‘Persia – especially Seistan’ [‎142r] (282/949)

5
/•s
31 . In view of the importance which was attached by the Persian Gov
ernment to the trivial incidents of this period, it is perhaps necessary to
describe what occurred in some detail.
32 . About the beginning of August 1902 , the Helmand fell so low that
the whole river was absorbed by the canal at Rudbar, and none found its way
down the main bed beyond the Rudbar band. Such a thing had never been
•Twice before the Helmand is said to have dried np known before* The dry river bed
as far as Kiia-i-Fath, but only for a few days in each presented a most unusual appearance and
case. A. H. McMahon. ». • T > . f f ’
Major Benn, on visiting it, reported that
the summer wind had hanked up high sandhills across the bed, and made it
difficult to distinguish it from the surrounding country.
33 . Such was the state of affairs until the 22 nd September, when a flood
down the Helmand reached the Band-i-Seistan. This, by the accumulation of
sand on it, had become so staunch that it diverted the whole river into the Rud-
i-Seistan, and no water found its way through the band until the 24 th, when a
crowd of cultivators prepared a way for it onwards through the sandhills formed
in the riverbed. The Shahgul band (i.e., the band across the Rud-i-Pariun at
the mouth of the Ju-i-Afghan) like the Band-i-Seistan, owing to the sand
banked against it, diverted the whole river through the Ju-i-Afghan into the
Nad Ali channel, and for many days none found its way through°the band into
the Rud-i-Pariun.
34 . Tamarisk bands, when made in the ordinary way, allow half the volume
of a river or canal to percolate through them. Percolation can be further res
tricted to any extent by strengthening the bands with earth. Bands are made to
divert water into a small channel, such as the Nahr-i-Sultani, &c , and do not of
course turn off half the whole stream, as the amount they can divert is naturally
limited to the capacity of the channel which takes off at that point.
35 . The Afghans now demanded that, in accordance with custom, the Band-
i-Seistan should not be allowed to divert more than half tbe volume of the
Helmand into the Rud-i-Seistan, but tlie Persians refused. At the same time,
the Persians demanded that the Shahgul Band should only divert half the
volume of the river at that place into the Nad Ali channel. This the Afghans
refused, and, owing to the ill-feeling existing between them, both sides began a
series of retaliatory works.
36 . The Afghans opened out an old cutting from the Helmand, at a point
about five miles above the Band-i-Seistan, to feed the important Jaroki canal,
which had been hitherto taken off at about five miles below the Band-i-Seistan.*
This cut is now known as the Nahr-i-Sultani.
37 . The Persians, in retaliation, turned out a gang of some thousand
armed labourers, and hastily excavated a new channel called the Naobar-i-Puza
Jang Jah, to outflank the Shahgul Band and turn the river into the Rud-i-
Pariun. The Afghans, in their turn, threatened to band the river above the
Naobar-i-Puza Jang Jah and turn the water into the Jaroki.
38 . The Nahr-i-Sultani and Naobar-i-Puza Jang Jah were each finished
in about a month ; but before they could be made use of, and before further acts
of retaliation could be carried out, an unusually early winter flood came down
the Helmand, which, early in December, completely demolished the Band-i-
Seistan, the Shahgul Band, and the new bands at the mouths-of the Nahr-i-
Sultani and Naobar-i-Puza Jang Jah. It filled the Ltud-i-Seistan, the Rud-i-
Pariun, and the Nad Ali channels, and re-established the normal water condi
tions of Seistan.
39 . During the course of the above disputes, the Persian officials in Seistan
represented to His Britannic Majesty’s Consul in Seistan that the restrictions
laid down, as regards new irrigation works in theGoldsmid award, applied to tbe
whole course of the Helmand River up to its source. The Government of India,
on being referred to by Major Benn, replied (their telegram No. 2335 , dated
25 th August 1902 ) that “ Goldsmid’s remarks cannot be held to apply to any
part of the Helmand other than that with which he was dealing, viz., the
part which forms the boundary ”,