Coll 28/67 ‘Persia. Annual Reports, 1932–’ [‎66v] (132/644)

32
from individual cases, they complained that the former had stopped the entiy of
all Persians into Bahrein for a period of a month, that the Bahrein Government
were dismissing all Persians from posts under the Bahrein Petroleum Company
and that all Persian subjects were compelled to register at the British agency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, headed by an agent. .
192. The first of these complaints was imaginary. As regards the oil ^
company, the Ministry were told in due course that the engagement and dismissal ^
of the company’s employees was carried out by the company, which was a
private concern, and not by the Bahrein Government (although, as a matter of
fact, the company’s concession included a clause, analogous to that in the new
Anglo-Persian Oil Company concession, obliging them to employ Bahreinis as
far as possible). As regards registration, it was explained that orders for the
registration of all foreigners at the British Agency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, headed by an agent. had originally been issued
on the 27th February, 1929, but republished on the 30th March, 1933; registra
tion was an advantage to Persians as well as to other foreigners, since their
status as foreigners was thereby recorded and they thus enjoyed the privileges
accorded to foreigners in Bahrein.
193. The case of Lutfali Khonji was settled during the year. The Persian
Government and Robabeh Sayyareh herself continued to agitate for her to be
allowed to return to Bahrein.
194. On the 26th January the International Postal Union circulated the
text of a letter they had received from the Persian post office protesting against
the use of Indian stamps surcharged with the word “ Bahrein,” on the ground
that Bahrein was Persian territory; the letter also announced that envelopes
arriving in Persia from Bahrein with any stamps except Persian stamps would
be regarded as unstamped, and only delivered on payment of double the inland
postage. It was agreed that the Indian postal administration should address a
letter to the Union rebutting the statement that Bahrein was Persian territory
and making it clear that the sheikh was within his sovereign rights in using any
stamps he liked. This was done on the 24th March.
195. Meanwhile, it was becoming increasingly difficult to delay any longer
the issue of the surcharged stamps, and, after some discussion as to the best
moment for effecting the change and the explanations, if any, to be given to
the Persian Government, the stamps were brought into use on the 10th August
without any further communication to the Persian Government. His Majesty’s
Charge d’Affaires was prepared to tell the Minister for Foreign Affairs, if he
raised the question, that the Persian Government might have noticed that the
surcharged stamps were still not in use some months after their protest of
September 1932, and that the intention of His Majesty’s Government had been
to let the matter remain in suspense in the hope that a treaty would soon be
concluded; but that the letter to the Union had rendered the continuance of such
a policy impossible, and a definite decision to bring the stamps into use had been
taken at that time. The Persian Government did not, however, revert to the
question.
196. It had originally been suggested that the Political Agency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, headed by an agent. should
continue to use unsurcharged Indian stamps for letters addressed to Persia, but
this proved undesirable and impracticable when it came to the point, and
arrangements were made for such correspondence to be posted in Koweit or
elsewhere.
197. During the summer and autumn trouble of a new kind arose, when
the Persian authorities started refusing visas and exit visas to holders of British
passports bearing endorsements for travel to Bahrein or Koweit. The idea
underlying this attitude was fairly obvious in the case of Bahrein, but less
obvious in the case of Koweit, for, though Persia did not recognise any of the
Arab principalities, it was only Bahrein that she openly claimed as Persian
territory. His Majesty’s consul at Basra, where many visas for Bahrein were
given, was authorised to retaliate by refusing visas for Bahrein or Koweit to
holders of Persian passports unless the passports were specifically endorsed for
these places. Later in the year, however, the Persian Government abolished
the system of specific endorsements, at any rate in the case of passports issued
for use in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , so that this method of retaliation broke down. Other
suggestions, including one to the effect that the specific endorsement of British