Coll 28/28A ‘Persia: Perso-Baluchistan frontier; demarcation near Mirjawa [mostly copies of papers on 28/28]’ [‎40r] (79/572)

Appendix to lettrb No. 240 op 7th June 1932, from Captain G. Bompord, R.E.
to the Surveyor General of India.
The Perso—Baluch Boundary from Pillar 11 to the Koh-i-Malik Siah.
(1) I understand it to be accepted that the basis of the present boundary
is tiie line agreed on by Colonel T. H. Holdich, R.E. and Mirza Ali Ashraf in
1896. The section now referred to is described in the last three sub-paras, of
their agreement, and is illustrated in the map which they attached to it. ‘ In
the agreement certain topographical features, (e.#., the Tahlab river) are
rferred to by name, and in interpreting the agreement two courses are possible,
vie. :—
(a) To try to determine which topographical features are known to the
Baluchis by the names given in the agreement : t.e., to try to follow the agree
ment literally.
or (b) To try to determine to which actual topographical features the
Commissioners were intending to refer.
In view of the difficulty of correctly determining place names in an almost
uninhabited country, the above two courses do not necessarily lead to the
same result. In the present case course (b) can be followed with very little
doubt, and it leads to a reasonable and satisfactory boundary, while course
(a) leads to contradictions and difficulties.
The points which have to be decided are :—
(a) Where is the junctions of the Tahlab and Mirjawa rivers t
(b) Which point on the watershed of the Mirjawa range is nearest to
this junction.
(c) Which is the main watershed between the Mirjawa range and the
Kacha Koh T
(2) Naming of Topographical Features. —It must be understood that the
European and Indian system of naming topographical features is not the same
as that used in Western Baluchistan. The European practice is to give a
river a single name from its mouth to the source of its principal tributary, or
alternatively to some junction where it splits into two principal tributaries.
In this area, on the other hand, rivers are seldom given one name throughout
any considerable length of their ootirse. Every small hill-valley has its own
name, but in flat ground a separate name is given to every point where there is
water or grazing or any other prominent feature, and intermediate stretches of
dry river-bed are left unnamed.
(3) Mirjawa—Tahlab junction. —In the case of the Mirjawa and Tahlab
rivers, I should say (although this point of view may not be generally accent
ed) that there is no river which the Baluchis name Mirjawa, and no river named
Tahlab. Mirjawa is an inhabited place, and Tahlab is a salt swamp and
jungle. A dry watercourse flows through these places, but I think it is locally
known simply as the rud (=^ Persian river). If it is necessary to distinguish
it from any other rud, it may be described as the Mirjawa rud or Tahlab rud,
these being well known localities through which it passes, but I would here
regard the words Mirjawa and Tahlab as descriptive adjectives rather than
as names, and I think either adjective is perfectly appropriate throughout
the whole length of the river.* Even if the above point of view cannot be
admitted, it is certainly correct to say that the limits of the sections which
might be known as Mirjawa and Tahlab are extremely indefinite, and in any
case there is a locality called Reg-i-Malik which includes part of the river bed
between Mirjawa and Tahlab, so that the sections (if any) known as Mirjawa
and Tahlab, do not meet.
If it is to be insisted on that the Mirjawa and Tahlab rivers must be con
sidered to meet, the nearest approach to a meating place is Reg-i-Malik (see
map 2, latitude 28° 45')- This is an absurd place from which to make the
boundary leave the river bed, for the straight line from it to the Mirjawa
watershed runs close to the river bed, which would form a much clearer
boundary. Also, the map which accompanies the 1896 agreement shows the
boundary following the river almost up to Mirjawa.
If, on the other hand, abandoning literal interpretation, one accepts the
view that tbe agreement uses river names in their European sense the diffi-
culty largely disappear. The map shows which ri ver the boundary is to
Mil my map I have given the names Mirjawa, Reg-i-Malik and Tahlab to different sections
or the nver to avoid the inconvenience of having nvers with no names.