May 8/08 The Washington Post Foreign Service "During Talks, China
Urged to Halt Repression in Tibet" by Edward Cody
BEIJING, May 8 -- The Dalai Lama's senior envoy said Thursday that he used a
recent resumption of talks with China to urge a halt to repression in Tibet,
release of Tibetan prisoners and suspension of "patriotic education" in which
Buddhist monks are required to disown the Dalai Lama.
The envoy, Lodi Gyaltsen Gyari, reported details of the talks that were held
behind closed doors Sunday in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen. He issued
a statement issued at the Dalai Lama's exile headquarters in Dharamsala,
India, and held a news conference with reporters gathered in the little
Himalayan town where many Tibetan exile groups have their headquarters.
His report coincided with widely broadcast television images of a [Tibetan
woman, member of the] Chinese climbing team carrying an Olympic Torch to the
summit of Mt. Everest, the highest peak in the world and a major landmark on
the border between Tibet and Nepal. Pro-Tibetan activists have charged the
Olympic stunt was designed to dramatize China's rule over the area, and the
television footage included a climber displaying a Chinese flag.
But Gyari did not mention the torch feat, focusing instead on what he said was
a businesslike atmosphere in the talks and the promise of more discussions on
the many issues dividing the Chinese government and the Dalai Lama's exile
groups.
"Despite major differences on important issues, both sides demonstrated a
willingness to seek common approaches in addressing the issues at hand," Gyari
said. "In this regard, each side made some concrete proposals, which can be
part of the future agenda. As a result, an understanding was reached to
continue the formal round of discussions."
The one-day Shenzhen talks, billed by China as preliminary contacts, marked
the first time since rioting broke out in Lhasa on March 14 that the Chinese
government engaged in dialogue with representatives of the Dalai Lama's exile
government. Beijing was represented by two officials from the Communist
Party's United Front Department, which deals with China's many minorities and
its various religions.
China's agreement to resume even exploratory contacts with the Dalai Lama's
exile government was seen as a concession, coming after repeated appeals for
dialogue from foreign leaders, including President Bush. Since the riots,
Chinese officials and propaganda organs have unremittingly vilified the exiled
Tibetan leader, accusing him of seeking to undermine the Beijing Olympics and
split Tibet away from rule by Beijing.
Chinese officials have not provided their own read-out of Sunday's talks, but
have reported the agreement to meet again. The government, meanwhile, has
offered conflicting signals about its attitude. President Hu Jintao expressed
hope the renewed contacts would have a positive effect, but at the same time
the official press has continued strong attacks on the Dalai Lama.
The party's newspaper in Lhasa, the Tibet Daily, said in an editorial
Wednesday that the Dalai Lama is trying to blacken China's name and prevent it
from rising to become a great power. "Trying to internationalize the Tibet
problem is a separatist plot of the Dalai Lama and a clumsy way to damage
China's international image," it said.
Chinese officials have said the rioting, which killed 22 people and generated
unrest across other Tibetan-inhabited regions of China, was an uprising
organized by the Dalai Lama and his followers in Dharamsala. Gyari said his
Chinese interlocutors forcefully reiterated that view during the discussions
in Shenzhen.
"On our part, we rejected categorically the accusation made against his
holiness the Dalai Lama of instigating the demonstrations and unrest in
Tibet," he added. "Instead, we made it clear that the events in Tibet are the
inescapable consequences of wrong policies of the authorities toward the
Tibetans, which go back several decades."
The Dalai Lama, a spiritual and temporal leader, headed a de facto independent
Tibetan government while China was in chaos before and during World War II.
But Chinese troops arrived to assert Beijing's rule in 1951. The Dalai Lama
fled the country in 1959 after leading a failed insurrection with help from
the Central Intelligence Agency. From exile, he has urged an agreement with
China based on autonomy.
But Chinese officials have long accused him of duplicity, saying his envoys'
real position in previous rounds of talks contains unacceptable demands for
near-independence, democratic elections and expansion of Tibet to include
broad swaths of Tibetan-inhabited areas in nearby provinces.
May 2008, Far Eastern Economic Review (Hong Kong), "Tibet's
Legal Right to Autonomy" by Paul Harris:
The Chinese government claims Tibet as an “inalienable” part of its territory,
and anyone who questions this is subject to vitriolic attacks by the official
Chinese media. If they are themselves Chinese and live in China, they are
“splittists” and liable to be imprisoned. Those from outside China are
“anti-China” and “interfering in China’s internal affairs.”
However, to the Tibetans and most people in the world outside China who are
familiar with Tibet’s situation, this is an international problem crying out
for a mediated solution. Therefore one must start with how international law
might support Tibetans’ rights to self-determination.
Nobody disputes that the Tibetans are a distinct people with their own
language and culture, who form a large majority of the population of Tibet.
Moreover, Tibet is controlled by the Chinese government by means of military
occupation for the benefit of the Chinese state. Tibet is a country “under
foreign military occupation, and its people are subject to alien subjugation,
domination and exploitation” within the meaning of the United Nations
Resolutions on Colonial Peoples and on Friendly Relations. The severity of the
repression the Tibetans have undergone, combined with the threadbare nature of
China’s territorial claim to Tibet, mean that if the universal right of
peoples to self-determination has any meaning, it must extend to Tibet.
Self-determination
By the time the U.N. was set up after World War II, it was generally
recognized that peoples had the right of self-determination. Article 1.2 of
the United Nations Charter states that the purposes of the United Nations
include the development of friendly relations among nations based on respect
for the principle of self-determination of peoples. It can therefore be said
that all states which have become members of the U.N. by ratifying the United
Nations Charter—including China—have accepted the principle of respect for the
self-determination of peoples.
