File 200/1928 Pt 10 'Persia: Anglo-Persian Relations. Treaty Negotiations' [‎17r] (34/868)

again cases of simple commandeering by the military authorities, contrary to
^ 1 I a ?^ emen ^ s . a & ree .d on in 1930 between the Imperial Ministry for Foreign
Anairs and His Majesty s Legation. The drivers were detained in barracks and
His Majesty s vice-consul at Zahedan was not allowed to see them. Eight cases
occurred m which Indian drivers and shopkeepers were beaten by the military
authorities. In his aide-memoire of the 2 nd January (the lith Dey), His
Majesty s Minister pressed for due compensation for the victims of these cases
of requisition and beating, and for reasonable payments to the commandeered
drivers, and asked that steps be taken to ensure against a repetition of such
irregularities. He also asked that Indians only holding visas entitling them to
operate only on the Zahedan-Nok Kundi road should be entirely exempt from
commandeering and that only such Indians should be liable as had visas ordinarily
enabling them to ply for hire in the interior of Iran. He trusts that reasonable
compensation will not be delayed and also that he may receive in a categorical
statement the assurances which have been conveyed to him verbally, that instruc
tions have now been issued that a regular procedure, as desired, is to be followed
in future.
4. Secondly, cases of expulsion of British subjects without proper
formalities last formed the subject of representations in His Majesty’s Minister’s
note No. 11 of the 9th January (the 18th Dey, 1314). A typical instance of the
unfair hardship occasioned by the action of the local authorities is afforded by "►
the ease of Seyed Abdul Hussein. This man was served with two notices to leave
the country, the first on the 14th August. 1935 (the 22 nd Mordad, 1314) (which
appears subsequently to have been revoked) and the second on the 31st October,
1935 (the 8 th Aban, 1314). No reason was given for the issue of these orders,
against the second of which the man appealed to the Minister of the Interior.
On the 27th November, 1935 (the 5th Azar, 1314) he was arrested by the police,
and informed verbally that his appeal had been dismissed. The police proposed
to expel him at once, but owing to the intervention of His Majesty’s consul-
general. he finally obtained ten days in which to leave the country. The injustice
of these proceedings is manifest, and in his note His Majesty’s Minister pressed
for regularisation of the proceedings whereby written statements should be given
by the local police showing the grounds for the issue of expulsion orders, while
written statement should also be given by the Minister of the Interior showing
the grounds on which any appeal has been dismissed (and not verbal statements
by the local police), and in the event of ultimate expulsion, a period of at least
one month's grace allowed from the date of the announcement to the individual
•concerned of the rejection of the appeal to enable him to make all necessary
arrangements.
5. Thirdly, the cases of unjust and vexatious treatment of British Indian
pilgrims are particularly serious. The general question was dealt with in a
memorandum handed to the Under-Secretary of State as long ago as the
19th October (the 26th Mehr, 1314). A typical instance is afforded by the case
of a pilgrim passing through this country from Iraq. The case was given in
detail in the memorandum of the 19th October (the 26th Mehr). This man passed
the customs at Khosrovi. He was nevertheless detained by the customs at
Damghan until midnight on the day of his arrival there, while the ladies of his
party were made to wait in a garage. Eleven pieces of silk, bought in Iraq for
his family, were confiscated. The police further insisted on his paying 300 rupees Indian silver coin also widely used in the Persian Gulf.
as security, for which sum he was given a receipt. He was tolcl to call at the
Revenue Office at Meshed. At Meshed it was arranged that he should proceed
to India, leaving an agent to represent him at the hearing of the case. He was
further informed that the confiscated goods would be sent to him on the
production of a certificate of his respectability and that the security money would
also be returned. The pilgrim procured and furnished the desired certificate,
signed by the District Commissioner at Lucknow. Meanwhile, however, his
representative at Meshed was informed that the case had been decided at Tehran
(in spite of the arrangement of which he was eventually informed for the hearing
at Meshed) and the silk confiscated, and that a fine of 1,215 rials had been
imposed. Only on payment of the fine would the security money be restored.
6 . A further and still more serious case was brought to the notice of the
Ministry in His Majesty’s Minister’s note No. 624 of the 23rd October, 1935 T
(the 30th Mehr, 1314). In this case, in spite of the fact that the pilgrim,
Mahomed Ali Habib of Bombay, had equally passed the customs at Khosrovi and