'Boundary between Persia and North-West Baluchistan' [‎25v] (6/18)

6
“ of a will which professed to dispose of lands now
“ in the possession of Persia. In any case the
“ British Grovernment would incur a responsibility
<c which might be exceedingly difficult to discharge.
<c At the same time, the Governor General in
cc Council fully recognises the expediency of
“ bringing Kharan, if possible, under the control
“ of Kalat and the influence of the Baluchistan
“ Agency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, headed by an agent. .”
The results of Sir Bobert Sandeman’s inter
vention in Mekran affairs in 188S were mostly
temporary. Another effort was made in 1890—92.
The then condition of affairs is thus described :—
“ In Kharan we have a powerful chief, nominally
“ a vassal of the Khan of Kalat, and under the con-
“ trol of the British Government, which pays him a
“ handsome yearly allowance. He is, however, also
“ in friendly relations with, and in receipt of allow-
“ ances from, two other neighbouring States (Persia
“ and Afghanistan). In Panjgur the Naoshirwani
“ interest, which I have shown to be not un-
<c favourable to Persia, has been steadily increasing
“ in power, and that of the Gitchis and of the Khan
“ of Kalat has been as steadily dwindling. The
cc country has been devastated by raids, in which
“ Persian subjects have taken an active part.”
The “ danger of Persian aggression ” was con
stantly before Sir Bobert Sandeman’s eyes in
writing this report, and he strongly recommended
“ continued British intervention” by the presence
of a European officer and British force in Panjgur.
He concluded his report by saying : “ In order
“ that the full benefit of these arrangements should
“ be felt, it is extremely desirable that a definite
“ understanding should be arrived at with Persia
“ regarding the part of the frontier which has not
“ yet been settled. Such an understanding would
“ at once remove all grounds of controversy
“ between our officials and those of the Persian
<c frontier, and would go far to promote the cordial
“ relations which it is so desirable to establish.
“ Our position at Panjgur and Kharan will greatly
“ facilitate negotiations to this end, and I trust
“ that the necessary steps may be taken to obtain
“ the assent of the Persian Government to Com-
“ missioners meeting to settle the boundary during
“ the next cold season.”
But the matter had already engaged the atten
tion of the Government of India. Persian com
plaints against Sir Naoroz Khan of Kharan (before
he had come to an understanding with the Persian
frontier officials) were thus dealt with by the
Government of India. It was pointed out that
“ the disturbances of which both the Persian
“ Government and Sir Naoroz Khan complain
“ have their origin in a dispute as to the owncr-
“ ships of the country inhabited by the Beki
“ Baluch tribe on the Mashkel river, who occupy
“ what is known as the Mashkel district.” The
Bekis had been claimed by the Persian authorities
of Karman and Bampur as Persian subjects ;
See Sir Robert Sandeman’s Report, dated
22nd April 1891, in Political Proceedings
for October 1891,/?. 109.
Letter from Foreign Secretary to Her
Majesty’s Charge d’Affaires at Teheran,
dated Ylth August 1889. Enclosure 15 to
Government of India Secret Letter, dated
2?)rd September 1889.