THE BRITISH DIVISON OF BALOCHISTAN AND THE
INCORPORATION OF ITS WESTERN PART INTO
1860-1928
This chapter will deal first with the British
division of Balochistan in 1871 and then the eventual incorporation of its
western part into
In this regard, the following
brief narrative is adopted largely from the official documents found in the
British archives as well as the writings of British authorities involved in
shaping and implementing those policies. These documents are the only major
recorded sources on the internal events in Balochistan during the period
between1860 and 1928
The Anglo-Persian Policies
and the Division of Balochistan
and
Afghani Balochistan on the east. Ethno-geographically it comprises the Jazz Murian agricultural basin in the center and northwest, the
Sarhad highlands in the north, the Mashkel lowlands
and the Sarawan agricultural oasis on the east, the
coastal region of Makuran in the south, and the
western-most districts of ''Byaban ''and Bashkard.
To this one can add the Helmand Depression inhabited by a mixed ethnic population
of Baloch and Seistanis?
Historically, as the original homeland of
the Baloch, western Balochistan is the cradle of their past history and the
focus of their ancient heroic ballads and popular poetry. It was from here that
their ancestors began to spread to, and consolidate their power in eastern
Balochistan during the period between the thirteenth and the fifteenth
century
as mentioned in the previous chapter. The territory was the center of the Rind-Lashari Tribal Confederacy prior to the shift of its power
to eastern Balochistan under Amir Chakar Rind in the
late fifteenth century. It was also united with the rest of the country under
the rule of the khanate of Kalat for the greater part of the eighteenth
century.
Upon the death of Nasir khan I, in 1805 and the subsequent deterioration of the central authority in Kalat, the Balochi chieftains (hakims and sardars) of the distant western provinces were the first to succumb to their centrifugal tendencies, which were in turn a function of their tribal/feudal loyalties, and declare their independence.
Of these, the most important were
the principalities of Dizaks, Pahra
(Iranshahr), Bampur, Baho-Dashtiari,
Geh, Sarbaz, Kasserkand, and the chieftainates
of Sarhard and Bashkard.
However, the Narui hereditary rulers of Pahra enjoyed a paramount position among the rulers of
these principalities, a position that was held by them until about 1849. At the
time of his visit in 1810, Sir Henry Pottinger, a
British officer, found western Balochistan independent and the rule of Shah
Mehrab Khan Narui acknowledged from Dizak in the southeast to Bazman bordering
Such were the political conditions in
western Balochistan in the mid-nineteenth century when
a subordinate position by
bounding her to abstain from any negotiation with other powers without British
consent and gave Britain the right to station troops in whatever part of the
country she deemed necessary, as mentioned in the previous chapter. The move was
part of an overall strategy to forestall Russian Southern expansion toward
Historically, the consolidation of
British power in eastern Balochistan, which started with the occupation of the
Kalat for a short time in 1839, coincides with the beginning of Iranian
encroachments on western Balochistan during the reign of Nasir-u-Din Shah
(1848-1896) of the Qajar dynasty (1779-1925). In
1849, an Iranian force was sent to punish the Baloch incursions into
During the course of the British
investigation for the construction of the telegraph line, they were confronted
by conflicting territorial claims to western Balochistan by the Shah of
neutrality
between themselves and
Another official report, dated December 9,
1863 prepared by the British Commissioner Sir Frederick Goldsmith (then a
colonel in charge of telegraph negotiation) for the Secretary of State for
India in regard to the Persian claims, places the question into historical
perspective, thus, given in extensor; As to her (Persia) right, I know of none
but of the strong over the weak, of the prestige of a high sounding monarchy
over the obscurity of a small chiefdom. More than one hundred years ago Nadir
Shah appointed Nasir Khan Brahui, the Governor of the whole of Balochistan,
inclusive of Makuran, and in such capacity he was no doubt
to some extent a feudatory of Persia, but it is also more than a hundred years
ago that he exchanged the quasi service of the Shah for that of the Afghan
King. His allegiance to
When the Afghan monarchy fell to pieces, the service
ceased; but Balochistan also fell to pieces, and its chiefs set up claims of
independence for themselves... Of late years she has, perhaps been more than
usually active in this re-assertion of Makkuran sovereignty. The
present
state of affairs in Kalat must be especially favorable to her views. Anarchy in
that quarter cannot but afford occasion for intrigue, if not for the actual
advance of troops. But no new argument will be needed to show that anything
like the dismemberment of Kalat would be as advantageous to Persian interests
as detrimental to our own.
If possession for a period of years must
necessarily imply “acknowledgement by the local rulers” it is the
acknowledgement of helplessness. I do not for a moment believe that the Persian
yoke is acceptable to the Sardars of Makkuran west of Kalat.
