Kalon Tripa’s Statement on ‘Future Prospects for Tibet’
Friday, 20 June 2008, 1:45 p.m.
Kalon Tripa Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche delivers a keynote address on the ‘Future Prospects for Tibet’ at the India International Centre in New Delhi on Monday, 16 June 2008/Photo:Phayul Online Website |
Dharamshala: Kalon Tripa Prof.
Samdhong Rinpoche, head of the Kashag of the Central Tibetan
Administration delivered a keynote address on the ‘Future Prospects for
Tibet’ at the India International Centre in New Delhi on 16 June.
The lecture was convened by Dalip Mehta, the former ambassador of
India to Bhutan and Trustee of the Foundation for Universal
Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
Around thirty people, including officials serving in the Indian
government, retired officials and senior correspondents attended the
lecture.
The full text of the statement follows:
on Middle-Way Approach to Indian Dignitaries
at the India International Centre
New Delhi
16 June 2008
Tibet: Its Early History
Tibet, widely known as a “land surrounded by snow mountains,” is
situated on the roof of the world surrounded from all directions by
snow mountains such as the Himalayan ranges. Whether the Sanskrit word
“Bhota” is derived from Tibetan word “Bhod” or vice versa, both has a
similarity of pronunciation. In the Buddha’s teachings Tibet was
referred as “land of snow in the north” (Uttara Himpradesh). Vedic
Rishis also called it “Trivishtab”. Whatever the case, Tibet is
situated on a high plateau with clean air and is a source of major
rivers of Asia. Tibet has a vast land with small population and
remained economically self-reliant on the basis of need.
Archeological surveys revealed the evidence of human existence
in Tibet since the primitive age. However, Tibetan civilisation
received added strength in the 6th century and reached its peak in the
8th century. Tibet also emerged as a powerful nation with a strong
military in Asia.
Tibetan ethnicity is distinct compared to other people in the
region. Tibetan features resemble a mix of Aryan and Mongolian races.
All Tibetans use the same language. Though there are different
local dialects, but after the invention of the script and grammar in
the 7th century, all Tibetans use one language that is based on four
vowels and thirty consonants. It is a rich language with the capacity
to convey all Sanskrit terms accurately. Considering the time duration
and population, the Tibetan language has richest and highest quality of
literary output in the world both in terms of translation and original
composition. A large number of ancient Indian texts are now available
only in the Tibetan language. Since the Tibetan script and grammar are
invented based on Sanskrit it belongs to the Indian language family.
After the advent of Buddhism in the 7th century, Tibetan
culture and civilisation flourished widely and quickly. These originate
from the Buddhist culture of India of the time.
Although Tibet emerged as strong and powerful nation until the
mid-9th century, it gradually disintegrated and remained without a
common ruler or central government for nearly three centuries. However,
there was no major obstacle in the advancement of religion and culture.
By the start of 13th century Tibet was invaded by Genghis Khan and
remained under Mongol control for more than 50 years. Gradually China
also came under Mongol rule.
In 1260s Mongol emperor Kublai Khan of the Yuan Dynasty of
China offered three Cholkas (provinces) to Drogon Choegyal Phagpa,
which restored Tibetan sovereignty to the Tibetans. Since then to 1640,
though Sakya, Phagdru, Ringpung and Tsangpa fought each other to rule
Tibet, there was no foreign invasion. In 1640s Mongol tribal leader
Gushri Khan invaded whole of Tibet and offered it to the Great Fifth
Dalai Lama to rule in 1642. Thus was founded the Gaden Phodrang
Government of Tibet. Since then it has now been 366 years. Later on the
Gaden Phodrang Government could not protect its Eastern borders. As a
result China gradually started encroaching and finally divided it into
“inner Tibet” and “outer Tibet”.
Since the commencement of Priest-Patron relationship between
China and Tibet starting from Choegyal Phagpa, though there were many
ups and downs in the relationship but the outer structure of the
Priest-Patron relationship remained unchanged. After the founding of
the Gaden Phodrang Government, the Manchu Emperor invited the Fifth
Dalai Lama to China. This enhanced the Priest-Patron relationship
between the two. At first, it was purely a religious relationship
between the Priest, the teacher and the Patron, the student. This
relationship was devoid of any political overtones. However, in the
passage of time, this relationship was misinterpreted in many different
ways in order to achieve political advantage. During the Sixth and
Seventh Dalai Lamas, due to internal rivalry within Tibetan leaders,
coupled with Mongol interference etc, Tibetans were compelled to seek
help from the Manchu Emperors. In particular, during the Gorkha War by
the end of 17th century Tibetans were forced to seek military help from
the Manchus, which gradually paved the way for many unpleasant
incidents such as involvement of political interference in the
Priest-Patron relationship.
