'File 61/13 I (D 133) Wahabis and Pilgrimage to Hedjaz' [‎121r] (253/431)

29
i e( |i" currency. At the conventional rate recognised by the Government it worked out
ftlif, approximately £3 gold, and, if paid in rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. , it meant that the pilgrim would
;( : r have to pay the equivalent of that amount of gold, say 57 rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. , or if the rupee
;. depreciated as it was likely to do with the influx of pilgrims, about 60 rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. .
' 136. Assuming the correctness of the two original bases of the Legation's
0 u A estimate of the probable cost of the pilgrimage, i.e., the tariff charges converted at
JN the rates of exchange ruling in the summer of 1931, and the expectation that the
still unfixed transport charges could not differ substantially in gold from those
^ levied during the previous season, it became a mere question of arithmetic to
, ''N determine the effect of the Hejazi Government's decision. It was clear that,
■ subject to slight variations resulting from minor changes in transport charges
and the possibility of some economy to meet the hardness of the times, the cost
j" of the pilgrimage, reckoned in rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. , from the moment of landing at Jedda to
that of re-embarking must be about 40 per cent, greater than in 1931. Sir Andrew
NW Ryan informed the Government of India by telegraph on the 18th January that
'tacliJ he now reckoned the average Indian pilgrim's probable expenditure in the Hejaz
Nil at about 800 rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. , or a little less, if economy was practised. He took steps to
endefl acquaint other interested British authorities also with the facts and his
ifodi deductions from them. He informed Fuad Bey orally on the 20th January of
wiigi the conclusion he had reached.
iidili 137. The Government of India published, on the 23rd January, a
dm communique, based on Sir Andrew Ryan's telegram of the 18th January, from
nofc which they deduced that the total cost of the pilgrimage would be about
India';;; 1,100 rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. . In one respect the communique left room for an important
remit;: misconception, as it suggested that the Hejazi Government were themselves the
la rati authors of Sir Andrew Ryan's revised estimate of 800 rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. for expenditure
mtsK: m the Hejaz. This may have helped to aggravate the controversy which presently
ofII arose, and the burden of which had to be sustained by Mr. Hope Gill, as
1 not It ill Andrew Ryan was called away from Jedda on the 2nd February.
I y ,■ 138. Every effort was made to discredit the estimate published by the
itet'r Government of India. The Hejazi Minister in London complained that it was
1]!lffl ;- excessive. Ismail Ghaznavi published in India the reply to an enquiry addressed
n . J by him to the Hejazi Ministry for Foreign Affairs, from which he deduced that
the total cost of the pilgrimage need not be moi'e than 750 rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. in spite of
everything. The President of the Haj Committee at Karachi, committed the
grave indiscretion of broadcasting in India a telegram from an officer of
veriiw Ibn Saud's Court, sent apparently in reply to a direct enquiry, denying that the
Hejazi Government were parties to the estimate of 1,100 rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. , or that there
was any increase in charges. The whole telegram inferred, though it did not
jiffiM state, that the estimate was exaggerated.
rupfc 139. The Hejazi Government cannot be acquitted of bad faith. They would
have been justified in contesting the Legation's figures, but not in trading, as they
did, on the half truth that the 1931 charges had not been increased. Stated in
jJ gold, they had neither been lowered nor materially increased: converted into
: : rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. , they were obviously higher than in 1931 by the equivalent of the
111 ''' | depreciation of the rupee in terms of gold. Mr. Hope Gill was at enormous pains
to place the matter in a true light in an en clair telegram to the Government of
India and in correspondence with the He^azi Government. On the 16th March
the Government of India published a second communique, in which they rebutted
the aspersions cast on the first. They gave it as their conclusion that, if a pilgrim
performed all his journeys in the Hejaz by camel and without luggage, and
^ practised the most rigid economy, he might be able to perform the pilgrimage at a
; total cost of 900 rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. , but that, in no other circumstances, would the cost be
for*, less than 1,100 rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. . There is reason to believe that, although the Hejazi
# ■ propaganda in India had produced some effect between^ the dates of^ the two
communiques, the second deterred pilgrims still awaiting embarkation from
oflt- starting with wholly insufficient means.
;!#: 140. It was not until the 2nd March that the Hejazi Government
iasi ; : communicated to the Legation an official list of transport charges. They were
.(#; given as rates which might be affected by the laws of supply and demand, but
■0^; which were in any case maxima. Three days later Fuad Bey corrected two slight
'\[\errors. It was found later that in certain cases higher rates were being actually
iee sii charged. On the 22nd March the Minister for Foreign Affairs submitted that the
jujffl*; motor companies had been allowed to exceed the maxima previously allowed