'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.' [‎108r] (220/386)

Ill
55. Unfortunately in later years whether on account of changes in the course
of the main stream, or by reason of strained relations, between the two parties,
the amicable settlement of water difficulties became no longer possible. A series
of small, and in themselves unimportant, water questions arose between lh’00
and 1902, which caused mutual misunderstanding and increased ill-feeling, until
matters were brought to a crisis by disputes arising from abnormal deficiency of
water in the Helmand in 1902. This led to the matter being referred to the
arbitration of the British Government. •
56. The condition under which the arbitration had been agreed to by the
Governments of Persia and Afghanistan was that the award should be in accord
ance with the terms of General Goldsmid’s award, the relevant portions of
which will be found on page 103, paragraph 28. The award provides that
Persia has a right to a requisite supply of water for irrigation and the main
question for consideration w as what amount of water fairly represents a requisite
supply for Persian requirements.
57. While the boundary award was yet undelivered, Colonel McMahon had
been studying the water question and by the end of the summer of 1904 he had
collected all the data necessary for forming definite conclusions on the subject.
In September 1904 he submitted a detailed memorandum setting forth
the salient points in the past history of the Helmand river, the disputes which
had arisen regarding it, the results of local enquiries and his observations and
conclusions. He also forwarded drafts of awards based on conclusions derived
from the above data. In framing each draft, endeavour had been made to meet
the fair requirements of Persia and Afghanistan hut. at the same time, to provide
variations in the general scope of the award, so as to enable Government to
select that which might appear the most suitable. After careful consideration
by the Government of India in consultation with His Majesty’s Government
and His Majesty’s Minister, Tehran, it w^as decided to accept, with certain
modifications, the draft award which had been drawn up so as to exclude the
idea that the Persians had any claim to extend irrigation by channels to be con
structed through Afghan territory. This draft w r as considered to be the one most
in keeping with. General Goldsmid s award, to the terms of which Colonel
McMahon’s arbitration had been restricted, and further, it did not give either
party the right to cut canals in the territory of the other. The decision was
communicated to Colonel McMhhon on the 30th December 1904 and he was
authorised to deliver the award whenever he considered it advisable to do so.
He, how ever, considered it expedient to defer delivery of the award for the reason
that the Mirjawa and other questions on which the departure of his mission from
Soistan depended w r ere still under discussion between the Government of India
and His Majesty’s Government- The delivery of the water aw T ard would mean
the final conclusion of his duties as His Britannic Majesty’s Arbitrator, and his
status as such might, therefore, be considered to cease. In view of possible
further delay of his mission in Seistan, he feared that tl is might give rise to
difficulties regarding the continuance of the various diplomatic^ privileges
conferred upon the mission by the Persian Government, on w hiob, in the past,
several attacks had already bean made by those u'ho desired to injure the
prestige and frustrate the w r ork of the mission. Colonel McMahon also con
sidered delay desirable in order to discuss the water question formally with the
Persian and Afghan Commissioners.
58. On the water as on the boundary question, the views of the Persian and
Views of Persian and Afghan Govern* Afghan Governments were diametrically
mentson water question. opposed. In the boundary question, tlie
Persians based their claims on the Goidsmid award and ignored his map, the
Afghans based theirs on the map and ignored the award. The Persians, moreover,
contended that only w ater and no boundary questions were in dispute. Similarly
in this matter, the Persians claimed rights in the Helmand to which no interpre
tation of the Goldsmid award, however favourable to them, could reasonably
extend. They demanded that Afghanistan should he forbidden to erect any
lands or obstructions to interfere with the natural flow of the river from Budbar
to Kohak. The Afghans, on the other hand, claimed sole possession of the
Helmand up to Kohak, and, w hile admitting the boundary to he in dispute,
had asked what there was left to settle regarding water.
59. With two parties thus opposed in principle, it was obviously
no use to expect to arrive at any settlement by mutual discussion or mutual