'File 14/115 VII Annex (B 9) Abu Musa oxide: collected background material on the case' [‎6v] (23/1904)

6
The position bo doubt was that Shaikh Sagar relinquished to Salim all
revenue that might accrue from the island, so long as Salim did not importune
him for money and so long as the income did not become so considerable as to-
be more than Sagar's interests could allow him to relinquish or Salim could expect
to receive, (See also penultimate paragraph of enclosure 6 of First British
Memorandum.)
(16) The Imperial Government regret
objectionable testimony the letter of Shaikh SaU Sagar, t eb-
ruary 1908. —-The reasons of the German Government for this attitude are that
the letter was written at the time the case was in progress and that I, Major
Cox, was at Shargah just at that time. This is a very convenient way of dispos
ing of a ft.iffi.cult piece of evidence, but this argument, I hope, can be resisted.
Obviously there was no reason for Salim to write such a letter until.tie learnt
of the way in which his name was being used and of the claims on Abu Musa
Island with which he was being credited.
The argument of the German Government in regard to the objectionability
of the evidence to this document would apply to a number of the annexes to their
rejoinder. Although they bear each other no. affection at heart, the two
Shaikhs have been quite of one mind in regard to the behaviour of Hasan Samai-
yeh and the expediency of withdrawing the concession and if it had not been
withdrawn by Shaikh Sagar it would have been withdrawn by Sh- .ikh Salim.
In any case Shaikh Salim absolutely adheres to what he then wrote. ote. —His
own letter was read over to him in the presence of myself and the Residency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, established in the provinces and regions considered part of, or under the influence of, British India.
Agents of Lingeh and Shargah and he said he absolutely adhered to it.)
(17) The Shaikh's letters to the British
the British Memorandum) are no evidence of
arguments used in support of this statement seem to be a good deal laboured.
The position was clearly as stated under item 12 above.
Shaikh Sagar had just been created ruling Sh akh by the voice of the tribe,
who were tired of Sh ikh Salim : Sagar was obviously in a very strong position
and afele to turn Salim out of Abu Musa if lie had a fr^e hand, but the R^siuent
told him that if in doing so he broke the maritime truce he would be suppressed.
Shaikh Sagar replied with a good deal of force? ^ If you do not^ want us to
fight, please remove Salim from the island yourself; if you find it inconvenient
to do that then leave us to settle the matter and do not call me to account ii w e
fight. At least, if you will not let me proceed to extremities with him, make
him give a written undertaking, guaranteed by you, that he will behave himself,
so that I need not bother about him, 5 '
I think any one reading Shaikh Sagar's letters under reference would regard
them, especially that of February 14, 1884, as not only having in mind the
need to preserve the maritime truce and put an end to the political confl ct,
but also as intended to form a specific assertion of his right of ownership as ruling
Shaikh, and so to safeguard himself against any prejudice to that right which
might otherwise result from the Resident's sterilizing action.
(18) Aha Musa is our island and adependancy We ,
it to others. I gather from the observations made under this head and from the
italicising of the word''our 5 % that from the fact that the transaction quotes
Shaikh Sagar as using the plural pronoun in reference to himself, it is sought
to deduce that Shaikh Sagar was not referring to himself but meant £e we,"
i.e., " the Jowasim ", and only intended to claim that Abu Musa belonged
politically to the territory of Shargah or the Jowasim, Whether or not this was
the case cannot at all events be determined from the use or misuse of the pro
noun, Generally when writing formal letters these Shaikhs use the plural pro
noun in reference to themselves. In this instance I find, on reference to the
original, that it is the translator of 1884 who is responsible for the use of both
forms in the one translation. In the original Arabic the plural pronoun is used
throughout both letters.
With reference to the German arguments on this point. It is to be noted
that when Sagar uses the plural pronoun they argue that by doing so he intended