Socio-economic Conditions and Colonialism

"The price Tibet paid for this development was higher than the gains." This was the late Panchen Lama's last verdict on three decades of Chinese rule in Tibet.

Year after year, the Chinese Government claims great economic advancement in Tibet; bumper crops, industrial growth, improvement of infrastructure and so forth. These claims were made even when Tibet was suffering its only famines in the nation's recorded history (1961-1964 and 1968-1973). Later, the Chinese Government admitted the disastrous effects of certain economic and social policies forced upon the Tibetan people.

Given China's record in Tibet, two things must be borne in mind when assessing social and economic developments in Tibet: the first is that the Chinese Government claims cannot be taken at face value. Even official statistics appear to be drawn up to prove a particular political point rather than to present an objective picture of the situation. Secondly, evidence shows that it is not the Tibetans who benefit from any economic development of Tibet. The primary beneficiaries of China's new open economic policy are the Chinese settlers in Tibet, their Government and military, and their business enterprises.

One Chinese leader who had the honesty and courage to admit the failure of Chinese policies supposedly designed to bring improvement to the lives of Tibetans was Hu Yaobang, former Communist Party Secretary. During his visit to Tibet in June 1980, Hu publicly acknowledged that Tibetans had not benefited from the much-vaunted Chinese "assistance". He visited Tibetan families in several communes, including one called the "Anti-Imperialist Commune". Disgusted by the abject poverty of Tibetans, he called a meeting of top functionaries of the "TAR" and demanded to know if all the financial assistance earmarked for Tibet had been "thrown into the Yarlung river". He complained that, contrary to Chinese propaganda claims, the living standards of Tibetans had gone down since 1959, and that the large Chinese presence in Tibet - particularly of government cadres - was an obstacle to development. He immediately announced that steps should be taken to raise the standard of living to pre-1959 levels in three years, and withdraw eighty-five percent of Chinese cadres. The "TAR" Party Secretary, Yin Fatang, summed up Hu's impression of Tibet as a region steeped in "poverty and backwardness" [Red Flag, No. 8, 1983].

The hiatus between China's claims and true conditions in Tibet is easier to understand if one realizes that Chinese rule in Tibet is essentially colonialist in nature. In colonial times it was quite common for the colonial power to make lofty claims about the economic and social progress it brought to its "backward" colonies. In many cases it was true that economic development did occur, but the native population contributed more to the realization of profits for the colonial power and its business entrepreneurs than it ever got in return.

One of the defining characteristics of colonialism is the exploitation of the colony for the primary benefit of the colonial power. That, today, is very much the case in Tibet.

Socio-economic reform from 1949 onwards

Soon after the invasion of Tibet, China imposed far-reaching collectivization programmes. Nomads, like farmers, had all their herds confiscated and were themselves divided into brigades and communes. The nomads tended their herds with no right to the product of their labour; the same case applied to farmers. They survived each year on an average rationed diet of five or six pounds of butter, ten pounds of meat and four or five khel (a khel is between twenty-five and thirty pounds) of tsampa.

In the periods 1961-1964 and 1968-1973 famine became widespread in Tibet's pastoral areas. Thousands upon thousands of Tibetans had to survive on rodents, dogs, worms and whatever they could forage for survival. In 1979 the new Chinese leadership set in motion a policy of liberalization. This brought in its wake a programme of decollectivization which has improved the conditions in Tibet to some extent.

However, things are far from satisfactory even today. With an estimated per capita income of $80 in 1990, an adult literacy rate of 21.7 percent and an average life expectancy of forty years, "Tibet Autonomous Region" scores just 0.087 on the UNDP's Human Development Index for 1991. This would theoretically place it between Chad and Djibouti at position 153 out of the world's 160 nations.