The United Nations Charter was followed by the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. The rights in the Universal Declaration were elaborated in two more
detailed international covenants which, unlike the Declaration itself, are
treaties intended to have legal force. Article 1 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights states: “All peoples have the right to self
determination. By virtue of that right they may freely determine their
political status.” The ICCPR has been ratified by 161 of 192 United Nations
member countries. Five other countries, including China, have signed but not
ratified. A nation which is a signatory of a international treaty, such as the
ICCPR, is obliged under international law to “refrain from acts which would
defeat the purpose and object of the treaty.” China is therefore bound, both
by its adherence to United Nations Charter and by its signature of the ICCPR,
to respect the principle of self-determination of peoples.
However, there was no consensus about what the right to self-determination
meant when it was included in the ICCPR. Western countries were generally
reluctant to include it, but felt obliged to do so in response to the
aspirations of recently independent countries to end European colonialism in
those places where it still existed.
Since the ICCPR came into effect in 1976 there has been widespread concern
that if the right to self determination in Article 1 is applied literally, it
would lead to the break-up of many existing states. This applies particularly
to Africa, whose national boundaries are mostly colonial-era constructs, but
also to numerous other states with ethnic minority populations who form a
majority in particular regions. A consensus emerged that the right to
self-determination for the purposes of ICCPR Article 1 applies only to entire
populations living in independent states, entire populations of territories
yet to receive independence and territories under foreign military occupation.
This is a restrictive definition which excludes numerous groups who would in
ordinary language be regarded as “peoples.” It gives no encouragement to some
peoples with a long history of struggle for independence, such as the Kurds.
China’s present control over Tibet dates from 1950 when the People’s
Liberation Army invaded Tibet and defeated the Tibetan Army at Chamdo. China
claims that Tibet was already part of China when it invaded, based on a claim
to sovereignty over Tibet by the Qing imperial dynasty dating from the 18th
century. More recently China has claimed that its rule over Tibet can be
traced to the rule of Tibet by the Mongols—known in China as the Yuan dynasty.
There are at least three major historical difficulties with China’s claim.
Firstly, it is doubtful whether the relationship between the Qing and the Yuan
on the one hand, and Tibetans on the other, was really one of sovereign and
subjects. The Kangxi Emperor occupied Tibet in 1720. After his death in 1722
this occupation continued under his successor the Yongzheng Emperor until
1728, and there were further Chinese invasions in 1750 and 1792. However,
after the end of the occupation in 1728, and after each of the later
invasions, the Chinese armies withdrew and Tibet had virtually complete
independence in practice.
Secondly, neither dynasty made Tibet a part of metropolitan China. If it was a
political relationship at all, it was one of dependency—what today we call a
colonial relationship. It is therefore a basis for concluding that Tibet is a
colony and so entitled to self-determination.
Thirdly, and most importantly, there was no relationship—either similar to
that between Tibet and the Qing dynasty, or similar to the modern concept of
sovereignty—between Tibet and the Chinese Republic, which succeeded the Qing
dynasty in 1911. In 1912 the 13th Dalai Lama made a formal declaration of
Tibetan independence. Although the Chinese Republic responded by laying claim
to Tibet, it never exercised any control over it, save for certain far eastern
regions where there had always been an ill-defined borderland. Tibet was
entirely independent of foreign control between 1911 and 1950.
Even if China’s historical claim was much stronger than it is, this would not
provide a justification for invasion of an independent country. Most countries
were at one time under alien rule. In 1911 Ireland was under British rule, as
it had been for centuries, Finland was ruled by Russia and Korea was ruled by
Japan. The setting up of the United Nations was expressly intended to prevent
the kind of aggressive wars, based on spurious or doubtful claims to
historical rule or cultural identity, pursued by both Nazi Germany and
Imperial Japan.
China has frequently attempted to justify its invasion on the basis that
Tibetan society was feudal and backward, and that China therefore brought
liberation to the Tibetan peasantry from feudal domination. Scholars agree
that the pre-1950 Tibetan regime was backward. One aspect of its backwardness
was its failure to appoint ambassadors to other countries or to apply to join
the United Nations until invasion by China was imminent. However this failure
was not due to lack of independence but due to the absence of a clear sense of
the need for a modern state to maintain relations with other states.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the fact that a country is backward cannot
justify invading it. Backwardness was often advanced as a justification for
19th century colonialism, what Rudyard Kipling called “The White Man’s burden”
when he encouraged the United States to colonize the Philippines. The fact
that China relies on the “backwardness” argument to support its occupation of
Tibet is a further indication of a classic colonial occupation.
One month after China invaded Tibet on Oct. 7, 1950, the Tibetan government
appealed for help to the U.N. No assistance was forthcoming, and Tibetan
forces were easily overwhelmed by the Chinese, with the bulk of the Tibetan
Army surrendering at Chamdo.
After the surrender the Chinese Government embarked on what would now be
called a “charm offensive” in Tibet. Tibetans were given money by People’s
Liberation Army representatives, and encouraged to accept Chinese occupation
on the understanding that their traditional way of life would be unchanged and
that Tibet would enjoy a high degree of autonomy.
In 1951, China and representatives of the Dalai Lama signed the “17 point
agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet.” It provides that “the Tibetan
people have the right of exercising national regional autonomy under the
unified leadership of the Central People’s Government” (Article 3); that “the
Central People’s Government will not alter the existing political system in
Tibet” (Article 4), and “will not alter the established status, functions and
powers of the Dalai Lama” (Article 4).
These autonomy provisions were never observed. The Chinese Communist Party
rules Tibet, as it rules China, through a centralized party organization,
whereby each organ of government is shadowed by an organ of the party. These
party organs are accountable only to the Chinese Communist Party headquarters
in Beijing. In Tibet the new Chinese authorities insisted on taking all
important decisions and interfered on an increasing scale with the daily life
of Tibetans. In response to the harshness of Chinese rule, the Tibetans rose
in revolt in 1958. The revolt was easily crushed by China, and in 1959 the
14th Dalai Lama and some 80,000 other Tibetans fled into exile in India.
The severity of Chinese repression in Tibet since that date is
well-documented. There is severe repression of Tibetan Buddhism, which in 1997
was labeled as a “foreign culture.” Virtually all classes in secondary and
higher education are taught in Chinese, not Tibetan, resulting in a high
drop-out rate among Tibetans. Urban development has generally benefited
Chinese immigrants, large numbers of whom have moved to Tibet and now comprise
about 12% of the population.
