'Expenditure on Malleson Mission and troops in East Persia, 1918 to 1921' [‎4v] (8/34)

8
-when it became obvious that without vigorous whole-hearted military support
(which was not forthcoming') all political activities were not only useless but harmful,
that it was withdrawn from belligerent to neutral territory.
(4) The Mission is now withdrawn within the frontiers of Persian territory, and
it has become once more a mission of observation and intelligence, with a view to
military action later if and when circumstances render such action inevitable.
But whatever may have been its character and objects whilst it was operating in
Transcaspia, its object now is clearly to prevent the invasion by hostile elements of
Persia and Afghanistan, an object of admitted interest to the Government of India,
and its connection with the operations of the war in the Caucasus and the Middle
East generally has clearly ceased.
(5) Though particular terms of the expenditure incurred by General Malleson m
Transcaspia can only be identified as clearly of a military character (c.g., pay of
troops) and others as clearly of a political character (e.g., subventions to the quasi-
Government of Askabad, &c.), and others again of an intermediate character (e.g.,
payment to the railway employees of the dranscaspian hailvwiy, essential both to the
maintenance and to the withdrawal of the force), 1 doubt whether the utmost skill m
political accountancy could arrive at a balance-sheet which would separate the charges
effectively. .... -ini
(6) Control over the expenditure of the Mission has been exercised by the
Government of India (both Political and Military Departments) and the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. ,
and by the War Office. Inasmuch as the instrument employed was a military
instrument, the intervention of the latter department was both proper and inevitable,
but it was not sufficiently pronounced to have a direct bearing on the question of the
incidence of charge. .
(7) The only recognised principles dividing the responsibility of the British and
Indian Governments with respect to (a) the ordinary charges lor military and political
activities in the East, and (6) the extraordinary charges arising out of the war, are to
be found (a) in the understanding that expenditure arising in Persia and thereabouts
which interests India shall be shared equally between the two exchequers, and (b) in
the Resolutions of the House of Commons of September 1914.
The interpretation of the facts and perhaps also of the principles must be a
matter of difficulty, since divergent views are held by three great Government
Departments. .
India regards the whole Mission as part of the war ; the Foreign Office regards
the whole thing as primarily of Indian interest; the War Office regards the cost of
military operations alone as a suitable charge against Army Votes ; the Treasury has
hitherto leant to the War Office view.
(8) In the circumstances, and in order to help towards the solution of a difficulty
which has already consumed a great deal of valuable time, I venture to suggest the
conclusion that neither the Indian nor the Foreign Office view is consistent with all
the facts ; that the Mission was designed to achieve an end both military and political
(the political end being of vital interest to India) | that at the time of its taitliest
penetration northwards the military aspect of the object in view was perhaps
predominant, and that at any rate since the withdrawal to Meshed the political aspect
has been predominant; that the degree of control exercised by the Government of
jndia and the Commander-in-Chief in India throughout at least justifies the expectation
that the Indian Government should share that expense, and that, since the withdrawal
the functions of the Mission clearly establish a claim on the part of His Majesty’s
Government to relief under the half-and-half principle.
(Initialled.) „ A. C.
11th November 1919.
3 .—India Office to Treasury.
No. 29860. India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. ,
g- r 9th January 1920.
With reference to Sir George Barstow’s letter of the 25th November, No. 49012,
I am directed to refer to the note by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the incidence
of cost of General Malleson’s Military Mission now at Meshed, sems-officially
forwarded by Mr. Bewley on 12th November, and to say that the Secietaiy
of State for India in Council is prepared to accept generally the conclusion
arrived at in para. 8 of the Chancellor s note, and that he assumes that the Folds