File 3839/1916 Pt 1 'Persia: - Incidence of expenditure in - question of revising the agreement of 1900' [‎400r] (816/880)

Pei sia plus half the extraordmary charges would have marked the special
character of the Indian interest. Moreover, as India paid the whole cost o
Indian , troops in Oman before the war, it might be held that there is no
reason why any less proportion should be paid after the war
J he Council are aware that the extra cost of certain Indian troops which
were sent to Persia early m 1907 was divided in equal moieties between
, ’ Inipenal f unds (ride correspondence ending with the letter from
this Department of the 12th April 1908, 7096/08), but their Lordships’
predecessors agreed on a subsequent occasion to accept as a charge upon
Imperial Funds a moiety of the whole cost of Indian troops employed in
Southern Persia m 1911 and thereafter.
My Lords assume that Army Funds are not already bearing charges in
respect of operations m Persia which should be set against the Indian
expenditure.
I am, &e.,
1 he Secretary, War Ofiice. John Bradbury.
Enclosure 2 in above.
Whir Office to Ih'easurv.
No. 01(34/3°
Sir.
ISO (F. 1.)
War Office,
1th March 1910.
I am commanded by the iirmy Council to acknowledge receipt of
your letter, No. 1909/16 of the 19th ultimo, regarding the incidence of cost
of the troops from the Indian Establishment employed in Oman and Persia
during the war.
The Council agree with Their Lordships that, having regard to the
substantial interest of India in Persia and Oman, there is no reason why the
Imperial Government should bear the same share of the expenditure as in
the case of the operations in France, and while the Council are unaware of
the grounds on which the Treasury agreed to share equally between
Imperial and Indian revenues the whole cost of the Indian troops employed
in Southern Persia in 191 ! and thereafter, they do not think that those
grounds should necessarily determine the incidence of cost under the totally
different circumstances now prevailing.
The Council consider that the case is one which should be dealt with by
the transfer of a round sum based on estimate only, as Suggested in the case
of Aden in War Office letter 0164/3310 A. (F. 1) of 6th January 1916, and
approved in Treasury letter 507 of 17th February 1916. Holding this view,
they consider that efforts should be made to dispense with detailed
accounting between the Indian Government and the War Office at a time of
pressure like the present; and, as the whole sum involved is not large in
proportion to other military expenditure, they consider that the Government
of India might reasonably be expected to bear the whole charges of these
troops, currently, until such time as the question of the ultimate incidence
of the expenditure can be dealt with.
I am, &c.,
The Secretary, Treasury. B. B. Cubitt.
4.
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. to Treasury.
F. 3044. 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. ,
27th July 1916.
I am directed to reply as follows to Sir Robert Chalmers’ letter
dated I4th March 1916, No. 6128, regarding the incidence of cost of troops
from the Indian establishment employed in Oman and Persia during the
Avar : —
Alternative suggestions were made by the Treasury, viz :*
[a) that Indian revenues should for the time being bear the .whole
charges of these troops, leaving the question of ultimate incidence
to be settled hereafter;
20888—15
• j
-