Page 405 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

\
57
their boundary to the cast of Kohuk, tho lino should be drawn to the west. But tins point
can only be settled at Teheran on «ho production, and after consideration, of all the informa­
tion in the possession of tho mission. Onco tho boundary line is laid down, the question
whether Kohuk should bo declared independent, or considered as included in Khelat, is a very
secondary question, with which it does not seem expedient for tho Government of India to
concern itself at present. ”
98. On Mohsin Khan’s note the following memorandum was written by
Sir II. llawlinson :—
“On referring to Captain Lovett’s map of the new Pcrso-Bclooch frontier, the claim of
Persia to the district of Kohuk would seem to be geographically valid, for the district in ques­
tion, as the boundary is now coloured, appears like a half detached peninsula intruding into
Persian territory. Politically also Sir F. Goldsinid seems to have had serious doubts as to
which power the district ought to belong, and ultimately, as far as I can judge, lie allowed
the claim of Persia to lapse by default.
“ Under such circumstances, the protest now sent in by the Persian Minister in London
may, I think, be in so far entertained that the case be sent out for the consideration of the
Government of India, and in the meantime an assurance may be given that, in the event of
its being judged expedient to embody the late arrangement concluded at Teheran in a formal
Convention, duo attention will be paid to the arguments contained in Ilis Excellency's
memorandum, with a view to the rectification of auy errors that maybe found on further
examination to attach to the proposed line of delimitation.
“Captain St. John should then be directed to pay particular attention to the disputed dis­
trict of Kohuk in his contemplated survey of the froutier, collecting on the spot all available
evidence witn regird to the past and present dependency of the coutcsiod villages, and ascer­
taining the wishes of the inhabitants in respect to the future allegiance.
“ I cannot believe that the acquisition of these insignificant villages with a few square
miles of surrounding desert can be a matter of real political importance either to the Persian or
the Khelat Gov* rnment. The question at issue is one of honour rath* r than of substantial value
and in th;*t view it would be, I think, to our advantage if without violating justice or giving
real cause of offence to the Khan of Khelat, we culd confer an obligation upon the Shah of
Persia by modifying the Mekrau frontier arrangement in bis favour.”
99. The papers sent by the Secretary of State wore communicated to
General Goldsmid, to whom tho whole question was referred, with tho
remark—
“ that the Government of India will be quite content to accept whatever view you rany arrive
at with the further information which you may be able to piocuro during your mission to
Seistan.”
100. On receipt of Mr. Alison’s despatch showing that the question of
the sovereignty of Kohuk had been referred to London, General Goldsmid
was, by telegram No. 27G4P.,* dated
• Secret Maroh 1872, Nos. 155* 2C0.
2Gth December 1871, asked whether,
pending the settlement of tho question, he advised that Major St. John should
demarcate the Kohuk boundary or not, and, if he did, whether he should
demarcate it on both sides.
101. He has replied by telegram
t Secret May 1862, Noa. 15-16. without date, despatched from Henjain
on the lQtht : —
" If discussion is renewed, and purvey found quite practicable, it seems advisable to have
every detail mapped so as to settle questiou finally either way.”
102. The request of the Persian Government in regard to Kohuk was so
far agreed to by Her Majesty’s Government, that the line forming the western
boundary of Khelat was drawn to tho east of Kohuk, but do opinion was
expressed as to the position of the Persian frontier. Kohuk was occupiod by
the Persian troops in 1874.
As regards the further history of the disputed boundary seo notes in
Secret E, October 18^9, Nos. 9;)—131 and the correspondence in Secret E,
February 1894, Nos. 328—333. It must be noted, however, that this history
does not come within the province of this preois.

462 F. D.