The Chinese authorities are aware of these facts. Speaking in Beijing at the third meeting of the Seventh Session of the Chinese National People's Congress in March 1990, the Chairman of the "TAR People's Government", Dorje Tsering, said that Tibet (Autonomous Region) was still a very poor region with a per capita income of only about 200 yuan. An increase in the number of beggars is a stark reminder of economic problems faced by Tibetans there. On the sacred fifteenth day of sakadawa (in fourth month of the Tibetan calendar) in 1992, when the father of Ms. Drokyi from Sok Dzong gave alms of five fen (100 fen = one yuan) to each beggar in Lhasa town, he handed out 500 yuan without covering half the number of beggars.

In its White Paper, the Chinese Government again claims that its rule has brought great prosperity and vast social, political and cultural benefits to the Tibetan people. It complains that its "civilizing" mission in Tibet is costing the Government and people of China large amounts in terms of subsidies to an under-developed region. According to official Chinese statistics, the level of annual subsidies to the "TAR" in the late 1980s was around one billion yuan or US$270 million.

What the Chinese Government would not admit is that it has earned far more from Tibet than it has given. In monetary terms, the volume of Tibetan timber taken to China far exceeds the amount of financial assistance it claims to have given. And this does not even take into account the vast mineral resources such as uranium, gold, silver, iron, copper, borax, lithium, chromite, etc, as well as priceless art treasures, carted away to China.

In any case, the bulk of China's financial subsidy goes towards the maintenance of Chinese personnel in Tibet. It also goes to pay incentives to Chinese settlers. The Tibetans benefit very little from it.

This becomes clear when one studies the deep urban-rural divide in subsidies. During the late 1970s and early 1980s an average subsidy of $128 was spent on every town-dweller, and only $4.50 on each rural inhabitant. The urban areas of the "TAR" are dominated by Chinese settlers and personnel, who form overwhelming majorities in major towns like Lhasa, Nyingtri, Gyangtse, Nagchu, Ngari, Shigatse, Tsethang, Chamdo, etc. The Tibetan population, on the other hand, is concentrated mainly in rural areas. Therefore, in the ultimate analysis, the vast bulk of China's subsidies is meant to support the majority urban-living Chinese population and their associated infrastructures.

Even the items subsidized are those that are consumed by the Chinese rather than Tibetans. The staple diet of Tibetans is barley (for tsampa), though urban or richer families add wheat and sometimes rice to their diet. However, it is only the price of rice and wheat which is subsidized. These form the staple diet of the majority Chinese settlers. By 1985, the price of barley was left to market forces and was 76 fen a kg. Rice, on the other hand, was sold at 40 fen a kg after being bought by the Government at 90 fen a kg; wheat sold at 44 to 48 fen a kg after being bought at 112 to 126 fen a kg (UNDP 1986). This pattern of subsidy makes living in the "TAR" more attractive to Chinese settlers while at the same time making it harder for poorer Tibetans to survive at a standard to which they were accustomed.

Timber and mining industries are other enterprises that not only receive large chunks of China's "finacial assistance", but are also among the most important employers of Chinese immigrants in Tibet. The products of these industries are transported to China and other countries and benefit only the colonial power.

Tibetans, on the other hand, are marginalized and have little control over their own natural resource base. Take the case of road construction. The primary objective of constructing roads in Tibet is to deploy occupying forces like the PLA, along with defence materials, and the immigration of Chinese, as well as to exploit the natural resources of Tibet like forests and minerals, which reach China overland. Roads may run through most Tibetan villages, but a public transport system is almost non-existent in the majority of rural Tibet. China's modern transport system does not benefit the majority of Tibetans. In some villages, buses do carry people once a week. But the passengers are all cadres. Tibetans in most regions continue to use horses, mules, yaks, donkeys and sheep as modes of transportation. Trucks, plying goods for the Chinese Government, have become a necessary means of mobility for many Tibetans.

Therefore, the Chinese pattern of development in Tibet is intended to control the Tibetan economy rather than stimulate initiative, enterprise and production. It works by creating a vicious circle in which local demand for goods is served by State-owned enterprises in China. Profits from these enterprises are then ploughed back as subsidies, serving to create conditions for the further extraction of natural resources needed by China's own industrial enterprises.

