WesWorld

Karachi Agreement

Preamble
The Governments of Great Britain, Persia and the Republic of India in this document agree to partition the State of Pakistan between the latter two nations.

Article I
The State of Pakistan currently ruled by the Empire of Great Britain shall be divided between the nations of Persia and India. The line of partition will be the Indus River as far as Larkana. The West bank shall be the Persian border and the Eastern bank the Indian border. Karachi will be controlled by India and Hyderabad shall be split between the two countries. The border going north shall go along the line Larkana-Jacobadad-Lahri-Sibi-Quetta then it will meet the Afghanistan border. All these mentioned border towns will be Persian controlled. Everything north of this line will be under Indian control. The hand over of control will be staggered to minimise disruption. The British Armed Forces shall leave Pakistan by 31st March 1936. Following this partition shall take place on the 1st of April 1936 and the British Colonial Administration shall wind down all activities and the last civil servants should leave by 1st October 1936. All Pakistani citizens shall lose their British Empire citizenship on 1st April 1936.

Article II
To provide for Persian economic growth from oil revenues Great Britain and Persia have agreed to a 15% increase in tax revenues on oil. In return the British Government is prepared to make the Anglo-Persian Oil Company a joint-concern with Persia receiving a 50% share and eight seats on the board. The main three oil firms in Persia (Anglo-Persian Oil Company, BP and Anglo-Shell) have agreed to build a refinery each in Persia within two years so a quarter of APOC oil is refined in Persia.

Article III
The British Government acknowledges Persia has special interests in Southern Iraq as well as Religious interests. Therefore the current Iraqi government will be forced to ensure all Shia holy places are kept open and that pilgrims have free access over the border. In return the Persian Government will not make any formal claim to Iraqi territory nor will it use aggression against Iraq to achieve any rightful claims.

Article IV
The British Government acknowledges Persia has special interests in Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Article V
The Government of India recognises the Malayan Peninsula as part of the British sphere of influence in the British Sphere of influence until a responsible self-sufficient government can be installed in this area.

Article VI
The Governments of Great Britain and India will agree to limited naval arms reductions to ensure peace in the region and to ensure a proper balance of power.
A) India agrees not to lay-down any warship over 20,000 tons within the next five years.
B) Great Britain agrees to maintain only two battleships in the region.
C) India agrees to build only two heavy cruisers with main armament up to 10in in calibre within the next five years
D) Great Britain agrees to only station eight long-range submarines in the region, India can build up to fifteen such vessels.
E) Both nations agree to no limits over coastal submarines.

Conclusion
The Agreement shall enter into force as soon as the Instruments of Ratification have been exchanged in Karachi on October 1st 1935 in the English, Farsi, Persian and Hindi languages, all texts being equally authentic.

What does Britain get from this agreement? By the looks of things, absolutely nothing.

From Persia it gets guarantees about Iraq and prolonged Oil Concessions

Peace.

Speaking of peace I'm sure the Pakistanis will just Loooove to be part of India and Persia.

Less Indians have died in military ops in Wesworld than in historical WW1...

This is a surprise. Aussies are beginning to wonder if perhaps Great Britain has lost it. First SEAR and now this...

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Speaking of peace I'm sure the Pakistanis will just Loooove to be part of India and Persia.

Don´t know about the "Pakistanis" but the Baluchis and Pashtuns will

This Agreement takes out one of the main bones of contention between the British and Bharat with no economic loss for the British. In case of a war Pakistan was going to be loss anyway before any help could have reached the area.

But now they peacefully have cemented their hold on Iraqi and Persian oil while Bharat and Persia now could call this a victory by getting territories they have claimed for a long time being returned.

At least now in Bharat's book the British are a couple of notches up the scale. On the other hand that SEAR thing is the only thing not moving then into the fair category.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Speaking of peace I'm sure the Pakistanis will just Loooove to be part of India and Persia.

Don´t know about the "Pakistanis" but the Baluchis and Pashtuns will

Well considering they were for a time part of a state called "Pakistan" and had begun to identify themselves as "Pakistanis" I'd suspect that my orriginal statement that "Pakistani's" would love the idea of partitioning would still be valid.

Calling it a "state" is probably a stretch at this point in time. A British colony called "Pakistan", yes. A state called Pakistan? That's more of a stretch, especially considering that there are large portions of Pakistan today that, arguably, are much more tribal than state-oriented.

How well this will work out for the Persians and Indians in practice will depend a lot on how well they can co-opt the indigenous leaders of the region.

Quoted

Originally posted by Desertfox
This is a surprise. Aussies are beginning to wonder if perhaps Great Britain has lost it. First SEAR and now this...

Indeed, given that Canada relies a great deal on it's association with the Crown, I also have to question the wisdom here...

