Page 404 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

56
included in tho Khelat territory, suoh as Kohuk, Iff under, and Konarbuetch, which arc not
large nor impoitant places, should, for certain reasons, be made over to Persia. General Cioldsmid
baring excused himself on the plea that he was not authorized to cutcrtain such a discussion
on the part of hia Government, the Persian Government has, therefore, referred this question
to its own Representative in London, who is to discuss this buhjc< t with the British Minister,
and abk for a settlement which may bo in unison with justice and friendship.”
96. Tho recoipt of this communication conveyed to the Government of
India tho first intimation that any point regarding tho boundary still remained
for discussion.
The papers were, by No. 2705P., dated 19th December, sent to the
Bombay Government, with the remark that—
” for the present the orders of Her Majesty's Secrctaiy of State should be awaited before
intimation of tho boundary settled is given to the Khan of Khelat.”
The Bombay Government, on roceiving this letter, telegraphed to say
that they had already (14th December) directed the Commissioner in Sind to
move the Khan to give his formal consent to accopt the boundary lino fixed by
General Goldsmid, but had now telegraphed to him to postpone action if
possible. They telegraphed again on tho 23th that the Commissioner replied
he had already seut on the instructions, but had now sent another letter to the
Political Agent at Khelat, desiring him to keep back the communication if
not already made. Thereupon the Bombay Government were, by No. 765P.,
dated 26th December, desired to state on what authority tho orders were iasued
to procure the Khan’s assent to the boundary.
97. As to the question of Kohuk there was the following further corre­
spondence :—
Tho Secretary of State, in Secret No. 11, dated 21th November 1871, sent
a memorandum from the Persian Minister at the Court of St. James, repeating
the claim to the whole of Mekran based on possession in the time of Nadir Shah ;
saying that, if the Shah’s Government had abandoned those claims, it was onlv
from deference to the wishes of the British Government; that the Shah would
much have prefered, even in the interest of tranquillity in those parts, the
line of the JNTihung, which was tho natural geographical boundary; that he
had not pressed this point; but that there was one point in which ho did
desire General Goldsmid’s boundary line should bo modified, viz., that instead
of, to the north, adopting the natural boundary offered by the course of the
Mashkid River it lay through a country devoid of natural features (terrains
vogues) so as to leave an opening for encroachments and combats, and did so
too in such a way as to deprive Persia of the villages of Kohuk, Konarlnista,
and Isfunde. He urged, therefore, the adoption of the line of the Mashkid.
He wound up by tho remark :—
“V. E. me permettra de nc pas lui dissimuler quo dans plus d'une circonatance le
Gouverncmcnt de S. M. hnplc. a rencontre cu certains points de la part du Gouverneraent des
Indes unc inflexibilite qui semblait peu dictcc du dcsir d'etre agreablc a un Gouvcrnerneut ami,
et qui aurait pu lc decourager dans l’ccuvre qu'il n’a pas cease de poursuivre avec ardeur—cell*
de reiscrrere ebaqu jour de plus eu plus lc6 bons rapports qui unissent nos deux pays."
This impression appears due to the fact that General, or, as he was now,
Sir 3T., Goldsmid, when pressed to allow Persia the possession of Kohuk, replied
that he was not permitted to do so by the tenor of his instructions from the
Government of India. .His own view of those instructions is given in the
following extract from the remarks at the end of his final Report of his
proceedings submitted to the Secretary of State, on the 7th November 1871:—
“The Government of India would admit of no half measures, such as tbe intervention of
a neutral or independent tract between Pern i and Khelat, agreeably to my own proposal to
meet tbe exigency. Under the circumstances, I had no resource but to declare Kohuk a
Khelat district until the statements were disproved, and as disproof was not attempted wheu
challenged, I expressed and obtained acceptance of the whole line as originally declared.
But the instructions of the Government of India were really of a very
different complexion. They were contained in No. 1012P., dated 22nd May,
tnd were as follows:—
11 With respect to Kohuk, His Excellency in Council observes that the quottion to be settled
i» a simple question of boundary. If tbe Persian Government can establish no claim to take