File 1377/1905 Pt 1 'Perso-Baluch Frontier: Frontier Demarcation' [‎200v] (172/188)

20. The instructions given to the Yamin-i-Nizam (vide Sir Arthur
Hardinge’s Despatch to Lord Lansdowne No. 7*2 of 20th May 1903, are so
^ 1 ■* /ti 4-1 -rr /d o t" 1 I'! r\ a-irirxcxnT In nr» ▼•/a t - r» -»-wv 1 * _ i m
explicitly worded that it seems hopeless to expect him to take upon himself
the responsibility of agreeing to any line mnrp fnvonrnhlp +.n n« than
( , , more favourable to us than that of
the Holdich Agreement and map. From what he has said from time to time
on this subject, I know that he is afraid to depart, in any respect, from the
letter of his instructions, and is fully determined to do nothing on hisown
responsibility. ^
21. At the most, I can succeed in bringing about a deadlock and hanging
up demarcation work until references are made to Tehran. Heyond that
all that I can reasonably be expected to achieve by local diplomacy is to o’et
the Yamin-i-Nizam indirectly to support my proposals by reporting that their
adoption is not injurious to Persia. The nature of the country from Koh-i-
Malik Siah to Mirjawa w< uld render it very difficult for the Persian
Commissioner to refer boundary questions in sufficient detail by telegram, and
the interchange of letters and maps would probably be necessary. The time
it will take, in winter, for letters to reach Tehran, and for replies to reach
Mirjawa, will be two months or more, and it is open to question whether we
should risk so much delay and expense. We may be able, with our lar^e
stock of supplies and transport, to maintain ourselves in that desolate country,
but I feel sure the Persian Commissioner and his camp will not be able to
do so, and this will mean his returning to Seistan out of reach of my influence
pending settlement of the question at Tehian.
22. I cannot well dheuss • the Perso-Baluch boundary question with the
Persian Commissioner at the present juncture, as I have persistently refused
to discuss even the Seistan water question until demarcation work is over
Moreover, there is the risk of the Afghans becoming aware of such discussion*,
and jumping to the conclusion that we are timing to obtain what we want in
the Mirjawa direction at the expense of Afghan interests in Seistan. Any
Riisnininns r»f tViie nufnrn minrU* Ion., tUn , r rmA ^*
the Mirjawa direction at the expense of Afghan interests in Seistan. Any
suspicions of this nature might place the good faith and impartiality of our
Seistan Arbitration in a doubtful light and should, therefore, be carefully
prevented. *
23. We have, I think, good grounds, apart from those stated in paragraph
13, for asking the Persian Government to consent to the trifling rectification
of the frontier involved by the adoption of the red line—
(1) The terms of the agreement drawn up between the Governments
regulating the manner in which the boundary was to be settled,
have not been complied with by their Boundary Commissioners*.
The careiul survey of the region adjacent to the frontier,
prescribed in article 5, was not carried out, with the result that
the present difficulty has arisen.
(2) The Persian Commissioner, himself, proposed to fix the boundary
along the lalab river to Duzdap. The boundary we now ask
tor lies, throughout, well to the east of that line.
. e might, with justice, go further than the above, and point out that
articles 3 and 4 of the agreement also were not complied with. The boundary
line subsequently laid down does not
“ follow as closely* as possible the line
shown in the sketch map attached M to
the agreement, nor has any exchange of
country been made to equalise in the
, i . , « , . „ y,t ~ made to Persia. Moreover, the condition
unc er w ueh Colonel Doldich surrendered the Gorani date groves to Persia, i.e.,
f Major Showers in his above report (paragraph 40) writes s “ A con- “ 0n Understanding t
Damanis shmildhe V** wer ® a . bandoned ^ Persia was that the that the frontier Governors
Oamams should be kept under ethcient control. This was probably
intended to be a sop to the Kekis, who had many complaints to make
TW "uil!?!. 6 *P a f ? am9 • The condition, however, has not been fulfilled.
Th Rekis at this moment have 11 claims against the tribe Jfdetails
given in Appendix 11, No. F.) all of later date than the 1«96 Com-
rtZ^\7?C S C gr(mnd8 the T efore ’ a c,aim for a reconsideration
of thispa^t of the Commissioners proceedings might even at this
date De not unreasonab v nnt. •» e s o on at tuis
• In this connection paragraphs 39 to 46 of
Major Shower’s report on his tour to Makran and
M ashkel (No. 1165, dated 31st May 1902) should
be read.
A. H. McMahok.
interests of Kalat the concessions
of the Persian Government
in future became responsible
for the Damani cultivators
of those groves ” appears to
have been lost sight of.
i smote,
EMtedon t
frioGulf,
!8,Tool
itMe sc
flit, iftak