Learn from history, not the media.
In recent years, two major factors have contributed to a great deal of
confusion in the western mind regarding the Tibetan issue: an unequivocal
obsession with the Dali Lama as a personage and symbol, and a general lack
of historical perspective. These phenomena are certainly not unrelated,
both being rooted in a failure to think critically about the popular opinion
of the day (a habit tragically common to any country in any era, even among
the very educated) and compounded by China’s notoriously poor human rights
track record so often publicized in western media. Indeed, western
citizens are not entirely to blame to for an incomplete understanding of
this particular issue; unbiased information has not been readily available
in the west precisely because the presentation of any evidence contrary to
the political ambitions of the Dalai Lama are typically viewed as a means of
justifying Chinese methods of control in Tibet, and consequently, such
evidence is too unpopular to mention. This is understandable considering
that the Chinese government consistently allows itself to be embarrassed and
vilified in the global community by its own harmful public policies while
the Dalai Lama has dedicated a career to thrusting himself into the
spotlight as the world’s greatest exponent of compassion and altruism. But
any educated person should appreciate the necessity to take all available
information into account, regardless of whether it favors the party they
admire or the party they despise. We offer this essay as an invitation to
the task of considering the course of events of has recently lead to bitter
protests on both sides of the issue of “Tibetan freedom,” a task which we
feel is demanded by intellectual responsibility and which is made all the
more unpleasant by our conclusion the crusade of the Dalai Lama represents,
at best, a geopolitical misunderstanding and a desire for political power.
The very phrase “Free Tibet” heard throughout the west for years has
generated tremendous confusion in the western imagination. In the absence
of any other information, upon hearing it the average person will assume,
firstly, that there is a sense in which Tibet is being somehow subjugated
and secondly, there was a time when Tibet enjoyed freedom in some abstract
way. Even a cursory inspection of the history of Tibet shows that neither
of these assumptions is correct. From ancient times up until the beginning
of the 20th century, Tibet politically resembled most other primitive
societies inhabiting a vast region of land: the population consisted of
several large tribes, each of which was ruled de facto by a small collection
of relatively wealthy elite caste, sporadically fighting one another for
control over smaller sub regions. The harsh climate, forbidding terrain,
and remote location prevented population growth over the centuries and the
only cultural advance possible was the emergence of a unique form of
Buddhism that came to dominate nearly all aspects of life. When the Mongols
invaded China and explored Tibet as a possible addition to the empire, they
were impressed with Tibetan religion and in 1578 endorsed the now official
position of “Dalai Lama,” a high priest to direct religious activity. The
5th Dalai Lama united Tibet with the support of Mongols, and the Lama and
large host of priests gradually gained total political power.
What was the nature of this religious government and what were the
conditions of life under its rule? Shockingly poor, even compared to
equally primitive societies. Extreme poverty, high infant mortality, and
short life expectancy prevailed, while some of the poorest Tibetans were
used by the monks and ruling class as slaves and were treated with extreme
brutality. Artifactual and photographic evidence of these conditions still
exists today: take a visit to Tibet and you will be amazed by images of
Tibetan serfs holding their own severed limbs (a common punishment) or the
country’s impressive collection of artifacts fashioned from human skin and
bone. You may refer to the article “Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth”
by Michael Parenti and the book “The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet
, and the Dalai Lama” by Melvyn Goldstein, a Tibetan history scholar. You
can also find depictions of this in a few videos on YouTube, like Free Tibet
--Dalai Lama's Naked Truth Exposed. The only people who could possibly be
regarded as enjoying a decent life were the elite ruling class, particularly
the priests and the Dalai Lama himself, whose political power was so
unbounded that the best western analog of a divine right monarch barely
captures his place in government. The general disregard for human well-fare
is also suggested by the frequency with which the government would flee
into exile whenever it sensed danger, leaving its population to fend for
themselves, as the 13th Dalai Lama did from 1904 to 1909 to avoid dealing
with the British invasion, and again from 1910 to 1912 in the face of a
Chinese invasion. This inability to care properly for its own people is the
reason why no modern government has ever recognized the legitimacy of the
Tibetan government, and why the vision in the western imagination of a free
and happy Tibet prior to Chinese rule is pure fantasy.
What about conditions since the arrival of the Chinese? Again, a little
historical perspective goes a long way in understanding this question.
When the Chinese invaded in 1950, naturally the ruling class tried to repel
Chinese forces, but unsuccessfully. Mao recognized that the primitive
conditions in Tibet would preclude a thorough communist reform, and in 1951
he made an agreement with Dalai: the central government would not enforce a
communist reform in Tibet and the local government would lead the reform by
themselves (see the Seventeen Point Agreement between the central government
and Xizang (Tibet) autonomous region). Dalai Lama, his holiness, seemed to
be quite pleased with this result, and even composed four poems to praise
Mao. It could have been a happy ending of the story, however very soon a
more thorough and violent reform started nation-wide in China. There was
little resistance to this reform in rest of the country, but in Tibet there
were riots, battles and constant violent conflict between the old elite
caste and the central government up until 1959. There were casualties on
both sides, yet Mao was determined to carry the reform all the way. Temples
were torn down and monks and secular leaders were locked up and sent to
prisons. The CIA was looking for a chance to stop the spreading communist
movement and they smelled the resentment in Tibet (described, for example,
the book “The CIA’s secret war in Tibet” by Kenneth Conboy and James
Morrison). Two trained special agents landed in Tibet and started helping
Tibetans with their independence. In March 1959, this independence movement
was triggered by the general of the PLA (the People’s Liberation Army)
invited Dalai Lama to the theater. Dalai’s followers believed the PLA was
trying to murder his holiness, and began a rebellion, but were quickly
subdued by the PLA’s superior numbers. Dalai could have chosen to stay and
surrender, but he and his followers were aware of the consequences of the
war – at least it represented the end of their supreme power and old life
style (notwithstanding staying on the CIA’s payroll). His holiness, the
Dalai Lama and his followers fled Tibet to India and founded the exile
government.
