Page 352 - Gulf Precis(VIII)_Neat

38
149* On 16th March 1900, His Excellency the Viceroy followed up this
despatch with a telegram to the Secretary
Secret E.,July 1900, Noj. 146-147.
of State for India, pointing out that it was
six months since the Government of India addressed Her Majesty's Government
with regard to the position in Persia, to Russian designs upon that country,
and to the steps that should be taken for the protection of British interests,
notably in the centre and south, and in the Persian Gulf. No reply had been
received from Her Majesty’s Government:—
“ In the interval, the Russian attitude towards Persia and towards British interests in that
country has been more clearly defined by the negotiation of a loan which is tantamount to
Russian control over the greater part of Persia, including several of those provinces that
Appertain to the British sphere of interest and trade; by the appointment of a Russian Consul
to Seistan; by the well authenticated reports of Russian railway schemes in different parts of
the country ; and by the appearance in the Persian Gulf of a Russian gun-boat, whose com­
mander, in defiance of the assurances given by the Russian Government, is believed to have
entered into negotiations with the local authorities for a coaling station at Bander Abbas.1'
150. Now that the strain of the war in South Africa was to some extent
relieved, the Government of India desired most urgently to represent that the
situation in Persia was one that could not be indefinitely ignored, and they
submitted the desirability of making some clear announcement to the Persian
Government concerning the nature and extent of the interests of Great Britain
^id India in Southern Persia, presuming it was intended that they should be
maintained:—
“ Repeated but cautious statements of British concern in those quarters have been
authorised at Tehran. But they do not appear to have been couched in a form sufficiently
definite to secure their object, or to have obtained from the Persian Government the respect
to which they are entitled.
“We are willing to make considerable sacrifices in defence of what we regard as largely
an Indian interest. But we cannot do it alone, and we are anxious, therefore, to be favoured,
at an early date, with the views of Her Majesty's,Government, and to know the extent to
which their support maybe relied upon/’
151. The Secretary of State for India replied to the above telegram and to
the letter from the Government of India of 2lst September 1899, to which it
refers, in a despatch dated 6th July 1900.
152. The substance of His Lordship’s views is sufficiently indicated in the
Lord Cur*on’i despatch of 6th September 1900, reply of the Government of India of 6th
Secret En September 1900, Nos. 76*77. September 1900, drafted by Lord Curzon,
which ran as follows -
“The first four paragraphs of Your Lordship’s reply relate to matters, such as Consular
appointments in Persia (concerning which we may observe that we have as yet heard nothing
more of the revised proposals of Sir M. Durand), the question of a Quetta-Nushki-Seistan
Railway, and the Karun subsidy—upon all of which we shall address Your Lordship indepen­
dently. The remainder of the despatch furnishes us with the views of Her Majesty's Gov­
ernment upon the wider subject raised in our original letter, namely, the policy to be pur­
sued for the defence of British interests in Persia, and notably in Southern Persia, as a
whole.
“ We are grateful to Your Lordship for this communication of the views of Her Majesty s
Government. We accept the statement that events are occurring in Persia which, ever since
our despatchof September 1899 was written, have modified the situation, not to the advantage
of Great Britain. Indeed we ourselves a year ago made the probability of such change, of
which there were already signs, the ground for an appeal for an early decision and for early
action on the part of Her Majesty’s Government. The following were our words
‘“We press for an early decision and for early action, since, unless we bestir ourselves,
there is good reason for fearing that the already trembling balance may be disturbed by others
to our disadvantage.'
u The conclusion of the Russo-Persian loan a few months later more than justified these
fears; while the events to which Your Lordship alludes in the 7th paragraph of your reply
indicate that the activity of Foreign Powers in Persia and its neighbourhood has not slack­
ened, but has, on the contrary, increased during the interval. This process may be expected
in our opinion to continue: and we think that it will demand constant precaution and unre­
mitting vigilance.
"It does not, perhaps, behave us to comment at any length upon the several propositions
which have been laid down by Your Lordship. We are ourselves far from admitting that cue

La