ملف رقم ٤٣٤٥ لسنة ١٩١٢ "السكة الحديدية العابرة لبلاد فارس" [ظ‎‎٨‎٢] (٣٣٠/١٦٩)

10
III.
Political Resident, Persian Gulf (Sir Percy Cox, K.C.I.E.),
20th December 1910.
“As I understand the position, we must now assume complete good faith
on the part of Russia under the Convention, and abandonment of former
designs on India. We cannot, therefore, take our stand on the fundamental
objections of Indian strategists against the connection of the Indian and
Russian railway systems. If the above premise is conceded, it seems to me
that an attitude of mere benevolent neutrality will hardly suffice, and might
be dangerous ; and that having exercised the right, which the promoters
concede to us, of constructing the line from Kerman southwards, we should
support the present proposal to the extent of co-operating in the thorough
examination of the project from the business and engineering points of
view. . . .
“ . . . With the above safeguards [he., concessions for certain branch
lines, &c.], and provided that commercial facilities for all be assured
throughout the whole railway, I believe that both Indian and English trade
would benefit and find new openings equally with Russian, and it cannot but
be supposed that the general effect of the railway would be to improve the
administration, develop the country, and increase the capacity of the Persian
market.”
IV.
Director-General of Commercial Intelligence, India
(Mr. E. Noel Paton), 31st December 1910.
“ . . . I . . think that the Board of Trade view of the value of
the railway for trade purposes is much nearer the truth than that of Sir
Henry McMahon. In fact I agree generally with the Board of Trade. . . .
I agree . . . that, having regard to the conditions under which it
almost certainly would be constructed, the railway stands to do a great deal
more for Russian than for Indian trade. Indian trade with Persia can best
be served by rad ways from the seaboard. ... If participation in this
inland railway is to diveri attention from the littoral lines (and it will be
strange if it does not) such participation will be deplorable. I agree,
therefore, that the immediate construction of a line to the Gulf should
. . . be assured. . .
. . . If it can be assured, then we may . . . look at the new
inland project with a wider view . . . Most of the mam impediments
to progress of all sorts [in Persia] are precisely of the kind that give way
before improved communications. It is not merely a question of improved
transpoi tation , . but all those other obstacles .... must
almost certainly persist until a railway opens the country up .... No
doubt the new railway will serve her [i.e., Russia] better than it will us, but
it will seive us too, and on the whole it would, I think, create a greater
likelihood of our getting even with Russia than can be said to exist at
present. .... It is almost incredible that the more intimate commerce,
mercantile and social, that would attend the creation of a railway, could fail
to bring about some sort of assimilation of that part of Persia which is
nearest our borders. 1 should imagine that from a political point of view
this would be worth something even if the railway did not pay for a good
many years. I should not expect it to pay in the literal sense until the
process of assimilation had gone pretty far. . .