In the light of these experiences, we cannot but view the recent opening of Tibet's economy to foreign investment as a move to accelerate the transfer of Chinese citizens to Tibet and to further exploit Tibet's natural resources for the sole benefit of the colonial power.

In any case - in the ultimate analysis - the moot point is not who is able to build more factories or effect a higher GNP. The point is that, however efficient or modern, no foreign power has the right to impose its rule on another nation.

Health discrimination

The health service is not only urban-biased, but serves the rich better than the poor. Only ten percent of the financial outlay for health goes to rural areas: ninety percent goes to urban centres where Chinese settlers are concen?trated and where most of the hospitals are located.

Even when available, medical facilities are prohibitively expensive for most Tibetans. For admission to hospital as an in-patient, one has to make an initial deposit of 300 to 500 yuan (US$ 80 to 133), an enormous sum in a country where the average per capita income is 200 yuan. Likewise, surgery and blood transfusions are reserved only for those who can pay. The average Tibetan is substantially poorer than the Chinese.

The Chinese claim that there are 3,700 doctors and health personnel in the "TAR". Let us examine this claim. Most of the doctors are unqualified - having failed or performed poorly in their examinations in China - and have little prospect of finding employment in China. Some have been trained for three years in the "TAR" itself at primary health training centres. In the district clinics, staffed by bare-foot doctors, personnel are trained for about one-and-a-half years mainly to provide employment for family members and children of Chinese offi?cials.

There have been numerous reports of Chinese doctors and health personnel using Tibetan patients as guinea pigs to practise their skills. It is commonplace that Chinese medical graduates sent to Tibet for internship are given sole charge of Tibetan patients whom they are free to treat in any way they wish. Allegations are widespread that ordinary Tibetan patients are being subjected to examinations for diseases other than those they complained of. Especially, operations are being carried out without any obvious or actual need.

We cite some examples: In August 1978, Kelsang (from Markham) with his wife Youdon took their 21-year-old daughter, who was three months pregnant, to the "TAR Hospital No. 2" (then known as "Worker's Hospital") for a physical examination. The Chinese doctor carried out an appa?rently unnecessary operation on her. She died two hours later, crying in great physical agony.

Again, around the same period, when a worker named Migmar of the Lhasa Electric Power Station took his 25-year-old wife to Lhasa city hospital for delivery, both the mother and child died after a failed attempt at caesarian delivery. When the mother was dismembered at her "sky burial" a pair of scissors was discovered in her body.

In prisons such medical deaths are legion. In Sangyip Prison, a tutor of the late Panchen Lama, Ngulchu Rinpo?che, and a man named Tethong Chi-Jigme, died after being injected with an unknown substance. In Drapchi, a prisoner named Sonam Bhagdro, though perfectly healthy, was given an injection after severe torture. He died as a result. More recently, after 1987, Tibetans like Lhakpa Tsering, Tsamla, Metok Choezed, etc, have died in similar circumstances after "medical treatment".

The consequences of the poor health service for Tibetans and the bad state of public hygiene are higher morta?lity rates for Tibetans. In 1981 crude death rates per thou?sand were 7.48 in the "TAR" and 9.92 in Amdo, as against an average of 6.6 in China, according to the report of the World Bank in 1984 and of the UNDP in 1991. Child mortality rates are also high: a hundred and fifty per thousand against forty three for China. The TB morbidity rate, according to the World Bank, is 120.2 per 1,000 in the "TAR" and 647 per 1,000 in Amdo.

Statistics for life expectancy in Tibet are not reliable and vary widely. World Bank data suggests an average of around sixty one years for both the "TAR" and Amdo as against a figure of seventy years for China in 1990, up from forty seven years in 1960, according to UNDP 1991. However, an independent source, based on admissions made by the Chinese themselves, estimates an average Tibetan life expectancy of around forty years only.

