Page 202 - Historical Summaries (Persian Gulf - Vol II) 1907-1953

189
whose limits extend up to that point are administered from Salalah, remarking
at the same time that the oil company were unwise not to have obtained a decision
from him on the subject when they abandoned the concession. The Political
Resident was instructed to express a hope to the Sultan that he would not set aside
his father’s and his own previous definition. He approached the Sultan
accordingly but was unable to persuade him to change his mind.C9)
52. Ras Dharbat Ali appears to have been accepted by the Sultan of Qishn
and Socotra as the western limit of the province on the coast. From here it has
been stated that the boundary runs in a north-easterly direction along the Wadi
Hanna whence it turns north-west and joins the Wadi Masilah.C") A more
detailed description of it is to be found in a report furnished by Mr. W. H. Ingrams
in 1935.C)
53. At the end of 1953 the Sultan gave Her Majesty’s Consul-General the
co-ordinates of what he then regarded as the boundary of the province as
follows: Ras Sharbatat-20°N 55°E-19°N 53°E-18° 45'N 52°E-I8°N 52° 20'E-
17° KXN 52° 45'E-Ras Dharbat Ali.(,J) This involves a slight modification of
the northern boundary previously claimed by the Sultan (paragraph 50 above) and
appears to place the western boundary substantially to the west of that referred
to in the last preceding paragraph and of that shown in the War Office 1 /1 million
map of 1949. It was proposed to consult the Government of Aden before
expressing any views on the matter to the Sultan.

(d) Gwodur boundary
54. The application of two oil companies for a concession for Gwadur in
1938 at once raised the question of the demarcation of the frontier between the
Sultan’s territory and Kalat State. The Khan of Kalat took up the attitude that
the mineral rights in Gwadur belonged to him as the Sultan only held the place
for him in fief and that no demarcation was therefore necessary. He was told
that the Government of India would not support this claim.(“3) The Sultan refused
to negotiate with the Khan and insisted on dealing direct with the Government 1.
of India. The latter proposed to set up a boundary commission consisting of
representatives of the two States each accompanied by a Political Officer. With
the withdrawal by the two companies of their applications for a concession and
the outbreak of war the whole matter was dropped.
55. In 1945 difficulty was experienced in deciding whether a certain murderer
should be tried by the Kalat or the Muscat Courts because it was uncertain within
which territory the murders concerned had been committed. The Agent to the
Governor-General in Baluchistan accordingly proposed a boundary which he
recommended should be observed by the Government of India’s officers in
Baluchistan and the Persian Gulf as the boundary so far as they were concerned for
jurisdictional and similar purposes without any communication on the subject being
made either to the Khan of Kalat or the Sultan of Muscat. The boundary proposed
and the recommen lations were accepted by the Government of India. It has not
been defined geographically but is marked on a map which was forwarded by the
Government of India to the India Office and other authorities.(*4) It gives Muscat
roughly an area within a radius of 20 miles round Gwadur and approximates it is
believed fairly closely to what is in fact at present treated as the boundary by both
the Mekran State officials and the Sultan’s officials in Gwadur. The Pakistan
Government who are presumably in possession of the 1946 papers have not raised
the question of the boundary probably because they hope to acquire the whole
territory.

VIT.—Islands
So far as is known no dispute exists over any of the Muscat islands. In
1913 Little Quoin island was selected as a site for a lighthouse because “ not being
Muscat territory its selection would involve no risk of difficulties with the Sultan.”
i
£2 Jo fnR‘7«rmn<38r*TSavin£ <>/September 5. 1953 (EA 15311/9 of 1953).
CO to F O ° ^UnC If (E 3726/77/91 of 1935).
U P R 1° p 2- 24* 1935 (E 3935/77/91 of 1935). I
U To to FO ' P733rAq9A58 °/ December 21. 1953 (EA 1085/9 of 1953).
(“) Ext. 8465 of 1946 on CR.O°fi/e 20/iS.4 ‘939 ® 156/51/91 °f i
!