Recent Developments
In the 19th century, British government tried several times to
reach out to Tibet through China under various pretexts. However none
of these endeavors were successful. Finally, in 1904 the British army
entered Tibet and signed a ceasefire treaty with the Tibetans.
Similarly, later Chinese attacks on Tibet were repulsed by the Tibetans
on their own. At the Shimla Convention and the Agreement of 1913/14 and
during the subsequent events thereafter, the British government engaged
directly with Tibet to sign treaty when it served their purpose and
they accepted Chinese suzerainty over Tibet when dealing directly with
Tibet did not serve their interests. Due to these self-contradictory
positions of British government, the status of Tibet remained unclear
on the international level. However, the demarcation of the present
Indo-Tibetan border, which is at present followed by the government of
India, was made between the British and Tibetans and there was no
Chinese participation.
It was the weakness of the Tibetan leadership of not being able
to assert Tibetan sovereignty and the failure to be a member of the
League of Nations and subsequently the United Nations. Nevertheless,
both the Chinese and British had collectively tried to create confusion
at international level. In order to dispel these doubts, the great
Thirteenth Dalai Lama reiterated the status of Tibetan independence in
1913.
After Chinese Revolution
Soon after the establishment of Communist rule in China in 1949,
Chinese army started invading Tibetan territories. The PRC considered
the ‘liberation’ of Tibet and Taiwan of the utmost urgency. Within a
year Chinese invasion reached Chamdo. It was termed as “forceful
liberation”. Later on, Tibet was brought under Chinese rule when the
Tibetan delegation, consisting of Ngapoi, the Governor of Chamdo who
was held as prisoner of war together with his aides, and the others who
were sent from Tibet to China, were forced to sign the 17-Point
Agreement on 23 May 1951 under the pretext of negotiations. It was
termed as “peaceful liberation”. This is quite similar to the
occupation of India by the British as explained by Mahatma Gandhi in
Hind Swaraj, Chapter 7.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government has
sincerely tried to implement the agreement since under the given
national and international situation there was no other options
available at that point of time. Moreover, His Holiness the Dalai Lama
returned Lhasa with confidence trusting the words of senior Chinese
leaders of Party, State and the Army, including Mao, when he met them
during his visit to China in 1954/55. However, unrest started unfolding
in the Eastern Tibetan regions of Kham and Amdo around 1956. In
addition, after the completion of road connection between Beijing-Lhasa
facilitating faster mobilisation of army and military equipments, local
Chinese officials deliberately violated the agreement by making the
situation even more critical. His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s appeal to
the central leadership, including Mao, were left unanswered. Finally
there was a threat to the life of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and
Tibetans in Lhasa were compelled to carry out peaceful uprising on 10
March 1959. On the night of 17 March, His Holiness the Dalai Lama
disguised as a common man escaped from Norbulingka and eventually
sought asylum in India.
On 31 March 1959, after reaching the Indian border, the
Government of India received His Holiness the Dalai Lama by offering
him asylum. On 17 April 1959 at Tezpur, during his first meeting with
the international media, His Holiness the Dalai Lama renounced the
17-Point Agreement based on two reasons. The two reasons were that the
agreement was signed under duress and that the Chinese central
government themselves had deliberately violated all the clauses of the
agreement. Since then His Holiness the Dalai Lama declared to strive
for the revival of the Tibetan independence. This policy was followed
till 1979.
Nature of Tibetan Struggle
Since 1959, after seeking asylum in India, His Holiness the
Dalai Lama has been striving hard to resolve the Tibetan issue by
implementing wide-ranging programmes. However, different people see the
nature of Tibetan struggle differently.
a) Not a political ideological conflict Some people think
Tibetan struggle is a struggle between different political ideologies
and interprets Tibetan uprisings of the early 1950s and 60s as an
uprising against Communism. Some people extend their support to Tibet
based on this reason. However, this is not the truth. As long as the
Tibetans are happy and contented, ideologies do not matter to them.
Moreover, certain aspects of Marxism appeal to His Holiness the Dalai
Lama.
b) Not an ethnic conflictSome identify our struggle as an
ethnic conflict between the Tibetans and Han Chinese. Many even attempt
to make it into an ethnic conflict. But the Tibetans and Chinese have
lived together as neighbors since time immemorial by helping each other
like brothers. Especially after the commencement of the Priest-Patron
relationship in the 13th century, most of the Chinese Buddhists became
followers of Tibetan lineage of Buddhism. There were times when the two
sides fought wars. But these wars were few and scattered and for short
periods. For most of the time the two sides remained amicably and even
today there is no hatred between the Tibetans and Chinese.
c) Not a power struggleSome suspect the Tibetan struggle is
one of power struggle. The Chinese side has unleashed a massive
propaganda campaign to misinterpret the Tibetan struggle as an attempt
to revive the old system of governance. Nothing is farther from truth.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the exile administration have never
thought of holding power in future Tibet. Not even in our dreams.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama has declared time and again that He
will not hold any political or institutional position the moment
Tibetan issue is resolved for once and all. The officials of the exile
administration will also not aspire for political authority in Tibet.
