To Mesopotamia and Kurdistan in disguise

by Ely Banister Soane

SULAIMANIAN HISTORY

In 1881, the shaikhs’ tyranny, in concert with that of the Government, which extorted iniquitous taxes, led to a revolt upon the part of the people, and they summoned the Hamavands to besiege the town, and expel the governor and shaikhs. The town resisted for four days, and was upon the point of falling, when a battalion arriving from Kirkuk saved the situation, and at the same time delivered the town into the hands of the revengeful priests. Shaikh Sa’id commenced a campaign of open robbery. Large sums of money were extorted from merchants without any pretext whatever, and the prompt murder of the few who resisted these demands effectually intimidated the others. At the same time a policy of patriarchal hospitality and patronage was instituted. Any person presenting himself at the shaikhs’ house received food and became considered a retainer. In this way all the worthless members of the population became adherents of the priests; and as many opened shops in the bazaar, a new class of supporters arose which finally embraced nearly all the tradespeople of Sulaimania. In these days it was dangerous to express an opinion about the priests. In every shop, in every corner, were spies or adherents who reported to their masters the actions of everyone, and these individuals were aware of the private life and proceedings of every single individual—Christian, Jew, or Musulman—in Sulaimania. Murder became very frequent, for the disappearance of a “disaffected” person caused no comment for fear of consequences, and murderers had but to acknowledge allegiance to the shaikhs to hear commendation of their excesses in place of condemnation. Through it all, it was the merchants who suffered. The Persians, being Shi’as, suffered from the fanaticism of the Sunnis; none the less because the shaikhs were unable directly to oppress them, for the fear of Persia is still considerable in the border countries: nevertheless sufficient injury occurred to their business to drive them from Sulaimania.

The shaikh family had purchased nearly all the gardens about the town which supply fruit and vegetables, and now, in conjunction with the town authorities, new taxes were instituted upon out-turn and produce. Then the shaikhs commenced a system whereby three hundred per cent. special entry duty was charged upon loads of fruit coming to town. Within two years every cultivator had set fire to his fruit-trees, destroyed his irrigation canals, and fled to Persian soil, there to cultivate tobacco. Subsequent to the events of 1881, when the Hamavands so nearly succeeded in taking Sulaimania and destroying the family, Shaikh Sa’id realised the importance of the tribe and its possible use as a weapon. In order to gain control over it, he, by a series of judicious marriages, bound it to him by ties of relationship, which he strengthened by entering into cordial relations with the priests of Qaradagh. This policy succeeded so well that in 1908 the tribe found itself unable to disobey the shaikhs, when ordered to declare itself in rebellion. For the object of the family was now not only to acquire the wealth of Sulaimania, but to prove their power so great that the Government should be forced to make them the rulers of Sulaimania, in despair of obtaining peace and quiet by any other means. The “coup” at Constantinople of July 1908 had just occurred, Turkey was declared constitutional, and the shaikhs saw the possibility of a loss of their power, and even less pleasant to contemplate—retribution. The Sultan, however, had considerable power—more than the observers in Europe ever suspected—which he hoped to augment, and he was not averse to the outbreak of rebellion, which should increase the difficulties of the reformers’ task. The old power, corrupt as it was, was, notwithstanding, none the less effective, particularly in the remoter parts of Asiatic Turkey, for the Sultan had always on his side that most powerful section that increased for him his revenues through the means of robbery and brigandage,[52] and when the interests of these persons coincided with those of order—as occasionally they did—justice was prompt and effective.

THE SHAIKHS

Needless to say, abandonment of the old régime meant alienation of these forces from the standard of the Constitutionalists, and it was this condition of the situation that at once gave hope to the Sultan and despair to the Majlis, which could not bring enough power to bear upon any anarchy or rebellion, the more that the new Government was no more able to meet the arrears of army pay than Sultan Abdul Hamid had been willing.

Particularly the Turkoman and Kurdish levies in the army were extremely disaffected, refusing any duty that appeared to them repugnant. Therefore, the Hamavands were perforce left to raid and spoil undisturbed. The situation was growing so bad in Sulaimania, however, that the shaikhs could no longer be disregarded by the new party at Constantinople. The merchants were now suffering doubly and trebly. If they did not lose their goods at the hands of the Hamavands, the Customs authorities, shaikhs, and town officials effectually ruined them. Repeated appeals arrived by wire from Sulaimania; and at last, the Government, knowing the impossibility of employing force, induced Shaikh Sa’id to come to Mosul, with some other members of the family. Here he was detained, and shortly afterwards the riot occurred in which he was murdered. The mystery of the criminal’s identity has never been cleared up. The disturbance arose among the people of Mosul regarding their own affairs, and after some time they were dislodged from the scene of the opening brawls. With one accord, apparently under directions received, they made a rush for the house of Shaikh Sa’id, and forcing it, a number entered, and the old priest was murdered.

This was the signal for redoubled anarchy in southern Kurdistan. Shaikh Sa’id had, as has been shown, acquired a reputation for unusual sanctity, and this, coupled with his power, gave reason for loudly expressed indignation on all sides. The representative in Constantinople, Shaikh Qadir, made a series of inflammatory speeches demanding in the name of all the laws of Islam, summary and awful vengeance upon the murderers. The younger members of the family in Mosul were allowed to return to Sulaimania after they had sworn an oath of vengeance upon the merchants of that town, for they chose to assume that the murder had occurred at their instigation.

In wrath they returned. The town of Sulaimania was forced to go into the deepest mourning. All gramophones and musical instruments were taken by force from their owners and destroyed, and any celebration at weddings was brought to an abrupt and melancholy termination. Shaikh Mahmud assumed leadership of the family, and displayed an ability for violence and crime unequalled by Shaikh Sa’id in the days of his greatest power. A number of the most important merchants were murdered for the sake of what could be extorted from them under the pretext of vengeance. Robberies and burglary occurred in every direction. To express an opinion of even a scullion of the shaikh, was to meet death the same night. And after every new outrage the police and governor received their commission, and the miserable people, wringing their hands, whispered the name of the criminals, and “Piaoi shaikhana”—“They are the Shaikh’s men.”

VALI OF MOSUL’S VISIT

The Vali of Mosul was now ordered to proceed to Sulaimania for two reasons. To attempt an investigation of the troubles there, was one; and to punish the robbers of the Mutasarrif, who had left the town and had been assaulted by the shaikhs’ horsemen, nearly losing his life, was the other. The shaikhs were, of course, the delinquents; but there was no possibility of fixing the crime upon them, for the people were too much intimidated to utter any complaint openly, and the few Government officials remaining in the town were bought.