OMANI MARITIME TRADE AND THE INDIAN RESIDENTS OF IN THE 18TH AND BEGINNING OF THE 19TH CENTURIES

Sadashi FUKUDA*

Introduction

After the expulsion of the Portuguese from Muscat in 1650, the Omani resumed their maritime activities. The Omani Imams actively em- barked on maritime trade, while Omani naval fleets which aimed to gain ascendancy in the maritime trade, were repeatedly sent to the , the Red Sea, the west coast of and even to East Africa. Furthermore, Muscat had a fine deep water harbor and is located at the entrance of the Persian Gulf, which were also to Muscat's advantage over the trade of the Persian Gulf. Thus, by the beginning of the 18th century the Omani Arabs came to predominate over the Persian Gulf trade. And Muscat became one of the most prosperous entrepots for Persian Gulf trade. By the end of the 18th century Muscat's trade became more thriv- ing. In the last decade of the 18th century, it was estimated that about five eighths, ad valorem, of the whole trade for the Persian Gulf passed through Muscat.(1) Since 1650 the Omani rulers were playing the leading role in the Omani maritime trade, then the indigenous Arab merchants there increasingly came to partake in the profitable trade. However, in the same period many Indians were living in Muscat. According to Niebuhr, in 1765 there had been at least 1,200 Banians (Indians)(2) in Muscat who had brought their own wives,(3) while the total population of Muscat in 1793 was 25,000.(4) These figures indicate to us that the Indians must have had some share in the commerce of Muscat in those days. The main aim of this article is to appraise the role of the resident

* Visiting Lecturer, Chuo University

Vol. XXVIII 1992 1 Indians in the Omani maritime trade mainly in the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries.

Indians and Muscat's Trade in the Ya'ariba period

Muscat under the Portuguese rule was one of the principal ports of foreign trade in the Arabian Peninsula. The port mainly served as an entrepot for the Persian Gulf trade which attracted foreign merchants to the port. Pietro della Valle who visited Muscat in 1625 noted that the population consisted of Portuguese, Arabs, Indians, Gentiles and Jews.(5) In 1640, the British Agent at Basra reported that a fleet which came from Muscat brought cargoes mostly belonging to Moors and Banians while Portuguese themselves brought a little.(6) These accounts indicate that, under the Portuguese rule, foreign merchants such as Indian merchants played an important role in the commercial life of the port. The Portuguese tenure of Muscat came to an end in 1650 by the assault of Arabs. Although Muscat was, from then on, placed under the control of the Omani Arabs, Indians still resided in the town. Kaempfer described in 1688 that Muscat was inhabited, besides the native Arabs, also by Benyanes and Jews.(7) And also S. B. Miles shows, at the end of 1742 when the Persian fleet, dispatched by Nadir Shah, approached Muscat, the Arab and Hindu traders began hastily to remove their goods and desert the town.(8) Thus, under the Arab rule, Indians could keep their residence. However their number and role in the trade of Muscat is obscure in historical sources. In 1650 when the Ya'rubi Imam b. Sayf (1649-c. 1679) restored the control on Muscat, a resident Hidu Indian in Muscat named Narutam al-Baniyani had secretly communicated with the Ya'rubi Imam and instigated him to assault the town. As the Imam thereafter exempted Narutam and his family from taxing jizya,(9) this Indian assistance in the expulsion of the Portuguese maybe bestowed a favorable position upon the Indian residents remaining in Muscat. Nevertheless, although the Indian merchants seem to have had some share in the trade of the town through the Ya'ariba period, their activities must have been limited to a small extent. After the capture of Muscat, Omani Arabs themselves embarked on the maritime trade, which later made Muscat the main entrepot for the

