Papers of the War Cabinet's Eastern Committee [‎138r] (275/544)

5
»
n
The Committee decided—
That the alleged advantages of the proposal did not, in the
circumstances, justify the outlay and instructed the India
Office to inform the Government of India accordingly.
(Mr. Keynes withdrew.)
Railways in
Persia.
3. The Committee had before them the following papers:
E.C.-1632, 1788, 1808, and 1939, on the subject of future construc
tion of railways in Persia and Mesopotamia.
Mr. Montagu said that before the Committee proceeded to
discuss the subject he wished to raise a point of procedure. A week
or two previously, his department had addressed the War Office on
the question of control of India’s output of rails, to which no reply
had been received. The War Office had, however, submitted to the
War Cabinet a paper on this subject (G.T.-5892) which raised a
large constitutional question, without any reference to his depart
ment. It was a matter, he thought, which might have been settled
between the two departments concerned. Had they been unable to
arrive at an agreement, he would himself have suggested that the
question be referred to the Eastern Committee. He thought that
before the matter was discussed either by the Committee or the
Cabinet, his department was entitled to some explanation, from the
War Office, of their action. In his view, tho War Office had no
constitutional right to say that the need of rails for Mesopotamia
took precedence over India’s own requirements. The War Office
claimed to allocate all India’s output of rails. His own attitude was
that the War Office had no more right to India’s output of rails
than they had to its output of food or men supplied by India. The
Indian Government were quite ready to assist in every possible way,
and to allow the War Office to dispose of whatever rails were not
absolutely necessary for India’s own needs, but they were not
prepared to waive their rights.
Sir Thomas Holderness pointed out that the War Office draft
telegram (E.C.-1808) which had been submitted to the Eastern
Committee for decision bore the same date as their paper on the
output of rails which the War Office circulated to the Cabinet.
Hitherto India had allowed the War Office to have the whole
output of Tata’s rails. The Commander-in-Chief in India, however,
now maintained that the output of these rails up to the end of
December was urgently required for other objects, including the
Chaman extension. The contention of the War Office was that
these rails were required for strategical purposes in Mesopotamia.
The Secretary of State for India had sent the Viceroy’s telegram,
pointing out the urgent necessity of reserving for India’s own use
the Tata output until the end of the year, to the War Office, with
a letter supporting the Government of India’s contentions. The
War Office, without replying to the letter or suggesting a conference
to discuss the question, had submitted it simultaneously to the War
Cabinet and Eastern Committee.
Lord Robert Cecil thought that the dispute in question was a
further argument for the establishment of unity of military command
which was a question which had been more than once before the
Committee.
The Chairman said that the larger question of unity of command
had been temporarily dropped owung to the entirely altered military
situation in the Middle East, but could be taken up again whenever
the Committee desired.
The Committee decided—
(a.) That the question of the output of Indian rails should be
referred to the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. and War Office for mutual
settlement ; and
[365—34]
C