Tibetans are routinely detained for long periods without charge or sentenced
to long prison sentences for peacefully advocating independence or maintaining
links with the Dalai Lama. Torture and ill-treatment in detention is
widespread. Freedom of expression is severely restricted. Peaceful political
demonstrations are invariably broken up and their participants arrested.
Tibetan culture is treated as inferior to Chinese culture, and most key posts
in the government and the economy are held by Chinese. Those few Tibetans who
are able to enter Chinese government service do so at the cost of alienation
from their own people and culture. Tibet’s environment and natural resources
are ruthlessly exploited in the interests of China. Overall the situation
bears marked similarities in all these respects to the situation of Algeria
under the French or of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan under Soviet Russian rule.
Tibet’s status has been given renewed topicality by the recent independence of
Kosovo. The recognition of Kosovo would seem to extend the right of
self-determination beyond the traditional colonial or foreign occupation
situation. Kosovo was never a colony, and the Serbian Army had withdrawn long
before the independence issue was determined. The only coherent legal basis
for recognizing the exercise of self-determination by the Kosovo people in the
form of an independent state is that, prior to that independence and while
under Serbian rule, the Kosovar Albanians were subject to “alien subjugation,
domination and exploitation.”
If Kosovo has a right to self-determination, the right of Tibet is infinitely
stronger. The catalogue of gross oppression, the second class citizen status
of Tibetans under Chinese rule, and the identity of Tibet as a country are all
much clearer than in Kosovo’s case.
Autonomy and Independence
Self-determination need not mean independence. In many situations, autonomy
within a larger nation state offers the best of both worlds, combining the
benefits of being part of a large state in terms of defense, foreign relations
and economic opportunity, with preservation of local laws, customs and culture
from outside interference. Hong Kong is a good example.
The Dalai Lama has repeatedly said that he favors autonomy for Tibet within
China, provided that it is meaningful autonomy. Such is his authority with the
Tibetan people that they would probably support autonomy in any referendum in
which he expressed support for it. However unless there is a change in Chinese
government thinking, real autonomy does not appear to be on offer. This is
shown by the continuing aggressive denunciation and misrepresentation of the
Dalai Lama by Chinese official spokespersons.
Unless real autonomy is offered, self-determination in Tibet is bound to mean
independence. China may hold down the Tibetans by force for a long time, but,
as the example of Ukraine and Russia shows, even hundreds of years of
repression is unlikely to extinguish the longing for self-determination among
what are, incontrovertibly, a people.
Mr. Harris is a Hong Kong barrister and founding chairman of the Hong
Kong Human Rights Monitor. This essay is adapted from an article
originally commissioned and approved by the magazine of the Hong Kong Law
Society, and then rejected as too sensitive after an extraordinary meeting
of the society’s editorial board.
May 4/08 The Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows visits, "Cultural
Palace of Nationalities" in Beijing -- in Chinese, also known as "Cultural
Palace of Minorities"
. . . an exhibit on the history and future of Tibet [that just opened.] Let me
just say: If you want a quick but thorough immersion in the prevailing Chinese
view of this issue, you could do far worse than to spend an hour or two here.
The historical part goes under the general heading "The Feudal Serfdom of Old
Tibet." The narrative introduction begins, "Before 1959, Tibet was a feudal
society of serfdom, darker and more backward than European slavery in the
Middle Ages." The more contemporary part is under headings like "New Tibet
Changing with Each Passing Day" and "Emancipated Serfs Become Masters of Their
Homeland."
As documentation for the historical perspective, the hundreds of pictures in
the exhibit include some of tortured serfs from the old days, and a photo of
what appear to be two nearly-whole human skins -- one of an adult, one of a
child -- from what is described as a human sacrifice of serfs in the olden
days. (I'm just telling you what's in the exhibit, and I am not including a
photo of this item.) For the modern part, there are pictures of the progress
and prosperity of today's Tibet. Here is a modern Tibetan herder, with a
fridge full of beer:
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r96/jfallows/IMG_5628.jpg
Similarly, here is a "Garden-like Salad Oil Factory" in the new Tibet; below
it, a pie chart of where the money is coming from to keep Tibet going (most of
it, according to the chart, from the rest of China):
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r96/jfallows/IMG_5630.jpg
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r96/jfallows/IMG_5622A.jpg
The place was packed with Chinese visitors today, including many families, but
my wife and I did not see anyone else who appeared to be non-Chinese. Local TV
news crews were interviewing visitors about their impressions. All of the
displays are labeled in both Chinese and English.
The exhibit is free -- but at the last minute we had to talk our way in.
For the only time in our experience in China (apart from airports and hotels),
we faced a gruff demand to present our passports before entry. We didn't have
them -- but eventually my Washington DC driver's license, and my wife's
magnetic key to our apartment building, somehow sufficed. Policeman and
soldiers were everywhere in the building, though one-by-one they were affable
and jokey.
The Palace is near the Xidan station on Metro Line 1, and the exhibit runs
through July 25. If you are at all curious about what a billion-plus people
have heard and are hearing from their government on this question (right now
I'm watching a CCTV-9 documentary that essentially parallels this exhibition),
bring your passport and find out.
"Let’s try to improve the foreigners’ understanding of China," suggested
one professor in The China Daily on April 20. This editor's
response: "OK, how's this next report?":
A Tibetan woman succumbs to torture
--------------------------------------------------------------
TCHRD PRESS RELEASE
A Tibetan woman succumbs to torture
Contact Person: Tsering Agloe (English) / Jampa Monlam (Tibetan and Chinese)
Tel: +91 1892 223363 / 229225
Email: office@tchrd.org
A Tibetan woman in Ngaba County died after being subjected to brutal torture
by the Chinese prison guards, according to confirmed information received by
the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD).
