His Holiness the Dalai Lama Tweets with the Chinese People 1558
Chinese people submitted 317 questions to His Holiness the Dalai Lama
through the renowned Chinese writer, Wang Lixiong. 11705 Chinese
netizens voted for the following 10 most important questions, to which
Holiness the Dalai Lama responded from his residence in Dharamsala on 16 July 2010. The responses were released on the Chinese-language website of the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama on 19 July 2010.
Question One: Looking
at the current situation, it seems difficult that a reconciliation with
the Chinese government will come about in your lifetime. After your
passing away, you will have no control over the Tibetan youth
organisation which holds on firmly to their ideology [of seeking
Tibetan independence]. Is it not possible that they will engage in
large-scale terrorist activities then? Are there ways by which they can
be prevented from taking such a course? Answer: On
the whole, I believe that even after my death the Tibetan exile set-up
will continue to make progress, particularly in the field of education.
More importantly there are a growing number of young Lamas between the
ages of 20 and 30 who are currently pursuing studies in the various
religious schools of our community who are capable of taking up greater
leadership roles in the spiritual field. In the political field, for
the last more than 10 years I have been in a state of semi-retirement.
All the important political decisions are being taken by the elected
political leadership and this will continue to do so in the future as
well. There are forces within our community such as the Tibetan Youth
Congress who criticise our Middle-Way policy and demand complete
independence [for Tibet]. It seems their voices are growing stronger
[these days]. We cannot blame them for this, since our successive
efforts to bring about a mutually-beneficial solution [to the issue of
Tibet] have failed to produce any positive results and under such a
situation, their viewpoint is gaining momentum [in our society].
However, it is very evident that 99% of the Tibetan people have
complete faith in the non-violent path [that we have chosen] and so you
should not worry [about their ever resorting to violence]. Question Two: Your
Holiness, how do you plan to resolve the problem of those areas which
form a part of your notion of ‘Greater Tibet’ but are incorporated into
the Chinese provinces as far as the current administrative divisions of
these provinces are concerned? Will the autonomous government of your
‘Greater Tibet’ exercise control over the other ethnic groups living
within those areas? If so, how would you safeguard the aspirations of
these ethnic groups? Answer: We have not used the term
‘Greater Tibet’. It is [actually] a term employed by the United Front
Work Department of the Chinese government [to refer to our demand].
What we say is that all those Tibetans who speak and write the same
language of Tibet should have equal right to preserve and promote their
religion and culture as well as to work for their collective economic
development. Now this is, in principle, agreed upon by the Chinese
government. In the Fifth Work Forum on Tibet, the Chinese central
government has recommended a uniform policy for overseeing all Tibetans
living in the Tibet Autonomous Region and in other Tibetan autonomous
areas under the four Chinese provinces. Premier Wen Jiabao has,
particularly, mentioned this in his work report to the National
People’s Congress. This, I believe, is really in keeping with the
actual prevailing situation. Otherwise, when the word “Xizang” is
mentioned, it is taken to be as referring only to the Tibet Autonomous
Region. This is not right. There are only a little over two million
Tibetans living in the Tibet Autonomous Region and the remaining
approximately four million Tibetans live in the neighbouring four
Chinese provinces. As such, we are saying that all of these Tibetan
people should be given the same rights. For example, I do not belong to
the Tibet Autonomous Region; I hail from Tso-ngon [Ch: Qinghai] province. Likewise should you care to look at Tibetan history, you will
see that many of the highly-realised Lamas/Tulkus have come from these
four provinces. Even today, most of the [respected] teachers teaching
in the monastic institutions of all the religious traditions of our
community have come from these provinces; very few of them belong to
the Tibet Autonomous Region. Therefore, we are saying that a uniform
policy should be adopted for all of these areas since they share the
same religion and culture. It is altogether a different
matter if we are seeking separation or independence but we are not. We
are simply saying that we be granted the freedom to preserve our own
religion, culture and language within the larger framework of the
People’s Republic of China. If, in due course of time, we get an
opportunity to discuss about it in detail, then the Tibetans inside
