Page 27 - The Origins of the United Arab Emirates_Neat

3
The Trucial States in 1919 • Rule bxJ Tra(llllon
Suhayl, to pay a fine and deliver up certain arms ^thin forty-eight
hours; he was told that he would have to accept a Bn sh agent
in Dubai and that a proper post office might be mstallc
as well. Although Butli paid the fine and surrendered the arms
he showed a marked fear at the possibility of a resident Biius 1
he knew that his people would be violently opposed to
agent
any such intrusion, and that it would in turn jeopardise his own
position. The British authorities understood the realities of Butti s
predicament, and concluded that the Coast was too ‘wild a place
for an agent to be accepted without a strong show of force; it
was finally decided to defer the matter until a more propitious
time.1 In the inter-war discussions of British policy, this incident
was used as a touchstone of the attitude on the Coast towards
foreigners. It strengthened belief in the backwardness of the people
there, though no questions were asked about why they were so
insular as to refuse to have a British agent among them.
The history of the shaykhdoms before World War I was remarkably
unaffected by developments elsewhere. Although, in the two decades
preceding the war, the Gulf area became the arena of major competi­
tion between France, Britain, Russia, Germany and the Ottoman
Empire,2 the Trucial Coast felt little of this. The treaty of 1892,
which had followed from the possibility that the French would
try to extend their interests in the area, had effectively cut it
off from the stream of events. It continued to be governed by
political officers of the British government of India, and, instead
of being a part of the Arab world, was more an extension of
the Indian sub-continent. For example, since there was no local
currency, the Indian rupee had become the accepted form of pay­
ment, except in the hinterland, where Maria Theresa dollars circu­
lated. Furthermore, the largest foreign community in the region
was made up of Indian merchants. The effect of all this was
that India had the major share of the Coast’s foreign trade.
The conditions on the Coast were reflected in the population
itself. In 1908, this was estimated at 80,000,3 and in 1939, just
over thirty years later, it was estimated at the same figure.4 The
restrictions of day-to-day living, the illiteracy of the people because
of the general absence of educational facilities, and their ignorance
of even the most rudimentary forms of public health all contributed
to a high rate of infant mortality and a short life expectancy,
which in turn resulted in zero population growth.
Although the population was static, a comparison of the population
figures for the principal towns in the same two years (see Table
1) reveals that the people responded positively to the various economic
and political challenges facing them. There was a great deal of
internal migration, which demonstrates the dynamic nature of the