ملف رقم ٣٨٤٦ لسنة ١٩١٠ "بلاد الرافدين: شؤون بغداد. مسائل متنوعة." [ظ‎‎١‎٩‎٨] (٥٣٦/٤٠٥)

12
and the Revolutionaries (Inqilabiyin), in the former of which Mulla Kazim is leader,
These two parties are always quarrelling about what is beneficial to the Constitution,
and the present incident has greatly accentuated their differences.
The arrest is said to have been directed by the Turkish Minister of the Interior
at Constantinople; and it is believed that it was originally intended to hand the two
men over to the Persian authorities at the frontier, but that this action was Suspended
by a later order. It is asserted that both men owe money in Persia; and, if j this is
the case, their surrender as absconding debtors may possibly be requested. The
Turkish Mutasarrif of Karbala, who appears not to like Nazim Pasha and who
has f. ruffled in the present case by the orders for the arrest being sent to the
Qaim-Maqam of Najaf direct, is more or less openly condemning the action of
his Government as a breach of hospitality and unworthy of a constitutional
country.
(3) In the second week of June a curious fracas took place at Najaf among
some Persians who had formed themselves into a debating society to discuss the
politics of their country. The debates were led on the constitutional side by a per
son who Stood for Mulla Muhammad Kazim (Khurasani), and on the reactionary
side by a man who represented his enemy Saiyid Kazim (Yazdi), both of the indivi
duals thus personated being leading Mujtahids of Najaf. For one or two nights
the debates were peacably conducted; but they finally resulted in a disturbance, in
which the disputants fought and spat in each other’s faces, and which led to the
arrest of them all by the Turkish police. They were eventually discharged, except
the two mock Mujtahids, who were kept in jail.
The British Vice-Consul at Karbala, himself a modernised Persian, has
remarked in reporting this incident: “ I do not think that the real Persian constitu
tionalists are wiser than these. ”
(4) The members of the Persian* Anjuman-FAkhuwwat at Kadhimain have
* See Summary for December-January, 1909- been informed by the Wali of Baghdad that,
10 ’ vl > 4 - as foreigners, they cannot be permitted to
hold meetings for the discussion of political subjects. They have promised
to discontinue their meetings, and it is probable that a school which they had
opened will also be closed. It would be a good thing if His Excellency were to
suppress all the troublesome Persian societies which flourish, though they are quite
out of place here, in this country.
(5) Domestic differences, due to Abul Qasim, son of Saiyid Muhammad Baqir ’
(Behbehani) of Karbala, a Mujtahid allowance-holder under the Oudh Bequest,
having married as his second wife a woman distantly connected with the royal
family of Persia, have involved the Behbehani family, who are Persian subjects,
in various tribulations. There was first a case in the Persian Consulate at Karbala,
which caused the Behbehani considerable annoyance; and afterwards, the husband
of the Qajar lady having insulted the Persian Consul, the latter appealed to the
Turkish authorities, by whom Abul Qasim and one of his supporters were put in
prison. The reputation of the Behbehani Mujtahid and his family have been
greatly impaired by these proceedings.
(6) The post of Persian Consul-General at Baghdad has now remained un-
f See Summary for March 1910, vi, 5. occupied for more than threef months, and
t See Summary for December-January, 1909- it is not knoWn here When it will be filled.
io, vi, 3. j • • Musa Khan whose appointment was at one
time expected, J is said to have been given a post in the Foreign Office at
Tehran.
(7) On the 22nd May 1910 the Acting Persian Consul-General at Baghdad—
a Munshibashi wrote to the Wali of Baghdad with reference to an old claim by
a Persian Saiyid for the price of provisions supplied by him to Ottoman troops at
Hindiyah, and in doing so he imprudently reflected on the previous conduct of the
lurkish Muhasabah (Accounts Department) in the case. The letter which was in
poor Turkish, was not intended to be impertinent; but it was taken as such by
Nazim Pasha, who replied to the Acting Consul-General on the 25th of May, order
ing him to apologise verbally or in writing within 24 hours on pain of the WalFs
breaking off correspondence with him and telegraphing to Constantinople to press