File 345/1908 Pt 2 'Mohammerah: situation. Sheikh's dispute with the Vali of Basra. decoration for Sheikh. renewed assurances to Sheikh.' [‎122v] (249/566)

The Sheikh does not entirely deny this charge, but he admits when Mohar-
rem Bey was Wali of Basrah, and only it only in connection with the period (1909)
in regard to two or three occasions. He justifies himself by pointing out that
Moharrem Bey was a violent and ill-tempered man with whom personal dealings
were an impossibility. The Persian Government was then, as now, hopelessly
disorganised and unable to make any effective representations at Constantinople ;
the Persian Consul-General was equally unable to say anything to the Wali of
Basrah, and was, in any case, incompetent. The Wali committed with impunity
acts of grave injustice against the Sheikh and against his subjects living in
Turkish territory. Protests proved of no avail, and the petitions which the
people of Basrah sent to Constantinople asking for the removal of the Wali were
unanswered. Deprived of all diplomatic weapons, unable, by reason of Moharrem
Bey’s personality, to discuss things with him in a friendly spirit^the Sheikh had
recourse to the only means at his command to secure what was, in his eyes, the
only remedy—the removal of the Wali. He was successful as the Wali was re
moved shortly afterwards, and the Sheikh’s action had the support of the people
of Basrah to whom Moharrem Bey had been equally obnoxious.
18. The Sheikh, in winding up the conversation, emphasised the fact that
his specific grievances against the Turks were numerous and likely to be more
serious in the future than at present. The Turkish officials were, he said, pursu
ing a policy of pin pricks in regard to him and his tribe, and causing great an
noyance to the latter. Extortion, arbitrary action by Turkish officials against
Arabs on the ex parte statements of avaricious Turkish landlords were now every
day incidents and the constant subject of complaints to him. The present Wali
seemed, he said, to be bent on putting all sorts of impracticable laws into force
amongst Arabs, upsetting the status quo and the tranquillity of the country side,
not apparently in order to remedy the state of affairs, but solely in order to cause
trouble amongst peaceable Arabs, whilst at the same time he took no serious
steps to bring to book those tribes such as the Muntafik, who openly defied his
authority.
Copy of a reply of the Sheikh of Mohammerah to the Acting Wall's letter of i6tk
May 1910.
Dated 25th Jamadi*ul-Awwal, 1328.
From—KHAZAL bin JABIR,
To—The Wali of Basrah.
After compliments.-—Your letter of 3rd Rabi-u-Sani, No. 133, which your
Agent, Saad Bey, sent me reached me on the Karun and the contents have been
noted. Regarding the acts which you did at Kut-i-Zain, on account of the
threatening by Muhammad Chanan of the Tabur Agassi and the Gendarmes,
whom you had sent to see him. I am much surprised at your account of the
matter. On this account, that when the Tabur Agassi came with Muhammad
Chanan to Failiyah to see me, he made no complain and made no mention of
such acts. As we are united and friends, I do not want to say more on this
subject. Were I to do so, I am sure that I should be vindicated, and your
sense of justice would corroborate me.. What happened at Kut-i*Zain is not
hidden from you.
Moreover, Muhammad Chanan, as is well known, is a chief of the Muhaisin
tribe, and a Persian subject, and he was my agent in Zain, for the care of my
lands there. In accordance with your agent’s letter, 1 have removed him, and
will replace him by another person.
Regarding those who attacked and killed Chelmeran. From the first day
that I heard the news, I give the necessary orders in my own districts to search
for and capture the murderers, but they have not up to date been found, and do
not belong to the people of this district. If a single one of them comes into
my district, he will be seized and handed over.