A 38 year-old Nechung, mother of four children died days after being subjected
to brutal torture in the Chinese prison. She hailed from Charu Hu Village in
Ngaba County, Ngaba "TAP", Sichuan Province.
Sources told TCHRD that she was involved in peaceful protests on 16 and 17
March 2008 in Ngaba County. Later on 18 March, she was arrested by the Chinese
security forces for allegedly being the first person to pull down the door
plate of the Township office.
On 26 March 2008, she was released from the prison. She spent nine days in
prison undergoing brutal torture in the hands of Chinese prison guards. At the
time of her release from the prison, her health was in an extremely critical
condition. There were many bruise marks on her body, she was unable to speak
and eat food, constantly vomiting and could hardly breathe properly.
After the release, her relatives immediately took her to the County government
hospital for treatment. However, the County government hospital refused to
admit her to the hospital to receive timely medical treatment, apparently
under influence and intimidation of the local Chinese authorities. She was
completely denied from accessing timely medical treatment in the hospital.
After remaining in critical condition for 22 days without medical treatment
she died on 17 April 2008 in abject state of neglect, pity and apathy of local
Chinese authorities. Even after her death, the Chinese authorities issued
terse warning to Tibetan monks for offering prayers and ritual rites for her
deceased soul. This goes to show that the Chinese authorities traverse extreme
lengths to deprive Tibetan people of their basic and fundamental human rights
in a cruel and bizarre abuse of power.
She is survived by her four children, all minors. Her husband has been on the
run since her arrest, apparently to avoid being arrested by the Chinese
security forces.
TCHRD expresses its serious concern at the cases of Tibetans tortured to death
by the Chinese security forces in recent months. This is a clear indication
that China still continues to resort to widespread use of torture in prisons
to deal with the Tibetan prisoners of conscience. TCHRD urges the Chinese
government to immediately put an end to torture tactics to extract confessions
in the detention centres. TCHRD also calls upon the international bodies and
vital organs to the UN to protect the basic and fundamental rights of the
Tibetan people in Tibet.
May 2008, Far Eastern Economic Review (HK) "The Gulf Between Tibet
and Its Exiles"
by Tsering Shakya [This article also shows how
the current situation was aggravated by choices made by PRC officials.]
Two recent articles concerning the unrest in Tibet purport to prove that the
March unrest in Tibet was the result of foreign instigation. As a result, they
have since been heavily featured in official Chinese news media, including
CCTV, as well as on the Internet. This episode tells us much about the
government’s efforts to influence domestic and international perception of the
conflict in Tibet, as well as Chinese misconceptions about the nature of the
linkage between Tibetans at home and in exile.
The first article was published on a Canadian Web site called Global
Research and was written by U.S.-based writer William Engdahl, known for
his views that both the Sept. 11 attacks and the theory of global warming are
conspiracies. He cited publicly available information about funding of
some Tibetan exile groups by the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy
in order to argue that the recent events in Tibet were engineered by U.S.
government-backed organizations. The same argument has now been repeated
verbatim and published throughout the Chinese-speaking world by the well-known
journalist Ching Cheong, without any additional evidence or research.
Both authors discern a shadowy plot by the U.S. government to destabilize
China by “fanning the flames of violence in Tibet.” They both implicate a
number of Tibet-related NGOs that have received funding from the NED in this
effort. Neither article says what these plots were or offers any evidence of
their existence, nor do they provide any evidence connecting the NGOs to the
unstated plots apart from their funding source. As anyone who is familiar with
these organizations and with contemporary Tibet can confirm, the accusations
are simplistic arguments based on “guilt by association.”
A further problem is that the authors neither explain nor demonstrate any
knowledge of what these NGOs do or how they work. For example, the
main organization fingered by the authors is the New York-based Trace
Foundation, which supports education, development and health projects in
Tibet. It is one of many NGOs that operate in China with the formal approval
of the Chinese government, and there is no record of it ever having engaged in
any activities that could be misconstrued as anti-China. China
regularly conducts lengthy security assessments of such NGOs, and would have
certainly made it known if there had been any evidence found. In fact,
Trace, even more than other NGOs operating in China, is scrupulous in
dissociating itself from any political groups or activities, which is one of
the reasons why they have been able to operate in China for decades.
Trace Foundation is so rigorous in this respect that pro-Tibetan
lobbyists and some exiles have accused it in the past of being too supportive
of China because of its refusal to engage with exile politics or even exile
symbols, and because it explicitly accepts and works within the Chinese
system. If there was even the slightest indication of any involvement by
Trace in Tibetan politics or unrest, these authors would certainly have
told us. As it is, their only attempt at evidence is to tell us that the
founder of Trace is related to the financier philanthropist George
Soros, who openly supports democratization projects in various countries.
The arguments made by Mr. Engdahl and repeated by Mr. Ching are just
insinuations; the only linkage is that established in their minds. Behind
their thinking, and that of the Chinese authorities (who claim that all unrest
in Tibet has been instigated by outsiders ranging from the CIA to the Dalai
Lama), is a larger set of presumptions that exile Tibetan groups are involved
in political activities within Tibet.
This presupposes that there is a more or less free flow of information between
India and Tibet. This, however, is true in only a limited way. To fully
establish any kind of link between either the exile groups, events inside
Tibet or Western interests, one needs to have some understanding of the
culture and social milieu in which these groups operate. Also, there has
to be some understanding of the nature and composition of Tibetans in India
and abroad.
The refugees in India have developed an ideology and forged a nationalistic
sentiment such that they have come to see themselves as defenders of Tibet and
the Tibetan people. On some occasions this has verged on a view where they see
themselves as the “true” representatives of the Tibetans and view the Tibetans
inside Tibet as merely passive, oppressed victims. This has often led to a
patronizing attitude towards the Tibetans in Tibet. As a result, the
cultural and social gap between the Tibetans inside and those outside Tibet is
huge.
