CONFIDENTIAL BRITISH CONSULATE GENERAL, MUSCAT March 2, 1960 A difficulty has arisen about the employment of Indians in the Development Department and I would welcome your advice. As you know, if one wishes to engage an Indian to come from India for service on contract in the Gulf (or, for all I know, anywhere else) one must sign a contract in a form presented by the Indian Protector of Emigrants. These forms are, I think, generally in much the same shape and contain a clause to the effect that, in any dispute about the contract, the arbitrator shall be the Indian representative at the place of employment or, in the absence of an Indian representative, the British representative. Some months ago an Indian engineer, Thomas Mathews, whe was engaged on such a contract by the luttrah Electricity Company, which is composed of merchants with Ismail Rassassi, Wali of Muttrah and Director of Education, as an undisclosed partner. Mathews worked for some time on the erection of the power-house. Then the Company decided to get rid of him; I believe the real reason was that they had found another man who could do the same work for less pay; So Mathews appealed to the Indian Consul General. Mr. Masud then embarked on a written argument with the Secretary of External Affairs. He has shown me most of the correspondence and I must confess that the Secretary's letters struck me as sadly illogical and inconsistent. Anyway the end of it was that the Muscat authorities decided to ignore the clause nominating Masud. as arbitrator and allowed the case to go to the Sharia court on a charge, apparently thought up rather late in the proceedings, that Mathews had damaged some of the machinery. The court sensibly called impartial expert witnesses and, on their evidence that Mathews had unnecessarily opened up an engine and had thereby caused some damage, found the charge proved. Mathews was then dismissed and sent back to India where he has filed a suit for damages against Gokaldas Khimji, the leading merchant of Muscat, who had happened to be in India and, though not a member of the Company, had been authorised to sign the contract on their behalf. To Masud the important point is not so much whether the Court was correct (in this case I think they may have been correct though no one here has many illusions about the wisdom or fairness of the Sultanate courts) but that the Sultanate authorities refused to honour the clause appointing him as arbitrator. In case it should be thought that there was anything personal about this refusal I should perhaps say that I do not think that the Sultanate authorities could have any doubts about Masud's complete fairness as an arbitator. He has reported to his Government and recommended that the Protector of Emigrants should not allow Indians to come to Muscat on contract until he (Masud) has received a satisfactory reply from the Sultan to a letter he wrote asking for a review of this case. And I hear from another source that the Sultan has no intention of replying. M.C.G. Man Esq., British Residency, BAHRAIN CONFIDENTIAL 13
