ملف ١٩١٦/١٣٢٣ الجزء ١ "بلوشستان: الأوضاع المضطربة على الحدود الأنجلو فارسية. الإدارة المستقبلية لولايات مكران وسرهد وقلات" [و‎‎٣‎١‎٥] (٨٩٦/٦٢٧)

il
1
Wetri^
tw( | Wiesi
^tleit, o^
} ^k%
ara
s i
before
?ai1 wpeciii
^ntsfroii
^^rebal’si
^bt to'im
i 'J*! S^vl
wed, rti;
afet
teri.^
ent
flfasts^
( mI
S'-
p,
0'-
in#
raab -
memorandum a.
Historical relation oe the Khan op Kalat towards the Confederacy
Sabdars and the British Government.
1 . Kalat State reminds one in many ways of the late Austrian Empire.
Anomalies of Kalat state. ^ is as illogical in the relations of its
i i .p ji • r» •) component parts and. like it, was formed
solely for the convenience of its neighbours. > w as rormea
2. Erom 16C6 the Ahmadzai Khans of KaUt mWi x. t • i
was loosely attached to Kandhar. Uled ° Ter a traot wh,ch
In 1S39, when we were backing Shah Shuja-ul-Mulk and the suzerainty
Suzerainty of Kabul. ^ King of Kabul over Kalat was a
the advice and consent of the Shah ” made a trea^^ith ^us empSdng tWs
Kabbr^t the t“° the f r th iD 1841 - he “ wned himSBlf a vass ° a l
Pishin and^other^Afghan traets 1 'he*had 1 heldL^ meSOe ^ ^ ^ ^
3. These treaties which were made with the Khan personally and not with
Kachhi. ^ capacity as Head of a Con-
, . ^ ^ . federacy, were of little use to us Our
armies marehmg through Kachhi were hurried by tribesmen nominally subieet
to the Khan ; and we occupied and administered this tract for the duration of
the War, but relinquished it on our withdrawal from Afghanistan.
4. In 1854, in a treaty concluded by John Jacob, the treaty of 1841 was
Treaty of 1854. annulled, though the later treaty of 1843
. . n i i w ^ 8 n0 ^ men tio n ed. By now the suzer
ainty or Jlabul was no longer a convenience and consequently dropped out of
our relations with Kalat.
The treaty of 1854 again was made with the Khan as Chief of Kalat and
not as Head of a Confederacy. In it he undertook to act “in subordinate
co-operation with’ 5 the Government of India.
5. From 1839 till 1854, with short intervals, we had maintained an envoy,
at the Court of Kalat, treating the Khan as a semi-independent sovereign.
Relinquishment of Afghan Suzerainty. From 1854 our relations were in accord-
j r . ., ' _ ’ ance with the treaty of that year; except
tnat while the Sardars and Khan loyally invited our iq|erference in several
occasions, we were not always ready to assume the position to which they
invited us. In 1869, when the Confederate Chiefs of Kalat went to Kabul
to complain to their former suzerain against the Khan, he (the Amir) loyally
declined to interfere and told them to appeal to the British Government,.
6. The Chiefs then demanded that all engagements which the Khan might
enier into with us should be concluded not by the Khan personally, but in his
capacity as Head of the Confederacy. Different authorities in India, however,
held divergent views as to the status of the Khan and his Sardars whose
Status of Sardars. quarrels ^ were a continual source of
. inconvenience to us in Sind and on the
Punjab frontier.
7. In the sixties the convenience of the Indo- European telegraph line
demanded more definite relations with the tribes on its course along the coast.
Delimitation of Persian Frontier. Various agreements were made with semi-
mdepenuent Chiefs, and eventually, in
1871 we defined the border between Kalat—Makran and Persian—Makran.
The Khan’s representative took part in the preliminary negotiations, but the
understanding with the Shah, in which-heAcknowledged the de facto separation
from Kalat of certain tribal areas formerly owning allegiapce to the Khan,
was come to in Tehran without the knowledge oU the Khan. These Baloch
tracts the. inhabitants of which inter-marry with the Makran families and own
property in Makran, as the Makran families do across the border, now became a
part of Persia. *