مجموعة ٢٨ /٦٧ "بلاد فارس: تقارير سنوية، ١٩٣٢-" [و‎‎١‎٧‎٢] (٦٤٤/٣٤٣)

13
as Iranian nationals, and instructions were sent to the local police to return them
their British passports. The authorities were not, however, willing to admit the
claims of the other three without further evidence in support of their statements.
Their cases were still unsettled at the end of the year.
(3) East Iran.
(a) Baluchistan Frontier Questions.
57 In September 1935, after lengthy discussions (see paragraphs 136 to 149
of the annual report for 1935), His Majesty’s Minister had communicated to the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs the draft of a note which he was prepared to address
to the Iranian Government officially, to confirm the measures which the Govern
ment of India had adopted or were ready to adopt to assist the Iranian authorities
on the Baluchistan frontier. After a delay of four months an official of the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs informed His Majesty’s Minister m January IJJh
that the Iranian Government had decided to let the matter drop, as they had been
unable to obtain one of their desiderata, namely, an undertaking from the
Government of India to confiscate the arms of all tribesmen from Iranian
Baluchistan who might take refuge in British territory. His Majesty s Minister
left the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in no doubt as to the unfortunate impression
produced by so'discourteous an attitude on the part of the Iranian Government,
but it was felt that there would be no advantage in pressing for the continuation
of negotiations, and the matter was accordingly allowed to drop.
58. At the beginning of the year His Majesty’s Minister informed the
Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the method adopted by the
Iranian authorities of referring minor frontier questions, such as requests tor the
return of stolen camels, to His Majesty’s Legation for settlement involved such
delays that it frequently proved impossible to pursue them with any hope oi
success. The only sensible way of dealing with such matters was to refer them to
His Majesty’s consular officer on the spot, and no responsibility could be accepted
if the Iranian authorities continued to follow their present ridiculously long-
winded procedure. Nevertheless, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs continued
repeatedly during the course of the year to refer to His Majesty s Lega ion
requests for the return of stolen property carried across the frontier as well as
requests for the extradition of robbers, refugees and others Much unnecessaiy
duplication of work was also caused by the fact that many of these requests were
referred locally to His Majesty’s consular officers as well, the Iranian authonties
seldom giving any indication that they were pursuing the matter through moie
than one channel It several times proved possible to meet the requests of the
Iranian authorities for the recovery of stolen property, though they usually only
furnished the scantiest of details, but a certain amount of embarrassment was
caused by the frequent requests put forward for the extradition of fugitives. The
instructions of His Majesty’s Legation and His Majesty s consular officeis m
regard to such requests were to return “ a courteous intimation that the Govern
ment of India, in the absence of an extradition treaty, regret that they aie not
prepared to extradite fugitives from Persian justice and, though details of such
requests were always noted and forwarded to the Government of India so that a
watch might, if necessary, be kept on the fugitives m question, it was felt that the
invariable necessity of refusing extradition placed His Majesty s Legation and
His Majesty’s consuls in the false position of appearing unwilling to co-operate
in the settlement of frontier questions. The embarrassment of this position, it
maybe added was naturally felt more strongly by His Majesty s consuls m Last
H an where such questions loomed large, than in Tehran, where their importance
was overshadowed by other matters. After some discussion with the Govei nment
of India, it was felt desirable to clarify the position with the Iranian Government,
and His Majesty’s Legation were accordingly authorised to make an oial com
munication to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, pointing out that the Government
of India could under no circumstances consider the extradition of any individual
but that all stolen property would be returned as far as possible and that deserters
from the Iranian forces would be removed from the frontier rf they seemed likely
toTause trouble In general, the authorities m British Baluchistan would
do their utmost both to effect a settlement of all border tribal offences in co-opera-
tion with the Iranian authorities and to prevent British territory from being used
[15259] B 7