Page 383 - Gulf Precis(VIII)_Neat

69
Fujeyrah but it is not at all likely that he will desist from his endeavours to reduce the She'kh
of that place to submission. Shiekh bakar himself gets no revenue from the Batineh, but as
Chief ol the Joasmi tribe, it is of great impoitancc to his prestige to maintain his supremacy in
that part. From our point of view, it does not seem to me that it is of much importance
whether the Shiekh of Fujeyrah succeeds in throwing off his allegiance to the Chief of
Shargah, or whether the latter succeeds in reducing Fujeyrah to subjection. In the inter­
est of peace, I considered it advisable to endeavour to bring about an amicable settlement
between the parties, and also, as it had already been decided that the Joasmi ruler had
certain rights over Fujeyrah, to discourage the interference of outside parties in a matter
which concerned the Chief of Shargah and his feudatory. General sympathy appears to be
with the Sheikh of Fujeyrah, but it docs not follow from this that the Sheikh has right on
his side but rather it appears to be due the general dislike to the Joasmis and to the present
Chief of Shargah in particular. Nothing more can be done at present, and it only remains
to watch the progress of the quarrel.
15. I have thought it as well to report at length on this matter, as the question
of the extinction of Joasmi influence on this part of the Batineh Coast may be under
consideration. The Political Agent at Maskat, in paragraph 14 of his letter No. 290,
dated the 2nd July 1902, threw out the suggestion that the Sultan of Maskat might be
permitted to resume jurisdiction over that part of the Coast now dominated by tbo Joasmis.
The result, however, of my enquiries leads me to think that such an arrangement would not
be practicable. The detachment of the Joasmis on the Batineh Coast from the overlordship
of the Shargah Chief would practically mean the division of tho Joasmis, and would, I feel
sure, not be agreed to by the Chief of Shargah and the other Joasmis. Neither do I think that
at present, al any rate, we could countenance such a proposal, as, thereby, distrust in
our good faith might be created. The break in the continuity of Maskat rule, owing
to this strip of the Batineh Coast being subject to Joasmi sway, is, I admit, to a
I certain extent, inconvenient, and, moreover, it certainly appears that the Joasmi
rule is ineffective, whereas the Sultan of Maskat would probably maintain better
order in the region. On the other hand, the district is of no particular importance, and it
cannot be said that much inconvenience has resulted owing to the weakness of the Joasmi
rule, neither do I think that much credit need be given to the stories of Joasmi
oppression. Since the date of the settlement between Sheikh Salim and the Sheikh of
Fujeyrah, little has been heard of this part of the world, and since the year 1884
when Sheikh Salem apparently abandoned all hopes of recovering his power, I can
find hardly any mention of Fujeyrah in the records of this Residency. The Fujeyrah
Sheikh who, even in 1881, was considered to be somewhat of a turbulent character, had.
matters, it would seem, his own way, and it was only owing to the altered condition of
affairs consquent on the death of the Chief of Ras-el-Kheima h that the question has again
been brought into prominence. The Chief of Shargah has 1 think, a right to expect that
outside influence should not be brought to bear to encourage the Sheikh of Fujeyrah in his
defiant attitude, and this, as I have stated above, I have endeavoured to ensure, Later
on, if only the Sheikh of Fujeyrah can be made to 6ec that he cannot expect assistance
from Maskat or Dcbaye, it may be possible to effect a settlement.
207. The Government of India expressed
Ibid, No». fl-6.
the following views in the matter (No. 82I-E.,
dated 31st April 1903):—
" 3. The Government of India entirely accept your later view that no interference by
the Sultan of Maskat should be allowed in this tract, which has long been regarded as
_ . . _ ......... subordinate to the Jo was mi Chiefs. From the
M.°^\PyTsoc7cT»«y0o^0bVtate7orn India No .93* accompanying copies of correspondence it will
dated the a3«d October 190a. be seen that this view has been accepted by
Despatch from Hii Majesty’s Secretary ot Stato His Majesty’s Secretary of State. The Govern-
lo. Indi.i No. 4, d.t.d th. J,ih tebru.., .903. ment ofJ ,Jiai trust that ynur gQ0J omce5 may
be able to effect a settlement which will be satisfactory to both parties, but they have no
wish to interfere authoritatively in the internal disputes of these parts, provided that it is
clearly understood that, as held by them so far
Vide the letter from the Government of India in
the Foreign Department, to the Political Resident back as 1881, the portion of the coast of Oman
in the Pertian Gulf, No. 149, dated tho aiat July between Dibba and Khor Kalba is subject to the
1881. maritime truce, and that the'Sheikh in power is
bound by the terms of the agreements entered into from time to time with the British
Government."
208. In June 1903, it was reported that the chief of Shargah and Ras-ul-
Khima has marched against the headman of Fajeira. After some opposition, in
which he was assisted by some Shihiyins of Beya, the Shiekh was obliged to
sue for peace and on his admitting himself to be a vassal of the Joasmi chief,
a provisional agreement was made between the parties. In the Gulf Administra­
tion Report for 1903-04 it was stated that the terms of this arrangement have not,
however, been fulfilled and the matter is still under consideration.’*
[C645FD]