2 ORIENT OMANI MARITIME TRADE AND THE INDIAN RESIDENTS OF MUSCAT IN…… trade of the Persian Gulf. In this newly developing trade, the Ya'ariba Imams played the leading role.(10) The Imams themselves built up a strong fleet to engage in their trade. Some of their ships sailed as far as to the East African coast and Sumatra for trade.(11) And also they established an institutional framework for managing the entrepot trade. Thus by the beginning of the 18th century Muscat had become one of the most prosperous ports in the Indian Ocean littoral. Ibn Ruzaiq noted that the Ya'rubi Imam Sayf b. Sultan (c. 1692-1711) possessed 28 ships including 5 large ships, of which al-Falak was armed with 80 large guns.(12) Lockyer, who was at Muscat in 1705, stated that the Arab ships were built at Surat, and in all there were 14 warships and 20 merchantmen; one of the former had 70 guns and none had less than twenty.(13) Hamilton reported that the Imam's naval power in 1715 con- sisted of one ship of 74 guns, two of 60, one of 50, eighteen smaller vessels of from 32 to 12 guns each, and some trankies, or rowing vessels, of from 4 to 8 guns.(14) Since it may be considered that these ships were employed in time of peace as merchant ships,(15) the Imams must have possessed virtually a considerable merchant fleet as well as a strong naval fleet, which made the Imams the leading shipowners and merchants and gave the Imams the dominant position in Muscat's trade. The Ya'ariba Imams benefited from this dominant position and could accumulate wealth. The Imam Sayf himself was reputed to have acquired possession of one third of all the date palms in , in addition to possessing 700 male slaves.(16) Contrary to the Imams the Indian residents there seem to have had only a little chance, under the dominance of the Ya'ariba Imams, to partake in the prosperity. Allen says the Hindu Banians flourished under the Ya'ariba.(17) However, although during the Ya'ariba period Muscat con- tinuously purchased Indian commodities, it must be realized that there is no historical evidence to prove that the resident Indian traders were the active and main participants in the trade. Another cause which limited the Indian activities to a small extent in this period is that the Indians in Muscat had failed to create an effective commercial network with Indian traders in other ports. The acute hostilities between the Omanis and the Portuguese which continued from 1650 until about 1739 in the Indian Ocean and its periphery,

Vol. XXVIII 1992 3 threw obstacles for the Indians in Muscat to their communication with some ports which were still under Portuguese influence. In the Indian subcon- tinent the Portuguese closed their Indian ports to Omani merchants.(18) Inside the Persian Gulf the Portuguese maintained their Factory at Kung, where chiefly Indian merchants, both Hindus and Muslims, were carrying on its trade. But the fact that the Indian merchants there had suffered greatly from the proceedings of the Muscat Arabs,(19) indicates that the Indians in Muscat could not communicate with them. After the expulsion of the Portuguese from Muscat, the Ya'ariba Imams repeatedly organized naval expeditions to harass, then control or discourage the Indian, Yemeni and Persian merchants and shippings in the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf.(20) As to the Indian traders of India, their trade activities in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf had suffered severely, from the interference of the Omani Arabs, which consequently discouraged the Indian trade activities in both regions. In 1674 Omani large ships attacked the Banian vessels at Bab al-Mukha. And in 1679 Omanis had intercepted the Indian vessels at Bab al-Mandab and tithed them there.(21) At the mouth of the Persian Gulf where the Omani influence and presence had been stronger, in 1741 an English ship had taken a navigation pass from the Imam, then the commander of the ship proposed to sell it to a Persian potentate.(22) This indicates, the Omani Imams had tried to force the native merchants including Indians to bear the Omani navigation pass, aiming to control and maybe tax the native traders passing through the strait of Hurmuz. Moreover, the Omanis even tried to obtain a fixed station in the Malabar Coast of India to resist the Mogul or Muratha fleets.(23) Through the Ya'ariba period Omani naval fleets which aimed to gain ascendancy in the maritime trade, were repeatedly sent to control or discourage the Indian, Yemeni and Persin merchants and shippings as well as to attack the Portuguese settlements in India, the Persian Gulf and East Africa. While these Omani naval activities brought to the Ya'ariba Imams the dominant position in the maritime trade of those regions, the naval activities compelled the Indian traders in the regions to weaken their trade activities and presence. These circumstances consequently prevented the Indians in Muscat from creating an effective commercial network with Indian traders in other ports and restricted their trade activities within narrow limits. Thus, although Muscat became a prosperous entrepot,

4 ORIENT OMANI MARITIME TRADE AND THE INDIAN RESIDENTS OF MUSCAT IN…… the Indian traders living in Muscat could not participate actively in Muscat's trade. Furthermore, according to Fryer in 1677, Muscat paid gold for Indian commodities.(24) This shows, the trade with the Indian subcontinent in the Ya'ariba period was not always the reciprocal exchange of their produces. So Indian traders had not been able to enjoy the full advantage of their residence as they profited from exporting dates and pearls in the 19th century. Thus, by the beginning of the 18th century the Ya'ariba Imams came to predominate over the Persian Gulf trade, while the Indian merchants in Muscat remained tamely as secondary merchants in Muscat's trade.

