Page 45 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

29
CHAPTER VII r.

Rebellion in Dhofar, 1895-97.
(i) Designs of Sheikh Fadklbin Alawi, tho Moplah outlaw, to assume tho Govern­
ment of Dhofar, 1894-96.
115. Shoikli Fadhl bin Alawi was a Moplah priest who was expelled from
India under threat of arrest if he returned for the part he took in the Moplah
rising of 1852. llo first settled in Mecca. Hut in or about the year 18G8 he
wont to Dhofar and having gained considerable- influence over the people, he
soon after was elected by them their Amir. He ruled in tho name of the
Turkish Government, but his rule was found so oppressive that a rebellion
broke out in 1879 and ho was expelled from Dhofar in 1879. Sayyid Turki,
8ultan of Maskat, resumed possession of tho district to which ho claimed a
title a9 old as 1829. Sinco then Dhofar was in the uninterrupted possession
of tho Government of Maskat, until the year 1895, when a rebellion broke
out.
11G. For about a year before the rebellion, Sheikh Fadhl and his son
Sabi Pasha had been trying to return to
Secret 12., February 1895, No*. 430*435.
Dhofar and resumo its Government. In
Ootober 1894 Sir P. Currie forwarded to Lord Kimberley a memorandum
placed in bis bands by a friend of Sheikh Fadhl, stating that lie was anxious
to leave Turkey and return to Arabia with his sons, with the view of assuming
tho Government of Dhofar, Mirabad and its dependencies under British pro­
tection (Sir P. Currie’s despatch to the Foreign Olhce, dated 12th October
1891).
117. The Secretary of State, Mr. Fowler, in sending the papers to the
Government of India for opinion, observ­
Ibid, No. 430.
ed (despatch No. 61 Secret-dated 9th
November 1894)—
u It is understood that Dhofar is now under the control of the Sultan of Muscat and
this oircumstance alone would render a compliance with the Sheikh’s request inadmissible.”
118. The Government of India concurred on this opinion (despatch No.
14 Secret—External, dated 29th January
Ibid, No. 435.
1895). They stated—
“Sheikh Fadhl bin Alawi was expelledIrom Dhofar in 1879 and shortly afterwards the
Saltan of Muscat, at the invitation of the people appointed a Wali and occupied the place with
a garrison. For tho last 14 years the rule of Ills Highness over Dhofar and its dependencies
baa beeu uninterrupted and active, and we therefore agree with you in considering that the
request of the Sheikh is inadmissible.”
119. In March 1895 Sheikh Fadlil’s son Sahl Pasha proceeded to Cairo
and tried through Shakour Beg, Chief Interpreter of the Intelligence De­
partment of the Egyptian Army, to obtain an interview with Lord Cromer
and enlist his sympathies iu Sheikh Fadhl’s designs to re-establish his authority
in Dhofar. He expressed his intention to visit Dhofar early, and mentioned
tliat he had been in communication with the Sheikhs in Dhofar to prepare
them for this.
120. Lord Kimberley, after consulting Mr. Fowler, informed Lord Cromer—
“ That it is undesirable that he should enter into communication with Sahl Pasha and
that the territory which the Sheikh seeks to recover cannot be restored to him, as it has been
under the rulo of the Sultan of Muscat for the lust fourteen years.”
121. 'When the above correspondence was forwarded to the Government
of India, they telegraphed to tho Resident on 9th May 1896 :—
“Sayyod Fadhl, Moplah outlaw, desires to return to Dhofar, and his son Sahl Pasha,
lately iu Cairo, is intriguing towards that end. Please warn Sultan, Muscat.”
122. Tho Sultan stated that the object of Sheikh Fadhl and his son was
to create disturbances and excite sedition among the people of Dhofar, and
that he relied upon tho British Government to take steps to prevent them from
carrying out their designs. Colonel Wilson redorted that tho Sultan’s position
[C973FD]