'Military report on Tehran and adjacent Provinces of North-West Persia (including the Caspian Littoral)' [‎9v] (23/610)

6
Britain, and to pay an indemnity to defray the expense of
despatch of Russian troops to Persia.
These terms were rejected by the Majlis, and to stave off
the consequences of further resistance to Russia, which could
only prove disastrous, the Regent, Nasr-ul-Mulk, dissolved the
Majlis on 24th December 1911. By January 1912 Russia
had increased her garrisons in North Persia to a total of 17,000,
including 200 at Rnzali, 4,000 at Rasht and Kazvin, 100 at
Hamadan, 2,000 at Ardabil and 6,000 at Tabriz, and about 500
in Mazandaran at Mashad-i-Sar and Barfarush.
_ The presence of Russian troops in Persian territory was
seized on by their opponents in 1914-15 as a violation of Persian
neutrality and a justification for the entry of the Turks into
Persia.
Russian influence in Persia was reactionary in the extreme.
The Russians were opposed to any schemes for material or
industrial amelioration and reform and desired to hasten Persian
decadence in order that they might turp the disorganized state
of the country to their own ends, and justify and augment
their interference in its internal concerns. The province of
Persian Azarbaijan, which is remote from the Tehran Govern
ment and contiguous with Russian territory, affords the best
instance of these methods of penetration. From 1906 to 1909
Tabiiz had been a most active centre of the 4 Constitutional ’
movement. After the Russian occupation of the city in 1909
this progressive spirit was crushed and by 1913 'it had become
the home of reactionaries.
On the principle of ‘ divide et impera ’ the Russians took
advantage of tribal dissensions and were cautiously working
for the subjugation of the whole province and absorbing the
civil and military administration. Russian customs were spread
ing and the population was resigned to acquiescence in Russian
domination.
Prior to the Persian revolution of 1906 the Russian 8
encouraged the extravagance of the Shah and refused to co
operate with the British with a view to averting a financial
crash. While seeking in these ways to embarrass the tottering
monarchy they would not countenance its fall, and seem to have
desired to reduce the Kajars to a state of dependence on Russia
and then maintain them as a puppet dynasty. Their policy 1
regarding the Persian Cossack Division, their introduction of
garrisons in 1909, their connivance and benevolent neutrality
1 See Chapter VI, pages 238 and 243.