Advertisement
Letters | Why Mao Zedong was right not to send the PLA into Hong Kong before 1997
- Unlike Indian prime minister Nehru who sent the army into Hyderabad after the British left India, Chairman Mao refrained from using military force to take back Hong Kong. The decision is still paying off for China decades later
Reading Time:2 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
There is a specific historical explanation for the ongoing unrest in Hong Kong. When it came to the British enclave of Hong Kong 70 years ago, Chairman Mao Zedong and premier Zhou Enlai chose a different policy than Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru and home minister Vallabhbhai Patel did for the princely state of Hyderabad when the British left India. The People’s Liberation Army stopped at the Hong Kong border; the enclave was allowed to remain British, then granted special status and a different “system” from the one on the mainland. Mao and Zhou had their reasons.
In India, Nehru and Patel made a different assessment of a similar situation. The state of Hyderabad had formally declared itself independent when the British left the Indian subcontinent, but the Indian army occupied the state and forced it to join India.
Mao and Zhou’s decision on Hong Kong, on the other hand, was rational. I still believe they made the correct political assessment. Their choice not to send in the army has clearly paid off.
Advertisement
An occupation of Hong Kong would have been entirely possible. Sure, Britain and the United States would have made verbal protests. But they would not have declared war on China over Hong Kong. Instead, the conflict that later emerged and almost went nuclear was over Korea.
But even there, it proved necessary for the US to avoid the nuclear option and to eventually, after a nasty, bloody conflict, accept the ceasefire that still holds.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Select Voice
Choose your listening speed
Get through articles 2x faster
1.25x
250 WPM
Slow
Average
Fast
1.25x