'File 8/4 I Interdicts: Import of Opium into Bahrain' [‎12r] (29/461)

Copy of letter dated the 28th August 1936 from
Malcolm Delevingne, West Kensington, to W. D. Torakins .EsQ. .
India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. .
I have been out to Geneva for a meeting of the Super
visory Body under the Drugs Limitation Convention of 1931;
and in the course of the proceedings our attention was called
to the fact that exports of the drugs to Bahrain and Nepal
had been reported to the Central Opium Board (to Bahrain
from G r eat Britain; to Nepal, from Great Britain and from
India) but that no estimates had been submitted separately
^ J f i n respect of these territories under Article 5 of the
Limitation Convention. In t he case of Bghrain, the Board,
I "" «aii
on inquiry, had been informed that the import certificates
were issued by the British Political Agent A mid-ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Agency. , who is appointed
by the Government of India. Can you tell me how these two
places are regarded by the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. and Indian Govern-
jment for the purpose of the application of the Opium and
> ~ 1 / Drugs Conventions of 1925 and 1931? Are they being treated
as part of H India w ? If so, exports to them from Great Britain
had better be reported to Geneva as e xports to India; and
exports from India to either place had better not, in the
w
export returns made to Geneva, be included at all. Adeiji seems
/
a parallel case, and if I remember rightly, it is treated for
these purposes as a part of India. Perhaps you could verify
this. And how about the other places on the Gulf?
On the other hand, if they are not treated for the
purposes of the estimates submitted by India under Article 5
of the Convention of 1931 as part of India, the separate esti
mates ought to be submitted in respect of them. If you would
like to see me on the subject, I can look in at the India
Office some day.
The Supervisory Body meets again^ at beginning of Octo
ber to complete it_s work and I should be glad to know how the
matter stands before then.
%
Ht
t