ملف ١٩١٦/١٣٢٣ الجزء ١ "بلوشستان: الأوضاع المضطربة على الحدود الأنجلو فارسية. الإدارة المستقبلية لولايات مكران وسرهد وقلات" [ظ‎‎٤‎٢] (٨٩٦/٨٢)

f
r
G 1
Secretary of State for India to forward a copy of the telegraphic correspond-
ence noted below with the Government o± India
From Government of India, No. 399-S., dated 22 nd February.
To Government of India, No. 894, dated 18th March..
To Government of India, No. 1080, dated 4th Apiil.
From Government of India, No. 695-S., dated 5th April.
(The Government of India’s telegram No. 695-S. crossed that addressed to them
on the 4th April, but in effect answers it.) . .
The uncertainty of the political situation in Tehran at the beginning of
April led the Secretary of State to postpone for the time turther consideration
of the question ; but as it is understood that Reza Khan has tormed a new Gov
ernment with some hope of stability, it seems desirable that consideiation o die
question should be resumed without further delay.
There appear, in Lord Olivier’s view, to be certain objections,, some pos
sibly of weight, to Mr. Monson’s suggestion that Persia might be induced, in
return for the free gift of the Mirjawa-Duzclap line, to guarantee the net operat
ing losses over the whole line from Nushki to Duzdap : in the firM place, it
appears undesirable in principle that Persia with so large a debt to His Alajesty s
Government and the Government of India still undischarged should be. encourag
ed to impose further liabilities on such revenues as she possesses, especially those
ear-marked for the service of her debt ; secondly, tne arrangement, proposed
would seem to give Persia some right to claim a share in the direction of the
Indian sections of the line, the losses on which she would guarantee, a develop
ment to which there are obvious objections and which the Government of India
deprecate ; and thirdly, the consequential arrangements adumbrated by Mr.
Monson would apparently tend to exclude the possibility of the line in Persia
being developed by British or British-Indian capital and thereby to minimise
the possibility of His Alajesty’s Government. exerting, any indirect influence
against its development in a manner conflicting with British strategical
desiderata.
Nevertheless Air. Monson’s suggestion seems to afford a not unsuitable
basis on which to initiate discussion with the Persian Government ; in the
perhaps unlikely event of the suggested arrangement being accepted by Persia
without other material alterations than those recommended by the Government
of India, it would seem to ensure the continued existence of the present line for so
long as Persia wishes, since by removing the burden on Indian Revenues of
meeting the losses on the Nushki-Afirjawa section it would remove the principal
reason which might compel the Government of India to demolish it. In any
case, being so much more advantageous financiallv to British (and Indian) in
terests than the arrangement originally proposed by the Government of India
in their despatch* * * § of 19th October 1922, the scheme pronounced by Air. Monson
affords a considerable margin within which any concessions could be made, if
necessitated by the course of negotiations in regard to the railway itself and
questions connected with it, such as, in particular, the re-adjustmout of the
Anglo-Persian frontier at Alirjawa, and between that place and Koh-i-AIalik
Siah (vide Colonel Keyes’ letter No. 9-B. of the 13th Alarch, Serial No. 49f in
the print enclosed in India Office letter P.-1761 of the 30th April and also the
Government of India’s telegrams Nos. 824-S. and 840-S. transmitted to the
Foreign Office under India Office letters P.-1886 and P.-1943 of 25th and 29th
April respectively.
Lord Olivier would therefore be willing that, if Air. Secretary Ramsay
March, No. 73<i from His Britannic Alajesty’s Consul in Sistan (copy enclosed
to open negotiations with the Persian Government on the lines indicated in
Air. Monson’s telegram No. 94,f either at once, or as part of the General negotia
tions which will be resumed on the return of His Alajesty’s Alinister to Tehran.
89.
*Pro. No. 84 in File No. 70-M.-(l ) of 1923, Nos. 1
f Serial No. 49.
t Serial No. 39.
§ Serial No. 73.
|| Serial No. 59-A.
Lc2S8FD—32-27-6-2 i—GIPS
In the meantime I am to invite attention to paragraph 8 of the letter of 19th
Alarch, No. 73§ from His Britannic Alajesty’s Consul in Seistan (cop}’ enclosed
in India Office letter P.-2042 of 2nd June) and to enquire whether the Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs considers that the publication of a formal assurance,
such as the Government of India stated in their telegram No. 695-S.|| they are
prepared to give, that consideration of the demolition of the line will definitely
be deferred for twelve months, would prejudice the course of the contemplated
negotiations with the Persian Government. Apart from this possibility some
such announcement at an early date would appear to be clearly desirable in
itself.