The Indians in the transitional period

Until about 1723 the Ya'ariba Imams were able to maintain successfully the unity of the Omani tribal society, which provided Imams with the man- power and funds for the maritime trade.(25) However the Ya'ariba civil war which had broken out in about 1723 and continued till the 1740s, created the Hinawi and Ghafiri tribal confederations and dismembered Omani society. Then the civil war invited Persian military interference in Oman. Since the civil war and the following Persian military interference drained considerably the maritime activities of its crews and funds, the Ya'ariba Imams lost their hegemony in the Omani maritime trade in the course of the civil war. Although in 1741 the Ya'rubi Imam still possessed a fleet, the number was reduced to 9 top-sail vessels.(26) This new circumstance encouraged Omani Arabs other than Imams to embark on the maritime trade. After 1739, at Mukha there was a sharp increase in the amount of coffee exported via Oman to Basra and Bandar 'Abbas for which the Omani Arabs of Sur supplied chiefly the boats and crews.(27) The civil war resulted in termination of the Ya'ariba period. In about 1744 Ahmad b. Sa'id (c. 1745-1783) had come into power as a virtual ruler of the coast,(28) then some years later he was elected to the Imamate. As Ibn Ruzaiq says that Ahmad b. Sa'id assigned Hasan al-Sirhanj for the government fleet,(29) he maybe took over the Ya'ariba fleet and resumed he maritime trade. However Ahmad possessed only 4 large and 8 small

Vol. XXVIII 1992 5 vessels even in 1765, while in the same period some 50 Muscat vessels (called Trankis) sailed annually to Basra for trade, and the mariners of Stir were already well known on account of the important part which they played in the coffee trade, via Muscat, between Yaman and Basra.(30) A report of the British East India Company describes that before coming into power Ahmad settled many years as a merchant at Suhar.(31) This indicates, Ahmad would have a strong interest in the maritime trade. In fact he himself embarked on the trade, and sent his own vessels to India, the Persian Gulf and East Africa for trade.(32) However at the same time there were more seafaring activities of Omani Arabs. In 1775 Ahmad organized a naval expedition to Basra which was composed of 130 oceangoing vessels,(33) but only 10 large vessels in the fleet belonged to the government.(34) This shows, by this period Omani merchants other than the Imam Ahmad succeeded to gain a great share in the trade. And even some political influence they had.(35) The several decades after the outbreak of the Ya'ariba civil war seem to have served as a transitional period for the Omani trade, which allowed Omani merchants to participate actively in the maritime trade. This new circumstance was maybe favorable for the Indians in Muscat. Moreover, in the latter half of the 18th century, the Omani trade with the Indian subcontinent became thriving. Oman imported rice chiefly from Mangalore of Mysore. With Mysore Ahmad b. Sa'id established the recip- rocal trade arrangement in 1774 or 1776, by which merchants from Mysore paid only 4% for the import tax, while non-Mysori Indians paid 8%. And Mysore sent agents to Muscat until 1800, and the Imam had an agent at Mangalore.(36) By the beginning of the 19th century, the Omani ships came to visit frequently ports of the Indian coasts, both in the west and the east.(37) And the Omani merchants further opened a trade with Afghanistan by way of the Indus valley in the 1780s.(38) Thus by the end of the 18th century, more than half of the Indian imports at Bushahr and Basra and the bulk of those into Bahrain came to be received through Mustcat.(39) This thriving trade with Indian ports gave the Indians in Muscat a chance to increase their commercial activities. In the latter half of the 18th century the Omani rulers gave disadvanta- geous customs tariffs for Indian merchants. In 1765 the import duty at

6 ORIENT OMANI MARITIME TRADE AND THE INDIAN RESIDENTS OF MUSCAT IN……

Muscat was 5% ad valorem for Europeans, 6.5% for Muslims, and 9 for Hindu and Jews.(40) And in 1785, the English, French and Portuguese paid only 5%, Arabs and Persians paid 6.5%, while Indian merchants paid 8%.(41) Nevertheless, till the end of the 18th century Indian merchants in Muscat gradually increased their activities in the commercial life of Muscat, notwithstanding their high rates of customs. There are some accounts which show the Indian activities in this period. In 1762 an Indian Muslim at Muscat assisted the British East India Company to buy slaves for them there, and in 1788 a wealthy Banian merchant of Muscat had a vessel.(42) Risso says further, in about 1804 the ship owners at Muscat were a few Indians, Persians and seven or eight Arabs, including Sultan b. Ahmad, Sayf b. Muhammad and Khalfan's family.(43) And by about 1800 a wealthy Indian in Muscat named Mowjee became the tax farmer for the custom.(44) Of course these accounts tell us that by the end of the 18th century Indian residents in Muscat came to have some more share in Muscat's economy. However we must consider the situation carefully. If we empha- size the Indian activities too much, it maybe leads us to misunderstand the Omani trade in those days. In 1786 the Omani ruler owned 3 large ships, 1 small ship, 8 men-of-war and 8 dhows.(45) Then in the time of Sultan b. Ahmad (1792-1804), according to Lorimer, Sultan's flagship was a square-rigged ship, named the Gunjava, of 1,000 tons and 32 guns. And no less than 15 ships of 400 to 700 tons, besides three brigs, belonged to the port of Muscat alone, while Sur was the headquarters of a fleet of a hundred sea-going vessels of various sizes. The largest craft made voyages to Bengal, returning by Malaya and Batavia, or touching at places on the Malabar coast; and commercial intercourse was maintained by vessels of inferior capacity with the Persian Gulf, the western coasts of India, East Africa and even Abyssinia. Then in about 1800, Sultan came to possess 3 other square-rigged ships of 20 or more guns.(46) And the Sayyid Sultan's wali at Muscat, Sayf b. Muhammad, had made 16 voyages to Bombay, 1 to Culcutta and 18 others.(47) Those accounts show us, during the time of Sultan b. Ahmad, the Omani maritime trade activities were further strengthened by the Sayyid Sultan and the Omani Arab merchants. Thus, although the Indian residents in Muscat had increased their