One familiar accusation made by the Dalai Lama and the government-in-
exile against the Chinese government is that something resembling genocide
occurred in Tibet at this time. The exile government (the official website
www.tibet.com and it’s not a joke) claims that 1.2 million were Tibetans
killed directly from the invasion of China between 1949 and 1974 (www.tibet.
com/WhitePaper/white5.html). Indeed, many deaths resulted from the attempted
revolt, and many more accompanied the Cultural Revolution (as they did all
over China during this turbulent time), but common sense helps in obtaining
a realistic picture. In his article “A Note on Tibet's Population,” Leo A
. Orleans says that “prior to 1950, population figures for Tibet – usually
estimates either of the Lhasa Government or foreign visitors – generally
ranged from 1.0 to 1.5 million.” The article also notes the estimation of 1
,273,969 Tibetans from China’s 1953 census agrees with this range.
According to the exile government the genocide started in March 1959. The
latest census in China 2000 reports that there are 2,427,168 Tibetans in
Tibet Autonomous Region alone (www.stats.gov.cn) and increased by about 314,
400, or 15.1% compared to 1990 census. Let’s use 15.1% per 10 years as an
estimated growth rate for the population (as we know it was lower in the
early days) and do some math: 1,273,969*(1+0.151)^5 = 2,573,567 (exponential
growth for five decades) is the best the total population of Tibetans could
do in 2000. Excluding the population of the government-in-exile, there
were 2,427,168 Tibetans in 2000. If there were 1.2 million killed from 1949
to 1974, we would expect to see less than 1.2 million in the 2000 census
considering that the deceased cannot have offspring. One might suspect that
the rest are ethnic Han people, but the Han population was 155,300 in 2000
and accounted for only 5.9% of the overall population in Tibet.
When statistics don’t match, someone is being dishonest. If anything,
the statistics suggest that despite the deaths that occurred at the time of
the revolt, Tibet has experienced the largest population increase of any
period of its history. This due to the fact that the Chinese government has
recognized the mutual advantage improving living conditions in Tibet and
has invested billions attempting to help the country to modernize. One then
wonders: “if conditions in Tibet are so much better now than before
Chinese occupation, why the recent riots in Lhasa?” It should first be
noted that almost none of the participants in these riots was even alive
prior to 1950, so one wouldn’t expect them to have any concept of pre-
Chinese living conditions. But the aspect of Chinese rule that they resent
is that it is associated with the lost of the Dalai Lama and control over
their religion. It is easy to understand why a people whose religion has
traditionally been the focal point of their culture would find this
oppression intolerable, and one can imagine how the current generation of
Tibetans, having grown up in this resentment, could develop a hatred and
plan for resistance ironically contrary to the spirit of Tibetan Buddhism.
But consider why the Chinese government exercises this control. Since the
voluntary flight of the Dalai Lama in 1959, he has labored to promote
Tibetan separatism not only in Tibet and but also abroad, with a list of
demands that reflect a desire to return to power and a failure to comprehend
the complex geopolitics of the region. The government, desperate to
maintain unity of their country and experienced in the use of censorship to
solve problems, outlawed the worship of Dalai in the hopes of silencing the
separatists. The tragedy is that this policy has not only been ineffective
in quelling unrest, it has internationally vilified the Chinese as religious
oppressors and utterly obscured the fact that Chinese government has
brought about many improvements. Not surprisingly, the Dalai Lama and his
supporters have become quite skilled at taking advantage of their opponent’
s political mistakes, and even manage make use of wholly unrelated
circumstances (the obvious example of current interest being the up-coming
Olympics).
With his international acclaim and overwhelming support from western
celebrities, it’s not surprising that the Dalai Lama has become an
international demagogue and receives invitations by organizations like Seed
of Compassion to give speech. Although much of what he says on the topics
of compassion and tolerance seem sincere, this rhetoric so easily masks
simultaneous political ambitions which remain impenetrably opaque to the
average uninformed western citizen. When one considers, for example, the
suffering among his own followers by his ban on the worship of the
traditionally revered deity Dorje Shugden, it becomes unclear when Dalai is
acting to promote compassion and when he is merely promoting his own
influence. It is all too easy to become lost in teachings of kindness and
forget that the issue of Tibetan freedom is simply a power struggle between
Dalai and China. Once that is recognized, the only question is: what is
truly beneficial for the Tibetan people? One hopes that the western public
and media will invest greater effort in obtaining complete and accurate
information and less effort buying and selling ignorance and sensationalism.
没有评论:
发表评论