'Memorandum on Persian Railways' [‎113r] (37/84)

* “ Almaz to Bunder Abbas via Shiraz,
with the option of a port at Khor Musa.”
t “ Line between some point on No. 3
and Bushire via Aliabad.”
neutral zone, from a port on the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. to
the plateau. We recommend Nos. 3* and 4| of
u y° ur telegram for this purpose. By this means
u our position on the eastern littoral of the Gulf
wou ld be consolidated and our influence through-
^ out southern and central Persia increased. All
“ options or concessions within British sphere—
“ Bonder Abbas-Kerman-Robat, Kerman-
^harbar or Guattar, come last in importance;
‘ these should be secured, not necessarily for
construction, but merely to prevent outside
(( J oterference in our sphere. If it is only contem-
‘ plated to secure blocking options, then an option
|| for the Bunder Abbas-Kerman line is of less
|| immediate importance on political grounds than
u option for your Nos 3"' and dj” as one con-
11 cession. On the other hand if any British
|| syndicate should be ready to take up the project
of a line from Bunder Abbas to Kerman, which is
|‘ undoubtedly feasible, at once, then political im
portance of obtaining mere blocking option for
Bunder Abbas-Shiraz-Bushire scheme, of which
we are not assured as to engineering feasibility,
|‘ W0l, l^ Be outweighed by the acquisition of a
definite concession for the former project. As
long a period as possible should be fixed for all
“ concessions.”
Project of a Trans-Persian Rail
way.
Sir A. Nicolson’s Despatch No. 32b
2Gth July 1910.
(P. 153.)
Pol. 3801/10.
(P. 153.)
37. On the 26th July 1910, Sir A. Nicolson
reported that M. Isvolsky had mentioned to him,
in conversation, the preparation of a project by
M. Homyakoff, late President of the Duma, and
some substantial Russian financial houses, for con
necting the Indian and Russian railway systems
by ivay of 1 ersia. Sir A. Nicolson having
expressed doubts whether Biutish public opinion
was leady for the scheme, “ M. Isvolsky observed
that in Russia also there was opposition to such
schemes, but chiefly in Russian commercial
elides. At the same time a line traversing
‘| Persia and connecting the Russian and Indian
railway systems would effectually compete with,
if not kill, the Bagdad Railway. Re thought
that the question was one which would have to
be considered seriously within the near future.”
Schems of Russian Consortium for
a Trans-Persian Railway.
Memorandum.
(P. 166.)
Pol. 3990/10.
+ Enclosure No. I in Secretary of
State’s Secret Despatch to Government of
India, No. 32, 4th November 1910.
38. On the 9th August 1910, Professor Pares
of Liverpool University communicated to the
Foreign Office extracts from a Memorandum} drawn
up by a Russian Consortium explaining in detail
the scheme referred to in the foregoingparagraph :
“As to direction,” it was said, “we couhl hardly
expect the English to agree to the continuation
“ of our line from Kushk, which would also be
“ opposed by Afghanistan. The same partly
“ applies to the construction of a line from Merv to
“ Meshed, which would be strategically rather
“ dangerous for the English.”
For this and other reasons, the line proposed was
one by way of Rostoff,§ Baku, Tehran, and Nushki,
§ On the Don, near the Sea of Azov.