‘Persia – especially Seistan’ [‎141v] (281/949)

4
A
Pariun, which, from that time onwards, has taken the main volume of the whole
river due northwards, between Jelalabad and Jehanabad, and through the
Ashkin lands to the Hamun.
23 . Owing to the above changes in the river, it became necessary, in the
autumn of 1896 , to take measures for keeping up the supply in the Nad Ali
channel, and the Persians and Afghans mutually decided to co-operate to build
a hand across the Pariun. About three-quarters of a mile below the bifurcation,
a hard bed was found in the Pariun. This was chosen as the site of the band;
but as it was about three-quarters of a mile below the bifurcation, it was
thought necessary to dig a leading cut to the Nad Ali channel. Although the
hand was built in concert, each party dug his own feeding cut, dropping it into
the Nad Ali channel near Deh Khoja above the Shela-i-Jehanabad.
24 . This arrangement was continued in 1897 , but in 1898 the Afghans
began work on another cut above the Pariun band; the Persians objected to this
as being in their territory, and the Afghan gangs were removed to Afghan
territory, and the present Afghan cut (Ju-i-Afghanl was made from the river
to the Nad Ali channel to the south, and upstream, of the bifurcation. They
also built a hand at its head, called the Band-i-Shahgul, which has been made
each year since then, except in 1903 , when the supply that went down the Nad
Ali channel was ample, and no band was required. The Persians be^an to
build a Pariun band, but did not complete it, and never built it again until
1901 . 6
25 . The Governors of Persian and Afghan Seistan seem to have settled
The water disputes of 1901 and 1902. ^ m icably any water disputes that arose
from time to time, and no disputes of im
portance arose until 1901 , when the Persians extended one of their canals from
the Rud-i-Pariun, past Takht-i-Shah, into the Naizar, and the Afghans cut a
a small canal to take off the Sikhsar water from near Deh Gul Shah to the
west.
26 . It is probable that these disputes, like previous ones, would have been
mutually settled by the local Governors, but outside influences, which had by
that time reached Seistan, prevented this. A Russian Consul had now come to
Seistan, and he seized the opportunity to embitter the mutual relations existing
between the countries. This and other subsequent water disputes, themselves
of a trifling nature, were made to assume fictitous importance, until all hope of
local settlement lapsed. r
27 . The Afghan Government deputed Musa Khan of Herat to Seistan
to meet a Persian representative and settle up boundary and water disputes.
Musa Khan arrived in Seistan in November 1901 , and the Persian represent
ative, the Yamin-i-Nizam, arrived in May 1902 .
28 . The Russian Consul, Mr. Miller, incited both sides against the other,
as admitted freely to me by both, in the hope that, when things reached a
crisis, his intervention would be called for.
29 . The Y^amin-i-Nizam declined to meet the Afghan representative, and
the Governor of Chakansur, Akhundzada Pakir Muhammad Khan, abandoning
all hope of amicable settlement, occupied Deh Dost Muhammad in Miankangl
on 6 th July 1902 . Persia was reminded by the British Government of her
obligations under Article 6 of the Treaty of 1857 , and on 24 th July 1902 , the
Persian Government asked for British intervention. His Highness the Amir
agreed to a settlement of Seistan disputes by British arbitration, and an arbi
trator was duly appointed. Persia, in accepting arbitration, laid down as a
condition thereof that both the arbitral award and the final decision of His
Majesty’s Secretary of State for Poreign Affairs should be in accordance with
the terms of the Goldsmid award.
30 . In the meantime, owing to long continued drought in the catchment
area of the Helmand, the river during 1902 was of abnormally small volume,
and scarcity of water in Seistan, occurring just at the time when mutual rela
tions were strained, led to irrigation works being carried out on both sides to
injure each other.