- Both Kahmir and Hong Kong had special status
Presently, the world is witnessing two major conflicts in Asia; of Kashmir and of Hong Kong. Both of these conflicts have their roots back in the grubby legacy of British imperialism. In Kashmir, the British left a bleeding wound amid the partition of colonial India and in Hong Kong, a major cosmopolis neither truly independent entity, nor part of mainland Ghina. They left a ruinous legacy for generations to bleed.
Chronologically, Hong Kong became a British colony after Qing China ceded Hong Kong Island after the First Opium War in 1842, and the Kowloon Peninsula in 1860 after the Second Opium War, and was further extended when Britain obtained a 99-year lease of the New Territories in 1898. The territory was transferred to China in 1997. As a special administrative region, Hong Kong maintains separate governing and economic systems from mainland China’s under the principle of “one country, two systems“. This meant that while becoming part of one country with China, Hong Kong would enjoy “a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defense affairs” for 50 years. But what both China and Britain had neglected to consider was that a nation of almost eight million human beings, throughout a long colonial and postcolonial history, had accumulated a robust collective memory of its own, which was neither British nor mainland Chinese. They have developed the feelings of one nation different from that of the British and Chinese. They call themselves “Hong Kongers” and are now struggling for their rights against a domineering central government.
What the world is seeing today in Asia in Kashmir and Hong Kong, is the result of the ill-conceived policies of the British Empire. It is, therefore, incumbent on the UK to take a lead in resolving these matters by using its international clout and thereby redressing its historical blunders. Since the UK is a permanent member of the UNSC; it must exert diplomatic pressure to get these issues resolved at the earliest
Similarly, Kashmir came under the control of the British when in 1845, the First Anglo-Sikh War broke out, and Gulab Singh “contrived to hold himself aloof till the battle of Sobraon (1846), when he appeared as a useful mediator and the trusted advisor of Sir Henry Lawrence. Two treaties were concluded. By the first the State of Lahore (Punjab) handed over to the British, as equivalent for Rs 10 million of indemnity, the hill countries between the Beas and Indus; by the second the British made over to Gulab Singh for Rs 7.5 million all the hilly or mountainous country east of the Indus and west of the Ravi” (the Vale of Kashmir). The Treaty of Amritsar freed Gulab Singh from obligations towards the Sikhs and made him the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. The Dogras’ loyalty came in handy to the British during the War of 1857. The Dogras refused sanctuary to mutineers, allowed it to English women and children and sent Kashmiri troops to fight on behalf of the British. British in return rewarded them by securing the Dogra succession in Kashmir. A century later, Kashmir was sucked into the bloody partition of India and Pakistan, with both post-colonial states having a mutually exclusive claim on its territory. Thus, the British imperialists showed criminal indifference to resolve the issue and deliberately left it as a bone of contention between the two countries.
Consequently, today Kashmir stands as a nuclear flashpoint and the Kashmiris are unfortunately, reaping the chaos the British Empire sowed nearly eight decades back. What is now happening in Indian occupied Kashmir is pathetic. The Indian government has suddenly revoked the region’s special status. New Delhi has imposed a digital and telecommunications blackout in Jammu and Kashmir, so much less is known about what actually is happening there. But a few days back, the BBC released a video showing tear gas and ammunition used against protestors after Friday prayers in Srinagar. The New York Times also reported on hospitals bereft of staff and locals beaten up for venturing outside to buy milk; one doctor described the situation as a “living hell.”
Under this new dispensation, Kashmir is to be ruled directly from Delhi as a Union Territory. The last time Kashmir was ruled directly from Delhi, from 1990 to 1996, it witnessed human rights violations on a massive scale, with extrajudicial killings, torture, rape, disappearances, firing on unarmed demonstrators, burning of homes, crops, and standing harvests, and a complete clampdown on all political activity. The possibility of a repetition, this time more intensely, is clear.
Hong Kong too, nowadays, is witnessing huge demonstrations. The protests began in June over plans, later put on ice, and finally withdrawn in September, to allow extradition from Hong Kong to mainland China. But they’ve now spread to reflect wider demands for democratic reforms.
Currently, Hong Kong’s leader, the chief executive, is elected by a 1,200-member election committee – a mostly pro-Beijing body chosen by just 6 percent of eligible voters.
Not all the 70 members of the territory’s lawmaking body, the Legislative Council, are directly chosen by Hong Kong’s voters. Most seats not directly elected are occupied by pro-Beijing lawmakers.
Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, says ultimately both the leader, and the Legislative Council, should be elected in a more democratic way, but there’s been disagreement over this.
The Chinese government said in 2014 it would allow voters to choose leaders from a list approved by a pro-Beijing committee, but critics called this a “sham democracy” and it was voted down in Hong Kong’s legislature.
However, while Beijing has not explicitly scrapped “one country, two systems,” recent events have made clear that rapid assimilation into China is a priority for the Chinese Communist Party. The patchwork arrangement that characterized the British Empire in Asia is no longer tolerated by the leaders who inherited the imperial spoils—the goal is now total control.
Constitutionally, there was supposed to be some continuity between the governance of Hong Kong and Kashmir in the transition from the colonial to the post-colonial era. Both regions were recognized as being distinct from the countries that they were part of and therefore, granted special protections on that basis. In Hong Kong, the “one country, two systems” framework was introduced to guarantee Hong Kongers the way of life until 2047.
In Jammu and Kashmir, these protections were, however, even more robust, enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Under Article 370, Kashmir controlled its own affairs, apart from foreign policy, defense, or communications, and Article 35A restricted outsiders from buying land. Under Article 370, it’s arguable that Kashmir had more independence than any part of India. But it was revoked by the fascist Modi regime making good on its campaign promise to end Kashmir’s special status.
What the world is seeing today in Asia in Kashmir and Hong Kong, is the result of the ill-conceived policies of the British Empire. It is, therefore, incumbent on the UK to take a lead in resolving these matters by using its international clout and thereby redressing its historical blunders. Since the UK is a permanent member of the UNSC; it must exert diplomatic pressure to get these issues resolved at the earliest.
