'Seistan' [‎83v] (166/782)

2
evidence and from the general wording of Goldsmid’s arbitral opinion that
the Helmand in 1872 flowed by what is now known as the old bed.
I have marked in my map this boundary. I have taken Kurki as the
place where the Helmand formerly became Hamun or ^Naizar 3 as this place
was so described by the Persians to me. From there towards the Koh-i-Siah
I have drawn my line. To turn now to what has happened since the river
changed its course, and to the existing claims and rights of possession of the
Seistanis and Afghans, both of whom base their claim on the wording of the
arbitral opinion quoted.
The Afghans claim that, since the river has changed its course, their
boundary has followed it and now includes the Mian Kangi district, and I
believe that they would, with their superior strength, have probably taken
forcible possession of this part had not the rirer still flowed for a short distance
along its old bed, and was not still a goodly stream to the immediate front of
their commanding fort at Nad-i-Ali.
The Persians, on the other hand, claim, as it is to their benefit, that the
change of the course of the river does not affect the original decision, and that,
as the old course is still traceable, it is, as before, their boundary, while they
have accordingly continued their possession up to that old river bed.
The Persians following this river bed, which towards the north is completely
dry, have found that it does not any longer lead to Hamun or Naizar, for the
water of the Helmand which made the Hamun having taken a more westerly
course, the Hamun or Naizar has conformed and shifted too to the west. So
the point from where Goldsmid drew his line for his northern border, viz.^
Kurki, is no longer the spot where the Helmand becomes Naizar.
Here then is an opportunity for an extension of territory and an evasion of
the arbitral opinion. As though still in search of a Naizar, the Persians have
extended their line of frontier from the old bed as far as Takht-i-Shah, a piece
of rising ground, stopping only there as being a respectful distance from Lash
Juwain and Afghan cultivated soil. Having reached Takht-i-Shah with their
claimed boundary, they tell you their northern boundary is from some point
there (not exactly known) to Tapakaru, a convenient hill on the northern limit
of the Hamun, and on from there to Siah Koh.
Here then is a boundary dispute of some importance, for the land claimed
is valuable and water is abundant.
The Persian claim I am able to state rather more definitely than the
Afghan claim, though I conclude the Afghan claim would start from Milak
and extend to Gala Kulak, where the main water of the Helmand does actuallv
become Hamun, and they would consider a line drawn from there to Siah Koh
as being according to the arbitral opinion of Goldsmid.
Anyhow the loss to the Afghans by the change of the course of the
Helmand is considerable, for from Burj-i-As northwards they can get no water
from the river, the Persians owning both actual banks. I say Burj-i-As and
not Milak because, as before stated, some w^ater does still run by the old bed as
far as that place.
Having now explained the opposing claims of the Persians and Afghans
over this portion of their boundary, I will narrate my tour and what I saw of
actual possession in this Mian Kangi district, and what I noticed of Russian
influence and fertility of the country. Russian
Leaving Nasrambad X marched to Burj-i-Afghan. From there I took a
light camp of one tent, and with my baggage on ponies I crossed the Itud-i-
Dashak to Jalalabad, an old fort on a rising piece of ground and virtually
an island, hrom Jalalabad I made my way across water swamps to the ed^-e
of the river, really the mam water of the Helmand, but known as the Pariun
FYom here I crossed in Tutins or reed boats to Margon. The passage of the
river at tins season of the year when the river is so full is not easy The
Stream runs with force and the river is not confined to banks, but flows throm-h