مجموعة ٢٨/٢٨أ "بلاد فارس: الحدود الفارسية البلوشستانية؛ تعيين الحدود قرب ميرجاوه [أغلبها نسخ عن أوراق من المجموعة ٢٨/٢٨]" [و‎‎٢‎١‎٤] (٥٧٢/٤٢٧)

T.-legram’ No. S.218, dated the 31st December 1906.
From—The Foreign Secretary, Calcutta,
To— Sir C. Spring-Rice, K.C.M.G., His Britannic Majesty’s Minister, Tehran.
Persian claim to Kacha and expulsion of British subjects from Piran.
Teleeram, dated 13th December, from British Consul in Seistan. I lease refer to
Sir H. McMahon’s memorandum on the Perso-Baluch boundary question, also
the enclosure of his letter of 5th November 1901, and map thereto annexed.
The principles underlying the settlement which was ultimately arrived at by
Sir A* Hardinge at Tehran, were that the boundary should not be specifically
defined that the status quo should bo adhered to, and that no lurther claim
should be made bv either side. The status quo meant the then existing condi
tions of occupation by either side. The red line on map referred to roughly
represents the limits of our occupation, and the present l ersian claim to Kacha
and Piran is entirely opposed to the principles of the settlement, t he fact
of our occupation of Piran admits of no doubt; and the Persian claim to
Kacha is even less sustainable. The action of the Persian Sarbazcs in e xp< 1-
lin» our people is unwarrantable, and unless you see objection it is proposed
to issue orders for restoration of the status quo by causing them to remove
forthwith. The proposal put forward hy Lieutenant Daukea that the V ice-
Consul and a Persian official should be sent to report on the position is undesir
able, and might be taken as an admission of doubt on our part.
Addressed to Sir C. Spring-Pice, and repeated to Agent to the Governor-
General in Baluchistan and British Consul in feeistan.
Telegram, No. 1082, dated the 81st December 1906.
From-The Hon’rlf. Mr. A. L. P. Tucker, C.I.E., Agent to the Governor-General
in Baluchistan. Quetta,
To—The Foreign Secretary, Calcutta.
Your telegram of the 27th instant. It is true a Persian party recently
caused our levies, who have been posted at Piran since July last year, to leave
the place. Piran is on the boundary, and there is no reason for beheving our
men were on the Persian side of it while we have had a post at Ivacha oit and
on for some ten years. Political Agent or Assistant will proceed to spot before
Ion- to make enquiries and report further. Meanwhile, I do not recommend
joint examination suggested by Seistan Consul, which seems inconsistent with
Agreement of May last year, while a Baluchistan officer should be parly to any
examination of the kind if it were necessaij.
Addressed to Foreign Secretary, Calcutta; repeated to Foreign Secretary,
Agra.
Telegram, No. 6, dated the 2nd January 1W07.
From—Sm C. Spring-Rice, K.C.M.G., His Britannic Majesty’s Minister, Tehran,
To—The Foreign Secretary, Calcutta.
Perso-Baluch border. Your telegram, dated the 31st December 1906,
No S.213 Persian claim to Piran and Kacha. I saw the Grand Vizier to-day
and told him that forcible interference with the status quo by expulsion of
British villagers by armed force had made it necessary for the Indian
Government to issue orders for the restoration of quo by causing the
intruding force to remove forthwith. Grand Vizier replied that the local
authorities had acted without orders, and that he had telegraphed for an
explanation. He added that he hoped the matter would be settled amicably
on the spot without further discussion.
I nresume there is no room for doubt that the villagers have actually
been in occupation, and that we shall not claim more than maintenance of