Discrimination in education

The PRC's education policy in Tibet over the last three decades can be summed up in the following words of the late Panchen Lama. Speaking at the first meeting of China's Institute of Tibetology in 1988, he said: "The land which managed itself well for 1,300 years, from the seventh century, lost its language after it was liberated. Whether we remained backward or made mistakes, we managed our life on the world's highest plateau by using only Tibetan. We had everything written in our own language, be it Buddhism, crafts, astronomy, astrology, poems, logic. All administrative works were also done in Tibetan. When the Institute of Tibetology was founded, I spoke in the People's Palace and said that the Tibetan studies should be based on the foundation of Tibet's own religion and culture. So far we have underestimated these subjects.

"It may not be the deliberate goal of the Party to let Tibetan culture die, but I wonder whether the Tibetan language will survive or be eradicated."

In independent Tibet, over six thousand monasteries and nunneries served as schools and universities, fulfilling Tibet's educational needs. In addition, Tibet had many lay schools run by the Government as well as by individuals. For the Chinese Government, these traditional learning centres were fountainheads of "blind faith" and nurturing grounds for "feudal oppression". In the place of Tibetan monasteries, China forced the Tibetans in rural and nomadic areas to found independently-funded "People's Schools". Not a single cent of Chinese Government grants was spent on these schools.

These schools served to create impressive statistics for China's propaganda purposes. Most of the statistics regarding education are deceptive. China claims that it has opened around 2,500 primary schools in the "TAR". However, the majority of them cannot be regarded as schools in any sense of the word. Most of the teachers are not capable of teaching even rudimentary Tibetan language. Children were naturally not interested in going to these schools. For all practical purposes, the bulk of these People's Schools have ceased to exist.

In the Chinese official publication, Tibet Review (No. 2, 1986) three Chinese sociologists admitted: "There are only 58 middle-level schools (in the "TAR"). Out of them only 13 are real middle schools. Altogether, there are 2,450 primary schools in Tibet. Out of them only 451 are funded by the Government. Over two thousand of these schools are funded by the people. These schools do not have a sound foundation and are not properly equipped. The level of education is either completely nil or extremely low. Therefore, the question of scientific skills can be ruled out among them. At present 90 percent of farmers and herders do not receive lower middle-level education. In view of this, talking about upper-middle class and university education is like asking people to eat well when there are no food grains available. Only 45 percent of the children of school-going age go to primary schools. From them 10.6 percent manage to graduate to the lower-middle school. In other words, 55 percent of the children do not even get primary-level education. In the whole of the "TAR", there are over 9,000 teachers of various levels, far fewer than the actual number required. 50 percent of these teachers are not qualified enough. Equality among nationalities will come about only if this is reformed and improved."

Between 1959 and 1966 the Chinese Government launched numerous "thought control" campaigns to consolidate its hold over Tibet. Learned and capable Tibetans, like lamas, abbots, geshes, lay scholars were sent to jails or labour camps. So while qualified teachers were languishing in jail, each school was run with one or two unqualified teachers.

Members of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile's third fact-finding delegation investigating education were told by the Chinese Government that there were 2,511 schools in Tibet. Mrs. Jetsun Pema, leader of the delegation, says: "Wherever we went it was extremely difficult to arrange a visit to a school. ?The school is closed for summer vacation, the headmaster is away, the children have gone for lunch' (at 10:00 am!), were some of the excuses. After one such excuse, the delegation looked into the classrooms and found them stacked from floor to ceiling with timber. Another time, on being shown a rural tent classroom, the delegates lifted the groundsheet and found the grass still green underneath."

John Billington, director of studies at Repton School in England, travelled extensively through Tibet in 1988 and reported the following: "In rural areas especially, a large number of children can be seen working in the fields, cutting grass, herding sheep, collecting yak dung and working at stalls. Enquiry reveals that they do not go to school, in most cases because no schools exist. It was sad to hear older people say that there had been schools in the past attached to a monastery, but that when the monasteries were destroyed the little rural schools have not been replaced. Well off the beaten track, I met elderly nomads who could read and write; it was too often a brutal reminder of Chinese neglect that their grandchildren could not."

An important question is about the beneficiaries of the educational facilities in Tibet. In its White Paper, the Chinese Government claims that it has invested 1.1 billion yuan to develop education in Tibet.

