File 1880/1904 Pt 1 'Perso-Afghan Frontier: - Seistan Arbitration.' [‎55v] (115/520)

B »,d„ ^ II .t BSSSKSltt
suffidenffo/boththesTtracts. By giving one-half of that to Persia, she would
sutncieni iui , i t u_i 0 f the whole river.
become entitled to ^id pins 2 to bp to
:: ssitoKf.; «3’hS“'th. ....h .m »«.»> mi, .... *. b«. ie.^
Draft Awards.
^ I attach four drafts of water award for consideration. Each consists
of two parts, , Preliminary remarks, and the Award itself. Each draft, m
succession, exceeds the previous one m general scope.
76 Draft The preliminary remarks of this draft form the b ^es of
. .vjy A. A Pnvncrrfmhs 1 to 7 are common to all four drafts.
those m aUtheo er res = nt P COI1 ditions only, and does not specificallv
m^vide^foVvarious^futureContingencies. All the five Articles of this award,
are common to the other drafts. r f 1R7 o
It does little more than add the Secretary of State’s ruling of 1873, to Sir
Frederick Goldsmid’s award. It leaves things, otherwise, much as they are at .
present, hut provides for future disputes by the appointment of a permanent
arbitrator. , . ,
77 Draft B.— This goes further, and defines the amount of watei requi
site for Persian requirements, based, however, only on the present inhabited
portion of Persian Seistan irrigable from and below the Band-i-Kohak. It
allows for extension of present cultivation, and gives Persia the right to 3 rd
of the Helmand. .
78 Draft C—This goes still further, and provides for the possible tuture
irrigation of the Tarakun and Hauzdar tracts. The right of Perisa to a
requisite supply of water {i.e., Jth of the Helmand) for her share of hose
tracts is recognised and provided for, but only m the event of their being here
after brought under irrigation.
79 Draft D —Tackles the whole question boldly as a whole, and gives
Persia one-haif of the Helmand forthwith, whether the Hauzdar tract is brought
under irrigation or not.
80. Great care has been taken to avoid unnecessary details in each draft,
and especially those which might create unnecessary suspicions, give rise to
needless objections or quibbles, or be unnecessarily distasteful to one or other
party.
As an instance of this, it will be observed that in all four drafts no calcula
tion of water is expressed in terms of cusecs [vide paragraph 69 (16)]. Nor
again are the proportionate shares of the Helmand, now used by either side,
stated in the awards. To do so, would only give Persia a pretext for claiming a
share of water based on custom, quite ignoring her own condition that the
Goldsmid award is not to be departed from.
81. I have fully recognised the fact that, in the ratio that Persian rights
are more and more definitely defined in each draft, the A.fghans, with their
exaggerated ideas of their own rights, will express the greater dissatisfaction.
t nfvo tn rpdnfift the chance of this to a minimum, hut the task is not an
easy one.
82. Even an Afghan, however, must acknowledge, when it is brought
home to him, as it should be, that any settlement which restricts Persian right
to water to certain limits is in the present case a distinct gain to Afghanistan
who has hitherto taken off only nfoths of the whole river from Rudbar down
wards, while the Persians have taken ^ths. Any deferred settlement of the
question might have to recognise the Persian right to what custom may have
entitled them to, and not, as in the present case, to their requisite supply of
water only. This argument will be made the most of in the official commu
nication conveying my formal copy of the award to the Afghan Government.