Notes and correspondence on the situation in East Persia and the Malleson Mission [‎2v] (4/71)

4
1 These words are incorrect according
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. view. (See (v) below.)
Meshed or by the troops under his command, should be debited to Imperial revenues
as part of the extraordinary expenses of the war, and asked for the wishes of the
Treasury on the point whether the charge should fall on Army Votes or the Foreign
Office Vote (31769/18).*
The Foreign Office view (semi-official) was that this was entirely a military
question to be settled by 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. , the War Office and the Treasury.
The War Office view (also semi-official) was as follows:—
The Mission was under the control of the Indian Government, subject to the
general direction of the Eastern Committee.
Its main objects were to check enemy intrigue and penetration from Turkestan
and anti-British propaganda among the local Mussulman populations, and to
encourage the stable element of the populations
of Turkestan [and Persia 1 ] against Pan-Turanian
schemes supported by Germany.
The War Office had no knowledge of the amount of the expenditure, but
regarded its nature as similar to that of the subsidies to the Persian Government
and the maintenance of the South Persia Rifles (both shared equally by the Imperial
Government (Foreign Office Vote) and the Indian Government).
Their view was that the onus of proof of dissimilarity lay on 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. ,
but that in any case the Imperial share should be charged against the Foreign Office
and not against Army Votes.
The essence of the War Office case may be summed up in Mr. Widdows’
words :—“ The Mission is described as a Military Mission, but though the agency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, headed by an agent. is
“ military the expenditure is political, and, as in the case of the Caucasus Military
“ Agent, the Foreign Office should be responsible for # it on behalf of the Imperial
“ Government.”
This view was qualified by the admission that the War Office would doubtless
have to bear the cost of the small Indian force supporting the Mission, which had
been in action to support the Transcaspian (anti-Bolshevik) Government, and that in
respect of this action (outside the neutral territory, be it noted, of Persia) the position
was similar 1o that of troops of the Persian cordon generally, i.e., the cost should be
regarded as part of extraordinary military operations outside India.
(ii) On 14th November 1918 the Treasury replied 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. in the sense
of the War Office view quoted above, supporting the argument by the following
citation from a memorandum by Sir H. Cox :—“ VVe should not only continue and
increase our present efforts to block the routes through Persia effectively, but we
must make a determined attempt to organise resistance to an invading force from
the west along the railway from the Caspian to the Afghan border between now
■“ and next winter. This can only be done by utilising any nucleus there may be in
<4 that part of the world which is inclined to stand for us and for law and order, and
by supplying any such nucleus with money, arms, and, possibly, instructors.”
The Treasury added :—
“ In so far as the Mission aims at influencing or organising the population of a
“ part of Persia,! expenditure thereon would seem properly to be divisible between
“ Indian and Imperial funds in the same way as the expenditure on the South Persia
“ Rifles, and on subsidising the Persian Government tribal chieftains, &c., which
“ likewise was occasioned by the existence of a state of war outside Persia,” and
expressed the hope that on reconsideration of the nature of the Mission the Secretary
of State for India would accept this conclusion, which was in accordance with the
general principle that, in view of the interests of India in Persian affairs, expenditure
in that country (other than expenditure upon troops from the Indian establishments
employed there during the war) is divisible equally between India and Great Britain
(31769/18).
(iii) In January 1919 small detachments of British troops under General
Malleson had reached Askabad, Krasnovodsk and Merv, in addition to those
stationed at Meshed.
General Malleson, i.e., had advanced from his base into Transcaspia, and had
tried (though without success) to set up and maintain a mixed Russian and Tartar
Government at Askabad; but the Foreign Office and 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. had become
convinced of the hopelessness of the undertaking and had desired to withdraw the
* The numbers in this Memorandum presumably refer to Treasury files,
t This was not so, according to 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. view. See (v) below.