Coll 35/15 'Persian Gulf: Bahrain; issue of postage stamps' [‎20r] (38/379)

Copy of a letter No. F. 204-11/40, doted the 17th July 1940,
from tiie" Secretary to the Government of India in the External
Affairs De .artment, Simla, to His Majesty’s Minister, Tehran.
Subject;- Exchange of letters and parcels between Iran and
Bahrain and between Iran and Muscat.
I a;- directed to refer to the correspondence ending with
your despatch :o.21 (222/3/40), dated the 19th February 1940
and to enclose an extract of a note dated the 1st June 1940
recorded by the IndianFosts and Telegraphs Department giving
the information on the various points mentioned by you.
2. in this connection I an to state that the Muscat post
of Tice which is also under the Indian Posts and Teleigraphs
Department has been exchanging both letter and pare el Inails
with Iran for a long time. This oractice has been irregular
as the mails should have passed through Bombay or Karachi
which are the Indian offices of exchange. As in the case of
Bahrain, the Iranian Administration have not been affording
the ter #mal dharges due to India on parcels sen . by Iran
to Muscat direct, unfortunately no account of the charge due
under this head has been kept. It is desirable to regularise
the position and there seem to be two alternatives -
ti)~ to maintain that Muscat, like Bahrain, possesses no post
office capable of exchanging international parcels and
the t parcels for Muscat should therefore oe sent sqc to
Bombay or Karachi for re-fo rwarding;
Ui) to agree to Iranian parcels being xorwarded to Muscat
only^if the Iranian government agree to pay the terminal
ch£ rges.
3. in view of the serious delay involved 'ey tie adoption of
the first alternative and the fact that the Iranian Groyernment
shadowy claims to regard inhabitants of Muscat as Iranian
subjects are much less stressed than their claim to Bahrain,
it is possible that theyjnight agree to the 2nd alternative,
if, however, you consider that they are unlikely to ao so,
the only course open seems to be, as in the case of Bahrain,
to adopt the first alternative. The G-overnment of India would
be grateful for your views on this point.
4. As regards letter mails sent direct to Muscat from Iran
there is no objection to the present practice being continued
as the opiestion of terminal charges does not arise.
Dopy of a note dated the 1st June 1940 recorded oy the
Indian" Posts and Telegraphs Department.
Information regarding the several points raised my the
Minister, Teheran, in his"*letter dated the 19th February 1940
is given below ser ia tim;-
Para 3 (i). The reply is in the affirmative.
(ii) This relates to the despatch of air mails from
London to Bunder Aboas via Bahrein. The London post office
commenced despatching closed air mail bags f(?r Bunder Abbas
through the East bound Imperial Airways service which are
offloaded at Bahrein. The first despatch consisting of three
such bags was received axxKiaxsixfcxxKxxfc at Bahrein on the
1st May 1939. These bags are received as closed transit
mails advised in the way bills (Feuille d’avis) received
by the Bahrein post office from the Imperial Airways and are
forwarded to destination by the Bahrein post office inside its
own sag, which necessitate! their being aavised in part I f
of tne^s aid way oill. This practice is being followed from
May 1939 and tnere has been no change in it since. Tius
shows tiiat air mails from London to Bunaer AObas are received
at Bahrein by air and from tnere are syent direct to destina
tion by the next Slow Mail sea service.
Tiie