The differences in situation are somewhat similar to those between Chinese
from the mainland and those from, say, Taiwan or Hong Kong. For example,
Tibetans inside Tibet are comfortable with Chinese pop music, while Tibetans
in India prefer Bollywood. Even when the two groups meet in neutral
places in the West, there is often little interaction between them. I
frequently have to attend two parties in one evening, one organized by
long-term diaspora groups, another by those coming from Tibet, since they
cannot even agree on what music to play.
For instance, in the early 1990s
when Dadon, Tibet’s biggest pop star at the time, defected from Lhasa to
India, she found to her dismay that there was no audience for her music. She
was virtually unknown, and the exiles accused her of singing Chinese-style
songs. The gulf between the two groups of Tibetans may be merely cultural, but
it is a significant barrier to substantive political exchange.
It is no secret that the Tibetan organizations in India and elsewhere have
received funding from NED and other Western sources; Mr. Engdahl’s
information is simply lifted from NED’s Web site. This is hardly
smoking-gun evidence. Neither does it show that any funding sent to exiles in
India was used inside Tibet. The exile organizations that have received
funding from the West operate only in India; their ability to project inside
is zero.
The conspiracy theorists assume a free flow and exchange of ideas and people
between the Tibetans in India and Tibet, but there is no such traffic.
It is virtually impossible for the Tibetans in India to travel to Tibet
because the Chinese government insists on those wishing to travel to their
homeland to obtain Chinese travel documents. Even those of us who have foreign
passports find it difficult to obtain a visa for China, particularly if
wishing to travel to the central Tibetan areas, now the Tibet Autonomous
Region.
The Tibetan Youth Congress, which has been labeled by the Chinese as a
terrorist organization, is the largest social and political organization for
Tibetans in India. The membership is almost entirely made up of Tibetans born
in India, and their political strategies are influenced by Indian political
culture. This is not in itself a bad thing—whatever one may think of the
Indian system, it has a long tradition of protest and the people march for the
slightest infringement of liberty.
The TYC sees protest as the bread and butter of politics. Since they
cannot protest in Tibet, they march on the streets of Delhi, New York and
Paris. This is as far as they can go—the leaders of the TYC deliver bravura
speeches and make polemical claims, but there is no way they can project their
words into action inside Tibet.
The only group that could be said to have some degree of contact inside Tibet
is Guchusum. The name of the group is made up of the Tibetan words for
the dates of major demonstrations that took place in Lhasa in the late 1980s,
and it was founded by people who had participated and then been imprisoned for
their role in those events. Since they are relative newcomers from Tibet, they
still have families and social networks inside Tibet. However, the group is
small and functions mostly as a welfare and support network for ex-political
prisoners and those newly fled from Tibet. Apart from this, there are few
organizations with any internal links.
This is not to say that those inside Tibet are unaware of exile or foreign
views and activities. One initiative taken by the U.S. that has had a major
impact in Tibet and amongst the Tibetans was the decision to establish Tibetan
language broadcasting services within Voice of America in 1991 and within
Radio Free Asia in 1996. Here again, it is not a question of clandestine
activities or of the secret coordination of unrest; these services simply
provide a source of news and ideas in a society where people are starved of
alternative sources.
But apart from radio broadcasts, if one wants to look for connections between
outside groups and events inside Tibet, one should not look at Western style
NGOs, whether Tibetan or not. There are linkages, but not where outsiders
expect. This is a problem produced by ethnocentrism: Politics is seen as
occurring only in organizations that resemble one’s own. Tibetan political
articulation is mainly situated in the traditional cultural space of
monasteries and religion. This is not to suggest some kind of religious
fundamentalism or Taliban-style movement; what is traditional about it is not
its content but the channels through which it flows.
The most significant among the factors that ignited the recent riots and
demonstrations in Tibet is the blunder the Chinese P.R.C. made in 1995
regarding the selection of the 10th Panchen Lama. The Party, disregarding
popular Tibetan wishes and conventions, imposed and orchestrated its own
selection. It thus found itself in opposition with the majority of the
Tibetans and followers of Tibetan Buddhism in China. The Party also managed to
turn all the monasteries against it, even those which had previously supported
the government. Tashilhunpo, the traditional seat of the Panchen Lamas in
Shigatse, Tibet’s second town, refused to accept the boy as a permanent
resident, and not a single lama or monastery is known to have agreed to take
the boy into their monastery. The poor boy is left homeless, stuck in a palace
in Beijing!
Whatever the feelings and arguments may have been about human rights and
independence, there was a near universal agreement among the Tibetan
population on the issue of the Panchen Lama: The Party was wrong. The Party’s
response was to declare a patriotic education and anti-Dalai Lama campaign in
the monasteries. This required monasteries and monks to denounce the Dalai
Lama and created an entrenched no-win situation for the Party. Here was a
point no monk or lama—a lama is a senior teacher or spiritual figure—was going
to compromise on.
By the late 1990s the monasteries found themselves in crisis—on one hand, the
Party had begun to intrude into monastic space and on the other hand, many
senior lamas had begun to pass away because of old age. The most senior
lamas such as the Karmapa and Argya Rinpoche from Kumbum (Ta’er) Monastery
fled abroad, and the absence of senior lamas left a leadership vacuum in
Tibet. In the past, these senior lamas often acted as the moderate voice
and as a calming influence on the monks and community, being used often by the
Party as mediators.
The Party’s initial reaction to the flight of senior lamas was embarrassment.
But in the long term it saw their departures as a good thing, an opportunity
to destroy traditional authority inside the country. It will be easier to
control Tibet, officials reasoned, once these lamas are outside—as in the case
of Chinese dissidents exiled in New York or Paris, once they leave their
significance will be diminished and they cannot cause much trouble in the
homeland. What the Party did not realize is that lamas are very different from
dissident intellectuals. No matter where a lama resides, his monastery and the
faithful continue to listen to him and look to him as their leader.
