CTA’s Response to Chinese Government Allegations: Part Three
Tuesday, 17 June 2008, 4:45 p.m.
17 June 2008
Ever since peaceful protests erupted in Tibet, starting from 10 March,
the Chinese government used the full force of its state media to fling
a series of allegations against the “Dalai Clique”. These allegations
range from His Holiness the Dalai Lama masterminding the recent Tibet
protest to His Holiness the Dalai Lama making attempts to restore
feudalism in Tibet.
This is the third in a series of response by the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) to these accusations.
The Chinese translation of this response will be available at the end of this month, at www.xizang-zhiye.org
The Tibetan translation is available on the Tibetan edition of this website www.tibet.net/tb/
The Chinese authorities accuse His Holiness the Dalai Lama of
attempting to restore what they call Tibet’s old feudal system. They
say the ultimate goal of the Tibetan struggle is to achieve this.
China’s official news agency, Xinhua, on 8 April 2008, quoted the
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Jiang Yu, as saying that “the
Dalai Lama is the chief representative of the serf system which
integrates religion with politics in old Tibet.” Jiang Yu said, “Such a
serf system, which harbours no democracy, freedom and human rights in
any form, is the darkest slavery system in human history.”
There is nothing further from the truth than this. His Holiness
the Dalai Lama considers himself the free spokesperson for the Tibetan
people. It is for the Tibetan people to decide the nature of governance
of Tibet in the future. When the time arrives when His Holiness the
Dalai Lama and his people in exile can return to Tibet in circumstances
that satisfy the majority will of the Tibetan people, then the exile
administration will be dissolved and the local government in Tibet will
continue to be run by the Tibetans who are currently working in the
Chinese establishment. As for His Holiness the Dalai Lama when that day
arrives he said he would hold no political office.
To characterize Tibet’s old society as “feudal” or “serf
system” is not an accurate portrayal of traditional Tibetan society. It
is true that traditional Tibetan society – like most of its Asian
contemporaries, especially China – was backward and badly in need of
reforms. However, it is completely wrong to use the word “feudal” from
the perspective of medieval Europe to describe traditional Tibetan
society. Tibet before the invasion, in fact, was far more egalitarian
than most Asian countries of that time. Hugh Richardson, who spent a
total of nine years in Lhasa as British India’s last, and independent
India’s first, representative, wrote: “Even communist writers have had
to admit there was no great difference between the rich and poor in
[pre-1949] Tibet.” Similarly, the International Commission of Jurists’
Legal Inquiry Committee points out that: “Chinese allegations that the
Tibetans enjoyed no human rights before the entry of the Chinese were
found to be based on distorted and exaggerated accounts of life in
Tibet.”
Even the Tibetan Government based in Lhasa was far more
representative than its counterparts elsewhere in Asia. In his
autobiography, My land and My People, His Holiness the Dalai Lama
states, “The National Assembly could be convened in three forms. Its
smallest form, which was almost continuously in session, included the
eight officials of the Yig-tsang and Tse-khang, together with other
high lay officials and representatives of the three great monasteries
near Lhasa – about twenty representatives in all. This nucleus assembly
could convene a larger body of about thirty members to consider
specific problems, and on matters of great importance, such as the
confirmation of the discovery of the new reincarnation of the Dalai
Lama, a full assembly of about 400 members from all the official and
non-official levels were called into session.”
In terms of social mobility and wealth distribution,
independent Tibet compared favourably with most Asian countries of the
time. The Tibetan polity before the Chinese occupation was not
theocratic as China wants us to believe. The system of rule was
referred to as choesi-sungdrel, which describes a political system
based on the Buddhist tenets of compassion, moral integrity and
equality. According to this system, the government must be based on
high moral standards and serve the people with love and compassion,
just as parents care for their children. This system of governance is
based on the belief that all sentient beings have the seed of
Buddhahood and should be respected accordingly.
The Dalai Lama, head of both the spiritual and secular
administration, was discovered through a system of reincarnation that
ensured that the rule of Tibet did not become hereditary. Most of the
Dalai Lamas, including the 13th and the present 14th, came from
average, yeoman families in remote regions of Tibet.
Every administrative post below the Dalai Lama was held by an
equal number of monk and lay officials. Although lay officials
hereditarily held posts, those of monks were open to all. A large
proportion of monk officials came from non-privileged backgrounds.
Furthermore, Tibet’s monastic system provided unrestrained
opportunities for social mobility. Admission to monastic institutions
in Tibet was open to all Tibetans, and all nationalities, including
Chinese, Mongols people from India from Ladakh to Arunachal Pradesh.
Large majority of monks – particularly those who rose through its ranks
to the highest positions – came from humble backgrounds, often from
far-flung villages in Kham and Amdo. This is because the monasteries
offered equal opportunities to all to rise to any monastic post through
their own scholarship. A popular Tibetan aphorism says: “If the
mother’s son has knowledge, the golden throne of Gaden [the highest
position in the hierarchy of the Gelugpa School of Tibetan Buddhism]
has no ownership.”