Whatever the veracity of this claim, one thing is clear: Chinese students residing in Tibet are the chief beneficiaries of this grant. From thirty to fifty percent of the educational outlay for the "TAR" goes to the Tibetan Nationality University in the Chinese city of Shenyang. This university offers the best facilities among all the schools meant for Tibetans. Most of the Chinese teachers and staff of the university are former members of the 18th Army which invaded Tibet. Likewise, most of the students are the children and relatives of Chinese officials in Tibet and elsewhere.

In Tibet, the best schools are in Lhasa, Shigatse, Gyangtse, Chamdo, Silling, Kyigudo, Dartsedo and Dechen. But these schools are meant primarily for the children of Chinese cadres. In these Chinese Government-funded urban schools, there are separate classes for Chinese and Tibetan students, with the best teachers assigned to Chinese classes. They also have two different messes, known as the "tsampa-eaters' mess" and "rice-eaters' mess". The food at the Chinese "rice-eaters' mess" is far superior.

Every year a certain number of university seats are officially reserved for Tibetan students and their expenses form part of the budget for Tibetan education. However, most of these seats go to Chinese students. To go to university, the student must pass a competitive examination after graduating from upper-middle school. Since the examinations are conducted in Chinese, Tibetan students are disadvantaged and lose places to Chinese students. The growing trend is that Chinese students who have failed to make it to universities in their homeland go to Tibet to resit their examination. Because the general standard of education in Tibet is much lower than in China, these students fare well against Tibetans, and thus take Tibetan places in universities.

The first Australian Human Rights Delegation to Tibet and China in 1991 also stated in its report: "Though the delegation noted an official determination to raise educational standards for Tibetans, many Tibetan children appear to still go without formal education. Tibetan children in the Lhasa area seemingly have access to a very limited syllabus at both primary and secondary levels. Some testified to never having been at school, or having to leave for economic reasons as early as ten years old."

In a petition, dated February 20, 1986, submitted to the Chinese authorities, Tashi Tsering, an English teacher at Lhasa's Tibet University, stated: "In 1979 six hundred students from the Tibet Autonomous Region were pursuing university education in Tibet and China. Of them, only sixty were Tibetans. In 1984 Tibet's three big schools had 1,984 students on their rolls, out of which only 666 were Tibetans. In the same year 250 students from Tibet may have been sent to universities in the Mainland. But only sixty to seventy of them were Tibetans.... Most of the government outlay meant for Tibetan education is used on Chinese students. Even today, seventy per cent of Tibetans are illiterate.

"Out of twenty eight classes in Lhasa's Middle School No.1, twelve are for Tibetans.... Out of 1,451 students, 933 are Tibetans and 518 Chinese. Not only are the Chinese students not learning Tibetan, 387 of the Tibetan students are not learning Tibetan either. Only 546 Tibetans are learning their language. Of the 111 teachers, only thirty are Tibetans and seven teach Tibetan. I have heard that the best qualified teachers are assigned to teach the Chinese classes whereas unqualified teachers teach the Tibetan classes.

"In Lhasa's Primary School No. 1, there are thirty four classes with the Tibetans and Chinese sharing the same number of classes. One thousand students are Tibetans and nine hundred Chinese. Two hundred Tibetans do not learn Tibetan. Of the 136 teachers, only eighteen teach Tibetan... Many rural schools have closed after decollectivisation of farm lands and animals; either there are no students or no teachers.

"In Lhasa's Tibet University, there are 413 Tibetan students and 258 Chinese. Two hundred fifty-one Tibetans are in the Tibetan Language and Literature Stream and twenty seven in the Tibetan Medical Studies Stream. Only 135 Tibetan students get to study modern subjects... The Tibetan departments are generally known as the ?Departments of Political Manipulation'. This is because, while the authorities have fixed sixty percent of seats for Tibetan students and forty per cent for Chinese students, most of the Tibetan students are absorbed into these two Tibetan departments, leaving the majority of the seats in modern education streams to the Chinese... The English Department of this university has two Tibetan students and fourteen Chinese."