Tibet should take the main responsibility. Once they are able to engage
in extensive discussions [with the Chinese government] without any fear
in their minds, I do not think we will face any problems [in resolving
the issue of Tibet]. In the case of the Tibet Autonomous
Region, a few Chinese lived there prior to the 1950s. [The number grew
later.] A considerable number of Chinese, however, have been living in
Kham and Amdo regions, particularly in the area of my birth [Xining],
since early times. Tibetans are not saying, and will never say, that
Tibet should be occupied by exclusively Tibetans to the exclusion of
all other nationalities, which includes [even] the Han Chinese. What is
important is that since it carries the name ‘Tibetan Autonomous Region’
or ‘Tibetan Autonomous Areas’, the natives of these very places should
constitute the majority and the rest of the nationalities the minority
of the total population. It is for this very purpose that the name has
been given. If, otherwise, the number of Chinese or other minority
nationalities living in these places is more than the Tibetans, then
there is no way such names as mentioned above could be given. We are
hoping that we are able to establish a big family of friendship between
the Chinese and Tibetan peoples based on over thousand years of
relations with each other. We also hope and even pray that the
People’s Republic of China flourishes with all its nationalities
enjoying equality in a spirit of one big family. Question Three:
Last year, a television channel in France broadcast a documentary
titled The Dalai Lama’s Demons, in which Shugden-worshipping Tibetan
monks were shown to be thrown out of the Tibetan settlements in India.
The situation has come to such a pass for these monks that they could
not even visit shops and hospitals as well as enter their monasteries
at the time. In the documentary, you were also shown to be issuing a
strict order that these Shugden-propitiating monks must be expelled
from their monasteries. Moreover, one of the monks interviewed said:
‘On the one hand the Dalai Lama talks about the freedom of religious
belief and compassion, but on the other hand he restricts our religious
freedom and shows us out of our monasteries.’ What do you have to say
about it? Answer: Gyalpo Shugden came into existence
during the time of the Great Fifth Dalai Lama. The Fifth Dalai Lama saw
Dorjee Shugden as ‘a vow-breaking demon/evil spirit born into such a
state as a result of his wrong aspiration/negative prayer”. This is
mentioned in the Collected Works of the Great Fifth, Volume K, an
earlier edition block-printed in Tibet. So ‘wrong aspiration/negative
prayer’ is what caused Dorjee Shugden whose nature is but a
‘vow-breaking demon/evil spirit’ and whose actions are to ‘harm the
Dharma and humanity’. This is admitted by the Dolgyal himself in his
autobiography. Earlier I too propitiated Shugden. Later on as
I studied the words of the Great Fifth, I came across the document
cited above. I have, from my side also, conducted a series of
investigations about it and found that it is not good to worship the
spirit. Consequently I gave up the propitiation completely but did not,
at that point of time, place any restrictions on the section of the
Tibetan community who were practising it. Then the problem surfaced at
the Jangtse College of the Gaden Monastery. Through my examinations, it
became very clear to me that the problem at the Jangtse College was
caused by its new initiative of propitiating Gyalpo Shugden. I
communicated this to the concerned. When the issue became more public
later on, some people began to spread the rumour that I was trying to
curry favour with the Nyingma Tradition [of Tibetan Buddhism] and that
I had not actually imposed any restrictions but simply pretended to do
so. Under these circumstances, I had to come out in the open to express
my strong objections to, and make things clear about, the worshipping
of this evil spirit. No children of the Dolgyal followers
have been expelled from the schools. If in the monasteries the
worshippers and non-worshippers of Dolgyal assemble together, it does
not go very well with the sanctity of the spiritual bond [that is so
very essential in matters of spirituality]. Those who do not worship
Dolgyal have all received spiritual teachings from me and those who
worship it are the ones who have some problem or disagreement with the
Lama from whom they receive teachings. Therefore we are saying that we
feel very uncomfortable to be associated with the Dolgyal followers.
Apart from that, we have done nothing to throw them out of the Tibetan
settlements. I urge all of you to come to India and visit the Tibetan
settlements in South India to see for yourselves what the reality is.
The Dolgyal followers have established their own separate monastery
there and lead their lives like any other Tibetan. Nobody is creating
problems for them. In short, what I am saying is that it is
one’s freedom, in general, to practise or not to practise any religion.
