefship of Shargah,.had no
further concern in affairs of the Batineh Coast. So far as I have been able to ascertain*
though I do not find the facts officially recorded, Hamid-bin-Abdulla, tbe Sheikh ofFujeyrah,
was actually .persuaded by Shiekh Sakar to break the agreement of 1881, and he did so with
the hope that Sheikh Sakar would make over the control of these two places, Bathna and
Gherefah, to him. Bathna is, I understand, situated at the entrance of a narrow valley which
is the only accessible land approach to Kalba and the adjoining villages including Fujeyrah,
and since all hostile movements by sea are forbidden, Bathna became the key of the district,
and the person in possession of it has practically that part of the Joasmi territory at his
mercy. Hamid-bin-Abdulla of Fujeyrah, with a view to maintain his hold on Bathna, entered
into relations with the Chief of Ras-el-Kheimah, and Sheikh Sakar, wishing to avoid any
disagreement with his relative, the Chief of Ras-el-Kheimah, did not take any steps to obtain
control of Bathna.
5. In 1900, the Chief of Ras-el-Kheimah died and Sheikh Sakar assumed the Chiefship
of Ras-el-Kheimah. The position of Hamid-bin-Abdulla of Fujeyrah consequently assumed
in altered aspect, as he again become subject to the direct control of Sheikh Sakar. This
apparently did not suit his policy, as he feared that he would lose his control over Bathna,
and he began to look about for a cause to throw off his allegiance to the Chief of Shargah.
6. The actual Joasmi representative, resident on the part of the coast line which in­
cludes Fujeyrah, is Hamid-bin-Majid-bin-Sultan, a cousin of Sheikh Sakar. He resides at
Ghalat Kalbah, and the revenue which he draws from the places under his control, amounts,
according to the information furnished to me by the Residency Agent at Shargah, to 2,000
dollars.annually. The Sheikh of Fujeyrah, so I am informed, pays him an annual tribute of
Igo skins of dates, about 12 cwt. of wheat and 10 dollars in cash. During the life-time of
the late Sheikh of Ras-el-Kheimah, Hamid-bin-Majid, being on intimate terms with the
Ras-el-Kheimah Chief, had no fear regarding the continuance of the tribute which was paid
tohim by Hamid-bin-Abdulla of Fujeyrah. On the death, however, of the Chief of Ras-el-
Kheimah, Haraid-bin-Majid, being a Joasmi, could only look to Sheikh Sakar for assistance
in time of trouble, and Sheikh Sakar, therefore, would naturally, on a convenient opportu­
nity occurring, have no option but to take Bathna at any rate, and, probably, also Gherefah,
out of the hands of the Sheikh of Fujeyrah, so as to be in tbe position to succour Kalbeh
should the Fujeyrah Sheikh march against it. The Fujeyrah Sheikh foresaw this, and he
availed himself of a disagreement occurring between Shargah, Debai and Ajman, to find a
pretext for severing his connection with Shargah while Bathna was still in his possession.
7. When I visited the Arab Coast in January 1902, I received the first intimation re­
garding the trouble which was brewing between Fujeyrah and Shargah. The Chief 01
Shargah, Sheikh Sakar, informed me that the Chief of Debaye was interfering in the affairs
of the Sheikh of Fujeyrah. I directed the Residency Agent to write to the Cniel 0