Page 319 - Begrave Thesis_Neat

Though it was Burrows who helped the Party remain intact, it was him who

sealed its fate in November of that year. A number of possible factors affected the

Residency’s decision to suppress the Movement those being its constant call for

strikes some of which led to violence having a negative impact on the economy, the

statements attributed to Al-Bakir abroad, the creation of a paramilitary organisation

in the form of a Scouts movement, failure to cooperate with the government, failure

to take advantage of the political concessions awarded to them, and the riots of

November 1956.

The position of Belgrave presented British policy makers with a dilemma.

The Residency understood that part of the local agitation was the position of the

Adviser. Since the Adviser was not an employee for Britain and did not receive

orders from it, policy makers had to convince both the Ruler of Bahrain and

Belgrave that the latter had to go. The tactics employed by the British dealt

sensitively with the issue, as they feared that an insistence on their part for Belgrave

to depart might lead to instability in the Administration and force the Ruler to

abdicate. That position relatively changed following the sacking of Glubb Pasha in

Jordan and the stoning of Lloyd in Bahrain. The new policy adopted then was to

allow Belgrave to remain temporarily and not to impose the issue on the

Administration as British prestige was on stake if a sudden departure of the Adviser

were to take place. A long-term plan was devised to ease Belgrave out by

persuading the Ruler to adopt that line. The plan after thorough consideration

involved convincing the Ruler to hire a British secretary to the government who

would eventually ease out the Adviser. There is no evidence to suggest that

© Hamad E. Abdulla 298