‘Persia – especially Seistan’ [‎140v] (279/949)

2
8. In his arbitral award, Sir Fredrick Goldsmid, as regards the Helmand
and water rights, laid down that:—
“ (1) She (Persia) should not possess land on the right of the Hel
mand. * * * ^he main bed of the Helmand, therefore, below
Kohak should be the eastern boundary of Persian Seistan,
“ ( 2 ) and the line of frontier from Kohak to the hills, south of the
Seistan desert, should be so drawn as to include within tne Afghan
limits all cultivation on both banks of the river from the band
upwards. * * *
“ ( 4 ) It is, moreover, to be well understood that no works are to be carried
out on either side calculated to interfere w'ith the requisite supply
of water for irrigation on both banks of the Helmand”.
9 . In her appeal against this award, Persia contended, inter alia, that
Persian Seistan could not live without control of the Helmand up to Rudbar
(vide despatch, dated 27th November 1872 , from the Persian Minister in Lon
don to Lord Granville) “ le Seistan ne peut vivre qu’avec ses fronti&res
naturelles de Roudbar, en remontant le (illegible) ses rives s’eRvent de mani-
&re qu’il devient impossible de detourner le ideuve de son lit actuel. Le domi
nation de Seistan doit done necessairement le dominer au moins jusqu’a
Roudbar. * * * Du cote du Nord nous voulons garder le Naizar et vers
le Sud Est conserver le Hermunde jusqu’a Roudbar”.
10 . These objections, like all others raised by Persia and Afghanistan
to the award, were over-ruled on appeal by Her Majesty’s Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs, who confirmed the award on 7 th March 1873 , and the award
was subsequently ratified by both countries.
11 . Afghanistan does not appear, in her appeal, to have raised any ob
jection on the water question in particular, but, subsequent to the confirma
tion of the Goldsmid award by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the
Kabul Envoy, deputed to discuss the Goldsmid award with the Government of
India, raised the question of the interpretation of clause 4 of that award. He
contended that this applied only to new works, and not to (1) canals already in
existence and operation, and (2) such old or disused canals as might be put in
proper repair.
12. The Government of India, in referring this question to Her Majesty’s
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (despatch No. 74 , dated 15 th September
1873 ), after pointing out that the Amir desired to construct new, and repair old,
canals, leading from the Helmand, in order to strengthen his frontier and establish
an Afghan colony at Tarakun, wrote“ In our opinion the clause referred
to in the award cannot be understood as applying either to existing canals or
to such old and disused canals as the Afghan Government may wish to put in
proper repair; nor would it interfere with the excavation of new canals
provided the requisite supply of water for irrigation on the Persian side is
not diminished. If Her Majesty’s Government concur in this view, we would
suggest that an explanation may be given which we can communicate to the
Amir ”.
13 . Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs accepted the
above interpretation and the Amir was duly informed. The above ruling
should, therefore, be considered as an integral portion of the Goldsmid award. ^
14 . No water disputes between Afghanistan and Persia are on record for
many years after Sir Fredrick Goldsmid’s Mission. In the meantime the
Helmand showed an increasing tendency to find outlets to the west, and large
portions of its volume appear to have found their way westwards through
channels of which the most important were the Shela-i-Shamshiri, a channel
now known as Shela-i-Lakshakh, taking off below Eurj-i-As, and another
channel, Shela-i-Jehanabad, taking off above Burj-i-As. The two latter drew
off much water towards Jehanabad, and discharged it into the low lyin^* lands
between that place and Jelalabad, whence it escaped northwards, through the