Subsequently, the British side-stepped the
questions of territorial sovereignty and signed separate agreements with the
Shah of Persia in 1858, Sultan of Oman in 1865, and the Balochi chiefs of Bahu, Dastiari, Geh, and Jask in 1869. These
agreements dealt only with the question of the protection of telegraph wires
and stations, and in each
case the
British undertook to pay a fixed subsidy to the separate parties involved. The
agreements with the Baloch chiefs, which are discussed by Mahmud Mahmud, a contemporary Iranian historian, under the heading
of relations between the British Government and the savage Balochi tribes, were
entered because Persia, in spite of her claims, had no authority in that part
of Balochistan and, as such, the British had to negotiate directly with the
independent Baloch chiefs as well as to depend on them for the protection
of-the telegraph lines and stations.
Moreover, the British were well aware that
any acknowledgment as to the Persian claims on their part would have been taken
by the independent Balochi chiefs as well as the Khan of Kalat as a sign of
Anglo-Persian collaboration and that would have endangered the success of the
telegraph negotiations which they had to enter
with the Balochi chiefs. Colonel Goldsmith, then serving as Chief Director of the Indo European Telegraph and deputed to Tehran to help negotiate a telegraph treaty, reported to the government of Bombay on October 4, 1865, that although there were objections to the plan by Persia on the basis of her demand for an arrangement as to the acceptance of her claims on Britain’s Part, the Baloch opposition constituted the sole obstacle to the scheme.
Referring to this difficulty, he
stated that; the sole difficulty that I see in the way,
is the discontent likely to be raised among the petty Baloch chiefs on the west
of Kalat line, who may look upon themselves as given over to
Once the telegraph line was completed and
its security assured by the Balochi chiefs, the British began to shift their
policy of neutrality in favor of
interests
of Kalat as well. Meanwhile,
the
boundary commission.
The commission, however, was not able to
hold a joint meeting due to a strong sense of ill feeling displayed toward the
Kalat delegate by the Persian commissioner Mirza Ma’sum Khan, who refused to meet with his Baloch counterpart.
As a result, General Goldsmith became the sole actor and arbitrator on the
issue. In 1871 he received
detailed
instructions from the Viceroy in Council, who had carefully outlined the limits
of a proposed boundary line to be suggested for approval by
telegraph.
In one of these reports prepared for the government of
I. That, in my opinion, the claims of
Persia to Makkuran generally are based upon somewhat tradition conquests of
former years, more or less substantiated by the formal disposal of the province
to Mohbut Khan Brahui in the middle of the last
century; that the later rise of a new Government and enterprise of a new Chief
in Balochistan virtually dispossessed Persia of her never well-defined Makuran territories; but that forcible reassertion of the
Shah’s sovereignty over certain parts of Makuran, so
for as hitherto carried out, however warrantable in accordance with the rule of
European politics, is not a matter with which we can interfere upon a bare principle of justice
and equity. In this view, such Makuran territories as
II. That those portions of Makuran obeying the authority of the Khan of Kalat are that
chiefs by possession and also by acknowledgement of the local rulers. They are
part of an inherited Balochistan state, held, at first, in quasi-feudal tenure
from
which revolted
and were afterwards subdued, still remain component parts of the inheritance of
the Khans.
It is interesting to note how, at the time,
the report had equated the claim of
There are several Principal
reasons for the aforementioned change in British policy and her decision for the
division of Balochistan in favor of~
the land
an easy prey to the Persian designs. Second, the British welcomed the Persian
advance ~ the territory as a further assistance in pacifying the unruly and
independent minded Balochi tribes which were viewed as a constant source of
threat to their lines of communication. As we shall see, the British joined
hands with Persia in launching
several joint expeditions for suppressing the constant tribal revolts in Balochistan throughout the Qajar rule. Third Persian control and pacification of western Balochistan would have prevented the spread of the tribal revolts to the eastern part ruled by the British.
Therefore, the Persian expansion in western Balochistan would not have taken place had it not been for British approval and support. “Persian Balochistan (which) in its present shape,” wrote Lord Curzon in 1892. “Is the creation of the last thirty years, and to a large extent owes its existence to the intervention and the recognition of the British government. Thus, once Persia acquired British recognition of her claims in 1871, she began to extend her power farther in the region by seizing the district of kohak in 1872, expelling the Arabs of Muscat from the port of Chah Bahar, which they had held since 1789, annexing the independent Balochi principality of Bashkard in 1874, and then gradually moving toward Sarhad in northern Balochistan. In spite of these military moves, the Qajar rule in the country was more nominal than real and was directly limited to Bampur, then the capital of Balochistan. The rest of the country remained independent or semi-independent to be disturbed only by periodic military expeditions sent to levy taxes.
(DR. MOHAMMAD HASSAN HOSSEINBOR)