'SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS AND MEASURES OF THE VICEROYALTY OF HIS EXCELLENCY LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON, VICEROY AND GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA IN THE FOREIGN DEPARTMENT. I. JANUARY 1899-APRIL 1904. II. DECEMBER 1904-NOVEMBER 1905. VOLUME IV. PERSIA AND THE PERSIAN GULF.' [‎92r] (188/386)

CHAPTER XII.
Karun River Subsidy.
Mention has already been made (vide Chapter I, paragraph 27, page 7) of
the fact that in the despatch of September 1899 when discussing the financial
aspects of the Persian problem, Lord Curzon emphatically reiterated the opmion
of former Governments that India was only indirectly interested m the develop
ment of British influence in the Karun region, the expenditure on account ot
which should be met from Imperial and not from Indian revenues.
2. In 1896 when this question had been last before the Government of India,
Sir J Westland (Finance Member) urged that as the Tigris and Karun naviga-
tion went hand in hand together, the subsidies paid for the enterprises on them
should be taken into joint aeeount, in which the Imperial and Indian Govern-
ments should each take half a share.
3. After considerable discussion it was decided to reply as follows on the
3rd February 1896
“ On condition that the question as a whole regarding the division of the cost on account
of the Tigris and Karun is laid before the Royal Commission we are willing to meet the
wishes of the Foreign Office.”
4. Pending the report of the Commission before whom it was decided to
refer the question, the Secretary of State sanctioned the resumption of the pay
ment of £1,000 a year from Indian revenues towards the Karun navigation with
effect from 1st January 1895.
5. In September 1899, the Company applied again for a continuance of the
subsidy for five more years.
6. The application was referred for observations to the Government of
India who on 21st December 1899 replied as follows
“ We have already noticed* this question m
of September 1S99 :—
Vide Chapter I, paragraph 27, page 7.
our despatch
“The Indian contributi.n to the Karun subsidy is not m our opinion necessary in the
interests of Indian trade and we are reluctant to continue it We are, however, willing, if
Your Lordship considers this desirable, to bear a moiety of the Karun subsidy for one year more,
namely for the calendar year 1900. We agree to this, in the first place, because we assume
that the report and recommendations of the Royal Commission will be lss “ d J" r ' n f f t ^ a c ^;
in" year and, in the second place, bacause we are awaiting a reply to our despatch of the Mst
September 1899, which deals with the whole question of the maintenance of British
in Persia We desire, however, to state that we cannot agree to prolong the contribution
beyond the year 1900, and we would once more call Your f ^rnnutsUy in which
Of an orrancrement whereby Indian revenues not only meet half the K.aiun subsiny, in wmen
Indl"nter P esS! if They cao be said to exist at all, are insignificant, hut also bear the who e
charge for the Euphrates-Tigris subsidy, in whose object the Imperial Government is at
equally and indeed in our opinion more vitally concerned.
7. Lord George Hamilton concurred and agreed to sanction a moiety of a
reduced subsidy of £1,000 only for one year.
8 The Company was dissatisfied and again pressed for the larger subsidy.
The representation was referred to the Government of India who saw no reason
to alter the opinion expressed in December 1899.
9. Meanwhile in their final report issued in 1900 the Royal Commission
expressed the view that “ if the Government of India mamtamed tte Baghdad-
Basrah service, the charge for the Karun service should be borne by Great
Britain In this view the Government of India expressed their entire concur
rence.