ملف 1880/1904 الجزء الأول "الحدود الفارسية-الأفغانية: - تحكيم سيستان." [ظ‎‎٢‎٢] (٥٢٠/٤٩)

* , trnm a distance at Clialcansur. The line marking the boundary
of the COOTtry J 0Ter drawn at Tehran some months after General
r n m blS idTrft Seistan and was drawn from memory of a country which they had
? 0 Jd Sm .!f very imnerf'ect opportunities of thoroughly learning. It is necessary
to lav^ stress^on the above facts regarding the award map, as the map itself
lyfan important part in the subsequent disputes about the boundary.
P 7 Both countries appealed against the award. Afghanistan objected on
7 - Eo ,, ® "" ;ds th at no portion of so-ealled Persian Seistan should have
beeu 8 gTyen toPersia. Persia objected to the boundary award on the following
grounds:-Became ;t doe8 Eot affor d any facilities for checking Bilucb incur-
sions from the Afghan side into Persian territory.
« (21 Because it transfers to the Afghans certain pasture lands belonging
ceodu to the inhabitants of Persian
Seistan which are situated
and this question has never been raised again. immediately tO tlie SOUtn 01
A. H. McMahon. Seistan proper within the
limits of a tract marked as desert in the map prepared by the
Seistan Commissioners.
“ (M Because it deprives Persia of an important district which might
V be made very productive by irrigation from the Helmund river
by means of canals leading from Bandar-i-Kamal Khan. Ihe
district in question is situated near a place named Ramrud in
Major Lovett’s map, and it is described to have been the most
fertile part of Seistan in former times.”
In her formal appeal Persia claimed that Seistan could not live with
out command of the Helmund as far as Rudbar, and she claimed, therefore,
the Helmund up to Rudbar, and in the north, the Naizar.
8 Sir Prederick Goldsmid’s award was confirmed by His Majesty s Secre
tary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 7th March 1873, and hrs decision
was formally accepted by the Persian and Afghan Governments in July 1873.
9 In 1874 the Persian Government again raised the Seistan boundary
ouestion hv asking for a rectification thereof. They contended that the pasture
lands of Takht-i-Shah on which the people of the Jelalabad district of Serstan
depended were by Goldsmid’s award included in Afghanistan. They urged
that the boundary should be so rectified as to include the Naizar and lakht-r-
Shah in Persia. The British Government, however, declined to reopen the
question. #
In 1881 Persia again brought up the case of Takht-i-Shah and the Naizar,
and while admitting these lands to be in Afghan territory, offered to acquire
them by purchase or exchange of lands. Nothing more was done in the matter.
1(X The above shows the view taken by the Persian Government of the
Goldsmid award and their understanding of the course followed by the boun
dary line. I will show later on that, owing to ignorance of the country, their
understanding of the course of the boundary line v\as in some respects
incorrect.
11. It is necessary now to turn to Sir Prederick Goldsmid’s own views
concerning the boundary line defined in his award. Regarding the line from
Kuhak southwards he says (vid€ Memorandum, dated 18th July 1873, addiessed
to the India Office) * * * * * * “It Mas necessary to draw a line some
where to ensure a settlement; and it was simply impossible to find that line
as geographically correct as politically expedient. I therefore took an observed
object to the southward from the Engineer
(Koh-i-Mahk Siah.) Officer’s note book and from the bund
a. H. McMahon. ^ j£ u bak, which I had determined to
make the point of departure from the river, I drew a line to that point. Of
course that line may be insisted on in its geographical integrity as may each
of the other lines drawn in the map, I would, however, most respectfully
submit my view that, both in expediency and the spirit of arbitration, the
bond Jide understanding should he that both banks of the Helmund south of