They will lead the life of the common people. Therefore, the issue
between us is how to rule the people and not who will rule.
d) True nature of Tibetan struggleThen, what is the true
nature of Tibetan issue? It is an issue between truth and false,
justice and injustice. In other words, it is an issue of difference in
approach to fulfill one’s duty. Tibetans are not struggling for their
rights but to perform their special duty towards universal
responsibility. The precious Buddhist tradition of all the yanas,
including vajra-yana, originated from the great land of India is today
not available in any other part of the world. Preservation of this
tradition, which is of immense value to all living beings, is the true
nature of our struggle. If we read carefully the definition of
“civilisation” as explained in Hind Swaraj by Mahatma Gandhi, then one
can exactly identify the true nature of the Tibetan struggle.
Community that preserves Buddhist tradition should be a
non-violent society and there is a need to create non-violent
environment for such society. Therefore the broad vision to transform
Tibet into a zone of non-violence was suggested. Need for consistency
between means and ends is not only highlighted in Buddhist philosophy,
but Mahatma Gandhi also emphasised on this point. To conform our means
and ends we strive to adopt only non-violent means. As a result the
Tibetan movement at present is free from violence.
There are opposite ways of looking to our struggle from the two
sides. The Chinese consider us their enemy and our struggle as struggle
for victory and defeat and life and death. But we view the authorities
of People’s Republic of China (PRC) as our potential friends and our
struggle as win-win to both sides. We do not struggle for the victory
of oneself and defeat of the opponent.
Undoubtedly, the Tibet problem is a direct result of a larger
scheme of modern power struggle among the nations, continents and
civilisations. Therefore, it is difficult to keep our movement away
from the larger conflict. But we are happy that under the leadership of
His Holiness the Dalai Lama we are able to protect ourselves until now
from becoming tools of the bigger powers.
Etymological Meaning of Middle-Way
The Lord Buddha first used the word “middle-way” in his first
sermon. It refers to the middle which avoids two extremes. At first it
was used in reference to ethics but later on it was more commonly used
in reference to philosophy. Going to extremes is divergence from the
truth and there is a need to have middle-way in every field.
In this case when we use the word “middle-way” in reference to
policy, the two extremes are 1) to seek separation from China and 2) to
remain within China under present condition. The essence of the
Middle-Way Approach is to seek meaningful national regional autonomy
status to all Tibetans as provided under the constitution of PRC by
avoiding these two extremes.
Why Middle-Way Approach?
Since Tibet is a country which has remained independent for a
long period, what are the reasons for upholding the Middle-Way Approach
instead of restoring independence?
a) Given the realities of the present global scenario, it is
absolutely necessary for us to be pragmatic and realistic in
formulating any policy to conform to these realities.
b) Even if Tibet became independent and lived as a neighbour of
China, it will face unavoidable encroachment in the fields of politics,
economy and social matters.
c) Since Tibet is land-locked and situated on a high plateau, it has to rely on others to meet its needs.
d) On the positive side if we remain with the PRC, this will be helpful for our modern material development.
e) Under the present global scenario when there is a loosening
of the nation-state ideology, there is a trend towards greater unions,
like the European Union.
f) This will make it less inconvenient for friendly nations like India to extent their support.
g) Since the PRC’s constitution sufficiently provides national
regional autonomy provisions, this aspiration is legitimate and within
the Chinese constitution and it can be achieved.
i) Many areas of Kham and Amdo were gradually separated from
Tibetan sovereignty. In 1951 when Tibet lost its independence, Tibetan
territory was already reduced to the size of the present day so-called
Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). Even if we managed to restore
independence, it is unlikely to extent beyond the territory of the
present so-called TAR. Since more than fifty percent of Tibetan
population lives outside of this area, it is impossible to achieve the
unification of all Tibetans. There are many other such reasons.
The reason why His Holiness the Dalai Lama chose autonomy as
the objective of the Tibetan struggle is quite similar to Gandhi’s
choice of “self-rule; Swaraj” instead of “independence”. Gandhi’s
article “Independence versus Swaraj” published on 12 January 1928 has
been the supreme guiding light for us in our path.
Detractors of Middle-Way Approach may think this as
surrendering of the Tibetan people’s legitimate right. If we look at
Chapter 4 of Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj titled “What is Swaraj?” then one can
clearly see our aspiration. To safe time I will not quote here.
