'A Précis of the Relations of the British Government with the Tribes and Shaikhs of 'Arabistan By Lieutenant A T Wilson, Acting Consul for Arabistan' [‎34v] (73/143)

54
The Mandali-Hawlzeh boundary was surveyed in 1852 by the British,
Russian and Persian Commissioners, the Turkish Commissioner, who had
already twice travelled over the line, having declined to co-operate furt e
The survey was completed the same year, but it was not until 18b J that the
identic map, showing a zone from 20 to 50 miles broad, within which e
frontier lay, was handed to the Persian and Russian Governments.
negotiations ensued as to the manner in which the frontier should best be
traced by the two co-limitary Powers. Meanwhile there was no abatement ot
the frontier incidents, particularly in the Pusht-i-Kuh district: on the con
trary, thanks to the Protocol of 1869 referred to above, these differences
gained in intensity between 1869 and 1873 as the status quo was differently
interpreted by the two parties, and, the mediating Commissioners notes
having been lost, as explained previously, no means existed of ascertaining
what the status quo was.
In regard to the lands on the Pusht-i-Kuh border known by the Turks
as Saiyid Hasan and by the Persians as Baksai and Ghuraibeh, which include
a portion of the Saifi MalkhataT lands, an agreement was renewed in 1873
by which it was agreed between Persia and Turkey that the said lands should
remain intact and should not be interfered with on either side, and that
neither side should claim nor institute any right of possession by cultivation,
or otherwise, until the Commission appointed had expressed its opinion.
This understanding has only indifferently served its purpose. Many
disputes have arisen in regard to the Wall of Pusht-i-Kuh’s border at
Badaral and in the summer of 1907 an armed force was despatched from
Baghdad via Mandali to assert the claims of the Turks to the Saifi JNlal-
khata’I lands to the east and north-east of Badara i occupied by the Wall of
Pusht-i-Kuh. \
As it happened, the latter was on his way back to his country from
Baghdad and he overtook and passed the force at Mandali. It followed on,
and marched up to the entrance of the Kunjlan Cham valley, and began burn
ing the crop. The Wall at once turned out to meet them and a short but
decisive engagement took place, in which the heterogeneous Turkish force
was worsted and dispersed: The prisoners were shortly afterwards released.
All the Turks’ supplies also fell into the Wall’s hands.
The Turks have not again agitated the question of the boundary line in
this quarter and the Wall’s labours to secure a. still stronger title to the land
by bringing it under irrigation go on unopposed. The Wall occupies the
land and when Captain Lorimer, His Majesty’s Consul at Ahwaz, met him
in 1908 he w^as actually camped within the debateable area. Either from
its intrinsic value, or the more clearly to demonstrate the effectiveness of his
occupation, he had for some time had in hand a big work in the form of a
qanat designed to bring the water of the Kunjian Cham on the disputed terri
tory. On this work he is said to have spent in 1907 some 6,000 Tomans 10,000 Persian dinars, or a gold coin of that value. .
Work was still in progress in 1908 and much remains to be done. It is said
to be represented by the Turks that the Wall is trying to divert the entire
river on which Zorbatiyeh and Badara’l depend for their assistance. The
falseness of this charge is apparent to any observer on the spot. Such an
undertaking lies outside the scope of the scheme which is being carried out,
and probably of any which the Wall has the means of undertaking. 1
In regard to the rival claims of Turkey and Persia in the matter of the
Pusht-i-Kuh frontier, it seems that the Turks claim that the boundary lies
within the outer range of hills at the point where these are pierced by the
Ab-i-Kunjian Cham, and that the plain which extends from the foot of
these hills, to at least as far east as the Gawi, and southwards to a low ridge
which bounds it on the south, is Turkish territory. The Wall repudiates
these claims and it would seem unreasonable that Arabian ’Iraq should
include any territory lying within the general line of the hills-
1 Hertslet’g “ Persian Treaties,” 1896, p, 218.
this agreement.
Mr. Alwyn Parker’s memorandum makes no mention of