Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎154r] (307/442)

Cii^
1975 Supply (Committee). 10 July 1912
of India which appeared in the despatch from
T-
to which I have referred.
Sir EDWARD GREY: I am sorry I
omitted that point. In regard to these par
ticular measures for dealing with the tribes
it was felt they involved great difficulty. It
wmuld add to the complications in Persia
if we were dealing with the tribes except
through and with the knowledge of the
Persian Government, which has been so
distracted by other things, and has so
little influence with the tribes. I admit
that we have not made much progress in
that direction. A blockade of the coast
is possible, but it would be rather in the
nature of a punitive than a helpful
measure, unless it was arranged in con
cert with measures taken internally which
were likely to be helpful. Dealing with
the tribes, and so forth, as recommended
by the Indian Government, is a measure
which we should be delighted to make
effective, but we have hitherto not made
progress with it because it was not found
to be feasible.
I think I had better come to the Trans-
Persian Railway, a question standing al
most by itself. Before the Anglo-Russian
agreement came into operation the appre
hension in this country always was that
Russia would use her influence in the
North of Persia to make a railway in
Seistan, which would be strategically pre
judicial and alarming to the Indian
Government. It was feared that the two
countries were holding themselves at
arms length in suspicion of each other and
that one day we should find that Russia
had used her influence at Teheran to get
a concession which would be injurious to
our interests there. Of course the Anglo-
Russian agreement put an end to any pos
sibility of that kind. Russia makes rail
ways in a certain sphere under that agree
ment, and gets concessions for railways in
certain spheres in North Persia, but it
wmuld be an entire breach of the agree
ment if Russia were to get any concession
for a railway in Seistan. I will go further
and say it would not be an altogether un
desirable state of affairs if Persia could
always remain undeveloped and unpierced
by railways, if in fact the whole of it was
a desert without any inhabitants, so far
as our strategical position in India is con
cerned. But it has inhabitants, it is a
country capable of being developed, and
therefore we cannot possibly construe the
Anglo-Russian Agreement as meaning that
railways ought not to be made in Persia
at all. Everybody admits that a railway
Foreign Office. 1976
Mohamerah w'ould be a desirable
thing for Russia if it enabled her to bring
trade to the North, but w T e want a railway
for bringing trade up from the Gulf. I
foresee that railways w r ill be made in
Persia sooner or later; under the present
condition of affairs it may be later than
people suppose, but sooner or later rail
ways will be made and they will be for the
good of Persia. Some one on the other
side said that when railways are made
there will have to be guards and so forth,
and that that will be an infringement of
the independence of Persia and of the
authority of the Persian Government. But
without railways I doubt whether any Per
sian Government would have any real
authority, especially wdth the tribes in the
South; the tribes would remain in the un
controlled and semi-chaotic state in w'hich
they have always been found. So rail
ways will have to be made if Persia is to
be developed; and when railways have
been made in Persia, a question is sure to
come up connected with the Indian rail
ways.
The moment an overland route to India
becomes a possibility, I do not believe it
can be indefinitely resisted. It is sure lo
be made. If an overland route is possible
between Europe and Asia, it will be con
structed sooner or later. Therefore we
came to the conclusion, when the idea of
the Trans-Persian Railway was mooted,
that we ought not, on principle, to oppose
it and to say: “No, our policy is never
to have a Trans-Persian Railway at all.
We shall always oppose the overland route
to India." I do not think that would be
a wise or practicable policy for us to adopt
in the long run. Therefore we have said
we have no objection to going into the
question of the Trans-Persian Railway and
to look at it from a financial and economic
point of view. The hon. Member for
Bradford asked one or two pertinent ques
tions. He inquired how such a rail
way could be made without guarantees.
That is a very useful point, and the
explanation I have to offer may throw
some light on this question. We are abso
lutely uncommitted with regard to any
guarantee. And even if we, as a Govern
ment, or any Government which succeeded
us, decided that it would be desirable to
recommend a guarantee to the House of
Commons, it would have to come to this
House; so there is no question of our being
committed to a guarantee without the con
sent of the House. We shall try to make
it quite clear if the Trans-Persian Railway
is to be made that we must reserve great