welcome great nitinindia & thanx for the problem
which for us is fortunately no problem at all but just a great
puzzle
in the form of one of our most mysterious & elusive tripoints
situated practically in the middle of great baluchistan
where afghanistan meets both iran & pakistan
in conventional political geography at least
at a boundary trijunction which we have been calling afirpk for
short
& have in fact been trying to search out & reach by any means
possible since messages 8182 8207 etc
so we will be especially interested if you or any other new
member has any further info about that point in particular
& for anyone who is curious about the various lines you refer to
they are well illustrated here
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/maps/bs6.
php
tho not necessarily labelled by the same names you mention
& they are accompanied by further description in the related
international boundary studies number 6 & 167
i think it is best to ignore any real problems tho
as much as possible
since thats the only way they will go away
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "nitinindiagreat"
<nitinindiagreat@y...> wrote:
>
> The problem of divided Balochistan
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada/message/294
>
> Baluch nationalism, since its birth, has faced the problem of
> "international" frontiers which divide the Baluch among
countries -
> Pakistan, Iran/and Afghanistan. The genesis of the problem
pre-dates
> the
> Perso-Baluch (1871 and 1895-1905), 4 Seistan
(1872-1896)(and Baluch-
> Afghan
> (1895) frontiers. The demarcation of these frontiers made the
> problem more
> acute and protracted it so that^ with the rise of Baluch
nationalism
> in
> 193O, the Baluch were divided between Iran, Afghanistan and
what was
> then
> British India. For obvious reasons, Pakistan and Iran had a
common
> interest
> in suppressing the Baluch claim of self-determination and they
have
> adopted
> a joint policy for this purpose. Afghanistan did not share the
> Iranian and
> Pakistan policies but stated its own claim for Baluchistan, as
part
> of its
> demand for Pushtunistan. The Baluch-Afghan line as an
international
> border
> is disputed by the Afghans, who regard the frontier with
Pakistan as
> drawn
> by the British and agreed to by the Afghans only under duress.
>
> To understand the complexity of the issue involved in the
division
> of
> Baluchistan, it is important to have some understanding of the
> historical
> circumstances involved. The strategic position of Baluchistan,
Iran,
> and
> Afghanistan in terms of commanding the principal trade routes
> between
> South-West Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia became
important for
> Britain
> and Russia in the context of the geopolitical expansion of the
two
> empires
> in Asia during the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. In
> 1854,
> Britain entered into a treaty with the Khan, ruler of Baluchistan,
> in order
> to defend its territories against an external invasion from
Central
> Asia and
> Iran. At the same time the Iranian rulers, who had lost their
> northern
> provinces to the Russians, pursued a policy of expansion
towards
> Baluchistan
> in order to compensate for the lost areas. However, in
187O,the
> British
> Government agreed to demarcate the border with the Khanate
of
> Baluchistan.
> In 1871, the British Government accepted the Iranian proposal
and
> appointed
> Maj. General Gold-smid as Chief Commissioner of the joint
Perso-
> Baluch
> Boundary Commission, Iran was represented by Mirza
Ibrahim, and the
> Khanate
> of Baluchistan was represented by Sardar Faqir Muhammad
Bizenjo, the
> Governor of Makran, The Baluch delegate submitted a claim for
> Western
> Baluchistan and Iranians claimed most of Makran including
Kohuk.
> After
> several months of negotiations, Goldsmid divided Baluchistan
into
> two parts
> without taking into consideration history, geography, culture or
> religion,
> and ignoring the statements of Baluch chiefs^ho regarded
themselves
> as
> subjects of the Khan. Goldsmid's decision was based on
political
> considerations. He aimed to please Iran in order to keep Iran
away
> from
> Russia.
>
> The Kohuk dispute; Kohuk is situated on the Perso-Baluch
line. In
> 1871,
> General Goldsmid assigned Kohuk to the Khanate of
Baluchistan on the
> following bases:
> 1. That the chief of Kohuk stated that he considered himself a
> feudatory of
> the
> Khan.
> 2. That the Persian Commissioner, Ibrahim, refused to
investigate
> the merits
> of
> the question.
> The Iranian government finally agreed to the decision in a letter
> dated
> September 4, 1871, but in a separate note to Allison (the
British
> Minister
> at Tehran) "on the same day requested that, on consideration,
a
> small
> portion of territory, including Kohuk, Isfunda and Kunabasta,
would
> be made
> over to Persia." The question was referred to the Government
of
> British
> India and General Goldsmid was consulted. Goldsmid
changed his view
> and
> favoured the transfer to Iran because "it would make a far more
> compact and
> better boundary for Persian than for Khelat territory." At the
same
> time,
> British India did not deem it necessary to justify declaring that
> territories which were not legally part of it should belong to Iran.
> Consequently, the British Government decided to prepare an
amended
> map and
> to exclude Kohuk and other villages from the Khan's territory in
> order to
> give Iran the opportunity to occupy the area. An amended note
and
> map were
> then sent to Tehran. In the amended note the districts of
Kohuk,
> Isfunda,and
> Kunabasta were excluded from the Khanate of Baluchistan.
When the
> decision
> to exclude this area from Baluchistan was conveyed to the
Khan, he
> protested
> against the amended decision. The Khan was informed that
the
> question was
> not definitely settled, as in April 1873, the Iranian government
had
> refused
> to accept the
>
> note. It does not appear to have been necessary to take any
further
> account
> of his objections. In the late 19th century, the Iranians
> practically
> settled the question of Kohuk by military occupation and
continued
> their
> policy of expansion in pushing their claim and their raids
further
> and
> further into the Khanate. In 1896 and 1905, an Anglo-Persian
Joint
> Boundary
> Commission was appointed to divide Baluchistan between
Iran and
> Britain.
