File 522/1922 Pt 7 'Bahrain: Persian claim to sovereignty; Persian Treaty negotations 1929-1930' [‎319r] (642/1126)

Translation.
Shaffagfe Sorkli September 21st; Ho. 1594.
Far suing his ooinments over the Banrem controversy, the
vrriter v^ho now signs himself as Ahmad Far am ar si, states that th<
absence of a Persian garrison in Bahrein, besides the example
of Lurestan formerly given, can also be accounted for by the
categorical refusal of Great Britain to allow the passage to
Bahrein of Persian forces. Everybody may have heard of the
story of Persia 1 s efforts in 1285 A.H. i.e. some 62 years ago
to send troops to the rescue of Mohammed ben Khalifeh, the
then Sheikh of Bahrein. The troops were delayed on the sea by
British gunboats and the Sheikh was in the meantime deported
to India for his arrogant attempt at appeal to his Government.
Had it not been for the iron will of the Shah, Hengam would
have proved to be a second Bahrein when the Persian Government
lately decided to station a garrison there and the British
Government raised the usual hundred and one objections. Is
really the absence of a garrison and the conclusion of a treaty
between the Sheikh of Bahrein and the Indian Government ^
valid proof for the independence of Bahrein ? Then what would
Great Britain say, if the Russian Government or the Afghans
were to sign Treaties, without the British Government s sss^Ki
consent or knowledge, with the semi-independent border states^^
of India which so far have not paid taxes to the Central
Government and where Great Britain has not yet sent a garii
son ? If such is the verdict of international Law, why then
did the British Government induce with such insistence Turkey
to relinquish all rights of sovereignty over Egypt, Malta and
Cyprus in the conventions signed after the Great War although
Turkey T s rule over these countries had lapsed for more than
100 years in some instances ?
Another ridiculous contention of the. British papers
that Bahrein is nearer to the Arabian coast than to Persia.
This