ملف رقم ١٣٧٧ لسنة ١٩٠٥، جزء ٣، "الحدود الفارسية البلوشستانية: مسألة بيران وكاشا" [ظ‎‎٢‎٤‎٢] (٢٠٩/١٦٤)

I
5. In view of ^
Stdtle KaLaKoi, can hardly be regarded as leaving the Piran Ziarats on the
British side. , , • pnT1T1 p r tion with the case generally that the acqui-
6. It may be remembered ^r'f^Ilde to us only in the event of the
sition of the red line boun ary influence in Seistan and Persian Baluchistan.
” >»• ^ '*»» >
110 . L . c. Camp K«U B.b.., .b, l»lb F.bnu, l*.
From— The Political Agent, Chagai, ^ p .
To-The First Assistant to the Hon’ble the Agent to the Governor-General m
Baluchistan. _ _
In eomnliance with the orders conveyed me in Foreign Department telegram
M l 1 r Tted 7th January, I have the honour to submit two memoranda, each
consideration and orders. i p t>- i,- -u+ iv
2 It will be noted that the boundary in the neighbourhood of Piran which the
Perso-Baluch delimitation agreement lays down, is a line earned straight from the
highest point of the KachaKoh to the highest point of the Malik Siah Koh, docs
not cross the river, as the British Commissioner understood was the case, at the
point known as “ Piran Ziarat ” (vide paragraph 15 of his report) : but at a point
some 2 445 yards further up-stream, i.e., to the south. The bend which the river
makes at this point, which the map I attach illustrates, is no doubt responsible
for this error. The boundary as shown in this map is the correct one : but, if it be
decided that the frontier bisects “ Piran Ziarat ”, I foresee that a difficulty will
arise for the Persians will doubtlessly claim the most northern Ziarat as being the
“ Ziarat ” intended, whereas it is equally certain that we are justified m claiming
the most southern.
If we take Piran Ziarat to mean the land of that name, then another difficulty
presents itself, for any division of this land will leave the water supply on the
Persian side and, unless provision is made to regulate them, quarrels are likely to
ensue between the Zarizai owners and the Shahazai interlopers.
3. In the course of his interview with His Britannic Majesty’s Minister at
Tehran, as referred to in Sir C. Spring Rice’s telegram No. 18, dated the 15th
January, the Grand Vizier is understood to have stated that no military officials
were deputed to Piran. I would venture to traverse this for Muhammad Hussain,
who is stationed at Diwan Chah and enjoys the rank of Sultan, visited Piran on the
14th November and depriving the Zarizai of the lands they possess not only at
Piran Ziarat but also those situated to the north, our claim to which cannot be
contested, escorted them to a point 7 miles down the river, near to where it dis
charges itself, and returned by way of the trade route and Robat. I think we are
justified in taking exception to this action as it is clearly an infringement of the
May 1905 agreement.
4. It will be noted that, on the occasion of his visit to Piran, Sultan
Muhammad Hussain alleged that Persian territory extended north as far as the
trade route. His action on the occasion tends to demonstrate that such was his
belief. It will also be noted that the Bazgirs who visited Saindak in October
alleged the same. I think that we are entitled to ask that Persian officials stationed
on the frontier may be instructed regarding this subject for claims of this nature,
although no doubt they are advanced by ignorant officials, do not make for the
preservation of the 1905 agreement which it is our desire to see upheld.
5. As regards Kacha I have nothing to remark except to invite a reference to
Sir H. McMahon’s secret report dealing with the frontier in this neighbourhood, and
to add that the point where the levies were posted is that shown as “ Kacha
Thana ” on the map and that the drainage basin of the Kacha river, as delineated
on sheet No. 14-N. W., is correct.
6. I would express regret that this report has been so greatly delayed. The
cause of this is the inclemency of the weather I have encountered since my arrival
on this frontier.
r