The peasants, whom Chinese propaganda insists on calling
“serfs”, had a legal identity, often with documents stating their
rights, and also had access to courts of law. Peasants had the right to
sue their masters and carry their case in appeal to higher authorities.
Ms. Dhondub Choedon comes from a family that was among the
poorest in the social strata of independent Tibet. Reminiscing on her
life before the Chinese occupation, she writes: “I belong to what the
Chinese now term as serfs of Tibet… There were six of us in the
family… My home was a double-storied building with a walled compound.
On the ground floor we used to keep our animals. We had four yaks, 27
sheep and goats, two donkeys and a land-holding of four and a half khel
(0.37 hectares) … We never had any difficulty earning our livelihood.
There was not a single beggar in our area.”
Throughout Tibetan history, the maltreatment and suppression of
peasants by estate-holders was forbidden by law as well as by social
convention. Starting from the reign of Emperor Songtsen Gampo in the
seventh century, many Tibetan rulers issued codes based on the Buddhist
principle of “Ten Virtues of the Dharma”. The essence of this was that
the rulers should act as parents to their subjects. This was reflected
in Songtsen Gampo’s code of 16 general moral principles, and the code
of 13 rules of procedure and punishment issued by Phagmodrupa in the
14th century, and revised by the Fifth Dalai Lama in the 17th century.
There were some punishments, sanctioned by law, in the past
which included mutilation such as the cutting off of a hand or foot and
putting out an eye. Such punishments were never lightly used but were
decreed only in cases of repeated crime. Flogging was the principal
punishment. Even in the 19th century although the power to inflict
mutilation existed in theory it was only rarely put into practice.
Capital punishment was banned in Tibet, and physical mutilation was a
punishment that could be inflicted by the Central Government of Lhasa
alone. In 1898, Tibet enacted a law abolishing such forms of
punishment, except in the cases of high treason or conspiracy against
the state. The 13th Dalai Lama issued a regulation conferring on all
peasants the right to appeal directly to him in case of mistreatment by
estate holders.
All land belonged to the state which granted estates to
monasteries and to individuals who had rendered meritorious service to
the state. The state, in turn, received revenues and service from
estate holders. Lay estate holders either paid land revenues or
provided one male member in each generation to work as a government
official. Monasteries performed religious functions for the state and,
most vitally, served as schools, universities and centres for Tibetan
art, craft, medicine and culture. The role of monasteries as highly
disciplined centres of Tibetan education was the key to the traditional
Tibetan way of life. Monasteries bore all expenses for their students
and provided them with free board and lodging. Some monasteries had
large estates; some had endowments which they invested. But other
monasteries had neither of these. They received personal gifts and
donations from devotees and patrons. The revenue from these sources was
often insufficient to provide the basic needs of large monk
populations. To supplement their income, some monasteries engaged in
trade and acted as moneylenders.
The largest proportion of land in old Tibet was held by
peasants who paid their revenue directly to the state, and this became
the main source of the government food stocks which were distributed to
monasteries, the army, and officials without estates. Some paid in
labour, and some were required to provide transport services to
government officials, and in some cases to monasteries. Land held by
the peasant was hereditary. The peasant could lease it to others or
mortgage it. A peasant could be dispossessed of his land only if he
failed to pay the dues either in kind or labour, which was not
excessive. In practice, he had the rights of a free-holder, and dues to
the state were in the form of land tax paid in kind rather than cash.
Small sections of the Tibetan population, mostly U-tsang
(Central Tibet) were tenants. They held their lands on the estates of
aristocrats and monasteries, and paid rent to the estate-holders either
in kind or by sending one member of the family to work as a domestic
servant or agricultural labourer. Some of these tenant farmers rose to
the powerful position of estate secretary. (For this, they were
labelled by the communist Chinese “agents of feudal lords”). Other
members of these families had complete freedom. They were entitled to
engage in any business, follow any profession, and join any monastery
or work on their own lands. Although they were known as tenants, they
could not be evicted from their lands at the whim of estate holders.
Some tenant farmers were quite wealthy.
Kham and Amdo regions had, since early times, remained in
numerous and contiguous compact societies, or social groups. Similar to
Central Tibet, the economic mainstay of the people living in these
areas were farming and pastoral nomadism. These areas were administered
either by a chief lama or by a chieftain, or by both. They held their
posts hereditarily. Many of them, however, enjoyed recognition from the
Central Government of Tibet based in Lhasa. As regards the high lamas
of the monastic institutions, the process of identifying their
reincarnations was mostly undertaken by the Lhasa Government. The final
degree for the religious education of all senior lamas, in particular,
must be obtained from the three Great Monastic Seats in Lhasa, and this
recognition from the central monasteries is considered the highest in
the academic lives of lamas and tulkus. The other important posts of
the respective monasteries were also appointed on the same basis. There
were nearly 4,000 monasteries in Kham and Amdo regions, and each of
these monasteries had its own, permanent estate. If we draw a map of
these estates over which the monasteries exercised authority, we can
say with absolute certainty that there was not a single area in Kham
and Amdo that did not fall under the administrative jurisdiction of the
monastic estates.
