"مذكرة أعدّها القس ج. ب. بادجر بشأن مطالبات بلاد فارس في بلوشستان ومكران، والتي تضمنت إشارة خاصة إلى مطالبها بجوادر وتشابهار" [و‎‎٧] (٢٠/١٣)

Report by Colonel Goldsmid on the ^laims of Persia, Khelat, and Muscat, to Sovereign
Rights on the Mekran Coast.
Political Department.
From Lieutenant-Colonel F. J. Goldsmid, on special duty, to W. H. Havelock,
Esquire, Officiating Secretary to Government, Bombay.
Sir,
In obedience to the orders of His Excellency the Governor in Council,
communicated in your No. 3986, of the 11th instant (received 12th idem), I
have the honour to report perusal of such proceedings on record in the Political
Department relating to the Establishment of the Telegraph on the Mekran Coast,
as appeared necessary to enable me to prepare a detailed statement on the
respective claims to Sovereign rights in Mekran. My instructions are to show
“ according to the best information available, how far the claims of Persia, Khelat,
“ or Muscat, or any other State, to any Sovereign right in any town or district
“ in Mekran, are founded on treaty, or possession, or acknowledgment by the local
“ rulers.”
2. It will, perhaps, be well to consider briefly, in the first instance, “ what are
“ the exact geographical definitions of Mekran,” and “ what do we learn of its past
“ and present history to account for its divided and uncertain possession ?”
Brief History of Khelat by Major
Leech, in Asiatic Society’s Journal,
1843.
3. In the chronicles of the conquest of Sind at the early part of the eighth
r century, mention is made of this country as lying
eograp y . i n the route of the invading army marching from
71 ' the land of the Caliphs. In A.D. 1154, Al-Edrisi
calls it by its modern name without the variation of a single letter; and a
century later, Marco Polo speaks of “ Res Macoran, a great kingdom of
idolaters and Saracens.” That the modern word “ Mekran ” is not found in the
Greek or Latin writers who treat of the locality, is explained by the assumption
that it is a corruption of its ancient designation, or an oriental name of
doubtful origin. From the 16th century, and after
the Portuguese established their authority in the
Persian Gulf, not only do we find more frequent
mention of Mekran itself, but some of its towns
or villages appear under their modern names. But all such information is
confused. The maps, up to those of the present century, are not reliable, though
several* show the particular track required; and
no satisfactory account of the country is really
recorded before the publication of Sir Henry
Pottinger’s travels in 1816. At this period it was
no longer a part of the Persian dominions defined
by our older travellers and geographers, but part of “ Beloochistan,” classed in the
second division of that short-lived but once powerful State. Pottinger, in addition
to other full and particular description, gives it at least intelligible sub-divisions, to
the general correctness of which Major Henry Green’s more recent experience
bears testimony. Without asserting that these have undergone no change, or that
there may not be one or two more or less, I will, in default of other data, make
them the basis of detailed inquiry.
* Sanson, A.D. -
De Lisle -
Do. -
De Mamepas -
1679.
1701 .
1724.
1740, &c., &c.
4. In page 100 of the “ History of Beloochistan ” we are told, “ the principal
£< inland districts of Mekran are Kedge, Punjgoor, Much, Dizuk, Kusserkund,
“ Bushkurd, Sibb, Jalk, Kalpoorakan, and Kohuk ; and on the sea coast there are
“ those of Urboo, Koolaj, Choubar, Teez, and Gwak.” Now, with the exception of
Punjgoor, Kedge, Urboo, Koolaj, and Much, all the above are on the western side
of the country described. The most northerly districts are those of Dizuk, Sibb,
and Jalk. “ Urboo ” is believed to be the district of which Cape Arabah or
4887. C