"تقرير الإدارة عن المقيمية السياسية في الخليج الفارسي للأعوام ١٩١٥-١٩١٩" [ظ‎‎٩‎٦] (٣٩٦/١٩٩)

20
ANNUAL REPORT OP THE PERSIAN GULF POLITICAL RESIDENCY
Tlie remaining less important districts were held partly by Prince^
men" and partly by 4 'Sardar Nusrat's men''whose names it is*unnecessary
to record.
During the first five months of the year little was heard of the Democrats
Democrsta. P ^ evideutly stJI
m the cbastened mood induced b
their defeats of the previous year and the fines and deportations —moderate
and limited enough—which followed the return of the British. - The formation
however, of Ala-us-Sultaneh 's Cabinet, early in June, following the collapse
of monarchy in Eussia, caused a marked revival of Democratic activity. The
release of the Kermani prisoners at Shiraz and reports from Tehran of the
strong Democratic sympathies of the new Cabinet greatly encouraged the party
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 as
the rising tide of Republicanism, and was arranging a strategic retreat to
India; meeiings were held nightly at one or other of the houses of leading
Democrats such as Muin-ush Shariya, Agha Saiyid Jawad, Mirza Shahhab
and Shariat Madar, while Majtabids such as Agha Saiyid Ali and Shaikh
Muhammad Taki secretly espoused the cause. A powerful ally was found in
Ihtisham-ud-Dowleh, the Prince's Secretary, while at Tehran the partv was
ably represented by Mu'ayid-ul-Islam (brother of Muin-ush-Shariya), Saiyid
Mustafa (^r-Eais-i-Muarif), Muham-ul-Mulk (e^-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 Rifles.
(2) War to the knife against Sardar Jsusrat and his family Haji
Mirza Ali Muhammad Mujtabid and his brother Haji Mirza
Murteza 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 1915-16 and return of exiles to Kerman.
(4) Employment of Democrats in Government departments.
Evidence of the first item is to be found in the series of reports hostile
to the South Persia Eifies which were sent from Kerman to Tehran and were
reflected in the newspapers of the Capital, mainly malicious accusations of
all sorts 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*
Hon in October against Javazm, Marvas, Herat-i-Khurreh and Shahr Babak
{vide below) were of course made great grievances. The persistent refusal of
the Persian Government to recognise the South Persia Eifies as a Persian
department is part of the same policy.
Attacks on Sardar Nusrat and 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 uncompromis-
ingness of the Democrats and partly to warnings from His Majesty's Con
sulate, the Sardar soon gave up. Democrat hostility was at first confined to
popular telegrams to Tehran and violent newspaper articles against him,
but alter Major Lorimer's departure it crystallized into a sustained attempt to
humiliate and ruin him, as described above, through the agency of the Gov*
er nor-General.
The return of several of the worst pro- German agitators was pressed up 011
His Majesty's Consulate during the latter half of the year and in some cases,
Botabiy those of Saiyid Ali Nunwa (banished for seditious talk in August
1916), and Mirza Ahmad Khan (leader of a band of sowars employed by the
Geimans), opposition had eventually to be withdrawn. The release, at the