From 1966 onwards complete sinicization became the watchword. Tibetan was labelled as the language of religion and its teaching was forbidden. Some time in the 1960s monk and nun teachers as well as qualified lay Tibetan teachers were all ordered to leave their teaching jobs. Tibetan language and grammar books were labelled "books of blind faith" and thus discouraged from being taught. In their place, books of Mao Zedong's thoughts and newspapers were put on the school syllabus. Children were taught that the Tibetan religion was blind faith, Tibetan customs and habits "old green thinking", Tibetan was a "useless, backward language", old Tibetan society was "extremely backward, savage, and oppressive". Those who agreed with the Chinese were considered progressive whereas those who disagreed were termed variously as counter-revolutionaries, reactionaries or class enemies. Naturally, a whole generation of Tibetan children grew up completely ignorant of their own culture, history and way of life.

Chinese names with Marxist connotations replaced Tibetan names for houses, streets and places. Many Tibetans had to change their names into Chinese. Norbulingka (the jewel park), the summer palace of the Dalai Lamas, was given a Chinese name meaning "people's common park". The Tibetan language was deliberately bastardized with Chinese words and phrases.

In a book entitled Special Compilation on Tibetan Nationalities: 1965-1985, a Chinese official in the "TAR", made a critical observation on the Chinese policy of discouraging the use and learning of the Tibetan language in Tibet. He observed: "Tibetan teachers and those able to translate in Tibetan have become very rare. As a result, it has become very difficult to teach or issue official documents in both the Tibetan and Chinese languages. A good number of Tibetan officials cannot read and write properly in Tibetan. Neither can they announce the Party policy to the masses in Tibetan."

In a publication of China's Institute of Tibetology (1991), Sangay, a junior lecturer of Qinghai Nationalities University, wrote: "There is one group of people who hold the view that the use of the Tibetan language will work as obstacles on the way to economic development... The local authorities have decided that only the Chinese language should be taught and used... This policy has been implemented for many years. Final result: People could write neither in Tibetan nor in Chinese. But economic stagnation has continued."

The Chinese authorities are averse to improving educational infrastructures in Tibet. From 1985, some efforts have been made to provide higher education to Tibetans. But this has been achieved by increasing the number of students sent to universities and schools in China, rather than by improving the educational infrastructure within Tibet.

Tibetan children with intellectual aptitude are plucked from schools in Tibet and sent to schools in China. Tibetans rightfully resent this as a policy aimed at undermining their own culture. The late Panchen Lama said that sending Tibetan children to China would only have the effect of alienating them from their cultural roots.

Catriona Bass, author of Inside the Treaure House and English teacher in Lhasa in 1985, said: "Four thousand Tibetan children were studying in China at this time. Undoubtedly these children benefited academically. Given the still very basic resources in Tibet, it might be an effective way of educating Tibetans, in the short term. But this policy dates from the 1950s. Now instead of reducing the number of children sent to China, and investing more in improving facilities in Tibet, the Government has announced plans to send as many as ten thousand children by 1993.

"For many Tibetans we met, this policy posed the most serious threat to Tibetan cultural identity. With more and more young adults returning to Tibet, ignorant or scornful of Tibetan traditions, some people saw the policy as a conspiracy on the part of the Government to erode cultural values from within."

Achievements of exile Tibetans

China insists that the Chinese presence in Tibet is justified because of the help that is offered to develop and civilize the culturally and economically backward Tibetan people. Left to themselves, Tibetans are quite capable of managing their own affairs. The thriving exile community is the best evidence of this.

The Tibetan Government-in-Exile, the host Indian Government, and international aid agencies have invested upwards of Indian Rupees 1.5 billion in educating Tibetans in exile since 1959. The Tibetan Government-in-Exile allocates sixty five percent of its annual budget to the education of its children. This does not include the amount invested in monastic education.

