Kalat Affairs [‎303r] (13/172)

-Efloloau^e No^Or—
No. 2529, dated Bombay Castle, the 14th June 1871.
From—W. Wkddrrburn, Esq., Acting Secretary to the Government of Bombay From c. 1668-1858, the East India Company’s administration in the city of Bombay [Mumbai] and western India. From 1858-1947, a subdivision of the British Raj. It was responsible for British relations with the Gulf and Red Sea regions. ,
Political Dept.
To—The Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Department.
AVith reference to the correspondence noted in the margin, I am
^ „ T ^ - directed to forward (with accomnani-
No. 1194 , dated tte 2 ttii August iset', and pre- ments) a minute, dated the 10 th leb-
Bombay^mwernmen^het'ter No. 54S, dated the 17th Diary last, byHis Excellency the GoV-
•• December 1869, and previous correspondence. emor, whidl CXprCSSCS the \ 7 ieWS of this
Government regarding Khelat affairs.
>, ’ ■ ■ , ..
[ Enclosure No' 1 of letter from Bombay Government, No. 2529, dated 14th June 1871.]
Minute by His Excellency the Governor,—dated the Vdth February 1871.
The questions brought to notice by these papers are:
The policy to be pursued towards the State of Khelat, more
especially with reference to the relations of the Khan towards his
Sirdars Leader of a tribe or a polity; also refers to a military rank or title given to a commander of an army or division. .
( 2 .) The communication addressed to the Government of India
by the Ameer of Cabul with regard to the case of Moola Mahomed.
(3.) The difference of opinion which has occurred between
Sir William Merewether and Colonel Phayre and the correspondence
that has taken place between those officers.
2. With regard to the latter, whatever may be the views of the Govern
ment as to the policy to he pursued as regards the first two questions, nothing
can justify the tone of Colonel Phayre’s correspondence.
3 . At the time wdien the command on the frontier was, on the representa
tions of General Jacob, separated from the Sindh Division, the Political Super
intendent and Commandant Frontier Field Force was, in his political capacity,
distinctly made entirely subordinate to the Commissioner in Sindh, and such he
has always remained.
4 . Colonel Phayre says that none of his predecessors have been addressed
by any former Commissioner as he has been addressed and controlled by Sir
William Merewether. This may be so ; but the reason is that no former
Political Superintendent has attempted to establish a policy of his own in
direct opposition to his superior, and in this instance there is the less justifica
tion for the course Colonel Phayre has pursued, because he w^as aware that the
views of Sir William Merewether had obtained the distinct sanction and appro
val of the Government.
5 . I most willingly acknowledge Colonel Phayre’s zeal and singleness of
purpose ; but he must be reminded that he is subordinate to the Commissioner
in Sindh, and cannot he permitted to act on his own opinion in opposition to the
clear instructions of his superior.
6 I have refrained hitherto, from regard to Colonel Phayre, from propos
ing his removal; hut I think it would be for the public interest, if, on a fit
opportunity, another appointment were found for Colonel Phayre and his place
in Sindh supplied by the selection of another officer. It would be my duty thus
to record mydisapproval of Colonel Phayre s proceedings and correspondence
even if, upon a full consideration of the events of the last few years a the
Khelat frontier, I had found reason to re-consider the opimons I have h^ e to-
fore expressed as to the policy which should be pursued with refeience to
Khelat affairs.
3