File 1880/1904 Pt 2 'Perso-Afghan Frontier: - The Undemarcated portion. Afghan encroachments.' [‎73v] (151/240)

matter) were of opinion that these Channts actually marked the frontier
line. But this is not the frontier as generally accepted. The latter is, I
think, fairly accurately indicated by the location given to the following fixed
points with regard to the frontier by a consensus of opinion of maldars and
others questioned : —
Dak System of postal communication used in Moghul India and later by the East India Company. -i-Tundi. On the frontier line.
Kulla-i-Hassan Khani do.
Skela, Mian-i-Tag do.
Koh-i-Khargu. Within Persian territory.
Koh-i-Hazar Sangn do. do.
Koh-i-Gulwarda do. do.
ISfiabat of Zirkuh.—^hv frontier huluk of Zirkuh extends from near Gul-
warda and north of the village of Bani to the Kain-Khaf border at Kul
Birinj.
It is probable that this district has been an integral part of Kain since
before Nadir Shah’s time. I have seen a revenue document which seems to
show that the frontier village of Yazdan was under the “ Wazir Minister. of Kain ” in
1686, when Herat and Kandahar were also subject to the Saffavis.
At the present time the Naib of Zirkuh is Haji Abdul Ali Khan, who is
responsible for a revenue of tomans 10,000 Persian dinars, or a gold coin of that value. 2,428. Sowars are maintained for the
protection of the frontier to the number of 76 distributed as under :—
Shahrakt under Sheikh Mahmood, Naib
Bamrud under the Mirzas of Bamrud
Daraij under Jabbar Khan • . . . ,
Garin Ab-i*Taj Khan under Muhammad Jaffir and Ismail
Khan, Timuri
Majnabad under Mir Kalandar . . i .
Ardakul under Muhammad Wali Khan . ,
Fundukhfc
Bunniabad
Isfidni . ....
10
14
7
5
10
10
12
4
4
76
[For Customs, see note under Sunnikhana. J
,, ,? he o® 1 ? cultivated or cultivable lands which could possibly come within
the disputed area are those at Maliki, Yazdan (including Kabuda and Atashau
and adjacent Karezes) and Kul Birinj.
nf 18 a Karez m th e Dasht-i-Naomed about 16 miles east of the foot
of the Ahangaran range, producing some 10 Kharwars of grain. It is the
private property of the Hashmat-ul-Mulk in whose share it fell when his
fa her s property was divided. The Hashmat also owns the following villages in
^r/ P f ar Vr^ Uhamniada > d,Ahmedabad ’ Yazdan. The Hashmat’
Zabit ioTtl e atove property is Mir Ismail Sultan, Arab of Nasruddin near Awazi
ih ^ r ? osslbl ® tliat tk 0 Reg-i-Maliki will be included in the Afghan claim*
though I do not know of any evidence that could be brought forward in sunnort
? , h e J® ntl0 °* P^sibly the recent incident of the seizure of Afghan ref ugees
hy the Hakim of Ghunan, which took place near the spot, wili be led Z
evidence of Afghan rights, and I therefore give the following details •—
bnr! i Khan ^ Uba f mad Khan Kadir, Afghan refugees, with their families
had been settled for some time at Chah-i-Tag in the Re-d-Maliki a well
to be , . Sltuated between Maliki and Shorao. In May 1907
Kahq Dad Khan, Hakim of Ghurian, with about 50 sowars appeared on the
spot and carried them off The 8h?m W-nl ’ appeared on tne
why he bad not rpnnriwi ti. aukat ul-Mulk, who was called on to explain
Mmi ter statln» toccurrence, teJegmphed in reply to the Foreign
between Perskn aL A t l Ugee f W " re . c®^mped on the Dasht-i-Naomed
robbery he had written fn rif 'ri crritones. As their only occupation was
The telegram concluded by saying'tI«t > Tf°h? era * askin? for their removal,
territory and the report that the/did sot iu^fo^dation. 6111616(1 P6rSiai1