"دليل الخليج. مجلد I. القسم التاريخي. الأجزاء Iأ و Iب. ج.ج. لوريمر ١٩١٥" [‎٦‎٠‎٢] (١٧٨٢/٧٤٥)

mmmmmmmtMrn, ** هذه التواريخ تقريبية *.
Kasii Khan
I of Kalat,
1750-93.
Grant of
Gwadar by
Nasir Khan
I to Saiyid
Sultan.
Character
and validity
of the grant.
602
After a time ; however, the Gichkis quarrelled among themselves over
questions of religion ; and the assistance of Nasir Khan I of Kalat the
younger brother and successor of the Brahui chief Mohbat Khan 'was
invoked by one of the contending factions. Nasir Khan—who reigned
from 1750 to 1793 and was a vassal of Afghanistan, not, as Mohbat
Khan had been, of Persia—then commenced a series of incursions into
the Gichki territories; and eventually, about 1778, he obtained for
himself a moiety of the revenues of those districts, the administration
however, remaining in the hands of the Gichkis.
In 1784, as has been related in the history of the 'Oman Sultanate
Saiyid Sultan-bin-Ahmad, then an unsuccessful pretender to the sov
ereignty of 'Oman, sought refuge in Makran. According to local tradi
tions Saiyid Sultan came first to Zik, a fortified village of the Mirwaris in
Kolwa, and thence, having been joined by Dad Karim, Mirwari, proceeded
to Kharan, where his cause was espoused by Mir Jahangir, a Naushairwani
chief. The confederates then resorted to Nasir Khan at Kalat, who at
first apparently undertook to assist Saiyid Sultan in makino-'himself
master of 'Oman, but eventually, it would seem, receded from his promise
and instead conferred the port of Gwadar—at the time an insignificant
fishing village—upon the 'Omaiii exile.
The exact nature of the grant by Nasir Khan is shrouded in an
obscurity which it is now probably too late to dispel, and it has in
recent times become a subject of controversy. In support of the claims of
Kalat to the ownership oi Gwadar at the present day it is alleged that
the grant was not permanent, and that it was only for the maintenance of
Saiyid Sultan so long as he should continue to be a refugee in Makran;
while on behalf of the Omani Sultan it is contended that the object of the
anangement was to secure naval protection for the coasts of Makran, by
enlisting the co-operation of a prince whose ultimate succession to the
sovereignty of Oman was regarded by Nasir Khan as certain. An
aigument on which the advocates of the Brahui claim rely is that in
™ half the revenue of Gwadar still, apparently, belonged to the
Gichkis, and could not therefore be lawfully alienated by Nasir Khan:
to prove the survival of the Gichki rights in 1784 reference is made to
deeds executed by the Gichkis in 1778 and 1793, which convey a share in
the revenues of Gwadar and Chahbar to a certain deserving individual,
and a statement made by the writer Haji 'Abdun Nabi in 1839 is
quoted, to the effect that only the Brahui half share of the revenue of
Gwadar was conferred by Nasir Khan upon Saiyid Sultan. It is added-
o inc ude here evidences of a still later date—that the Gichkis continued
to receive their share of the revenue of Gwadar, amounting to §3,000,*
up o the time of Bibi Maryam, a Bulaidai lady who was married
p vi- I ' thls l )erson was described in 1868 by the Assistant
political Agent at Gwadar as living on the charity of the Sultans of
.Masqat, but it is asserted by the Gichkis that what she received was
really hers by right, and that it represented the Gichki share of the
revenue, which the Sultans of 'Oman had gradually curtailed. From
is s lor summaiy of the arguments it will be seen that the Masqat case
re« s P 1 a( ' ica y upon the prescription of a century and upon nothing else,
Sulttnr.lS^S 18 8aidt0 have been ft 7 ' 000 a year, of which the 'Omani
amounting to $loOO ^ aCOOUIlt the ex P e nses of collection, besides his own share
tair 1