Coll 28/67 ‘Persia. Annual Reports, 1932–’ [‎233r] (465/644)

[19400] d* 3
11
greater than it had originally been expected would be realised by the sale of the
JBerberis’ property, but the increase was to a certain extent due to the fact that,
by arrangement with the Governor-General, the departing Berberis took with
them more dependents than had first been contemplated, including even a number
who had acquired Iranian nationality. Indeed, the total number of Berberis who
left, in the month of June, reached the figure of 137, 39 of whom could legitimately
be claimed by the Iranian authorities as Iranian nationals.
51. On the whole the incident seemed to have passed off: as satisfactorily as
could have been expected, and it was hoped that for the time being at least there
would be no more trouble over the Berberis. This hope was unfortunately not
fulfilled. Hardly a month after the departure of the exiles four more British
Indian subjects, two of whom were resident at Zabul and two at Zahidan, were
ordered to leave the country, and a few weeks later six more, resident at Zahidan,
received similar orders. All of those affected except one had previously served
in the Indian army, and in the case of four the local authorities freely admitted
that this was the reason for their expulsion. This time not all were Berberis—
two were Sikhs, men of comparative substance, and one was a Punjabi. The last
mentioned was about to be engaged on the staff of His Majesty’s Consulate-
General for Khorassan, and this was adduced as an additional reason for recon
sideration of his case in the representations that were made to the Iranian
Government. In these representations it was pointed out by His Majesty’s
Minister that he foresaw that these further expulsions might lead to a serious
situation; any action implying discrimination against Indians would be deeply
resented in India, and a demand might well arise for a revision of the attitude
of tolerance which had hitherto been adopted towards Iranians in India. Similar
representations were made by the Government of India to the Iranian Consul-
General at New Delhi. Subsequently, however, since past experience showed
that there was little prospect of succeeding in obtaining a revocation of the
expulsion orders, at any rate in the case of the Berberis, the representations
became largely directed towards the securing of permission from the Iranian
Government for the victims to export their capital in the form of goods—it was
felt that His Majesty’s Consul-General for Khorassan had in the earlier cases
already taken over as many rials as was wise and that this form of assistance could
not continue to be granted. Finally, at the last possible moment—indeed, in one
case it was too late—the matter reached the Council of Ministers, and a delay
was granted to make negotiations possible with a view- to a settlement of exchange
problems. In the case of the two Sikhs, permission was eventually granted to
them to export their capital by means of the purchase of carpets, which were to
be allowed out of Iran without restrictions. Later this was extended to the others
affected by the expulsion orders, who were all allowed to export their capital
by means of goods which were not a Government monopoly. Though some con
cession was thus made in these instances, the victims were by no means so
fortunate as those whom His Majesty’s Consul-General for Khorassan had been
able to assist, by taking over their rials, earlier in the year. The latter were able
to secure the advantage of the official rate of exchange, whereas the former
received a concession which in practice meant that they had to export their
capital at the black rate, involving in effect a loss of some 50 per cent. Indeed
practically all of them decided to run the risk of purchasing rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf. on the black
market, rather than follow the devious method of purchasing and then re-selling
goods. 52 * * *
52. It was inevitable that these many expulsions should have a bad effect on
the morale of the Indian communities in East Iran. This was, however, to a great
extent restored as a result of the eviction from India of sixty-nine Iranian gipsies.
This affair is discussed in paragraph 64 of the present report. The eviction of the
gipsies had nothing to do with the expulsions from Iran, but nevertheless the two
matters seem to have become associated in the minds of the Iranian authorities.
At any rate the gipsy incident appears to have resulted in a temporary cessation
of threats against the Indians in Zahidan. It did not, however, prevent one
further expulsion of a British Indian subject, resident in Zahidan,* towards the
end of the year.