How one chooses to practise one’s religion is also one’s freedom.
Therefore, whichever deity or demon one may worship, one may decide as
one pleases. To say that the practice of the spirit in question is
disadvantageous and it has no advantages whatsoever is my duty.
Therefore, I have highlighted the negatives. Now it is up to the people
to think over or decide for themselves whether they want to listen or
not. A Chinese friend has raised this question. If you are interested
in the subject, it is [really] your freedom [to worship or not to
worship the spirit]. But you must carry out a proper i
His Holiness the Dalai Lama Twenvestigation
[before plunging into it]. Usually, our religious practitioners say
that ‘one must develop a pure perception of one’s teacher and
investigate [thoroughly] the religion one practises’. So religion must
be subjected to investigation. For instance, Nagarjuna and other
scholars [of the ancient Nalanda University] have shown through their
example that even if they were the words of the Lord Buddha, they must
be subjected to investigation for ascertaining their truthfulness. [The
Buddhist concept of ‘Four Reliances’ says, among other things, that] one must ‘rely on the doctrine than on individuals’. So it is very
important for all of you to investigate. Question Four:
During the 2008 Tibet incident, why did many monks and lay Tibetans
raise their hands against the ordinary Chinese citizens? We must
understand that it is the Chinese government which you are against [and
not the ordinary Chinese citizens]. Answer: As far as
I know, the first protest of 2008 in Tibet occurred in the afternoon of
10 March. This was then followed by more protest demonstrations on 11,
12 and 13 March of that year. The Chinese security people, from the
very beginning, learned about these demonstrations as a result of which
they blocked the road of the monk protestors arriving from Drepung
Monastery. On the morning of 14 March, the incident of setting shops on
fire, hurling stones and destroying properties occurred. One foreign
journalist, who had been an eye-witness to this incident, came to meet
me [at Dharamsala] and told me: ‘Apart from video-taping the entire
happening, the Chinese security personnel at the scene did nothing to
stop them.’ The Chinese government’s propaganda about the 3-14 incident
disregards the fact that the first protest broke out on 10 March.
Moreover, according to reports they deliberately hired some mischievous
people on the morning of 14 March to indulge in rioting, which they
video-shot for later use in shifting the blame of the entire incident
on the Tibetans. Tibetans arriving from Tibet after the March incident
informed us that ‘Tibetans’ whom they had never seen earlier had been
brought to Lhasa at that time. They further said that ‘these people
were the main culprits who created the disturbances’. [I believe] this
[unfortunate] incident should actually be investigated independently.
This is one thing I want to say. [Another thing I want to say
is that] in the monasteries of the Kham and Amdo regions, there is an
ancient custom of keeping old swords, spears and rifles in the shrines
of the guardian deities. I was informed that these weapons were
forcefully taken out in order to blame the monasteries for using
weapons to stir violence [in the country]. It is, in a way, very
probable that a few people in their fits of anger may have unwittingly
caused some inconveniences to the Chinese people [during that time]. If
such a thing really happened, then I stand ready to apologise [on their
behalf]. It is very likely indeed that some enraged Tibetans may have
caused such a situation because at that time, the Chinese government
tried [its level best] to create the false impression of the Tibetans
as being anti-Chinese. Majority of the Tibetans would never do such a
thing. Tibetans cannot be blamed for airing their grievances
against the Chinese government policies. The Chinese government strikes
hard upon the Tibetan people for the [only] reason that they are loyal
to their religion and culture as well as their spiritual leader. This
creates a feeling of hurt in the minds of the Tibetan people. This is
also the reason why Tibetans are strongly critical of the Chinese
government policies. You should not, however, take this as a form of
Tibetan people’s animosity to the Chinese people. If what I have heard
is indeed true, then Tibetans visiting the Chinese cities and towns
seem to be facing a lot of problems after the 2008 March incident. This
is because the Chinese hoteliers, shopkeepers and restaurateurs in
these places show a cold attitu
His Holiness the Dalai Lama Twede to the Tibetan customers. Moreover,
we have heard that a lone Tibetan member of a Chinese government
delegation was stopped at the airport for interrogation. All these
