Federalism is the Only Solution to Problems Facing Hong Kong and Kashmir

W. James Arputharaj
President of South Asian Federalists; Executive member of WFM; Coordinator for India for the UN Parliamentary Assembly Campaign

Kashmir is not for sale. Someone commented, observing the Indo-Pak conflict which is mainly over Kashmir, that both India and Pakistan are fighting over Kashmir as dogs would fight over a bone. Kashmir does belong only to the people of Kashmir, who were independent of India and Pakistan.

Kashmiris have their unique culture, language and heritage. At the time of partition of India, in August 1947, Kashmir was still  independent. In October 1947, when tribes bordering Pakistan attempted an invasion of Kashmir, the then Hindu King Hari Singh signed the instruments of accession to the Indian Union on 26th October 1947, in lieu of coming under the domination of Pakistan. The Indian Government assured autonomy and self-rule in Kashmir by inserting the Article 370 in its constitution. Only Defence and Foreign policy was delegated to the Central Government, in the true sense of federalism. Nevertheless, Kashmir had its own constitution and flag.

However, now, having in mind the state elections to be held in 3 states of India, the ruling party made the Indian President to abrogate Article 370 on the night of 4^th August 2019, terming the move by the political slogan “one country, one constitution”. There is an elected state assembly in Kashmir which was suspended a couple of months ago. Though both houses of the Indian Parliament discussed and endorsed this Presidential  order, there was absolutely no consultation with the people of Kashmir. Even the MPs elected from Kashmir could not attend the Parliament, as more than 4000 political leaders and businessmen were arrested for more than a month. The guns were taken away from the local Police, and the Central Reserve Police, about 30,000 of them, landed in Kashmir. India is still imposing a draconian law, introduced by the British Raj and called Section 144, which does not allow assembly of  more than 4 persons. Nowadays, 7 million people of Kashmir are locked down for more than one month, with no access to internet and mobile phones; the main mosques were locked even on the Eid festival days. Interestingly, a significant number of political leaders and businessmen who were arrested had indeed supported the federal structure within India by participating in the elections (local, state and national), while some others always dreamt of “Azad Kashmir” (independent Kashmir). While most powers in the world have observed that removing the autonomy status is an internal matter of India, and Kashmir is an integral part of India, which International Law allows people to be deprived of their fundamental rights, when the people of Kashmir were not at fault? Having not discussed with the people of Kashmir about the recent move, the Indian Government is worried of uprising and protests. But how long could 7 million people be locked down without access to communication and unable to earn their livelihood? “We cannot hear anything, not even the news about ourselves”, lamented a Kashmiri who could not attend the funeral of his sister as he came to know of it after 2 weeks, though she lived 50 km away.

In 1948, UN Resolution 39 directed a peaceful resolution of conflict by forming a commission and marking a Line of Control (LoC). However, the 1965 war changed everything, as Kashmir was divided among India, Pakistan and China. Much water has flown under the bridges since then. Pakistan also abolished State Subject Rule in Gilgit Balistan (part of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK)) in 1984. For the people split among three countries to come together to have a referendum is near to impossible.

Similar to Kashmir, there were other Kingdoms, like Sikkim, which were annexed to the Indian Union at different points in time, with instruments of accession and offering autonomy. But  Kashmir now is the question on the minds of people. The secular, democratic and federalist character of the Indian state is challenged.

Hong Kong

The situation in Hong Kong is similar, but at the same time the context is different. Though the legislation introduced for extradition to China is withdrawn  after continued protests, many youth activists are still in jail.

Hong Kong was a Chinese territory for more than 2000 years. By an agreement with the UK in 1898, the island of Hong Kong was leased to the UK after China lost a war with Britain. When the status was restored at the end of the lease in 1999, China gave its consent that autonomy would be maintained, as agreed in 1984 when both countries decided to restore the status. Many youth who are protesting were born when the  island was under British rule and  had embraced democracy as a way of governance, and are now unable to agree to mainland China controlling their lives.

Assembly of people for peaceful protest and dissent is not tolerated in both India and China, who anyway have ratified the UN Convention on Human rights. The latter becomes the concern of the international community whenever people within nation states are oppressed by their own Government, denying their right to liberty. Responsibility to Protect (R2P) applies to these two situations, as the nation state has failed to protect its own people.

Federalism is the only solution to the problems faced by the people of Kashmir and Hong Kong. Governments should practice federalism by providing autonomy to regions, and enabling them to govern themselves.

We live in an era where national boundaries do not matter when it comes to market, communication, the environment and climate change; and they do not respect Lines of Control. And there are no longer fully homogenous communities or countries. Many countries are becoming more and more multi ethnic and multi lingual. The Governments need to respect regional autonomy and the wishes of the people, even if they belong to minority religions or regions.

Federalism is based on the principle of subsidiarity, whereby decisions are taken at the level where it is required to address governance issues. Local aspirations of the people should be respected and democratic voices need to be heard.

We do hope and pray that good sense will prevail with the Governments of India and China. And the people in both places did not choose separatism, but they work within the federal framework and fight for their rights and justice.