> During the process of demarcation of the frontier, several
areas of
> the
> Khanate of Baluchistan were surrendered by the British
authorities,
> who were
> hoping to please the Iranian government in order to check
> the Russian influence in Iran. The frontier imposed by two
alien
> powers on
> the Baluch people was demarcated without the consent of
Kalat. The
> agreement
> of 1896 was a clear violation of the treaties of (the agreement)
> 1854 and
> 1876, declaring the Perso-Baluch line to be the frontier of Iran
and
> India.
> It is interesting to note that the border demarcated by General
Gold-
> smid
> was between the independent Khanate and Iran. The
agreements of 1896
> and
> 19O5 show a clear shift in British policy towards the Khanate; it
> was
> treated now as an Indian state. Under the treaty of 19O5, the
> Khanate lost
> the territory Of Mir Jawa and in return the Iranian government
> agreed that
> this frontier should be regarded as definitely settled in
accordance
> with
> the agreement of 1896 and that no further claim should be
made in
> respect of
> it. In 1872, the British government appointed General
Goldsmid to
> settle the
> dispute over Seistan between Iran and Afghanistan. The
dispute,
> however, was
> ended with the partition of Seistan between Iran and
Afghanistan
> without the
> consent of the Baluch people. Ethnically, culturally, and
> geographically,
> Seistan is part of Baluchistan. Seistan ruled by Sanjrani chiefs
was
> the
> vassal of the Khanate until 1882. A secret diary prepared by the
> British
> representative at Kalat on April 2o, 1872, to the British
Government
> of
> India suggests that Sardar Ibrahim Khan Sanjrani of
Chakansur
> (Seistan)
> acted as a vassal of the Khanate. Sir Robert Sandeman, in the
> letters to
> Lord Curzon dated November 22, 1891 and January 12, 1892,
described
> the
> western limits of the Khanate as Hassanabad Q
(Irani-Seistan) and
> the
> Halmand river near Rudbar. The final demarcation of Seistan
took
> place in
> 19O4 by the British Commissioner, Sir McMahon, but the
historical
> right of
> the Khanate and the principle of the right to self-determination
> were
> ignored. Sanjrani, chief of Chakansur, refused to acknowledge
the
> Afghan
> rule under Amif Abdul Rahman. Nonetheless, the Kabul policy
of
> British India
> encouraged Abdul Rahman to occupy the country. Nothing is
known
> about the
> reaction of Mir Khudadad Khan, the ruler of Baluchistan.
>
> The Baluch-Afghan or MoMahon Line: This covers an area from
New
> Chaman to
> the Perso-Baluch border. The boundary was demarcated by
the Indo-
> Afghan
> Boundary Commission headed by Capt. (later Sir) A. Henry
McMahon in
> 1896.
> The boundary runs through the Baluch country, dividing one
family
> from
> another and one tribe from another. As in the demarcation of
the
> Perso-Baluch Frontier, the Khan was not consulted by the
British,
> making the
> validity of the line doubtful, because:
> 1. The Goldsmid Line (the southern part of the Perso-Baluch
> Frontier) was
> imposed on the Khan by the British Government in 1871.
> 2. In 1896, when the rest of the Perso-Baluch Frontier was
> demarcated, the
> Khan ate, an independent state, was not consulted.
> 3. The partition of Seistan was unjust because Seistan was
> autonomous and
> the majority of the population, which was Baluch, recognized
the
> Khan as
> their suzerain. The Sanjrani chief of Chakansur (Seistan)
refused to
> accept
> Afghan rule in 1882.
> 4. The British reports clearly suggest that the Baluch people
> resented the
> rule of Iran and desired to accept, the status of a British
> protectorate
> against Iranian rule.
> 5. The partition of Baluchistan took place without taking into
> consideration
> the
> 4 factors of geography, culture, history, and the will of the
> people.
> However, the final outcome of the boundary settlements
imposed on
> the Baluch
> was:
> 1. Seistan and Western Makran, Sarhad, etc. became part of
Iran.
> 2. Outer Seistan and Registan came under the control of
Afghanistan.
> 3. Jacobabad, Derajat and Sibi were included in British India.
> 4. The Khanate of Baluchistan was recognized as an
independent state
> with
> status of a protectorate.
>
> Nevertheless, Baluch tribes in the 19th century and at the
beginning
> of the
> 20th century showed their hatred of the unnatural and unjust
> partition
> through their revolts against British and Persian rule. Gul
Khan, a
> nationalist writer, wrote: "Due to the decisions of (boundary)
> Commissions
> more than half of the territory of Baluchistan came under the
> possession of
> Iran and less than half of it was given to Afghanistan. The factor
> for the
> division of a lordless Baluchistan was to please and control
Iran
> and
> Afghanistan governments against Russia" in favour of Britain.
In
> 1932, the
> Baluch Conference of Jacobabad voiced itself
>
> against the Iranian occupation of Western Baluchistan. in
1933, Mir
> Abdul
> 'Aziz Kurd, a prominent national leader of Baluchistan, showed
his
> opposition to the partition and division of Baluchistan by
> publishing the
> first map of Greater Baluchistan. In 1934, Magassi, the head of
the
> Baluch
> national movement, suggested an armed struggle for the
liberation
> and
> unification of Baluchistan. However, it was a difficult task
because
> of its
> division into several parts, each part with a different
> constitutional and
> political status.