Today, in the newly-established Tibetan monasteries and nunneries in India, Nepal and Bhutan, there are about 11,000 monks and nuns. Many specialized institutions have been established in India to preserve the now-endangered Tibetan culture. The Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, provides traditional and modern education to Tibetans and to students from Himalayan Buddhist regions, many of whom now serve in various Tibetan schools and centres of higher education. Some of them work in the more than seven hundred Tibetan religious and cultural centres established around the world today. Tibet's native religion, B?n, has re-established its headquarters in Himachal Pradesh state, India.

The Tibetan Medical and Astro. Institute in Dharamsala provides traditional Tibetan medical services to patients all over the world. It also educates students in Tibetan medicine and astro-science. Graduates of the institute now serve as doctors in various Tibetan settlements in Nepal, India, Bhutan as well as in other parts of the world.

The Library of Tibetan Works and Archives (LTWA) in Dharamsala, and Tibet House in New Delhi, serve as facilities to educate foreign students in Tibetan history, language and culture. The LTWA is the premier internationally-recognized centre for studies in Tibetology. Up to 1992 it had assisted more than five thousand research students from over thirty countries.

The Tibetan Institute of Performing Arts (TIPA) in Dharamsala has preserved traditional Tibetan opera, dance, songs and music, and has performed with outstanding success around the world. Many of the performing arts teachers in the various Tibetan schools in India, Nepal and Bhutan have been trained here.

The Tibetan Cultural Printing Press in Dharamsala, and other Tibetan publishing centres, preserve the culture by printing the Buddhist canon, the Kagyur and Tengyur, along with thousands of other traditional Tibetan publications and scriptures.

Today there are eighty four Tibetan schools in India, Nepal and Bhutan with an enrolment of over 26,000 students at primary, middle and secondary levels. Of these, seventeen are residential and seven more have hostel facilities. In addition, there are fifty five pre-primary schools. According to statistics compiled by the Planning Council of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile in Dharamsala, altogether about ninety two percent of Tibetan children in exile, aged six to seventeen, are attending schools, with about eighty four percent of them enrolled in Tibetan schools. In these schools there are a total of 1,280 teachers with an average teacher-student ratio of 1:20. School education is available free for all Tibetan children. Meritorious students are granted scholarships for degree and professional courses, while others are given vocational training. Up to 1992, three thousand students in exile had completed their university education. Every year four hundred to five hundred students finish their senior secondary school education. Of these, two hundred to two hundred and fifty graduates join universities for further studies in India and abroad.

Today, education in exile has produced Tibetan medical doctors, administrators, Ph.Ds, M.Phils, engineers, post-graduate teachers, journalists, social workers, lawyers, computer programmers, etc. The students, after completing higher education, serve in the Government-in-Exile and other institutions. Ninety nine percent of the officials in the Tibetan Government-in-Exile today have received their education in exile in India.

Conclusion

Over the years thousands of young Tibetans have undertaken hazardous, heart-breaking journeys over the Himalayas to come to India where they and their parents see the only hope for meaningful and free education. The first Australian Human Rights Delegation to China and Tibet also stated in its report: "Young people, while speaking of their desire for education, saw their only choice being to attempt to reach the Tibetan communities in India where, they said, at least education was freely available irrespective of all the other hardships."

Since 1979, over five thousand monks and nuns have fled to India to pursue religious studies. In addition, over three thousand new refugees in the age group of five to fourteen, and over one thousand in the age group of fifteen to twenty five have been admitted to various Tibetan schools in India.

If China's claim on education were true, there would be no need for these young Tibetans to leave their homeland and parents to flee to India. Noticing that such a large number of Tibetans studying in schools set up by the Tibetan Government-in-Exile was a damning indictment of the pathetic educational scenario in Tibet, the Chinese authorities in 1995 ordered Tibetan parents to recall their children from schools in India within a specified time upon pain of punishments. But as expected, the Tibetans largely ignored the Chinese order.

Not only do the Chinese authorities refrain from making a whole-hearted attempt to improve educational opportunity and facilities for Tibetans in Tibet but it also prohibits Tibetans from seeking better educational opportunities outside the country by imposing deterrents.