18
19
391
Inclosure 24 in No. 1.
Mr. Colvin to Government of India.
Gulmarg, August 2, 1904. I HAVE the honour to forward a copy of a letter, dated the 25th May, 1904, received from His Britannic Majesty's Consul at Kashgar, and to inquire whether Mr. Macartney is correct in his belief that the Russo-Chinese boundary in the direction referred to has not been fixed, since there appears to be nothing on record in my office regarding its delimitation.
Hunza. Meanwhile, please see Gilgit diaries of the 20th June and the 1st August, 1903; also the telegraphic correspondence with the Resident in Kashmir, copy of which was sent with Foreign Secretary's letter of the 28th July, 1904.
Inclosure 28 in No. 1.
Inclosure 25 in No. 1.
Consul Macartney to Mr. Colvin.
Kashgar, May 25, 1904.
THE Government of India, Foreign Department, letter, dated the 24th March, 1904, to the Secretary of State for India, on the Raskam question (a copy of which was forwarded to me with your office indorsement, dated the 2nd April last) contains the following words in paragraph 3 :-----
"Such efforts (to obtain from the Chinese the lease of the Raskam lands) might now be attended with success, as the Russo-Chinese border in this direction has been fixed, and the Chinese could not again put forward the unsettled nature of the frontier as a reason for not allowing the Kanjutis to settle in Raskam."
2. I beg to remark that, so far as my own knowledge goes, the Russo-Chinese frontier in the direction referred to has not been fixed, at least in a sense that may be termed official, although it is a fact that since 1892 the watershed west of Sarikol, which divides that portion of the basin of the Upper Oxus which is now commonly known as the Russian Pamirs from the basin of the Taghdumbash River, has been tacitly considered by the Chinese to be their boundary with Russia in their Sarikol country.
(Telegraphic.)
Inclosure 26 in No. 1.
Mr. Brodrick to Government of India.
India Office, August 10, 1904. YOUR despatch, Secret, 24th March last: Northern frontier. His Majesty's Government consider that it will not be advisable to make to the Chinese Government any communication on the subject of boundary unless the Govern- ment of India are able to exercise effective control up to frontier claimed. In the meantime, please report as to extent to which rights in western extremity of Taghdum- bash Pamir have been recently exercised by Kanjutis and as to measures which it would be practicable to adopt for effectively asserting Hunza's rights in that territory, in the event of China acting inconsistently with such rights as well as (for securing) the observance of the frontier, which we propose to treat as having been accepted by China. In Satow's despatch to you of the 24th May I observe statement that the Russo-Chinese frontier has not been officially settled south of Uzbel Pass.
Government of India to Mr. Colvin,
Simlu, August 18, 1904. I AM directed to refer to the correspondence ending with the indorsement from the Government of India in the Foreign Department, dated the 15th April, 1904, regarding the frontier between. Hunza and the Chinese dominions and the disputed rights of the Kanjutis in Raskam.
2. I am now to forward a copy of the correspondence noted in the margin,* and, with with reference to the telegram from His Majesty's Secretary of State for India, to request you to furnish a very early report as to the extent to which rights in the western. extremity of the Taghdumbash Pamir have recently been exercised by the Kanjutis, and to favour the Government of India with your views as to the measures which it would be practicable to adopt for effectively asserting the rights of the Mir of Hunza in the territory above referred to in the event of China acting inconsistently with such rights, as well as for securing the observance of the frontier which it is proposed to treat as having been accepted by China.
Inclosure 29 in No. 1.
Extract from the Gilgit Diary for the week ending September 10, 1904.
HUNZA.
THE Mir has sent for my information a letter regarding the Taghdumbash tribute, which he has received from the Amban of Sarikol. The Amban states in this letter that he cannot agree to any increase in the tribute. Apparently the Mir had represented to the Amban that certain Wakhis residing on the Taghdumbash had declined to accede to the demands of his Representative. The Auban argues that these Wakhis were exempted from the payment of tribute to Hunza by his predecessors, and that he there- fore does not agree to making them pay now. I am returning the Amban's letter to
the Mir without comment.
(Telegraphic.)
Inclosure 30 in No. 1.
Government of India to Mr. Colvin,
Simla, October 8, 1904. GILGIT diary week ending the 10th September. Please instruct Gurdon to obtain, if possible, and forward with a translation, Amban's original letter to Mir of Hunza. Reply to my letter, dated the 18th August, should be sent early as possible.
(Telegraphic.)
Inclosure 27 in No. 1.
Government of India to Mr. Brodrick.
Simla, August 16, 1904.
I WILL reply as soon as possible to your telegram of the 10th August, regarding the Hunza-Chinese frontier, after obtaining the latest information as to collections by
*1. Despatch to Ilis Majesty's Secretary of State for India, Secret, dated October 27, 1898. (Secret, November 1898, Nos. 110–114 (114).
2. Letter from Sir C. MacDonald to the Tsung-li Yamin, dated March 14, 1899. (Secret, August 1899, Nos. 168-201, sub-inclosure 1 (inclosure 1) of proceeding No. 188.
3. Telegram from His Majesty's Secretary of State for India, dated August 10, 1904.