Moreover, the Tibetan people in Tibet are scathing about Tibetan Communist
Party officials. The people do not view the present Tibetan cadres as leaders,
particularly in the TAR. They cannot offer a calming influence or serve as
mediators between the people and the government. At best, they are seen as
opportunists and at worst as collaborators. Even Party officials see
themselves as inhabiting a very uncomfortable space. A Tibetan official once
told me a story about a group of Tibetan Party officials who watched a
dramatic film about Kuomintang collaborators with the Japanese during World
War II. There was a very uncomfortable feeling in the room, apparently because
they saw themselves being portrayed in the movie.
The flight of lamas to exile had unexpected consequences. The pro-independence
demonstrations within Tibet in the 1980s and early 1990s did not spread much
beyond Lhasa because most lamas were ambivalent and used their influence to
calm their followers. This year, almost all areas where protests
occurred were in places where the senior lamas had left Tibet and gone to live
in India.
It is the recent arrival of senior lamas from Tibet that has created some
lines of linkage between those inside Tibet and those in India. By early 2000,
more and more people from Tibetan areas in Qinghai and Sichuan began to travel
to India. If you look at the number of Tibetans coming to India and where they
come from, you see that in the 1980s and 1990s they were mostly from the TAR,
while in the last decade almost all those arriving in India are from Eastern
Tibet, where most of the latest protests have taken place. This is partly
explained by differences in policies and restrictive measures between the TAR
and the eastern provinces, but this is only a partial explanation.
Most came because their local lamas were in India and they needed to go there
to obtain religious education and initiation. Tibetan
Buddhism is complex, so that the practice of religion and the transmission
of religious knowledge is not a simple matter of delving into a book. The
transmission of knowledge is embedded in the notion of unbroken transmission
of teaching from the first disciple who heard the words from Buddha through
present teachers, and if such linkage cannot be shown the teaching has no
legitimacy.
The lamas who left Tibet have established monasteries in India and, wherever
they are, that place is seen as the legitimate seat of the lama. Therefore,
all the monasteries in Tibet look to the outside for leadership and as the
source of religious teaching. The flow of people between historic monasteries
in Tibet and newly established ones in India has been constant since the
1980s. There is daily communication via phone and it is not uncommon for monks
to spend a few years in India and then return to Tibet. Similarly, monks from
Tibet have to come to India for their education, because there are only a tiny
number of lamas in Tibet who can transmit knowledge and provide ordination.
It is here in this traditional setting that you will find the connections
between the Tibetans in India and the Tibetan people inside China. There is a
much stronger affinity within the monastic community between those in India
and Tibet; the two groups have much more in common and feel at home wherever
they go. Whereas secular youth argue and dislike each other for their
differing tastes in politics, music and everything else, there is no such
divide in the monastic community.
This interchange of people and ideas is cultural rather than political. In any
case, the mother monasteries and lamas in India cannot impel the monks in
Tibet to stage demonstrations, even if they wished to—such decisions can be
made only at ground level. The monks in Tibet may look to lamas in India as
their leaders, but they are no fools and know fully the situation on ground,
and take their own decision on such matters.
The monasteries do not receive a single cent of funding from NED or other
Western government agencies. In fact, the most significant and generous
supporters of Tibetan Buddhism in recent years are members of the Chinese
communities in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore. The Chinese donors
do not ask for budgets and accounts; they simply hand over thousands of
dollars, in the usual manner of devotees. The supposed lines of trans-national
political and economic influence within Tibet do not point to exiles, or even
to Westerners, let alone to development NGOs; they point to Chinese devotees.
If conspiracy theorists want to follow the money and look for a plot, they
would have to see it as a Kuomintang conspiracy rather than a Western one.
They would however learn much more if they studied the history of policy and
its failures in Tibet or talked with actual Tibetans in Tibet instead of
painting lurid fantasies of foreign power projection.
Tsering Shakya, author of Dragon in the Land of the Snows
(Columbia University Press, 1999), holds the Canadian research chair in
Religion and Contemporary Society in Asia at the University of British
Columbia.
May 3/08, The New Mexican, "Friends, family, students and
fellow monks to honor Tibetan killed in hit-and-run," by Anne Constable:
The Alumni Hall at the College of Santa Fe will be transformed into a
Shangri-La today for a memorial service for Lobsang Lhalungpa, a
Tibetan scholar and Living Treasure who died [Apr.28] last week.
Ira Seret of Seret & Sons will decorate the room with rugs from Tibet
and Afghanistan, thangkas (paintings on cloth) and candles. Tomas,
figures made of flour and butter used as offerings and prepared
especially for the event, will be set on altars. Tea and cookies will be
served after comments from family and friends. And 10 monks from the
Drepung Loseling Monastery in southern India, who were traveling in
Mississippi, are detouring to Santa Fe to chant traditional prayers with
horns and cymbals.
"I'm trying to make it feel like a Buddhist center," Seret said.
Hundreds of Tibetan and Western admirers are expected to turn out for
the memorial for Lhalungpa, a learned and compassionate man who was
deeply revered in the diverse religious and cultural communities of
Santa Fe.
"I was crazy about him," Seret said. "He used to have a smile if you
were sad or something was wrong; it would transform your whole feeling.
He was one of the most amazing people on the planet. No words. No
words."
Lhalungpa, 82, died Monday as a result of injuries suffered when the car
he and his wife, Gisela Minke, 71, were in was struck by a pickup on St.
Michael's Drive. The driver, who fled along with several passengers, later
was interviewed by police and denied he was intoxicated at the time
although open beer containers were found in the truck.
"I feel so lucky (Lhalungpa) did come to New Mexico and that I was a good
friend and student," said Marcia Keegan, who took photographs for a book
of prayers with him (Ancient Wisdom, Living Tradition). "No words explain
how special he was. I feel very blessed he was part of our community."
Keegan's husband, publisher Harmon Houghton of Clear Light, said
Lhalungpa set the standard for the best in humankind. "He was a conscience
of the community who taught us to value what is truly important which is
relationships, compassion, doing what you intrinsically know is right. He
maintained that standard. That's why people from all walks of life
respected and valued his being. He didn't have say, 'Do this,' or 'Don't
do that.' He did it through his actions."