Vol. XXVIII 1992 7 activities during the 18th century, and by the end of the century they also had come to have some more share in the commercial life of Muscat, the Sayyids and the Omani Arab merchants still maintained their predominances over Muscat's trade. And although the Indians in Muscat maybe had acquired some political influence over Muscat's affairs, the Sayyids and the shaikhs of the Arab tribes held firmly political control on the domestic affairs.

The commencement of the Indian tax farming

It was in the early years of the Sayyid Sultan's reign that the Sayyid began to send naval expeditions to the Makran coast and the Persian Gulf to strengthen the control over the Persian Gulf trade.(48) The Sayyid Sultan also tried to impose a sea tax on all native boats passing through the strait of Hurmuz.(49) However, in addition to the military operations inside Oman, these naval expeditions costed much expense for him. Ibn Ruzaiq says, in 1792 or 1793 the father of Ibn Ruzaiq purchased, by the order of Sultan b. Ahmad, 1,000 bags of dates for Sultan's army. And then the Sayyid Sultan assigned him for the custom house at Muscat to provide dates, rice, gunpowder and bullets for the army.(50) This account shows, in those days, the custom at Muscat not only collected taxes, but also provided for Sultan's forces the large amount of money, provisions and ammunitions. The repeated military operations both at sea and on land in Sultan's time necessitated to furnish more funds to them, which con- sequently intensified the role of the custom in the financial administration. The Ya'ariba civil war had drained considerably the Omani maritime activities of its crews and funds. Even in the end of the 18th century, the Hinawi and Ghafiri tribal confederations still maintained some political influence. Furthermore there were discords within the ruling family in Sultan's time. Thus, Sultan failed to grip the country firmly.(51) This situa- tion prevented Sultan from mobilizing effectively the Omani manpower and funds for his maritime activities. Since the civil war the Omani rulers had hired the Baluch mercenaries and used the slave force as one part of their forces, then in Ahmad's time he also hired Zidjals as mercenaries in addition to the Baluchs and the slaves.(52) And the Omani shipowners had used some slaves as crews for their vessels. In 1762, there was a

8 ORIENT OMANI MARITIME TRADE AND THE INDIAN RESIDENTS OF MUSCAT IN…… small Muscat ship at Jedda which was commanded by an Arab captain. The number of the crews of the ship was 9, and, in this ship's case, all of them were black slaves.(53) And also in the time of Sultan b. Ahmad the Omani shipowners used some slave crews.(54) Although main crews were still Arabs, in this manner the Omani rulers and merchants were able to replenish their vessels with crews. Regarding funds for the maritime activities, in the time of the Imam Ahmad, the Imam seems to have obtained sufficient funds from Muscat's customs as well as from other revenues. During about 40 years of Ahmad's reign, although there had been some crisises arisen by the remaining family of the Ya'ariba and then by the Ghafiri tribe, the Omani domestic affairs were relatively stable. Ibn Ruzaiq says, during the reign of the Imam Ahmad, the annual revenue of Muscat's customs was from 3 to 5 lakhs (or lakk) in excess of all the expenditure.(55) Then, under the reign of Sultan b. Ahmad, although Sultan still obtained 3 lakhs from Muscat's customs in 1802,(56) the repeated naval and ground operations required a great amount of money. However, the internal discord prevented him from acquiring the necessary funds. The Omani capital had moved virtually to Muscat from Rustaq in the time of the Sayyid Hamad (c. 1784- 1792), which strengthened the Sayyids' control on the management of the customs. Thus the custom of Muscat came to be expected to provide the funds more. Then the customs of Muscat came to be farmed out to an Indian by about 1800. It is described as I already mentioned that in about 1800 a wealthy Indian in Muscat farmed out the customs. Thereafter the customs farm at Muscat by the Indians continued through the 19th century. Historical accounts tell that from 1809 to 1811 the customs of Muscat were farmed to a rich Banian at a rent of 180,000 dollars annually,(57) in 1835 the customs were farmed to a Banian for the yearly sum of 105,000 dollars,(58) and in 1838 a Banian was the tax farmer of the customs at Muscat,(59) And a lot of historical sources show us, through the second half of 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, the customs farm had been in the hands of the Hindu Indians until its final abolishment in 1913. Furthermore the Sayyid Sa'id adopted the customs farm of Indians in the customs service of in about 1820.(60) As I already mentioned, in about 1804 at Muscat the shipowners were

