Ext 1133/47 'Foreign Office print: Persian Frontiers (with map)' [‎8r] (15/30)

t
j
9
portion of the frontier, but, owing to the
evasiveness of the Soviet officials, little or
nothing could be accomplished. As the
lack of a definite frontier line later gave
rise to difficulties, it was agreed in March,
1936, that a Perso-Soviet commission
s^ald demarcate the boundary as defined
by the 1881 treaty (once again, there was
no reference to the frontier as defined by
the convention of the 8th June, 1893). In
July, 1926, it was reported that the Soviet
Government were to return to Persia
185 square versts of territory in the neigh
bourhood of Pul-i-Khatun (this place is on
the left bank of the Hari-Rud river just
south of the point where it is joined by the
Kashaf-Rud); this land had, it was said,( 6 )
been ceded by Nasir ad-Din Shah to Russia
some time in the latter part of the previous
century. Since all the land on the west side
of the Hari-Rud and Tejend (as the
Hari-Rud is known below its junction with
the Kashaf-Rud) in this region was already
in Persia, the area in question must have
been on the east bank of that river to the
south of “ old ” Sarakhs. As in the case of
Firuzeh, there is no evidence to show that
this territory has ever been returned to
Persia. There is likewise nothing on
record in regard to frontier demarcation
since 1926.( 7 )
IV.—Frontier with Afghanistan
45. The Perso-Afghan frontier is
509 miles in length. Although there have
in the past been numerous disputes and
even wars between Persia and Afghanistan
over frontier questions, the whole of the
boundary between the two states has been
satisfactorily settled in the course of the
last 70 years; the task of delimitation was
completed only in 1935.
46. The main underlying cause of the
frontier disputes between Persia and
Afghanistan was, in the earlier days,
Persia’s claims to the provinces of Herat
and Sistan. On historical grounds she
certainly had some justification for her
pretensions.
( 6 ) See Meshed despatch No. T/24 dated
20 th May, 1926 (E 4067/100/34).
( 7 ) It "is known that the local Soviet authorities
had for long looked with a jealous eye upon all
land that could be irrigated in these regions,
together with all sources of water. Sir R. Hodgson,
in his despatch No. 229 to the Foreign Office, dated
19th March, 1926 (E2211/100/34), stated that :
“ The Russians from time immemorial had not onlv
insisted that all the water of the frontier rivers
should be devoted to irrigating the cotton fields ot
Turkestan, but had gone so far as to compel the
Persians inhabiting the frontier regions to root up
all their trees so that no part of the water should be
absorbed in Persian territory. As a consequence,
considerable districts formerly fertile had been
reduced to an arid state.
I
tl
Ail f J
j4f.£Shah Ismafil, the founder of the
Sifivf* dynasty, cojnquered the province of
Herat in IfrEQ-r-aad it remained in Persian
hands for well over two centuries. In 1716
the Abdali Afghans, who at that time were
settled in and around the city of Herat,
rebelled and succeeded in throwing off the
Persian yoke for some years. Nadir Shah,
however, defeated them in 1729 and again
in 1732; in the latter year he once again
established Persian authority in the pro
vince. After Nadir’s assassination in
1747, Ahmad Khan (afterwards Ahmad
Shah Durrani), the able Abdali leader, who
had been one of Nadir’s proteges, seized
Herat and made it part of his newly
formed kingdom of Afghanistan. For
many years thereafter Persia was too feeble
to assert her claims, but she did not give up
hope.
48. Path ‘Ali Shah (1797-1834), en
couraged by the Russians to seek territorial
compensation in the east for what he had
had to cede to them in the north-west in
1813 and 1828, twice planned to seize
Herat, but on each occasion his project
failed to materialise. His anti-British and
pro-Russian successor Muhammad Shah
(1834—48), who imagined himself to be a
reincarnation of the great Nadir, sent an
army to take Herat in November 1837, but
had to abandon the enterprise after a ten
months’ siege, when the British Govern
ment, after making strong protests,
followed these up with the occupation of
Kharak island, in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. . In
1851 Nasir ad-Din Shah (1848-96), after
receiving overtures from Sayyid Muham
mad Khan, the ruler of Herat, sent a
force ostensibly to reduce the Turkmans
of the north-east frontier, but actually to
occupy Herat. Strong remonstrances by
the British Government led to the with
drawal of the Persians before they could
achieve their object and to the Persian
Government giving an undertaking, dated
the 25th January, 1853, to abstain from
taking possession of the province and from
interference in its internal affairs.
49. Notwithstanding this undertaking,
the Shah’s forces attacked the city and took
it in 1856. This aggressive act brought
about the brief Anglo-Persian war of 1857,
in the course of which Great Britain again
occupied Kharak island and. having landed
troops on the mainland, also occupied
Bushire and defeated the Persians at
Mohammerah. By the treaty of Paris, the
Shah agreed to withdraw from Afghan
territory, but he nevertheless managed to
retain control over Herat through a puppet
ruler. This state of affairs was terminated
86-12