File 3839/1916 Pt 1 'Persia: - Incidence of expenditure in - question of revising the agreement of 1900' [‎395r] (806/880)

t
have been actively employed, their fimctions, I presume, have consisted-
no doubt m connection with military forces-in hunting down raidino-
parties let loose by the general state of lawlessness in South Persia a
condition of things aggravated, no doubt, by the war, and fostered by
Geiman intrigue. What they have been doing may, correctly I think be
■described as of the nature of police duties in a time of war and unrest c/
the Government of India’s own telegram of 7th August 1916 where
they say that the functions of the Force will be “mainly those of police or
constabulary. 1 he fact that the Force has a military organisation does
not seem to affect this. So has the Burma Military Police. For does it
seem specially relevant to the point at issue, that its control has been
transferred to the Gommander-in-Ohief. This is only natural, as the South
Persia limes have to work in along with the purely military forces he
administering.
16. H f^e operations of the South Persia Rifles are not “ military
operations,” Section 2'2 of the Government of India.Act does not seem to
apply- Moieover, that section relates to military operations carried on by
“ His Majesty’s Forces charged upon ” the revenues of India, a phrase which
does not seem to cover a local force raised in a country outside India.
17. If Section 22 of the Act does not apply, the Parliamentary Resolu
tions have no relevance, and the one question to be considered from the
point of view of the Act is whether the expenditure may be regarded as
expenditure “for the purposes of the government of India alone”
(Section 20 (1) of the Act). The question at issue here is the same as in the
case of the loans and subsidies given to Persia both before and since the
beginning of the war. It will be seen that the Comptroller and Auditor-
General considers the true nature of the expenditure incurred in connection
with the South Persia Rifles is that of a subsidy to the Persian Government,
in pursuance of our policy for the successful conduct of the war against
Germany and Turkey, and the Government of India do not fail to see that
his objection applies equally to all the so-called political expenditure which
is being incurred by the Imperial Government or by us in Persia in
connection with the war.
18. In view of this challenge as to the legality, as well as fairness to
India, of our contributions towards these subsidies and loans, as also
towards the expenditure of the South Persia Rifles, it would be as well to
ask the opinion of the Legal Adviser.
Summary.
Put briefly, my views on the questions dealt with in this important
telegram are as follows :—
1. Seistan Levies.—The whole of the expenditure is chargeable to
Imperial revenues for the reasons given in our telegram of 17th November
and the Government of India’s present reply, subject to any credits for the
ordinary cost of any officers or troops of the Indian Army lent to the Levies.
If you concur, you will no doubt have a draft letter prepared to the I oreign
Office, asking them to put the matter to the Treasury with a view to the
necessary instructions being given to the War Office ; a copy of the letter
might at the same time be forwarded to that Department.
2. South Persia Bifles .—My view is that, at the outset, the arrangement
as to incidence which we made with th^ Treasury was both fair to India
and legal, and that nothing that has happened since- so Jar as the papers
before me indicate—has altered the position. If this view be accepted, a
suitable reply to the Government of India will presumably be prepared in
your Department. I suggest, however, that the opinion of the Lena I
Adviser be taken in regard to these payments, and those under
below.