File 600/1905 Pt 6 'Aden Hinterland: Upper Yaffai; treaties with Sultan Kahtan and other Chiefs' [‎53r] (101/212)

From
The ASSISTANT SECRETARY to the
GOVERNMENT of INDIA
m the Foreign Department^
To
J. J. HEATON, Esq.,
OFFICIATING CHIEF SECRETARY to the
GOVERNMENT of BOMBAY From c. 1668-1858, the East India Company’s administration in the city of Bombay [Mumbai] and western India. From 1858-1947, a subdivision of the British Raj. It was responsible for British relations with the Gulf and Red Sea regions. ,
Politicax Department.
Dated Fort William, the 16th February 1906.
Sir,
I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of the Hon’ble Sir Steyning
Edgerley’s letter No. 8304, dated the 22nd December 1905, relative to the
treaty with the Upper Yalfai.
2. The Government of India understand that the Bombay Government
recommend that the treaty entered into with Sultan Kahtan in October 1903,
should be denounced, and that an interval should be allowed to elapse before
a new treaty is concluded with whatever individual, or individuals, may
eventually be considered to possess most influence over the tnbe. I am to
say that, in the opinion of the Government of India, the course proposed is not
free from objection as long as the boundary question with the Turkish Govern
ment remains unsettled; and in this connection, I am to transmit a c0 Py
Secret despatch No. 130, dated the 24th July 1902, to the Secretary of State, in
which the advantage from an international point of view of bemg m treaty
relations with the Upper Yaftai is set forth in some detail.
3. Again, in the Secret despatch from the Secretary of State for India,
No. 42, dated the 8th December 1905, a copy of which was forwarded to the
Government of Bombay From c. 1668-1858, the East India Company’s administration in the city of Bombay [Mumbai] and western India. From 1858-1947, a subdivision of the British Raj. It was responsible for British relations with the Gulf and Red Sea regions. with the endorsement from this Department,
No. 133 E.vB., dated the 12th January 1906, attention has been djawn to the
necessity of proceeding with caution in the North-East districts of the Aden
Hinterland, which have not yet been recognised by the Ottoman Government
as being within the British sphere. The observations contained in this despatc
have an application to the present case, since, though the Yanai are within
the British Protectorate, the limits of their territory are somewhat undefined,
and an international dispute might easily arise with reference to some portion
of the area occupied by the tribe. Indeed, the fact reported in your letter
No. 864, dated 31st January 1906, and its enclosure, that the Sheikhs of
Rubeaten, which has been recognised as belonging to Yaffa, have received
intriguing communications from the Mudir of Rada on behalf of the Turks,
indicates how dangerous it might be to withdraw the direct treaty which we
now have with Sultan Kahtan, whose appanage Rubeaten is said to be.
4. The Bombay Government bring to notice that Sultan Kahtan is
no longer in a position to perform the obligations which he undertook, and
which are set out in the treaty. The Governor-General in Council agrees that,
if serious or repeated breaches of tribal engagements were shown to have taken
place, and if Kahtan by reason of his deposition were unable to afford proper