File 4722/1918 Pt 8 'Mesopotamia: Situation' [‎148v] (307/995)

14
Number of recipients cannot be stated at short notice but no one get less
than £b or more than £50 except Chief of Anaizah who gets £1,000 a month
from Dulaim Division.
Question No. 0, dated 21^ July, 1920.
Air. Ormsby Gore : To ask the Secretary of State for India, whether any
subsidies are paid by the political department at Baghdad to any Arab or
Kurdish chiefs or heads of tribes in the area under British occupation and, if
so, to how many individuals, and what is the total amount paid in this way
per month.
Answer.
I am informed by the Civil Commissioner that remuneration to recognised
Arab and Kurdish chiefs takes several forms. Cash subsidies are given in
some cases, the total amount of these being approximately £44,000 a .year.
The precise number of recipients cannot be stated without special enquiries.
NOTE ON THE OUTBREAK OF DISTURBANCES AT RUMAITHAH
BY P.O., DIWANIYAH.
In the autumn of 1919 it was necessary to deal with A1 Sufran tribe of
Samawah by means of aeroplanes. The effect was not as satisfactory as was
loped. The Shaikh, Majun, continued to refuse to come in. He was
said to be hiding in the desert and to be too afraid to come in. Nevertheless
he kept up a correspondence with me but his behaviour was so odd as to com
pletely baffle me. As disorders were spreading I was reluctantly compelled in
April last to again ask for planes. It has since transpired that so far from
hiding, Majun paid frequent visits to Najaf where he was financed and en
couraged to hold out while the adjoining' tribes were subjected to continual
propaganda from Shamiyah.
On April 21st a report was submitted on the general situation on the
Euphrates as I understood it, and which was delicate. It was tided over,
mainly because the principal Shaikhs realised that we were aware of the in
trigues and none was sufficiently courageous to commit himself. Their atti
tude was similar to that of Haji Mu Id t if, viz. “ willing to support any revolu
tionary movement, provided not called upon for active assistance in the early
stages.” About this time a report was also sent me by the C.I.D. which con
firmed my information.
Just before this an attempt had been made by A1 Fatlah to break up the
Diwaniyah Divisional ^Council. I heard of this in time and was able to
frustrate it by use of an influential local person.
The Rishadi canal project was suggested to me by Ubadi of A1 Faflah
through his representative in Diwaniyah. He stood to gain by it both on Hor
Ibn Najm and in the Fawar lands. The other tribes approved of the scheme
and some 10,000 tribesmen gathered for the work, sufficient testimony as to the
peaceful state of the mass of the tribes at that time. (Alarch-April).
The work progressed smoothly with two exceptions which in the light of
after events are easily explained. The Dhawalim raised difficulties about
bringing labour. It was obvious that they had some ulterior motive though at
the time I could not discover it. They had in fact probably undertaken to
Saiyid Muhsin Abu Tabikh and his party not to obey orders. Their attitude
being doubtful and not wishing to precipitate matters which would endanger
the whole scheme, I let them off on the grounds that they are summer cultiva
tors and the time was inconvenient, they, on their part undertook to dig their
share after summer crops. Saiyid Muhsin Abu Tabikh gave trouble from the
outset—he failed_ for a long time to bring his men and when he did tried to stir
up trouble by foisting a portion of his work on to the adjacent tribe. A few
days later the Shaikhs of Bani Zuraij, Bani ‘Ardh, Albu Hasan and Khazail
of Rumaithah came to me and complained that he was inciting their fallahs Arabic for ‘peasant’. It was used by British officials to refer to agricultural workers or to members of a social class employed primarily in agricultural labour. not
to work and was stirring up trouble in A1 Sufran and A1 Dhawalim, and unless
I could support them they would lose control of their tribes as he was bribing
them. I tackled Saiyid Muhsin on the matter which he naturally denied.
About this time the Dhawalim Shaikh passed through on their way "to Najaf.
Saiyid Muhsin also asked permission to go. I pointed out that unlike other
Shaikhs he had not taken the trouble to camp for a few days on the canal to
push on his work which was much behind hand. He pleaded urgent private
business and that he would return immediately. I replied that I would not
forbid him but if he left it was against my personal wishes. That night he
sent messengers along the canal stating that Government had abandoned the
project and the fallahs Arabic for ‘peasant’. It was used by British officials to refer to agricultural workers or to members of a social class employed primarily in agricultural labour. might disperse. It took me several hours next day to
get the work going again. Meanwhile the venerable Saiyid had gone off to
Najaf and did not again return to Diwaniyah Division until the outbreak. A
few days after this A1 Fatlah, who had everything to gain by the scheme start
ed intriguing in Shamiyah to get their men called off the work, presumably
with the object of breaking up the scheme. They were under the impression
that other tribes would follow suit and that I should not tolerate such dis-
edience and should produce an outbreak. They did succeed in getting P.O.,
Shamiyah, to call them off for other work and as it was done without notice
I was unable to prepare a plausible excuse for the remaining tribes, whose
A