'SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS AND MEASURES OF THE VICEROYALTY OF HIS EXCELLENCY LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON, VICEROY AND GOVERNOR-GENERAL OF INDIA IN THE FOREIGN DEPARTMENT. I. JANUARY 1899-APRIL 1904. II. DECEMBER 1904-NOVEMBER 1905. VOLUME IV. PERSIA AND THE PERSIAN GULF.' [‎110r] (224/386)

115
become necessary. The Amir accepted the award except clause 1 legarJin^ the
appointment of an irrigation officer, as to which he asked for details, e.g , the move
ments of the said officer, the “ band ” that he would visit, his place of residence
and his designation. These were supplied to him in a Khar it a, dated the l^th
May 1905. It was explained that the irrigation officer would reside at Nasrat-
.abad, and he attached to the British Consulate in Seistan, that he would 1D no
wav interfere with the actual execution of the award unless invited by the locai
Afghan or Persian officials to do so, that the presence of a qualified expert in the
event of either side raising points of doubt and dispute over water questions
was important, and that it was obviously desirable that the irrigation officer
should he allowed access to both sides of the Helmand and its branches Ihe
Amir was urged to accept the fifth clause of the award and was again addressed
on the 11th August 1905, in a letter which pointed out that disputes had already
arisen and that risk of friction was possible until the award bad been formally
announced and until an expert officer was on the spot to advise.. In his rep y
dated 17th September 1905, the Amir dissented from the appointment of an
irrigation officer on the ground that, as Colonel McMahon s aw ard describe t le
water rights, disputes were no longer possible; if they occurred a British officer
could be speedily deputed to arbitrate. His Highness also referred to the danger
which would be incurred by a resident officer. It was proposed in a telegram to
the Secretary of State not to address the Amir again pending the result oi negotia
tions with the Shah regarding the award. When the award was made known, the
Persian Commissioner addressed a long communication to the Persian mein-
ment which was taken bv the Shah to B irope. No reply could be extractec tor
months from His Imperial Majesty as to whether he accepted toe award.
Meanwhile the Russian Minister strongly urged the Persian Government to
reject the award, attacked the proposed appointment of the ir.igntion oitioei am
asked for the dismissal of the Yamin and Mustansir on the ground of betrayal
of Persian interests. The Valialid who was then acting as regent consented to
send a Commissioner to investigate matters.
63. Repeated representations at length compelled the Persian Government
to disclose their intention. On the 7th September 1905, the Persian Government
received a telegram from the Grand Vizier stating that the Shah relused to
accept the award, the reason put forward being that the people of beistan did
not think that tin y had been fairly treated.
69 Under Russian instigation the Yamin informed the .Afghan Brigadier
Commanding at Furrah that Persia had rejected the award winch was thcielote,
inoperative. Of this the Amir heard and he enquired what action the Govt i n-
ment of India proposed taking. The Legation was thereupon instructed to enquire
whether the Yamin was acting under orders in making his communication to t .e
Afghans and if not, to obtain its withdrawal. 1 ho Persian Government «ei c - Is ’
fo be informed that as they had asked for arbitration they could not revert o
the Btatm quo, but mu-t, if they were dissatisfied, in accordance wi h he
understanding arrived at in November 1902 appeal against the award to Ills
Majesty’s Government and abide by the decision. The Amir was reformed ot
the line of action adopted towards Persia shortly after Lord Curzon left India.
70 Pend ng the settlement of the whole question the Government of India
had sanctioned the maintenance ot a
Destruction of the Mission huts. srn al] temporary levy post at Kohak for
the purpose of looking after the huts which Colonel McMahon had eree'ed for
the members of the Mission and which it was considered would probably come
in useful for the irrigation officer whom it had been proposed to depute under
clause 5 of the water award ; but on the 27th September IJOo Mr t.r.mt Uu
reported that the Mushir-ed- Dowleh had asked for removal of the buildings 1 he
Government of India replied that if the Legation considered that ho Shal s
acceptance of the water award was likely to be prejudiced by retentio i
buildings and that the concession involved in their removal could be u i net
usa consideration towards favourably influencing the Persian Government in
the matter, the buildings could be removed on condition that the 1 eiMan bo -
ment would re-erect them if necessary hereafter. Mr. Grant Huff anan 0 < d
the Mushir-ed-Dowleh for the removal of the huts provided he first recened *