مجموعة ٣٠/ ١٨ (١) "الخليج الفارسي: البحرين، الرسوم الجمركية المفروضة على البضائع العابرة؛ موقف ابن سعود" [ظ‎‎٥‎٢‎٠] (١١٦٢/١٠٤٥)

Letter from Pol. Res. to G.
of L, 495 8., Dec. 30 1921,
P. 522/22.
* Letter from Pol. Res. to
G. of I., 495 S., Dec. 30
1921, P. 522/22.
Major Dalv’s Report,
Nov. 1921.‘
Tel. from Viceroy to Pol.
Res., 119 S., Jan. 30 1922
P. 900/22.
G. of I. to Pol. Res., 549 S.,
May 2 1922.
t F.O. to I.O., Mar. 18
1922.
X P. 2228.
Pol. Res. to G. of I. Jan. 27
1923, P. 750/23.
§ Tel. from Viceroy to S.
of S. for I., 475 S., April 17,
P. 1443.
Tel. from Viceroy to S of S.,
May 23 1928.
terrorism ” practised by the Sheikhs, and particularly by Sheikh Abdulla }
had ousted Sheikh Hamad from the position he should properly have occ'
as heir apparent, formed the subject of various reports by the Politic 1
(then Major H. Daly, C.I.E.) in 11)21, and led by the end of that year^
deputation to ask for intervention to the Political Resident in the Pp • \
Gulf. Slan
12. The Resident accepted the position, and suggested to the Government
of India that a possible solution might be that the Political Agent should be
empowered to intervene in cases of gross oppression and give individual
protection where necessary. 0 Earlier in 1921 Sheikh Abdulla had taken
alarm at the rising discontent, and Sheikh Isa had appointed his heir, Skpikh
Hamad, to take over control under his orders, but the masterful * wife of
Sheikh Isa had prevented any advance. The attitude of the people became
however, sufficiently alarming to lead Sheikh Hamad and Sheikh Abdulla
early in 1922 to take certain minor steps in the direction of reform, and the
Government of India, who in January 1922 had stated that they were not
prepared to consider drastic intervention until all local resources had been
exhausted and intervention was imperative to secure the protection of
foreigners and the position of His Majesty’s Government in the Islands, and
who remained anxious to avoid interference if it could be avoided, informed
the Resident in the light of this that while it was most undesirable that they
should be drawn into interference between the Sheikh and his subjects, they
were prepared to lend their moral support to an honest attempt by the
Sheikh to put his scheme into force. They emphasised that nothing should
be done to encourage the idea that reforms were being introduced by the
Sheikh at the dictation of Government.
•
Id. The reforms, however, proved illusory ; the internal situation continued
threatening ; the Foreign Office, who in March 1922 had urged the taking of
immediate steps of reform, in view of the prejudicial effect on the position
of His Majesty’s Government in Persia of “ the present highly unsatisfactory
state of affairs in Bahrein,”t again represented the necessity for action, in
the interests of the Shiah subjects of the Sheikhs, on 29th May 1922.J The
Secretary of State for India referred the matter to the Government of India,
and they 7 to the Resident in the Gulf. The Political Agent thereupon
recommended a postponement of action, partly to enable developments to be
watched, partly to appraise the importance of the interest in Bahrein affairs
of Ibn Saud, and this recommendation was accepted; but by the end of
1922 the Political Resident was obliged to report that the state of affairs in
Bahrein called for reform more urgently than ever, and that Government
must be prepared to back up moral pressure by material force if the required
reforms were to be carried through.
14. Finally, in April 1923,§ the Government of India, who recognised that
if the status of Bahrein and our position in the Islands was brought
before the League by Persia, “misrule would be the only serious flaw in
our case,” recommended that if Sheikh Isa could not be persuaded to take
the necessary steps himself, he should be deposed, his son Abdulla deported,
and the required reforms carried out by 7 the Government of India, his
Majesty’s Government approved action on these lines, and Sheikh Isa proving
obdurate, he was deprived of his control on 26th May 1923, and g raI |J e[
an allowance,11 and his son, Sheikh Hamad, appointed to act for him a»
his father’s fully empowered Agent.” It was found unnecessary to deport
Sheikh Abdulla. Appeals by Sheikh Isa to the High Commissioner or
Iraq and the Viceroy, culminating in an appeal in 1925 to the Secretary o
State for India, were rejected.
Cp. Pol. Res. Desp. to G.
of I. and C.O., 631 S.,
Nov. 11 1923, P. 4856/23.
(2) 1923—1928 : Sheikh Hamad.
of the
15. After a disturbed beginning, the result of the activities
partisans of the old regime, in the course of which a firm line hau
taken with the (Sunni) Dowasir tribe resident in the north-east o
[j Rs. 4,000 per mensem from customs, which for some years he refused to draw { ■ ^
P. 1193/25 ; P. 2221/27), and Rs. 2,000 per annum, in addition to his private inc ^
Rs. 2,500 per mensem (letter from Political Resident to Government of India, J 0 ’
15th June 1923, P. 2729 A/23).
Island o:
in Hasa,
Bahrein
that rul
recomim
India, w
of a Bri
filled Jai
1924, ch
while in
financial
appointe
though t
16. r
Governn
rehictam
control c
them in
State. ]
consider
Bahrein
notice a
be dispe
compete
responsi
17. I
took pla
claim to
Isa rem
pendenc
Sheikh k
Residen
full the
iS. r
points f(
on it m
exercise'
to quote
were be
claim to
“ We
position
a quarr<
on politi
force on
wishes c
19. '
approva
concessi
original
were un
but agre
an exch
to renev
certain :
approva
Syndica
Sheikh
to the i
with th
6 o verm
hoard o