Coll 28/28 ‘Persia. Perso-Baluchistan Frontier. Demarcation near Mirjawa.’ [‎114r] (238/658)

follow and that it leaves the river where the latter curves away from the
general line of the boundary near Mirjawa. Some doubt may be felt regard-
big the precise point at which the boundary should leave the river, but in my
opinion the most natural point to accept is at the junction with the main bed
of the river from Ladis. This is an important tributary, the junction point is
fairly well defined, and the junction is close to the point where the westerly
trend of the “ Mirjawa-Tahlab ” river would force the boundary to leave it.
This point is about 300 yards below r our post of Killa Safaid, which is conse
quently just inside Persia. But judging from paras. 8 and 9 of the Foreign
Office Memorandum of 23rd July 1931 (pages 3-4 of notes), Sir A. Hardinge’s
agreement of 13th May 1905 may be held to amend Colonel Holdich’s agree
ment to the extent of placing Killa Safaid (= Padaha) inside British territory.
(4) Nearest 'point on Mirjawa Koh watershed The boundary between adjacent drainage basins. .—To determine the point
on the watershed The boundary between adjacent drainage basins. to which the boundary is to proceed in a straight line, the
agreement specifies,
(a) that it is on the Mirjawa Koh, and
(b) that it is on the watershed The boundary between adjacent drainage basins. which limits the drainage into the
Mirjawa river.
Considering the literal interpretation first, the attached map 2 shows the
watersheds (in red), and also (in broken red) the outermost limit of the hill
area which could possibly be held to be locally known as the Mirjawa Koh.
If the Mirjawa river is considered to extend as far south as Reg-i-Malik or
Liasab, it is seen that very little of its limiting watershed The boundary between adjacent drainage basins. lies on the Mirjawa
Koh, and the nearest point is that marked A in map 2. This is an incon
spicuous point, invisible from the south, and it is a very unnatural terminal
for the length of the artificial straight line. The straight line from Reg-i-
Malik to point A (shown in pencil in map 2) lies on the Baluch side of the
river, so that from the point of view of territorial gain the literal interpreta
tion is here slightly to the advantage of Persia.
On the other hand, ignoring the literal interpretation, if the Mirjawa-Tahlab
junction is considered to be just below Killa Safaid, as proposed in paragraph 4
above, the watershed The boundary between adjacent drainage basins. limiting the drainage of the Mirjawa river (as now defined)
is that ending at the point marked B in map 2, which consequently becomes the
northern end of a short length of artificial straight line. This would be a satis
factory An East India Company trading post. point to accept, and it reduces the length of artificial boundary to. a
minimum.
(5) Main watershed The boundary between adjacent drainage basins. to Kacha AoA—The difficulty in interpreting the “ main
watershed The boundary between adjacent drainage basins. northward to the highest point of the Kacha Koh ’ ’ lies in the fact-
that the watershed The boundary between adjacent drainage basins. does not follow^ the main axis of the range, which carries the
highest peaks, but runs along less conspicuous ridges to the west. In particular,
the highest point of the Kacha Koh, which Colonel Holdich defines to be on the
boundary, does not lie on the watershed The boundary between adjacent drainage basins. . See map 2.
In this section an attempt at literal interpretation is to the advantage of the
Government of India, to the extent of about 100 square miles of counti> and the
post of Kacha, which would otherwise become Persian.
Colonel Holdich clearly intended the boundary to follow the line of highest
peaks. In paragraph 15 of his No. 77T of 23rd June 1896, to ^^^m] a r v
India Prog. No. 41 in S. E, October 1896, Nos 10-53 he writes of the boundary
south of the Kacha Koh as “ a rugged wall facing the eastern desert - This
description is applicable to the line of high peaks (shown m con inn _ o
map 2), but not to the true watershed The boundary between adjacent drainage basins. . . Further, the bioken blue me m nnp
is the boundary as transferred from his (small scale) map. It shows im
map was not altogether accurate in detail, but .it distinctly follows t e m
highest peaks rather than the watershed The boundary between adjacent drainage basins. .
If literal interpretation is required, two courses are possible *
(а) To follow the main watershed The boundary between adjacent drainage basins. as far as Padagi Koh and then the Pjj'an-
1 } Kacha watershed The boundary between adjacent drainage basins. as far as the line joining the highest point of the
Kaoha Koh to the Koh-i-Malik Siah. This proposal is shown
yellow in map 2. .
(б) To accept for the south end of the straight line to the Koh-i-Ma i
Siah, the highest point on the watershed The boundary between adjacent drainage basins. , instead of ^ highest
point of the Kacha Koh. This is Padagi Kb3vZQ2&,, I think this
claim could hardly be pressed.