Lee More, one of a dozen students in a Friday meditation group just
enough to fill Lhalungpa's living room said the Tibetan would lecture
without notes, often speaking fluently for two hours or longer. The Friday
conversations were often about meditation, when to meditate, the right
circumstances. "The conclusion was that any place you happened to be where
you thought about the teachings, that was meditation," More said.
Lhalungpa, she added, "was one of those people, as soon as you heard him,
even for a few minutes, you knew you were in the presence of someone
remarkable."
Mary Lou Cook, a co-founder of the Living Treasures and a Treasure
herself, said she was "heartbroken" by the news. She recalled that when
Lhalungpa was named a Living Treasure, he was draped with white scarves by
other honorees. "This man was so gentle, so loving. It was such a credit
to our state to think he even lived here. He was a teacher with a capital
T."
Photographer Kitty Leaken, a member of the Wednesday meditation group
("The heavy hitters are Fridays," she admitted), said when she traveled to
India with letters of introduction from Lhalungpa to the abbot of the
Drepung Monastery, the group from the U.S. was immediately summoned into
the abbot's presence to discuss how to handle sacred texts in the monks'
possession. His contacts with the queen mother of Bhutan also opened doors
to Westerners visiting the country, she said.
"Lobsang taught us that compassion is one of the most important things in
life. He taught us that love is kindness with wisdom. He taught us to
behave without drama and self-promotion. He taught us to be calm, and he
taught us to laugh, to be in the present moment, to go deeply, to face
things without fear. He taught us all of these things by example."
Actor Ali MacGraw said she met Lhalungpa when she moved to Santa Fe about
14 years ago. "My first impression remained and grew for all these years,
which was: He was simply the finest example of a human being I ever met,
and I loved him."
Ian Alsop, an Asian scholar who owns Peaceful Wind Gallery and
travels often to Tibet, said he and Lhalungpa came to Santa Fe about the
same time, and he often called on him for help with translating Tibetan
inscriptions or interpreting pieces of Tibetan art in his gallery.
Lhalungpa "was one of my best friends in Santa Fe," Alsop said. And he was
a link to the Tibet that no longer exists, Alsop pointed out. "He spent
his young adulthood in the old Tibet. He knew so much about that and had
so many memories. People learned stuff they really didn't know about how
it was under the Dalai Lama, what it was like."
Lama Gyaltsen, a leader of the local Tibetan community who worked for the
Tibetan government in exile for 25 years, said, "I had great respect for
him as a scholar and as a Tibetan elder. He was a great example of how you
can synthesize your traditional skills with Western education. And he set
a great example to our young Tibetans for how to preserve our culture in
exile."
Lhalungpa's numerous translations of Tibetan sacred texts [among them,
Life of Milarepa] into English helped propagate the faith among North
Americans, Gyaltsen added.
William Pacheco of Santo Domingo Pueblo met Lhalungpa when he was
preparing to visit Dharamsala after an invitation from the Dalai Lama, who
had come to Santa Fe in the early 1990s and suggested an exchange program
between the Santa Fe Indian School and the Tibetan Children's Village. "Lobsang
gave us insight into what we were going to see," he said. Later, Pacheco
got a bachelor's degree in Asian studies from The University of New
Mexico, and the families kept in touch.
He said his family feels "double pain" over Lhalungpa's death because the
driver of the truck was from Santo Domingo Pueblo.
Lhalungpa's admirers often say they feel sorrow rather than anger for the
driver. "Lobsang would, too," Keegan said. "There definitely would be
forgiveness. That is the key of who he was."
In The Book of Tibetan Elders by Sandy Johnson, Lhalungpa said he
was born in 1924 into a "good family not that rich but a good family."
He became a monk at age 5 but continued secular education until age 9,
when he began to study more closely with monastic teachers.
At 16, he was appointed to the staff of the grand secretariat at the
Potala palace, an office directly responsible to the Dalai Lama, who was
still a minor. He studied with the Dalai Lama's tutors and in 1947 became
director for Tibetan and Buddhist studies in the Indian Himalayan towns of
Darjeeling and Kalimpong.
His trip to India, on horseback, took three weeks. "This was a turning
point in my life. I was not to return to Tibet," he said.
Lhalungpa's students there included Tibetans, Bhutanese, Sikkimese and
Bhotias (local Tibetans). When many were called back home by the Chinese,
he stayed behind in exile and began teaching foreign historians, scholars
and anthropologists, and helped set up a Buddhist Cultural Center in
Kalimpong and a school for local Tibetan children.
In 1956, he started a Tibetan radio program to inform his people about
conditions in India and the rest of the world, and ran the program for 15
years. In 1970, Lhalungpa moved with his family to Canada, where he taught
at the University of British Columbia.
He worked on projects in New York and Washington, D.C., before he and his
wife [Gisela] retired to Santa Fe in 1989. In addition to conducting meditation
groups, he worked on translations of sacred texts such as Mahamudra: The
Moonlight Quintessence of Mind and Meditation.
In The Book of Tibetan Elders, he responded to a question from the
author about the difficulty of finding a good teacher. "I think we will
see more and more Eastern gurus coming to the West, and, unfortunately,
some self-appointed masters will emerge locally," he said. Many of them
had no following at home, but in the West, they declared themselves a guru
or a lama.
"I am not saying there are not good lamas, but a teacher is more than a
learned person," he said. "A teacher is very different. A teacher has to
embody the essence of all the teachings he has learned. A learned man can
give a message, but he is only a messenger; he brings the message that he
has read in books or learned from other lamas. That's one service. I'm not
excluding that. But Buddhism is much more than a message. Buddhism is an
intimacy between teacher and pupils."
[Lobsang P. Lhalungpa is remembered by the Tibetan exile
community as having been responsible for establishing the first Tibetan
language programme on All India Radio. He dedicated his
service to the preservation of Tibetan Buddhism and culture.
