File 1377/1905 Pt 1 'Perso-Baluch Frontier: Frontier Demarcation' [‎191r] (153/188)

a fairly strong one if we open case with threat of general attack on whole Perso-
Baluch boundary settlement, on line of argument suggested in paragraphs 23 and
24 of my memorandum, and thus-make them willing to accept slight rectification
required as the lesser of two evils ? The rectification is insignificant, if the value
to Persia of the small barren uninhabited track in question is considered, but
the adaptation effected thereby of the paper boundary line, as laid down in
Holdich’s inaccurate map, to the existing country, to suit requirements of a
lasting and workable boundary line, might be argued to be important to
Persians as well as ourselves. Should it be necessary to ask for any agreement,
such as you suggest, at the time of demarcation of the line, it should include
permission for Padaha post to draw water from Mirjawa as hitherto. Little or
no supplies are obtainable in Mirjawa, and none still further. Duzdab food-
supplies are mostly drawn from Ladis. My letter to Grant Duff, dated 6th
December, regarding the Hashmat-ul-Mulk, indicates some of the risks involved,
if the Mission is deprived of its privileged diplomatic character. If we are used
as a lever to help on the settlement of the questions you suggest, which are
outside the original purpose of Mission, would not the resulting difficulty and
anomaly of our position here give the Amir serious trouble ? Might I suggest
your telegraphing your views regarding Mirjawa question to India instead of
writing, for, as already explained in my telegram No. 871 of 3rd January, I
would like to defer my water award, if possible, until we are in a position to
leave Seistan”.
Following sent to Colonel McMahon, 9th January:— Begins. Your
telegram. I have sent to India my telegram of 3rd January and your’s of 6th
January. I do not think the willingness to forego demarcation need suggest that
our case is weak, if we get a good quid pro quo. We might put it, not as
abandonment of demarcation, but as abandonment of our right to reopon
boundary question on lines suggested in paragraphs 23 and 24 of your memo
randum ; and if then we find that they do not bite, adopt the method you suggest.
I do not’think there can be any chance of the status of your Mission being
questioned as long as the Mirjawa boundary, which is one of its purposes, remains
unsettled. The Persians suspected that we intend to make it permanent, and I
dropped a hint, by Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs’s permission, that some
such guarantee of Russian moderation in Ashkabad might be asked by us as
alternative to the re-instatement of Hashmat.
20
Telegram, No. 194 F., dated the 13th January 1905.
From—The Foreign Secretary, Calcutta,
To— Sib Abthur Hardinge, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., His Britannic Majesty’s Minister,
Tehran.
Perso-Baluch Boundary. Tour telegram of 9th January. I fully recog
nise that vou will And some difficulty in persuading the Persian Government
to accept Colonel McMahon’s red line, hut I trust that you will try to secure
this as part of general settlement regarding the Hashmat-ul-Mulk and the
export of grain from Seistan, &c. If you find this is impossible, we must fall
back on the alternative suggested in your telegram of 3rd January to Colonel
McMahon.
Repeated to Colonel McMahon, Seistan.