Vol. XXVIII 1992 9 7 or 8 Arabs, including Sultan b. Ahmad, in addition to a few Indians and Persians. Since in this report the shipowner means the shipowner of large vessels, this account shows that in those days there were many Arab merchants or wealthy Arab shipowners in Muscat, and their number was greater than that of the Indians. Nevertheless, the Indians only became the tax farmers. The main reasons why Indians only were entrusted to farm out the customs are, first, the custom served for the Sayyids as a financial facility, and secondly, some Hindu Indians were familiar with the money lending business, while Muslims were forbidden by Islamic law to charge interest on money lending. Mohammed Raimoo, a superintendent of customs at Muscat in 1918, reported that the Sultan could obtain money, for instance, by a transaction by which rice was shown as purchased at dollars ten per bag being then sold back to the Banian at 7.5 dollars per bag, the purchase price being debited against the customs.(61) In the same period the British Political Agent at Muscat, Haworth, noted that the Sultan had drawn cheques against the Customs without consideration of the amount in credit in that Department and had taken loans, giving the Customs as security.(62) These accounts show, the merchants including Indians virtually lent a lot of money to the mortgaging the customs revenues, and in these transactions the custom served for the Sultans as a financial facility. The custom had maintained this kind of financial function even under tax farming. In November 1890 when a Hindu Indian obtained the right of the tax farming for the next year, he already had credited the customs with some amounts.(63) Thus, all these accounts show us that the custom in the beginning of the 19th century might have served for the Sayyid as a kind of financial facility. In the meantime in the beginning of the 19th century, some Indians in Muscat were carrying on the banking business and familiar with financial management. Risso says quoting Seton, the British Political Agent at Muscat, that in the beginning of the 19th century, there was a windespread practice of paying a premium on money advanced, and this sort of arrangement was usually made with Hindu lenders.(64) And the list of debts against the Sultan's Customs on the security of the Customs in 1919 shows that in the Customs registers there were many Omani Arab or Muslim creditors as well as a

10 ORIENT OMANI MARITIME TRADE AND THE INDIAN RESIDENTS OF MUSCAT IN…… smaller number of Hindu Indian creditors among a total of 84 creditors, and the whole amount of the debts was 3 lakhs and 37, 859 rupees.(65) These accounts indicate that many Muslims rather than Hindu Indians had been actually lending money even in the beginning of the 19th century. However, as to the money lending business itself, the Hindu Indians were exclusively carrying on the business in the same period.(66) Thus, in the time of Sultan b. Ahmad some Indians were able to carry on the banking business which enabled the Indians to collect the necessary funds and to provide them for the Sayyid Sultan. Furthermore, since the custom might serve as a financial facility, it had been convenient for the Sayyids to assign a non-Muslim as the actual controller of the custom. As the Indians were familiar with the financial management and business, they must have been expected to manage the custom well. Moreover, Sultan b. Ahmad ruled Oman as the Sayyid, had never been elected to the Imamate. His secular Sayyid-ship probably made it possible to assign an Hindu Indian for the prominent governmental office. And since the non-Arab subordinate appeared not to endanger or take over the political position of the Sayyid, it was favorable to place an Indian as the chief financier. Regarding the function of the Indian tax farmer in the financial administration, Maurizi tells us an interesting story of a Banian tax farmer at Muscat in about 1810. He says that an Indian Rashboot, or Rascebut, had claimed a debt of 500 dollars from a rich Banian who farmed the customs of the port: this man, whose character for integrity did not stand very high, for he was accused, by public report, of having defrauded the labourers employed by the Sultan of their wages, and also of keeping back 3 months pay from a poor French pilot, who had served on board the royal flotilla, -disputed the claim, on various pretences.(67) This story indicates that the Indian tax farmers in those days paid wages for some governmental employees on behalf of the Sayyids and maybe sometimes were in trouble due to lack of funds. In general, tax farmers in the Middle East in those days paid formally the whole amount of their farming in a lump sum in advance. However, it is doubtful that in the beginning of the tax farming in Muscat, an Indian tax farmer possessed his own funds enough to pay the whole amount of their farming in a lump and in advance.