The 13th Dalai Lama had abolished the system of demanding free
transport from the local land-holding peasants by officials travelling
on duty and had fixed charges for the use of horses, mules and yaks.
The 14th Dalai Lama went one step further and ordered that in future no
transport service should be demanded without the special sanction of
the government. He also increased the rates to be paid for transport
services.
Foreigners like Charles Bell, Hugh Richardson, and Heinrich
Harrier, who lived and worked in independent Tibet, were impressed by
the average standard of living of ordinary Tibetans, which they said
was higher than in many Asian countries. Famine and starvation were
unheard of in Tibet until after the Chinese invasion. There were, of
course, years of poor harvests and crop failures. But people could
easily borrow from the buffer stock held by the district
administrations, monasteries, aristocrats and rich farmers.
When the 14th Dalai Lama assumed the throne, he constituted a
reform committee to introduce fundamental land reforms, but the Chinese
communists, fearing that these would take the wind out of their sails,
prevented His Holiness the Dalai Lama from carrying out his proposed
reforms. In his autobiography, My Land and My People, His Holiness the
Dalai Lama writes, “I managed to make some fundamental reforms. I
appointed a Reforms Committee of fifty members, lay and monk officials
and representatives of the monasteries, and a smaller standing
committee to examine all the reforms that were needed and report to the
larger body, and thence to me.”
In 1959, after his flight to freedom, His Holiness the Dalai
Lama re-established his government in India and initiated a series of
democratic reforms. A popularly-elected body of people’s
representatives, the parliament-in-exile, was constituted. In 1963 a
detailed draft constitution for future Tibet was promulgated. Despite
strong opposition, the Dalai Lama insisted on the inclusion of a clause
empowering the Tibetan parliament to revoke his executive powers by a
majority of two-thirds of its total members in consultation with the
Supreme Court, if this was seen to be in the highest interests of the
nation.
In 1990 further democratic changes were introduced by
increasing the strength of the Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies
(ATPD) – the defacto parliament – from 12 to 46. It was given more
constitutional powers such as the election of Kalons (ministers), who
were previously appointed directly by the Dalai Lama. The Supreme
Justice Commission was set up to look into people’s grievances against
the Administration.
In 2001 the Tibetan parliament, on the advice of His Holiness
the Dalai Lama, amended the exile Tibetan constitution to provide for
the direct election of the Kalon Tripa (the chairman of the Cabinet or
Kashag) by the exile population. Since the establishment of the new
system the Tibetan exiles have elected the Kalon Tripa two times.
Years in exile have also seen the growth of a strong and
vibrant Tibetan civil society with its own distinct voice and vision.
The emergence of NGOs like the Tibetan Youth Congress, the Tibetan
Women’s Association, the Tibetan National Democratic Party, Gu-Chu-Sum,
the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy and many others in
the fields of education, health, culture and environment, which have
strengthened the roots of democracy in exile and have also served as a
forum for the training of future leaders. The degree of the openness of
the exile Tibetan community is reflected by the fact that in the late
1970’s a Tibetan Communist Party appeared on the exile Tibetan scene.
Looking to future Tibet, in February 1992 the Dalai Lama
announced the Guidelines for Future Tibet’s Polity and the Basic
Features of its Constitution, wherein he stated that he would not “play
any role in the future government of Tibet, let alone seek the Dalai
Lamas traditional political position”. The future government of Tibet,
the Dalai Lama said, would be elected by the people on the basis of
adult franchise.
In the 10 March 2003 statement, His Holiness the Dalai Lama
said, “It is necessary to recognise that the Tibetan freedom struggle
is not about my personal position or well-being. As early as in 1969 I
made it clear that it is up to the Tibetan people to decide whether the
centuries-old institution of the Dalai Lama should continue or not. In
1992 in a formal announcement I stated clearly that when we return to
Tibet with a certain degree of freedom I would not hold any office in
the Tibetan government nor any other political position. However, as I
often state, till my last day I will remain committed to the promotion
of human values and religious harmony. I also announced then that the
Tibetan Administration-in-Exile should be dissolved and that the
Tibetans in Tibet must shoulder the main responsibility of running the
Tibetan government. I have always believed that in the future Tibet
should follow a secular and democratic system of governance. It is,
therefore, baseless to allege that our efforts are aimed at the
restoration of Tibet’s old social system. No Tibetan, whether in exile
or in Tibet, has any desire to restore old Tibet’s outdated social
order. On the contrary, the democratisation of the Tibetan community
started soon upon our arrival in exile. This culminated in the direct
election of our political leadership in 2001. We are committed to
continue to take vigorous actions to further promote democratic values
among the ordinary Tibetans.”