'Monograph on the Aden Hinterland as touching the States of Dthala, Yafa', Alawi, etc., by Major H F Jacob, late Political Agent, Dthala.' [‎6r] (16/48)

3
return for his expulsion at their hands. To continue the story. The Amir
collected the Yafa’ raerceuaries, but was worsted by the Shairis, and the recal
citrant Sheikh returned to his own people. Proverbs and aphorisms galore
exist to shew the well-nigh implacable hatred that for 150 years and more has
been rampant between Amir and Shairis. One doggerel runs : Cat and mouse,
hyena and ass, fire and gunpowder, Saiyid and Daghar, so are Amir and
Shairis. They cannot unite. “ Every man is the Sheikh of his own country, ”
“ every man’s spear is planted at his own door ”, every town is built by the
stones in its own vicinity ”. Such phrases are in every day use and testify to
the independence of the tribesmen and belie what is a mere convenient theory,
rsiz.y that Arab tribesmen can submit to any one Arab Ruler. So independent
indeed and unconcerned are the tribesmen that they have no voice in an Amir’s
selection. This is done by the subjects proper, aided, of course, by the ubi
quitous Saiyids.
7. Prom my experience I can find no justification for the Commissioners’
statement that “ other tribes subject to the Amir are Shairi, Halmin, and Al Ajud
tribes , ....” The Mifari, Azraki, Mihrabi, Ahmadi and Humedi have certainly
been from time to time ” dependents of the Amir,” but the Commissioners go on
to say “ and have never at any time snbmittei to Turkish rule, ” by these'
words shewing the trend of their argument which was to prove Turkish
encroachment rather than to adjudicate’twixt tribe and tribe on our side of
the border.
The Ualmin and Al Ajud (or Radfan Hillsmen) are most certainly not
dependents of the Amir nor subject to him. They are popularly termed “ The
Amir’s two pockets ” which by interpretation means that he can indent on
them when pressed from without. In practice this just means that when
called to repel Amiri invaders the Amir must put both his hands into his
pockets to remunerate their services. Called to his standards these “ two
pockets ” of his are expected to rally and are paid, whereas the Shairi tribes
men, as we have seen, come or not as they please and are paid not a son . I
is not uncommon to see these mercenaries split into two parties from one
tribe, one part with the Amir’s forces, and the other in opposition. Only the
other day, when most of the Radfans rallied to the Amir’s call against the
Shairis, the Kotaibis, the strongest clan, refused point blank their suzerain’s (?)
advances, and I had to visit Suleik, summon the Sheikh, and finally dissuaded
him from attacking the Amir in rear and capturing his southernmost villages.
8. Passing on to the so-called dependent chieftains, Mifari, Mihrabi,
Humedi, etc., it is true that the Amir produced before the Commissioners
many documents concluded between himself and these chieftains by which a
part of their domains, ani certain shares in their revenues, were for all time
assigned to his predecessors, and in some cases, at a latter date, re-affirmed as
continued to himself, Amir Shaif. If, however, we keep in mind Arab pre
dilection, the very nominal hold a chieftain exercises over his people, the
perpetual ebb and flow of local politics and the ever-recurring making and
breaking of intertribal agreements, it is not difficult to gauge how very slender
a thread unites the Amir and these river-dwelling tribesmen who, concurrently
with Amiri engagements for mutual attack and defence, have other external
agreements to which the Amir is not only not a party, but which, further, he
is unable either to sanction or oppose. The Amirs of Hthala hold ancient
Imamic Sanads by which, in exaggerated terms of now long past Arabian
generosity, wide tracts of country—over which so-called Imamic autiiority was
largely tempered by actual and diverse tribal claims, with their prescriptive
privileges and autonomous rights—were consigned to the Amirs for proved
loyalty, while similar Imamic Sanads for the self same territories may be seen—
and I have seen them—in the hands of many of these so-styled Amiri depend
ents. The Amir’s domains by such a Sanad, datiug back 303 years, extended
the territory now confessedly H iusbabi and owned by that Sultan, and so
it is quite impossible arbitrarily to fix bounds and borders or to ignore these
unmistakable rules of democracy; equality and liberty, exist but not fraternity.
An apt illustration of Arab ideals will be found in the remark of the Socialist
who hearing a moderate say that every man was as good as another ” added
I O O 1 / »* 1 \ 4 4- e \ •mm } }
cmd a—sight better.”