Vol. XXVIII 1992 11 A report in 1825 describes that the Sayyid Sa'id's total revenues were 522,000 Maria Theresa Dollars, of which the Muscat customs provided 188,000 dollars.(68) This shows the revenue from Muscat's customs was more than one third of the total revenues, and the amount was great. And as I already described, Sultan b. Ahmad obtained 3 lakhs in 1802 from Muscat's customs, while in the fiscal year of 1801/2, the total value of imports to Bombay from the Persian Gulf by the British East India Company was 16 lakhs and 84,028 rupees, and the total value of the Company's exports from Bombay to the Gulf was 12 lakhs and 15,579 rupees.(69) These figures mean that the 3 lakhs, the amount of the farming, was a heavy burden even for the richest Indian living in Muscat. Since the Sayyid Sultan and some Arab merchants predominated over the trade of Muscat, it hardly seems that an Indian could possess such amount in cash. As Maurizi shows that the Indian tax farmer paid wages for some governmental employees on behalf of the Sayyids and maybe sometimes did not possess enough funds, it seems that an Indian tax-farmer paid the amount in some kind of installments in advance according to the demand of the Sayyid Sultan, or by gathering the funds from other merchants. Although the details of the customs farm at Muscat in the first half of 19th century are obscure, it is sure that the Indian tax farmers in Muscat served the Sayyids as financiers as well as tax farmers who, managing and mortgaging the customs, accommodated the Sayyids with money, provided some wages for the Sayyids' subordinates and supplied provisions and ammunitions for the army and navy. In the end of the 18th century Sultan b. Ahmad sent naval expeditions repeatedly, which costed much expense for him. He probably borrowed a lot of money from merchants, both Omani Muslims and Hindus, mortgaging the custom's revenue. Then an Indian who had some credit in the custom became a tax farmer who was expected to serve as a financier in addition to a tax farmer. And also it must be noted that in 1800 the Saudi force raided into al-Zahira and occupied al-Buraymi oasis.(70) In those days there were many wealthy Omani Arabs at Muscat. However the Indians were familiar with financial affairs and were exclusively dealing in the money lending business, which placed the Indians in the custom as an actual controller as well as a tax farmer. Thus, the fact that the Indians came to be tax farmers by 1800, indicates that the Indian merchants

12 ORIENT OMANI MARITIME TRADE AND THE INDIAN RESIDENTS OF MUSCAT IN…… inaugurated their financial services in the Omani financial administration. Nevertheless, it does not mean that the Indians had acquired the predominant position in Muscat's economy. The Indians served as financial brokers for the Sayyids, and had only some share in Muscat's economy.

Conclusion

After the expulsion of the Portuguese from Muscat, Indians were living in Muscat under the rule of the Omani Arabs. As a visitor of the 19th century described in 1833 that Hindu barbers worked in the streets,(71) they provided various services for Muscat as well as worked as merchants. In the same time, the Omani Imams embarked actively on the maritime trade. Until the Ya'ariba civil war the Imams had dominated over the trade of Muscat, then a number of Omani Arabs came to participate in the trade during the transitional period. In this period the Indian residents in Muscat improved their position in the commercial life of Muscat until they became tax farmers of Muscat's customs. However, the Omani commerce still remained under the effective control of the Sayyids and the Omani Arab merchants. Thus, although by the beginning of the 19th century, the Indian residents in Muscat came to have some more share in Muscat's economy, the Sayyids and the Omani Arab merchants still predominated over the trade of Muscat. By the commencement of the Indian tax farming, the Sayyids came to be able to acquire the necessary funds for their maritime activities, while the Indians in Muscat gradually increased their financial role in Muscat's economy.

Notes

(1) Lorimer, J. G., Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, 'Oman and Central Arabia, Calcutta, 1915, reprint, vol. 1, pp. 436. (2) Allen, Calvin H., Sayyids Shets and Sultans: Politics and Trade in Masqat under the Al Bu Sa'id, 1785-1914, Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of Washington, 1978, p. 128. Landen, Robert Geran, Oman since 1856, Princeton, 1967, p. 131. For the Omani case, in the historical sources Banians mean mainly Hindu Indians, but sometimes seem to include Indian Muslims. (3) Bidwell, Robin, "Bibliographical Notes on European Accounts of Muscat 1500- 1900", Arabian Studies IV, ed. Serjeant, R. B. and Bidwell, R., London, 1978, p. 133. (4) ibid., p. 136. (5) ibid., p. 127.

