Coll 30/90 'Persian claim to the island of Bahrain' [‎106r] (216/1062)

of the Persian flag by Mohamed bin Khalifah, and the bombardment of Muharraq
and the punitive destruction of the warships took place after the submission of
Bahrein, and so after Mohamed bin Khalifah had fled from the islands.
Persian Protest, November 1868
81. The facts appear to be as stated in the preceding paragraph. It was
some time before a full account of these proceedings reached either India or
London. Meanwhile, as will be seen from the correspondence, extracts of which Teh. Deep, to
are quoted below, the action of the Government of India drew a vigorous protest Aloises
from the Persian Government. The protest, after appealing to the treaties con- Teh Desp
eluded between England and Persia in 1809, in 1814, in 1822 (unratified) and in ^9 of
1857, urged that the Resident, instead of respecting the rights of Persia in the i71118ba '
Gulf to the extent provided for in those treaties had, without any prior intimation
to the Persian authorities, attacked Bahrein, which island had been and still was
the property of Persia; had bombarded and destroyed the Governor’s fort and
house and caused considerable damage; had appointed the Sheikh’s brother as
Governor over the island on the flight, through fear, of the Sheikh; had imposed
a fine; and had required the new Sheikh to find his brother and deliver him up to
the British authorities. These proceedings had taken place at a time when
“ Sheikh Md. bin Khalifah, the Governor of Bahrein, was openly avowing his
submission to and dependence upon Persia and declaring that he considered
Bahrein to be indisputably Persian, in proof of which the Persian flag was flying
over his fort.”
82. Her Majesty’s Minister at Tehran was instructed to communicate a f.o. to i.o.,
suitable explanatory statement to the Persian Government. The Foreign Office 1 - 21869 -
suggested, however, that it might be advisable, in the event of similar proceedings
again becoming necessary, that communication should be had with that Govern
ment. While this question was still under consideration a formal protest against
the Resident’s action was received (11th February, 1869,) from the Persian Charg6
d’Affaires in London, who complained, inter alia, that the Resident had sunk three
ships belonging to the Governor of Bahrein and fired on his Palace on which the
Persian flag flew, and requested that the British Government would give orders ii° 2 .i 869 . an ’
for the repair of the damage caused. He was informed in reply that tc the Sheikh JJ Khan
of Bahrein was an independent chief with whom the British Government had s.sisS. a ’
treaty engagements and whom they must hold strictly to the performance of those
engagements.”
83. This contention the Persian representative disputed, and in support of |^ n ^ h jj“ ke
his view he forwarded letters addressed “ from 1858 to 1869 by the Sheikh of 0 f Argyll,
Bahrein to His Imperial Majesty the Shah and the Prince Governor A Prince of the Royal line who also acted as Governor of a large Iranian province during the Qājār period (1794-1925). of Shiraz.” 134.1869.
The translations of these letters are dated 9th April and 12th April, 1869,
respectively. From internal evidence it seems probable that they were, however,
written in 1860 on the occasion of the visit to Bahrein of the Persian envoy,
Mirza Medhi Khan (paragraph 67 above). They acknowledge the receipt of a
Firman A Persian word meaning a royal order or decree issued by a sovereign, used notably in the Ottoman Empire (sometimes written ‘phirmaund’). from the Mirza (apparently recognising Sheikh Md. as Sheikh and
accompanying a Firman A Persian word meaning a royal order or decree issued by a sovereign, used notably in the Ottoman Empire (sometimes written ‘phirmaund’). and a Sword of Honour for Sheikh Ali). They state
emphatically that Bahrein forms part of Persia, and has always done so. They
refer to an agreement reached for the future payment of tribute; remark that £C the
slight neglect which was lately shown on our part towards Your Imperial Majesty’s
Government was because they had not for a while superintended and protected
us, but as now the Government of Your Imperial Majesty has intended by sending
over Mirza Mehdy to enquire into and manage the affairs here, I, with my brother
and all the inhabitants, feel quite ready to declare at once that we are most willing
to render any services required from us towards Your Majesty’s Goverment,^being
already aware that Bahrein ( Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. ) is part of Persia,” and add £C . .
I will hasten to hoist the flag on my residence bearing the Lion and the Sun
which are the signs of the Persian Standard.”
British Note of 29th April, 1869
84. The question of the reply to be given to this further protest was
carefully considered between the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. and the Foreign Office. The Duke
of Argyll, then Secretary of State for India, remarked that although he was of
opinion that the line of policy which had hitherto been pursued of regarding the
Sheikh of Bahrein as an independent sovereign, and of refusing to recognise the
right of sovereignty advanced by Persia, as had been done in 1845, 1848 and 1860,
could not be now abandoned without very serious risk of endangering the peace
of the Gulf, yet that £ £ he was not blind to the expediency of avoiding all causes
85—177
I.O. to F.O.,
21.4.1869.
D 2
i