developments are a cause of disappointment for the Tibetan people. Question Five: Was the ‘liberation of Tibet’ a deception from the beginning or did it change later? Answer:
It is difficult to say. When the People’s Liberation Army arrived in
Chamdo, they fought with the Tibetan army and killed about seven to
eight thousand Tibetan soldiers. Khenchung Thupten Dhonyoe, who was a
staff of the Governor General of Eastern Tibet at that time, told me
that Wang Qiming, the PLA general (who ‘liberated’ Chamdo) said to him
with tears in his eyes: ‘We, fraternal nationalities, have killed each
other.’ I feel that some of them may have been genuine. Likewise, when
the road from Kham to Central Tibet and Amdo to Central Tibet were
being built, some people used their bodies to block water when floods
took place. They worked hard. Those things, I feel, were genuine. For
others I cannot say what their intentions were from the beginning. The
best thing would be for historians to thoroughly study classified
government documents, which will make things clear. That is the most
important thing. In terms of overall policies, in 1954, I went
to China and spent about five to six months in Beijing. At that time I
met most of the Chinese leaders, including Mao Zedong, who I had met
many times. I especially went to visit many Chinese provinces, during
which I met many Chinese leaders, who were members of the Communist
Party and had real revolutionary outlook and were genuinely working to
serve the working class and the country. I saw many who had no desire
for personal gain and were working for the common good. They impressed
me. Mao, for instance, made many promises to me. However, from 1956-57
onwards, I felt that things were moving towards ultra-leftism. Question Six:
If in the future China will have a genuine democratic system, what
would Tibet’s relations be with that government? What is your opinion? Answer:
Right now many of the unwanted problems, whether it is PRC’s external
relations or issues within the country, I think, are created by
suspicion and lack of mutual trust. For the last 51 years, I have lived
outside Tibet. From my many friends in the US, Europe, Japan and in
India, I know that China has the desire to build good relations. But
its failure to build genuine relationships is due to the lack of mutual
trust. This, in turn, is the result of lack of transparency in China
which, though, it outwardly pretends to have so. Hence many problems
arise. Whether it is the issue of Tibet or Xinjiang, there is clearly a
huge difference between the external impression that China gives and
the real feelings that the people in these regions harbour. Therefore,
once a time comes when China will have transparent, honest and just
policies, many of the problems will naturally be solved. Regarding
the Tibetan issue, if there is transparency and sincerity on the part
of the Chinese government, we on our part are not seeking separation.
We have a long history, but I am not thinking about it. If we think
about the future, materially Tibet is behind others and therefore if we
stay within the PRC, it will be beneficial for Tibet’s development.
Because of this we are not seeking separation. The most important thing
is that Tibet has a unique culture, language and religion. Amongst the
Buddhist traditions, many of the world’s scholars today say that
Tibetan Buddhism is the most extensive and profound. Tibetan language
has become the best medium to articulate/express this profound and
extensive philosophy. The translations – both in terms of literal
translation (dra gyur) and contextual translation (don gyur) – of the
texts from the Sanskrit language are of the highest standard.
Therefore, if we are able to maintain this religion and culture, it
will also benefit the overall culture of the PRC. Generally speaking,
China is also a Buddhist country. As the number of Chinese Buddhists is
increasing these days, we will surely be able to contribute in this
field. I think this is of mutual benefit. Question Seven:
If Tibet achieves genuine autonomy or wins independence, do you have
plans to transform the system of governance in Tibet into a democratic
one? How will religion and politics be separated? Answer:
I do not think this question needs a special answer. If you are
interested, you can come to India. You will then actually see how we
have carried out democratisation during our stay in exile, how we have
set up a political system during the last 51 years and our future
programmes. For me personally, since 1969, I have been saying that the
people should decide whether the institution of the Dalai Lama should
continue or not. I have no worry. The most important thing is that we
need to preserve and maintain the unique Tibetan religion and culture.