The only benefits to UK that I see are some minor warship construction restrictions; A result of which we can expect to be a flood of light cruiser construction (Keeping in mind, the difference(s) between Light and Heavy cruisers are not defined here, as well... By Cleito definitions, that could mean a flood of 8k ton 8" or even 10" armed ships. Taking away the Cleito definition, that could mean 19k ton 6" cruisers. Either case can be considered disturbing), and furthermore, India can break that agreement the moment British troops are out of Pakistan with little effort, while the same cannot be said of attempting to regain that territory...

To be honest I'd have to agree with some that the UK seems to have lost its mind. Its effectivily emasculated itself with Article VI, when it could have simply said heres Pakistan, take it or leave it.

Meanwhile Atricle IV will further degrade Persian-Turko relations as well.

Well, Britain garners (dubious) safety for Malaysia, and has basically disposed of Pakistan as untenable.

The bit about the Shia is odd. Arabs don't like Persians, even co-religionists often. Plus the Mosul field is set to be a big contributer to the UK's oil budget.

The Governments of Great Britain and India will agree to limited naval arms reductions to ensure peace in the region and to ensure a proper balance of power.
A) India agrees not to lay-down any warship over 20,000 tons within the next five years.
B) Great Britain agrees to maintain only two battleships in the region.
C) India agrees to build only two heavy cruisers with main armament up to 10in in calibre within the next five years
D) Great Britain agrees to only station eight long-range submarines in the region, India can build up to fifteen such vessels.
E) Both nations agree to no limits over coastal submarines.

Article VI is good and bad from the Dutch point of view.
Good in that articles A & C limit the Indians...but only for 5 years.
Bad in that a pair of 19,999ton x 10" armed BCs will be annoying.
Bad in that While Article B fails to define region, and doesn't have a timeline. Of course ships are mobile, but that takes time.
Bad in D) as it isn't balanced and SAER tasks the Dutch with protecting the trade routes, while the Indians won't have any of consequence.
as for E), it's inconsequential. Of course it also fails to define coastal submarines, so what if one party builds a 2,000 ton "coastal" submarine...

Bad in that the Dutch wonder how the Brits plan on fulfilling their obligations.

Of course there's this great irony in that two SATSUMA nations, which call for self rule of Asian states...just took the place of the Imperial Master...and nobody asked the Pakistanis.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Of course there's this great irony in that two SATSUMA nations, which call for self rule of Asian states...just took the place of the Imperial Master...and nobody asked the Pakistanis.

Thats the most telling point of all, and would seem to justify the initial distrust leveled at SATSUMA when it was first formed. Then again Persia is a late entry in SATSUMA and India has changed drasitically since the formation.

Quoted

Originally posted by Kaiser Kirk
Well, Britain garners (dubious) safety for Malaysia, and has basically disposed of Pakistan as untenable.

The bit about the Shia is odd. Arabs don't like Persians, even co-religionists often. Plus the Mosul field is set to be a big contributer to the UK's oil budget.


Of course there's this great irony in that two SATSUMA nations, which call for self rule of Asian states...just took the place of the Imperial Master...and nobody asked the Pakistanis.

Odd comments by the Dutch. Southern Iraq has always been closely connected to Persia, most of the Shia Holy places are there and it has been a core province under a number of Persian Dynasties. And how is Mosul threatened by Persian guarantees to drop all territorial claims in Iraq? The areas in Pakistan are simply reverting to Persia lost earlier to the UK. I assume that the Dutch wouldn´t try to retrieve say Zeeland if it was lost to one of its neighbours.

Perhaps if the British are in such a giving mood maybe Turkey could partision Iraq with Persia ;-)

Of cource they'd still have the oil rights.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Odd comments by the Dutch. Southern Iraq has always been closely connected to Persia, most of the Shia Holy places are there and it has been a core province under a number of Persian Dynasties. And how is Mosul threatened by Persian guarantees to drop all territorial claims in Iraq? The areas in Pakistan are simply reverting to Persia lost earlier to the UK. I assume that the Dutch wouldn´t try to retrieve say Zeeland if it was lost to one of its neighbours.

More OOC comments. I have heard from a couple sources that the Arabs consider themselves quite separate from the Persians. Just because the Persians ruled there does not mean the ethnicity is Persian.

As for Mosul, it's more a matter that I would think the Brits to be more reticent about letting the Persians closer, and - as I understand the Shi'a map, on the river routes serving the area. Mosul they can defend, Pakistan, not so much.

Last territory the Dutch lost was to India in 1917, when they invaded the Andamans. They might have retained that except they were at a disadvantage, what with their home fleet bottled up by the UK's blockade of Germany. Now if India was willing to hand them and Sri Lanka back...

OOC: Persians don´t like Arabs to much either but like the Azeri and Kurds (not much love there either) the Shia in Iraq
are sharing quite a lot with Persia (lets not forget that in this time period there is considerable Arab population on the Persian side of the border). I keep forgetting the close historical, linguistic and cultural ties between Ceylon, Formosa and the Netherlands

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
Perhaps if the British are in such a giving mood maybe Turkey could partision Iraq with Persia ;-)

I wouldn't mind Hood, the spare turrets for C&G, Alaska, and Newfoundland...

I'll be quiet now.