مجموعة ٣٠ /١١١ "محطات بحرية بريطانية في: إنشاءات في خور قوي والبحرين. إخلاء هنجام وباسعيدو." [ظ‎‎٢‎٦] (١١٥٤/٥٧)

, •+ , afforded by His Majesty’s Navy, nor
value to India of the support an ?Xv Jue of the contribution that Indra is now
have we any desire to overestima^ .yn that we do contend is
making towards her own nacal w hole is very large, even taking
(!) that India’s defence £li millions that His Majesty s
into account the cont ™ u " ided t0 ma ke towards it ;
Government has recently oonsiderab l y increased our own ex-
to\ wp have of recent years
penditure on naval defence ; an rdg the cost of ^ Majesty's
(3) that the amounts ttat , Lpear, are yet sufficient to enable us
^ Navy, however small they may pp r Abilities for local naval
to carry out the U ttmrbf more 1 uSy 1 employed, if placed
defence and wouM therefore lively neghgible con-
at our disposal, mstod of forming ^ Kingdom .
tribution towards chenuderstanding that it is a transfer.
The proposals that follow areallbased ^ view ^ that th e funds that
and not a reduction, of expenditure that d ^ b(j utilised for naval
raaybe defence ex
purposes and not to advanced in the previous paragraph is
8. The first of the co y 3r y° t n is ed that all considerations based on a
not one that requires developmtu . o placed fully before the Cap.tation
contention of this nature bav contribution of £ U millions settles the matter
Tribunal and that the receipt of the eon ourselves, for reasons that we'
once and for all, it need only be P^f^t 0 Tthe contribution at a considerably
still consider justifiable, assessec th ite y f left it to the discretion of His
higher ngure and, further, that t ie 1 directly within their purview.
Majesty’s Government, as a mattir that dld a 1 dimct y ^ of
but we think it as well that the above P 3 ints should not be overiooK.
a other two contentions mentioned in paragraph 7 we (3S ^ re 0 -
9. ine mmernwo oui regarding our naval contribution have
st^rf^ s " b i ect 7 as
the India Office for presentation to the Capitation Tribunal, “id ^hde makmg
every allowance for the altered circumstances m which tiat M-moran d
compiled, we do not think it unfair to draw particular attont ion to it, content,
add one or two further observations of our own. The most important points, a
they appear to us, are—• i i t, f
(a) The contribution, itself has always been expressly stated to be open to
periodical revision.
(b) At the time when it was fixed at £100,000 in 1895, the Royal Indian
Marine was a non-combatant force costing about Rs. 40 lakhs, ex
clusive of the contribution. Apart from the fact, therefore, that tne
ships and men of the Royal Indian Marine constituted a potentia
reserve, which might be made available for combatant duties after
the necessary equipment and training in time of war, the contribution
represented the sole payment made from the revenues of India
towards the cost of naval defence.
(c) In 1913 when His Majesty’s Government raised the question of increasing
the contribution, the arguments set forth at length in our Finance
Department Despatch Ho. 260, dated the 23rd July 1914, were
accepted without question as sufficient to rebut tbe claim.
(d) In 1923, in connection witb the question of retaining the transports of
the Royal Indian Marine, the Admiralty stated in their letter
No. M. 0. 1073, dated the 24th December 1923-—-
“ The only condition under which the Admiralty would consider it
desirable to scrap the transports is that the Indian Government
should proceed forthwith with constructive steps for the formation
C