CO129-331 - Public Offices - 1905 — Page 394

10

11

387

Inclosure 15 in No. 1.

Memorandum.

«His

THE telegram from the Indian Government of the 13th March, 1901, says "meanwhile the Chinese, in spite of assurances of Russian Government, have ousted Hunza from Raskam by settling their own subjects upon both banks of river."

The India Office upon this wrote to the Foreign Office on the 22nd March: Excellency the Viceroy reports two fresh events, the establishment by arrangements with China of a Russian post at Tashkurgan, and, secondly, the expulsion by the Chinese of the people of Hunza from Raskam and the settlement in their place of Chinese subjects."

The Foreign Office wrote to Sir Ernest Satow, the 9th April, that "the Chinese authorities have no ground for their present action."

It is evident that both the India Office and the Foreign Office understood the expulsion to have taken place recently, and they passed their impression on to the Legation at Peking,

The Indian Government now explain that, as shown by the papers cited as 1 and 2 in the Peking précis, the Kanjutis were turned out of Raskam in 1897, and that again in May 1899 the Kanjutis had begun to cultivate five tracts in Raskam, when a large number of men arrived with the Chinese Amban and demanded the withdrawal of the few Kanjatis who had been left to water the crops. The actual expulsion of these men, it is added, was reported in the letter from the Mir of ITunza to the Political Agent, Gilgit, dated the 11th May, 1899, which apparently was not sent to Peking.

Obviously His Majesty's Minister at Peking, to whom no copy of the letter of the Mir of Hunza, here alluded to, had been sent, could not be expected to suppose that the word "expulsion" used in the letter of the India Office and in the Foreign Office despatch of the 9th April, 1901, referred to that event, of which he was ignorant; nor could he be expected to understand that the sentence "mean- while the Chinese, in spite of assurances of Russian Government, have ousted Hunza from Raskam by settling their own subjects upon both banks of river the telegram of the 13th March, 1901, from the Indian Government to the Secretary of State for India referred to the destruction of crops in 1897, which was not a fresh event. The assurances of the Russian Government were given in August 1899, and neither act of expulsion could be said to have taken place in spite of the assurances of the Russian Government, which is the language used in the telegram of the 13th March.

in

Consequently, the only interpretation that could be put on the wording of the letter from the India Office and the instructions from the Foreign Office, to which reference has been made, was that the Chinese had more recently expelled Kanjuti settlers. The Chinese Foreign Board understood it in this sense and

denied it.

Peking, May 18, 1904.

My Lord,

Inclosure 16 in No. 1.

Sir E. Satow to the Viceroy of India.

Peking, May 24, 1904. IN a despatch from the Government of India to His Majesty's Secretary of State, dated the 24th March last, which formed one of the inclosures in your Excellency's despatch to me of the 25th March on the Raskam land question, I noted that it was stated that the Russo-Chinese border in this direction had been fixed, and that this was urged as a reason for bringing pressure to bear on the Chinese Government to induce them to fulfil their promises to the Mir of Hunza, since they could no longer pat forward the unsettled nature of the frontier as a reason for not allowing the Kanjutis to settle in Raskan.

As I had no information of the final settlement of the frontier referred to, I addressed a telegram on the subject to His Majesty's Consul at Kashgar, and from his reply it would appear that the Government of India are under a misapprehension as to the extent of the frontier settlement arrived at in those regions,

Mr. Macartney states that the Kashgar-Ferghana frontier was defined by a Russo- Chinese Commission in 1884 as far as the Uzbel Pass, south-east of the Great Karakul, but that the frontier from thence to the Hindoo Kush has not been settled officially, although, since the Pamirs were occupied by Russia, the frontier-line has practically been the watershed dividing the Upper Oxna from the Tarim.

I have, &c. (Signed)

(Telegraphic.)

1

Inclosure 17 in No. 1.

Mr. Colvin to Government of India.

ERNEST SATOW.

June 30, 1904. PLEASE see Sir Adelbert Talbot's letter dated 4th March. 1899. Political Agent at Gilgit telegraphs

"Hunza Chief asks leave to send men to Taghdumbash Pamir to collect taxes. Larger profits accrue to Mir if taxes are collected in summer, but perhaps operations should be postponed until we know the result of negotiations with China."

Political Agent states in subsequent telegrams he understands that Hunza has received taxes from Taghdumbash Pamir during the past eight years. I presume Mir may continue collection of these taxes pending a settlement of the Raskam question.

(Telegraphic.)

Inclosure 18 in No. 1.

Government of India to Mr. Colvin.

Simla, July 7, 1904.

YOUR telegram of 30th June. Mir of Hunza may continue collection of Taghdumbash taxes pending decision of question of Hunza's withdrawal from all relations with China.

Inclosure 19 in No. 1.

Mr. Colvin to Government of India.

Srinagar, June 23, 1904.

IN continuation of my letter dated the 3rd June, 1904, I have the honour to forward a copy of the letters showing (a) the present strength of the levies in Hunza and Nagar, and details of the cost of the proposed increase in their numbers, and (b) that the Mir of Hunza now gratefully accepts the conditions offered by the Durbar for the grant of waste lands to the redundant population of Hanza.

2. I am addressing the Durbar on the latter subject, but will defer action in regard to the proposed increase in the Hunza and Nagar levies until I am acquainted with the views of the Government of India in the matter. I do not think the increase to the bodyguard of the two Mirs is very necessary, but in other respects I cannot suggest any improvements on the Political Agent's proposals.

Inclosure 20 in No. 1.

Captain Gurdon to Mr. Colvin,

Gilgit, May 28, 1904.

WITH reference to correspondence regarding the proposals for providing for the redundant population of Hunza-Nagar, ending with your telegram dated the 25th May, 1904, I have the honour to inclose a statement showing the present strength of the levies in Hunza and Nagar, and details of the increase in numbers proposed in my Confidential letter dated the 19th May.