Vol. XXVIII 1992 13 (6) ibid., p. 128. (7) Weisgerber, G., "Muscat in 1688: Engelbert Kaempfer's Report and Engravings", The Journal of Oman Studies, Vol. 5, 1979, p. 97. (8) Miles, S. B., The Countries and Tribes of the Persian Gulf, London, 1966, p. 257. (9) Ibn Ruzaiq, Humayd b. Muhammad, al-Fath al-mubin fi sirat al-sada al-BuSa'idiyin, Masqat, 1977, pp. 286-291. (10) The feature of the trade in the Ya 'ariba period is detailed in; Fukuda, Sadashi, "The Maritime trade and Imams in the Ya'ariba Period", Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan, vol. 34, 1991, pp. 74-92. (11) Miles, S. B., op. cit., p. 218. (12) Ibn Ruzaiq, op. cit., p. 295. But Abu Sulayman describes, Sayf possessed 24 or 28 ships and al-Malik fixed 80 guns. Abu Sulayman b. Muhammad, Qisas wa akhbar jarat fi 'Uman, Masqat, 1983, p. 130. (13) Lockhart, Laurence, "The Menace of Muscat and its consequences in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries", Asiatic Review XLII, 1946, p. 366. But S. B. Miles says, Lockyer saw 14 men-of-war in the harbour, and learnt that many more were cruising about. He adds, their shipping was daily increasing; some of their vessels were built at Surat and some in the River Indus, in dockyards of which the English had very little knowledge. Miles, S. B., op. cit., p. 224. (14) Miles, S. B., op. cit., pp. 236-237. (15) For instance, in the latter half of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries, Imam's naval vessels were employed as merchant ships in time of peace. Maurizi, Vincenzo, History of Seyd Said, London, 1819, reprint, p. 30. Lorimer, J. G., op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 416-417. (16) Ibn Ruzaiq, op. cit., p. 295. Abu Sulayman, op. cit., p. 129. (17) Allen, Calvin H., op. cit., p. 127. (18) Risso, Patricia, Oman & Muscat, London, 1986, p. 13. (19) Lorimer, J. G., op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 68-69. (20) Bidwell, Robin, op. cit., p. 130. Miles, S. B., op. cit., pp. 215, 219, 224. Lorimer, J. G., op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 79, 405. Serjeant, R. B., "Omani Naval Activities off the Southern Arabian Coast in the Late 11th/17th Century, from Yemeni Chronicles", The Journal of Oman Studies, Vol. 6, Part 1, 1983, pp. 85-86. (21) Serjeant, R. B., op. cit., pp. 85-86. (22) Lorimer, J. G., op. cit., vol. 1, p. 406. (23) Thomas, R. Hughes, Arabian Gulf Intelligence, Selections from the Records of the Bombay Government, New Series, No. XXIV, Bombay, 1856, reprint, p. 169. (24) Bidwell, Robin, op. cit., p. 130. (25) As Lockhart says that Sultan b. Sayf II spent not only all the money that his predecessors had saved, but also larger sums that he had borrowed from the funds of mosques and auqaf (pious endowments), the Imamate contributed greatly to Imams' trade. Lockhart, op. cit., p. 366. (26) Lorimer, J. G., op. cit., vol. 1, p. 406. (27) Risso, Patricia, op. cit., pp. 77-78. (28) Lorimer, J. G., op.cit., vol. 1, p. 407. However, Wilkinson says, in about 1745 Ahmad effectively had taken over Sayf's role and his election took place in 1167 A. H./ 1753-4 A. D., but the date is different variously according to sources. Wilkinson, John C., The Imamate Tradition of Oman, Cambridge, 1987, pp. 224-225. (29) Ibn Ruzaiq, op. cit., p. 364. (30) Lorimer, J. G., op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 416-417.

