CO129-331 - Public Offices - 1905 — Page 393

(Confidential.)

8

Inclosure 13 in No. 1.

Captain Gurdon to Mr. Colvin.

I HAVE the honour to invite a reference to the correspondence ending with your

Gilgit, May 19, 1904. Office indorsement dated the 22nd April, 1904, with which was forwarded a copy of Secret despatch dated the 24th March, 1904, from the Government of India to His Majesty's Secretary of State for India.

2. The points on which I am now asked to express an opinion are:---

(a). The compensation to be given to the Mir of Hunza if the relations of that Chief with China are severed.

(3.) The measures to be taken for providing for the redundant population of Hunza.

3. As regards (a), I consider that the compensation to the Mir of Hunza should be fixed at not less than 3,000 rupees per annum.

The value of the annual present received by the Mir from China amounts to only 1,016 rupees, but the loss of revenue from the proposed cultivation at Raskam and the loss of the revenue formerly collected by the Mir on the Taghdumbash Pamir have also to be taken into consideration. The total pecuniary loss to the Mir, if the watershed of the Hindu Kush is fixed as the limit of his State, would no doubt be less than the amount of compensation proposed, but it is, I think, politic, for obvious reasons, to treat the Chief generously.

4. As regards (b), I wish in the first place, to point out that the condition of Nagar, as well as that of Hunza, requires consideration, The scarcity of cultivable land in Nagar is not so marked as in Hunza, but some measure of relief seems to be required, and owing to the great jealousy existing between the people of the two States, it would, I think, be impolitic to omit Nagar altogether from the scheme under cou- sideration.

5. Relief can be afforded in three ways, viz. :-

(1.) By increasing the number of levies, and thus providing fixed allowances for a larger number of the fighting class;

(2.) By arranging for a certain number of families to be settled on land within the limits of the Gilgit Wazarat or elsewhere in the Agency;

(3.) By inducing the Chiefs to encourage the poorer classes to seek for employment in Gilgit, instead of discouraging them from doing so as they have done hitherto,

6. As regards an increase in the number of levies, I will not make any detailed proposals in this letter, as it seems out of place to do so, until I know the wishes of the Government of India as to the lines on which these proposals should be based. It will be remembered that Major Manners-Smith recommended an increase in the number of levies throughout the Agency, and that both he and Major Stewart advocated rearmament. Your Office letter dated the 7th November, 1902, intimated to the laster that the Government of India were not then prepared to agree to any large increase in the number of levies; and your Office telegram dated the 31st July, 1903, stated that Government had decided that the question of rearmament must stand over indefinitely. My own view is that the number of levies in Hunza and Nagar should be increased to a total of 500, eg., 250 in each State, and that they should be armed with Martini-Henry rifles, and that they should be called out for at least a fortnight's training in the year. I do not think it is necessary to introduce such an elaborate and expensive levy scheme as that now in force in Chitral, but I think that, both on political and on military grounds, an increase in the number of levies in Hunza and Nagar and a better weapon for all the fighting levies in the Agency and more thorough instruction in musketry are necessary. The rates and system of payment might remain unchanged. The increase in the annual expenditure on levies in the Gilgit Agency, if these proposals are accepted, would amount to approximately 14,000 rupees. It will be noticed that I have suggested that the number of levies from Hunza and Nagar should be divided equally between the two States. I attach considerable importance to this point, as, although the former stands in greater need of assistance, the latter has the larger population, and would feel deeply aggrieved if asked to furnish a smaller number of men for military service than the former.

9

386

7. The proposal to settle some of the people in other parts of the agency should, I think, be at present confined to Hunza. In this connection I would invite your attention to letter dated the 28th October, 1901, from the Vice-President, Kashmir State Council, to the Assistant Resident, a copy of which was forwarded to the Political Agent, Gilgit, with your Office indorsement, dated the 1st November, 1901. The conditions proposed by the Durbar regarding the proposed settlement of Matam Das, which is near Nomal and within the limits of the Gilgit Tehsil, were communicated by my predecessor to the Mir of Hunza. The Mir declined the Durbar's offer, and the matter was then allowed to drop. The stipulation that the Colony should be under the jurisdiction of the Durbar officials, and the small degree in which he personally would benefit from the scheme, were the main reasons which prompted the Mir to refuse the Durbar's offer. The people of Hunza are, I believe, willing to go to Matam Das on almost any conditions, and, for as I can make out at present, the only obstacle to the success of the project is the so unreasonable attitude adopted by the Mir. I have, however, urged the Mir to recon- sider the matter, and I have also asked Mr. Stainton, the Divisional Engineer, to examine the Matam Das nullah, and report as to the probable cost of constructing an irrigation channel. I will therefore address you again separately on this point at an early date.

Emigration is the only real solution of the difficulty, and it is most important that a step, however small, should be made in this direction. The conditions offered by the Durbar appear to me to be reasonable, and Matam Das is within easy reach of Hunza; and if, as I hope, the construction of the irrigation channel is feasible, every effort should be made to carry the scheme through. Should the Colony prove a success, others will be anxious to follow the example of the first batch of emigrants, and the people generally will get accustomed to the idea of leaving their own narrow valley.

8. Finally, the Chiefs should be induced to refrain from discouraging their subjects from seeking employment in Gilgit. The Divisional Engineer assures me that he could always find employment for a considerable number of men, and, if the Chiefs will use their influence in the right direction, a good deal of money which is now earned by Baltis and Pathans could be diverted to Hunza and Nagar. I may add here that I took the opportunity, when recently at Hunza and Nagar, of impressing my views in this connection on the Chiefs.

9. I hope I may be excused for the delay which has occurred in submitting this report, but the whole matter required a great deal of thought, and I felt that I ought to pay another visit to Hunza-Nagar before expressing my views.

My Lord,

Inclosure 14 in No. 1.

Sir E. Satow to the Viceroy of India.

Peking, May 18, 1904. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge receipt of your Excellency's despatch of the 25th March last, inclosing papers regarding the Raskam Case, as well as copy of a despatch to the Secretary of State for India, and inviting my attention to the final paragraph of that despatch, which expresses the views of the Indian Government regarding the use of the term "ousted" in the telegram to His Majesty's Secretary of State for India on the 18th March, 1901.

I beg to express my thanks for the printed copy of the précis prepared in this Legation and for the accompanying papers.

With regard to the use of the word "ousted" in the telegram from the Govern- ment of India, and its transformation into "expulsion" in the India Office letter forwarding copy of that telegram to the Foreign Office, in which that act was described as a fresh event," I have the honour to inclose some observations. 1 trust they will be found a sufficient explanation of the remarks on this point contained in my despatch of the 3rd November, 1903, to His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

I have, &c.

(Signed)

ERNEST SATOW.

D

[2167 7-1]