Coll 1/77 'Appointment of an Indian Trade Agent in Aden' [‎23r] (45/52)

Pol(r.jrt)77lV't9.
ir.
v ith referono® to yjur letter . rt .1 #1 #2 of f’^rd uly f i^^run
the t >ro^>os©d appointment of an Indian ^aaiatnnt rad© :o*ini®oionor
at / X aia directed hy the -©ere taxy of i>tate for CoiitioiT^* •• j t :v <
iw«lation% to infona you that no objection i» seen to thia
appointment pxovlded t&at, as is ountes^axy, the reaponsibilitisa •
of the incr rabent are confined to Matters solely of txnde and «a*»x*oo*
2. In ifour letter of the 16 th of arcrfi it woo propoeed that the
appoititiaent should be that of an "Indian Trade .gent" and that the
..gent should be atauRged with the function of looking oft car the
general interests of Indian nationals residing in Aden and
.tjspendencsies# duoh a proposal would have invested an official who
is not of oonoular rank mth funotiona which would actually be wider
than those of ttm Indian Cofaaisaioners in British olonies, rtioae
aoaoern in this respect is United to the interests of Indians who
are not permanent residents in the -olony. It appe&ra, however,
from your letter of the hth *Tuly that, as now defined, th*- proposal
of the Ciiwegwnent of India is to iqppoti*l an ieol etent frads
Ooiaaissloner in order to maintain tnifozuity with similar posts
elsewhere* ^e assume that it would be correct to aoaclude from
this information that the < a&iatnnt Trade o rrJUisioDor* s
reeponsibilities would, am is oustomary, be confined solely to
aatters of trade ani owaxeroe. In these edrounstanoes, tbereiore,
it would appear that the difficulty suggested by the f saamiMit of
India's earlier proposal tould not arise and that there xyvld be no
ruestion of the assistant Trade Jomaisaion cncercdsing iunotione rioro
appropriate to an Indian <kuaisaioner*
/>•
The earetary.
Office of the High Cof/misaioncr
for India,
external Oeporttaont,
India House,
ildvvycti, «* 0 * 2 «