"مجموعة من المعاهدات والالتزامات والسندات المتعلقة بالهند والدول المجاورة" [‎٧‎٩] (٥٧٨/٤٠٢)

PERSIA—APPENDIX NO. XXII—1888.
APPENDIX No. XXII.—[See V age 18.-]
Arrangement for the Settlement of the Dispute between Persia and Afghanis
tan regarding the Hashtadan Lands, —1888.
Proposed Compromise.
Taking into consideration all evidence hitherto submitted to me by the Persian
Agent, the evidence afforded by history and local tradition, besides information,
* Quite privately. o ra l and documentary, obtained* from various
when Ahmed Shah overran Eastern Khorassan.
There is no visible sign of her recent sovereignty, and on each occasion that she
On the other hand the valley passed into Afghan possession in 1749-50, and
possibly may have remained populated and flourishing under Herat until about
100 years ago, or for a period of nearly 40 years.
been, for administrative purposes, attached to Kushan, the connecting link being
naturally Darband and Kafir Kalla, all three being dependent on the same water-
supply. In the same way Chahar Kalla may have become attached to Ghorian.
This would not, however, explain how Chahar Kalla came to be attached to
have been attached to Ghorian in 1686, when the whole Herat province w 7 as
under Persia, while the Persian sanad, No. 10, refers to it as attached to
Bakharz in 1792, when it was under Afghanistan.
The genuineness of the sanads, as already stated, cannot be thoroughly
tested until the opposing parties have had an opportunity of examining them.
If Kilich Khan was a Herat subject np to the time of his death in 1822J. then
it would appear that the Afghans re-asserted their claims to Hashtadan between
date of Mirza Hadi’s incumbency of the office of Treasurer or revenue Collector ol
Herat is ascertained. After Kilich Khan’s death there seems little doubt that the
of the Turkomans. This state of things continued until 1874, when Persia re
presented by Yusuf Khan, Hazara, commenced work at Hashtadan, but was
promptly stopped by the Afghans. So it is not surprising that the Afghans cite
the withdrawal of Yusuf as a tacit recognition of their own rights.
C.M.
individuals, and my own observation, I consider
that Persia has neither regained nor occupied Hashtadan since she lost it in 1749-50
has attempted occupation she has at once been rebuffed by the Afghans.
During this time it is possible that Hashtadan and Kulukh Pardai may have
t As alleged by the Persians. Ghorian in 1684 while underf Persian sway.
A similar difficulty arises about Tir Kisht, which the Afghan sanad shows to
1806-10, although it is doubtful whether the idea
of restoring the valley to prosperity was ever carried
out. A clue to this will be perhaps found when the
valley was again abandoned by the Afghans and remained practically at the disposal