The Great Colonial Charade

THERE can be nothing more farcical than the breast-beating and hysteria by the British over the future of Hong Kong while handing it back to China. People in Hong Kong as well as in the mainland celebrated the momentous event with fireworks and musical soirees as the Hong Kong stock exchange soared in anticipation. But this overwhelming sense of elation at the removal of the last vestige of colonial rule appears to be lost on the British, who are convinced that with their departure Hong Kong cannot but be heading for grim days.

One can understand introspection, even a certain element of nostalgia, in Britain at what after all is the final eclipse of an empire which lasted more than four centuries. The problem is that the British are far too hypocritical to admit that their real grouse over Hong Kong is the loss of the last stolen jewel on Her Majesty's crown. Instead there has been a concerted campaign, most notably by the British media, to ring alarm bells on the danger to democracy in Hong Kong.

Indeed, supposedly objective media organisations like the BBC and major British dailies have gone to absurd limits painting a gloomy picture of what lies beyond for Hong Kong. Within hours of a return to Chinese rule, BBC bulletins anchored by the lovely Nici Marx from Hong Kong screamed endlessly about "the invasion from land, sea and air by thousands of PLA soldiers from mainland China". Ms Marx was however frankly baffled at the soldiers being greeted by cheering crowds waving garlands, instead of protesters with black flags.

In a special programme on the handover, Ms Marx was visibly annoyed at the optimism displayed by members of the new Provisional Legislative Council despite haranguing them about the threat from the mainland. Amazingly, she seemed far more alarmed about the future of Hong Kong than its own leaders and citizens. She finally turned in desperation to excerpts from an interview with a dissident not from Hong Kong but a Tiananmen Square agitator who has taken shelter there. His dire predictions of what was going to happen to him and Hong Kong was repeated again and again through the day and later the entire interview was telecast as a special programme.

 The British newspapers have not been much better. In The Times, William Rees Mogg, after declaring that "democracy was the real issue in Hong Kong", thundered at length about the perfidy of the few British leaders who attended the swearing-in ceremony of the Provisional Legislative Council boycotted by Tony Blair's government. He was particularly miffed at the attendance of Edward Heath, Geoffrey Howe and Michael Heseltine and darkly suggested that "there were limits to tolerance...when it comes to issues of liberty and democracy". The Telegraph ran a set of euphoric pieces about Chris Patten who has over the past few years done his level best to subvert the handover by the British administration. In a glowing profile-cum-interview of Patten, he describes the British Empire as "an invariably honourable venture, conducted by honourable people". There is even a suggestion that the administration in all colonies ruled by the British has gone to pieces after they have left.

Even The Guardian, with its liberal pretensions, appears to have been bitten by the Hong Kong bug. Reporting from Hong Kong, Allan Rusbridger sees a "dismal symbolism" in the downpour that drenched the handover ceremony whose "overall effect was part comic, part chilling". He ends his lament by comparing a similar moment 50 years ago when Jawaharlal Nehru declared "at the stroke of midnight while the world sleeps India will wake to life and freedom". In the case of Hong Kong, however, Rusbridger "could feel no such certainty" and even if "it was possible to feel hope but it was also possible to feel foreboding".

Much of this gloom and doom spread by the British about the perils that lie ahead of Hong Kong is nothing but sanctimonious humbug. Regardless of what Mr Patten may like to believe, the British empire was hardly an honourable venture run by honourable people. This is particularly true in the case of China, where the British behaved despicably, plying the Chinese with opium to reverse the balance of trade in favour of Britain. The British also showed scant respect for democracy while imposing totally unfair treaties on a feeble Chinese

Emperor which resulted in their getting a foothold in Hong Kong in the first place. Not surprisingly, the people of Hong Kong at least have no lump in their throats as they bid goodbye to their colonial masters.

It is true that there was a fear some decades ago during the excesses of the Cultural Revolution in China, that a return to the mainland could disrupt Hong Kong's economic prosperity. But with the astounding progress made by the Chinese economy over the past decade, the people of Hong Kong have everything to gain and little to lose in their new partnership with the mainland. In fact, the irony is that the strongest opponents to Mr Patten's bid to scuttle the deal with China was the local business community.

As for democracy, there is little reason why the Chinese should needlessly impose an artificial straitjacket on Hong Kong. In any case, judging by the popular mood on the streets after the transition of power, it is most unlikely that a mass unrest could raise the kind of dictatorial regime that the British seem to be hoping would replace its administration. In any case, China itself appears to have exorcised the ghost of Tiananmen Square, however much the West may keep on harping on a single incident. Most importantly, there is the question of Chinese nationalism which more than anything else is the cementing bond between the mainland and Hong Kong. The British media may think that the only aspect of freedom is to hold noisy demonstrations on the streets. But a far more crucial indicator for the Chinese people is the right to rule themselves. There should be no problem for the British to grasp these basic yearnings that motivative a nation, considering that Britain has so fiercely defended its sovereignty over the past many centuries. It is high time that the British stop making a fool of themselves about Hong Kong and their imperial past and concentrate instead on their own island state.