14 ORIENT OMANI MARITIME TRADE AND THE INDIAN RESIDENTS OF MUSCAT IN……

(31) India Office Records in London, I. O., p. 381-33, Political Consultations, 14th July to 27th Aug., 1802, Bombay. (32) Miles, S. B., op. cit., p. 227. Risso, Patricia, op. cit., pp 63, 81-82. (33) Miles, S. B., op. cit., p. 273. However Lorimer describes, the fighting force consisted of no less than 34 vessels. He maybe quoted Abraham Parsons' account that he had seen at Muscat 34 warships about to sail to relieve Basra. That means the whole number of vessels which participated in the expedition was more than 34. Lorimer, J. G., op. cit., vol. 1, p. 412. Bidwell, Robin, op. cit., p. 133. (34) Ibn Ruzaiq, op. cit., p. 370. (35) For instance, leading merchants of Muscat mediated a dispute between Ahmad and his two sons. Ibn Ruzaiq, op. cit., p. 377. (36) Ibn Ruzaiq, op. cit., p. 371-372. Lorimer, J. G., op. cit., vol. 1, p. 414. Risso, Patricia, op. cit., p. 103. Risso shows also another account that non-Maysori merchants paid 10%, but Mysori merchants paid only 6%. (37) Risso, Patricia, op. cit., pp. 100-101, 154, 157, 161-165, 195-200. Lorimer, J. G., op. cit., vol. 1, p. 435. (38) Lorimer, J. G., op. cit., vol. 1, p. 168. (39) ibid., p. 166. (40) ibid., p. 416. (41) Risso, Patricia, op. cit., p. 103. (42) ibid., pp. 82, 100-101. (43) ibid., p. 196. (44) ibid., p. 192. (45) ibid., p. 101. (46) Lorimer, J. G., op. cit., vol. 1, p. 435. (47) Bidwell, Robin, op. cit., p. 136. Ibn Ruzaiq, op. cit., p. 431. (48) Ibn Ruzaiq, op. cit., p. 429. (49) Miles, S. B., op. cit., pp. 291-292. Allen, Calvin H., op. cit., pp. 40-41. (50) Ibn Ruzaiq, op. cit., p. 421. Ibn Ruzaiq describes the custom as al-furda, the seaport. But he describes in other pages that his grandfather had been the account- ant in the seaport, and when he died he left his office to Ibn Ruzaiq's father. ibid., pp. 351-352, 365. (51) Lorimer, J. G., op. cit., pp. 420-421. (52) Sirhan b. Sa'id, Ta'rikh 'Uman al-muqtabas min kitab kashf al-ghumma al-jami' li akhbar al-umma, Masqat, 1980, p. 134. Ibn Ruzaiq, op. cit., pp. 327, 330, 365, 373, 384-385. (53) Hansen, Thorkild, Det Lykkelige Arabien, Copenhagen, 1962, Japanese edition, pp. 210-211. (54) Risso, Patricia, op. cit., pp. 199-200. (55) Ibn Ruzaiq, op. cit., p. 365. one lakh equals 100,000 rupees. (56) I. O., P. 381-33, Political Cosultations, 14th July to 27th Aug., 1802, Bombay. Risso says, the customs revenue increased from 1 lakh in 1765, then 2 lakhs in 1786 and finally, at least, to 3 lakhs in 1800. Risso, Patricia, op. cit., p. 193. (57) Maurizi, Vincenzo, op. cit., p. 29. (58) Wellsted describes, the customs were farmed at Muscat for 105,000, and at Matrah for 60,000 dollars. However he also says, the customs, maybe at Muscat and Matrah, were farmed to a Banian for yearly sum of 165,000 dollars. Wellsted, J. R., Travels in Arabia, Austria, 1978, vol. 1, pp. 22, 379-380, (59) Bidwell, Robin, op. cit., p. 150.

Vol. XXVIII 1992 15 (60) Bennett, Norman R., A History of the Arab State of Zanzibar, London, 1978, p. 42. (61) Public Record Office in London, F. O., 371-3241, Memorandum on the situation at Muscat, 24th July, 1918. (62) F. O., 371-3825, Annexure 1, The letter from Haworth, Political Agent at Muscat, to Sayid Taimur b. Faysal, Sultan of Muscat and Oman, 16th December, 1918. (63) I. O., R-15-6-20, The report from the Political Agent at Muscat to Ross, the Political Resident in the Persian Gulf, 28th November, 1890. (64) Risso, Patricia, op. cit., p. 200. (65) F. O., 371-3825, The Sultan's debts, from Wingate, Political Agent at Muscat to the Civil Commissioner, Baghdad, 28th November 1919. (66) And also Maurizi shows that the Banians in Muscat were familiar with the financial management and business. Maurizi, Vincenzo, op. cit., p. 129. (67) Maurizi, Vincenzo, op. cit., pp. 112-113. (68) Bidwell, Robin, op. cit., p. 144. (69) Al-Qasimi, Sultan Muhammad, The Myth of Arab Piracy in the Gulf, London, 1988, pp. 230-231. (70) Lorimer, J. G., op. cit., pp. 424. (71) Bidwell, Robin, op. cit., p. 145.

16 ORIENT