In terms of Tibet’s development, it is very important not to harm the
natural environment. Tibet’s environment is fragile and susceptible to
damage. Because of the high altitude and dry wind, it is said that once
damage occurs, it will take a long period to restore the ecological
balance. This is a special issue that you must pay attention to. The
glaciers in the high Tibetan Plateau are the main source of many of the
great rivers in Asia. That is why we should take special care of them. Question Eight: What
do you think will happen to Tibetan unity once you are no longer in the
scene? Will the charisma of your successors be able to control the
Tibetan nationalists to retain the non-violent and peaceful nature of
your struggle? Answer: It will make no difference. For
over 30 years I have been saying that Tibetan religious and political
leaders must take responsibility as if I am no longer with them. They
have been doing it and that is how they acquire experience. There is a
new leadership after every five years. There will be a new political
leader next year directly elected by the people. In the religious
field, there are heads of each Buddhist school to take responsibility.
There is no difference whether I am with them or not. Question Nine:
You say that there should be a democratic system for Tibet. However,
when you and your predecessors ruled Tibet did you rule democratically?
If not, what confidence do you have to rule Tibet more democratically
than Communist China? Answer: The First to the Fourth
Dalai Lamas did not take part in politics. The Fifth Dalai Lama became
the temporal and religious leader of Tibet. At that time there were no
such thing as democratic system in Tibet’s neighbours like China, India
and Russia. They were all largely feudal societies. However Tibet had a
strong Buddhist tradition and the principle of developing compassion
for all sentient beings. That is why, in 1959, when the ‘landlords’
were put under struggle sessions following the ‘Democratic Reforms’,
there were many ‘serfs’ who came forward to save the lives of their
‘landlords’. Many of the ‘landlords’ were also able to escape into
exile in India with the help of their ‘serfs’. Therefore, ‘serfs’ may
be a common phenomenon in all these feudal countries, but the treatment
of Tibetan ‘serfs’ was different. At the end of 1955,
‘Democratic Reforms’ were carried out in Tibet starting from Sichuan.
As elsewhere in China, ‘Democratic Reforms’ were carried out in Tibet,
which did not suit the Tibetan situation. Such things happened. It is
important to investigate these things. You do not have to believe these
things because I said them. If you have the freedom later to
investigate it is important to do so thoroughly. In the later
stages of his life, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama thought about introducing
a democratic system in Tibet, but he was unable to carry it out. In
1952, when I was in Lhasa we formed the Reform Committee to make a
number of changes to our taxation and loan systems. But we were only
able to carry out some of them. Since I already had thoughts about
carrying out reforms from the time I was in Tibet, we established a
democratic system immediately after we came into exile in India. I have
no intention of holding any post when Tibetans in and outside are
reunited. I made this clear in 1992 that when there will be autonomy or
a considerable degree of freedom for Tibet, we will return. However, I
said, from that time onwards I will not take any responsibility and
will hand over all my historical responsibility to the local
government. Even now that is my thinking and I will never take any
political roles. Question Ten: What is your view on
the Chinese who are settled in Tibet and the second-generation of
Chinese living there? It is possible that your ‘High Level of Autonomy’
may end up marginalising them, which is the concern of those Chinese
inside Tibet who are opposing you and the Tibetan administration in
exile. Answer: Tibet is an autonomous region. In that
region Tibetans cannot become a minority. Otherwise, we will applaud
however many Chinese brothers and sisters decide to stay there.
Particularly, we will appreciate those Chinese brothers and sisters who
are interested in Tibetan religion and culture. I normally say that
Chinese brothers and sisters can cook us delicious food and we Tibetans
can provide spiritual food to them through Buddhism. That is why there
is absolutely no reason to worry. Then there are those Chinese who look
down upon Tibetans by considering Tibetan Buddhism as bad and the
Tibetans as dirty. For them, there is no reason to live in such a
filthy place; it is better for them to return to cleaner places. Tibet
predominantly practises Buddhism and in Buddhism there is totally no
reference to racial discrimination. Earlier in Tibet, many of the
abbots in monasteries were Mongolians and there were Chinese studying
Buddhist scriptures as well. We were of different races but there was
no discrimination whatsoever. Likewise, if there are religious scholars
amongst Chinese, they too can become abbots and Lamas in Tibet. There
is no difference at all. Note: This is
translated from the Tibetan. If there is any discrepancy between this
and the Tibetan version, please treat the latter as authoritative and
final.