Lhalungpa was also director Martin Scorsese's senior Tibetan adviser for the film
"Kundun,"and also played the small role of a dignitary at
the Potala. In the documentary, "In Search of Kundun," it
is he
who summarizes the essence of Buddhism and Tibetan culture. He is survived
by his wife, who was injured in the car accident, and by his children.]
Apr 23/08: Tinley Chojor, former
umdze / keeper of the main shrine at Karma Triyana Dharmachakra,
Woodstock, NY and accomplished artist, whose clear coherent rendition of traditional symbols grace KTD, seat of the
Karmapa in the Americas, sadly has not remained to greet HH Karmapa this May. He
passed away last night, April 22. Please pray for his
auspicious rebirth in a Pure Realm. For the next 7 weeks, Chenrezi
practice is being dedicated to him.
April 24/08, "An Appeal To All Chinese Spiritual Brothers and Sisters"
[ by Tenzin Gyatso ]
Today I would like to make a personal appeal to all Chinese spiritual
brothers and sisters, both inside as well as outside the People’s
Republic of China, and especially to the followers of the Buddha. I do
this as a Buddhist monk and a student of our most revered teacher, the
Buddha. I have already made an appeal to the general Chinese community.
Here I am appealing to you, my spiritual brothers and sisters, on an
urgent humanitarian matter.
The Chinese and the Tibetan people share common spiritual heritage in
Mahayana Buddhism. We worship the Buddha of Compassion – Guan Yin in
the Chinese tradition and Chenrezig in Tibetan tradition – and cherish
compassion for all suffering beings as one of the highest spiritual
ideals. Furthermore, since Buddhism flourished in China before it came
to Tibet from India, I have always viewed the Chinese Buddhists with the
reverence due to senior spiritual brothers and sisters.
As most of you are aware, beginning with the 10th of March this year, a
series of demonstrations have taken place in Lhasa and across many
Tibetan areas. These are caused by deep Tibetan resentment against the
policies of the Chinese government. I have been deeply saddened by the
loss of life, both Chinese and Tibetans, and immediately appealed to
both the Chinese authorities and the Tibetans for restraint. I specially
appealed to the Tibetans not to resort to violence.
Unfortunately, the Chinese authorities have resorted to brutal methods
to deal with the development despite appeals for restraint by many world
leaders, NGOs and noted world citizens, particularly many Chinese
scholars. In the process, there has been loss of life, injuries to
many, and the detention of large number of Tibetans. The crackdown
still continues, especially targeting monastic institutions, which have
traditionally been the repository of ancient Buddhist knowledge and
tradition. Many of these have been sealed off. We have reports that
many of those detained are beaten and treated harshly. These repressive
measures seem to be part of an officially sanctioned systematic policy.
With no international observers, journalists or even tourists allowed to
Tibet, I am deeply worried about the fate of the Tibetans. Many of
those injured in the crackdown, especially in the remote areas, are too
terrified to seek medical treatment for fear of arrest. According to
some reliable sources, people are fleeing to the mountains where they
have no access to food and shelter. Those who remained behind are
living in a constant state of fear of being the next to be arrested.
I am deeply pained by this ongoing suffering. I am very worried where
all these tragic developments might lead to ultimately. I do not
believe that repressive measures can achieve any long-term solution.
The best way forward is to resolve the issues between the Tibetans and
the Chinese leadership through dialogue, as I have been advocating for a
long time. I have repeatedly assured the leadership of the People’s
Republic of China that I am not seeking independence. What I am seeking
is a meaningful autonomy for the Tibetan people that would ensure the
long-term survival of our Buddhist culture, our language and our
distinct identity as a people. The rich Tibetan Buddhist culture is
part of the larger cultural heritage of the People’s Republic of China
and has the potential to benefit our Chinese brothers and sisters.
In the light of the present crisis, I appeal to all of you to help call
for an immediate end to the ongoing brutal crackdown, for the release of
all who have been detained, and to call for providing immediate medical
care to the injured.
The Dalai Lama, [writing from] Hamilton, NY [on] April 24, 2008
Rigpe Dorje Centre, founded by
the IIIrd Jamgon Kongtrul, is at 503 - 5th
Ave. in Verdun (x Verdun Ave) a south central part of Montreal Tel. 514-485-8886
It is
led by Lama Karma Sherab with the assistance of La. Yeshi Losal. Both speak Tibetan, Nepali,
Hindi, English, and are learning French. La. Sherab
also speaks some Mandarin. Don't miss
Lama Tashi Dondup's visit May 10/11 !
General Program : Call for exact program.
Generally, it goes
Sat. 10 am: Green Tara (Dolma)practice
Wed. 7:30 pm: Chenrezi (alternates w. "Calling the
Lama" Medecine Buddha).
Intro. to Tibetan and Intermediate & Advanced
Tibetan courses begin in April.
Manjushri Centre, Gelugpa temple under HH
Dalai Lama & Khen Rinpoche, 705 chemin Chambly in Longueuil, QC,
Tel. (450) 677-5038. See
http://www.geocities.com/manjushri_cntr
Mon. 07 April 2008: Return of beloved Lama
Khensur Lobsang Jamyiang Rinpoche. He will visit until 30
April, then go to the USA.
Tibetan Restaurants in Montreal
Shambhala 3439 St-Denis and Pine (sophisticated
setting, cuisine includes fried dumplings, veg. & non-veg.
Call for pm. hours. Tel. 514-842-2242.
Chez Gyatse 317 Ontario E., 2 blocks west of St-Denis, student hangout w. terrasse Tel. 514-844-6461.
OM Restaurant Gelek (Gerard) Achod's serves Tibetan
& North Indian cuisine, 4382 St-Laurent (west side betw. Mont-Royal
& Marie-Anne, north of Club Balatou) Tel. 514-287-3553
Publication of any notice is at our discretion. We
reserve the right to edit content.
Please contact the organizations for further
information.
This comprehensive web site is designed with Firefox as
browser but should be accessible in others. However, if you eliminate
underlining in your Preferences you might miss some of our 5, 000+
links.
<
credit to Mediaspano
