BAHRAIN – a small island nation off the coast of Saudi Arabia – declared independence from the UK 52 years ago today.
Yet the true extent of the violence endured by those who campaigned for that independence and further democracy remains in shadow even half a decade later.
The history of Bahrain
In 1868, Bahrain officially became part of the British protectorate of territories in the Persian Gulf.
Under this agreement British permission was needed if the ruler of Bahrain wished to enter into any formal relationships with other countries.
In return, Bahrain received military protection from the British, who also supported the rule of the Al Khalifa family (who still hold considerable political influence in the country today).
During this period of British influence Bahrain was transformed into the largest trading hub in the Persian Gulf, with the discovery of oil in 1932 making it even more valuable to the British Empire.
The ‘Butcher of Bahrain’
Ian Henderson was born in Aberdeenshire on March 8, 1927 but spent his childhood in Kenya.
It was there that he gained renown as police officer whose negotiations helped crush the anti-colonial Mau Mau rebellion during the 1950’s.
Following this he was sent to Bahrain to set up a special security branch in the country, after anti-British sentiment began to bubble up among left-wing political groups and high school students.
Arriving in 1966 – just after the March Intifada saw numerous protesters killed by police – Henderson became an instrumental force in the country’s security apparatus.
The gaining of independence began in earnest two years later, when the British government announced that it would be ending its treaties with Persian Gulf states – including Bahrain.
With the Iranian government agitating for control of Bahrain, the United Nations stepped in and proceeded with the most sensible course of action. They asked Bahraini’s what they wanted: Iranian control or independence.
READ MORE: How Maldives gained independence from the British empire
An overwhelming majority voted for independence and the sovereign state of Bahrain was born.
However, in the early 2000s human rights groups brought forward allegations of brutality against Henderson, who was alleged to have overseen the torture and sexual abuse of pro-democracy campaigners (which he strongly denied right up until his death in 2013).
Yet despite the then vice-chair of Westminster’s human rights group describing the allegations in 2003 as “by far the strongest UK torture case we have seen”, an investigation led to nothing after Bahraini authorities invoked official secrecy and refused to release documents pertaining to Henderson’s conduct.
The so-called “Butcher of Bahrain” was never prosecuted and the true nature of what pro-independence and pro-democracy activists endured at the hand of the British state remains unknown.
Meanwhile, the UK Government continues to lend support to a regime which retains the death penalty, restricts freedom of expression and is known for heavy police repression of those calling for democratic reform.
Indeed, in June the UK Government removed Bahrain from its list of human rights priority countries after the oil-rich country announced that its private sector would invest £1 billion in the UK.
It shows that even post-independence, many countries still struggle to gain democratic freedom and fully dismantle political structures built under British rule.
Lesson for Scottish independence: Despite having a much-reduced sphere of global influence since the days of Empire, the UK Government continues to wield soft power in many of its former territories (often via cosy relationships with anti-democratic governments and politicians).
The UK’s interest in Scotland will not end following independence. It would be wise to expect Westminster to continue its attempts to exert control over Scotland’s politics in whatever way it can post-indy.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here