'A Précis of the Relations of the British Government with the Tribes and Shaikhs of 'Arabistan By Lieutenant A T Wilson, Acting Consul for Arabistan' [‎9r] (22/143)

Captain Nesbitt was reproved for having rashly and contrafy to orders
en ered into negotiations with Shaikh Ghanim, but in view of the bravery
shown in this affair the plunder taken was distributed among the crew,
rp ,9“ ^ ie August, the Council report, Captain Nesbitt left the
lurkisn Camp, then at Qubban, having in his charge the Turkish ^alleys
elonging to the Army : letters were despatched overland to Mahmud Kia A deputy or lieutenant of the governor in Ottoman Iraq, with additional responsibilities as a high-ranking provincial judge. ,
requesting him to march to the lower fort where the ships laid formerly, and
advising him that Captain Brewer with his people were also disembarked and
P ro + ce ™ n § U P river with artillery ammunition, etc., and a party of seamen.
at berore further reinforcements could arrive, a disastrous attack was
made upon the redoubts of the Ka’ab (presumably at Qubban). Captain
Brewer, Lmutenants Kass and Daly, Sergeant Grant and 18 men were killed,
and 32 dangerously wounded : a field piece and 13 chests of ammunition were
taken. In this engagement the Turks did not afford proper support to the
Companys force, who bore the brunt of the fighting. The Ka’ab burnt
sc\Tral of the Turkish galleys and killed a number of their men. The Ka’ab
and | u ik3 both treated their prisoners cruelly and on this occasion a sepoy Term used in English to refer to an Indian infantryman. Carries some derogatory connotations as sometimes used as a means of othering and emphasising race, colour, origins, or rank.
who had been captured by the Ka’ab was returned next day with his right
hand, nose and ears cut off. Mahmud Kia A deputy or lieutenant of the governor in Ottoman Iraq, with additional responsibilities as a high-ranking provincial judge. was in consequence asked to treat
prisoners with more lenity in future.
Lieutenant Day, an officer in the Company’s employ, tried to induce the
inks to assent to a scheme for escalading the redoubts, but the proposal
came to nothing. r r
i ° n t {?? Se P tember > new s was received that Karim Khan had sent a
letter to Muhammad Agha, the Turkish Commander at Qubban, requiring
1 urks and English alike to quit his country and not to make further attempts
on the Kaab, as they were his subjects and under his protection. Muhammad
Agha, fearing to bring on a war between Turkey and Persia, decided to
comply with Karim Khan’s demands, whereupon the Company’s agent in-
tormed the Turks that they had nothing to do with the Persians and would
not be referred to them for redress compensation.
i^ r "»^k*PP / went through the Haffar in order to meet Mahmud Kia A deputy or lieutenant of the governor in Ottoman Iraq, with additional responsibilities as a high-ranking provincial judge. at
Qubban ^ and discussed the question with him. Mahmud Kia A deputy or lieutenant of the governor in Ottoman Iraq, with additional responsibilities as a high-ranking provincial judge. explained that
Karim Khan had insisted on the retirement of the Turks, as he had appointed
bhaikh Salman, Governor of Doraq, but declared notwithstanding that he
would compel the latter to make full reparation.
^It was reported from Bushire that the Ka’ab had actually petitioned
Karim Khan to extend his protection to them, and had sent him presents
which had induced him to take the action referred to. The Basrah factors
in reply asked their Bushire friends to tell Karim Khan, if necessary, that
in fighting the Ka’ab they were only auxiliaries to the Turks and that they
regarded the former as subjects to the latter.
In January 1767, the Council at Bombay, writing to Peter Wrench,
Esquire, “ The Agent for all the affairs of the British nation in the Gulf of
Persia ” and “ the Council at Basrah,” advises direct dealing with the Ka’ab if
possible, if not, approaching them through Karim Khan.
This was sound advice, as subsequently appeared, but the factors at
Basrah were too dependent on the Turks to enable them to free themselves
on the incubus of Turkish protection, and in reply to the Bombay Council
they pointed out this fact, and decided to keep in with the Turks, remaining
however, neutral as far as possible.
In April 1767, the Basrah Council wrote to the Court of Directors The London-based directors of the East India Company who dealt with the daily conduct of the Company's affairs. giving
a history of the Ka’ab as far as‘it is known to them.
The Chaub is originally a subject of the Turks, and has for many years possessed
a considerable territory within their dominions bordering upon the Persian
Empire for which he ought and did for some years pay annually a large sum
into the Treasury of this Paehaship. A few years after the death of Nadir
Shah 1 and in the troubles that followed it, he also got possession of a territory
in the Persian dominions, and by this means became a subject of both powers.
The territory of Gaban and its districts is that which he possesses on the Turkish 2
and Daurack that in the Persian, by being in possession of such large terri-
1 Native history states that Shaikh Salman moved to Dauraq in 1747, the year of Nadir Slab’s assassination.
See Sir H. Rawlinson’s memorandum on the Turko-Persian frontier question, 1844, paragraph 4 (Appen- '
dix 15 to this volume), which contains an extract from the “ Jihan-Nama ” referring to Qubban.