Formation of Middle-Way Approach
Around 1968, under changing national and international
situation, it was clear to us that restoring Tibetan independence was
difficult and the means to resolve the Tibetan issue through autonomy
was suggested. Since then series of discussions and consultations were
held. Especially after internal consultations with the Kashag, Speaker
and Deputy Speaker in mid-1970s, the basis for the Middle-Way Approach
was established by formulating a new policy to seek meaningful autonomy
instead of independence when an opportunity for negotiation arose.
In China, the turmoil of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural
Revolution came to an end. Post – Mao China witnessed major political
changes. Deng Xiaoping informed His Holiness the Dalai Lama through his
elder brother Mr. Gyalo Thondup, who was stationed in Hong Kong, to
consider returning home and declared that “except independence” all
other issues can be resolved through negotiation. This has paved the
way for new era of relationship between the Tibetans and Chinese. Since
His Holiness the Dalai Lama has already formulated a policy of
Middle-Way Approach it was easy for Him to respond immediately.
However, during the course of contacts substantial negotiations
were delayed without any concrete result. Similarly there was a shift
in the views of Chinese leaders. Therefore, in order to clarify the
background and framework of negotiation, His Holiness the Dalai Lama
issued the Five-Point Peace Plan in 1987. In his Strasbourg Proposal of
1988, His Holiness the Dalai Lama outlined the detailed framework for
autonomy. But the Chinese termed it as semi-independence or
independence in disguise. Since China has rejected these proposals,
there was no further discussion on this and gradually the documents
became somewhat like ineffective. Contacts between the two sides broke
off in 1994.
Renewal of Direct Contacts
Since the renewal of direct contacts in 2002, the Chinese side
has expressed deep suspicions and doubts concerning the Five-Point
Peace Plan and Strasbourg Proposal. In order to dispel these suspicions
it was explained that Five-Point Peace Plan is a future vision for the
benefit of entire humanity, including Chinese and Tibetans,
irrespective of the resolution to the Tibetan issue. The Preamble and
other explanations of the Strasbourg proposal are not a part of the
discussion agenda. The framework for autonomy that was outlined in the
text is only a proposal and not an ultimate decision. To avoid
suspicion from both sides on the proposal for negotiations, envoys
have, in a nutshell, explained our aspiration for implementation of the
provision of national regional autonomy enshrined in the PRC
constitution in its entirety in both letter and spirit. His Holiness
the Dalai Lama has also explained it several times. In his address to
the 4th World Parliamentarians’ Convention on Tibet, 18 November 2005,
His Holiness the Dalai Lama said,
“Basically, we are not seeking independence and everybody knows
that. What we are seeking is genuine, meaningful autonomy within the
framework of the constitution of the People’s Republic of China.”
Similarly on 10 March Statement of 2006, His Holiness the Dalai Lama said,
“I have stated time and again that I do not wish to seek Tibet’s
separation from China, but that I will seek its future within the
framework of the Chinese constitution. Anyone who has heard this
statement would realise, unless his or her view of reality is clouded
by suspicion, that my demand for genuine self-rule does not amount to a
demand for separation.”
Provisions of Autonomy in the PRC Constitution
Since China is a multi-national state, the reason behind adopting
provisions of national regional autonomy in the constitution of the PRC
is because it was impossible to achieve equality and unity among
nationalities without abandoning both Han chauvinism and local
nationalism. It was said, to ensure equality and unity among
nationalities the policy of national regional autonomy was formulated
based on nationality policy of Marxist-Leninism by criticising
exploitation of minority nationals in the past by previous Emperors and
the nationalist government, which caused the separation of
nationalities.
Preamble of the PRC constitution states,
“The People’s Republic of China is a unitary multi-national State
created jointly by the people of all its nationalities. Socialist
relations of equality, unity and mutual assistance have been
established among the nationalities and will continue to be
strengthened. In the struggle to safeguard the unity of the
nationalities, it is necessary to combat big-nation chauvinism, mainly
Han chauvinism, and to combat local national chauvinism. The State will
do its utmost to promote the common prosperity of all the
nationalities.”
Similarly article 4 of the Chapter 1 states,
“All nationalities in the People’s Republic of China are equal. The
State protects the lawful rights and interests of the minority
nationalities and upholds and develops a relationship of equality,
unity and mutual assistance among all of China’s nationalities.
Discrimination against and oppression of any nationality are
prohibited; any act which undermines the unity of the nationalities or
instigates division is prohibited.
The State assists areas inhabited by minority nationalities in
accelerating their economic and cultural development according to the
characteristic and needs of the various minority nationalities.
Regional autonomy is practised in areas where people of minority
nationalities live in concentrated communities; in these areas organs
of self-government are established to exercise the power of autonomy.
All national autonomy areas are integral parts of the People’s Republic
of China.
All nationalities have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken
and written language and to preserve or reform their own folkways and
customs.”
Article 112 to 122 of Section 6 of the constitution explains in detail organs of national regional autonomy.
Article 116 empowers local people’s congress of the national regional
autonomy areas to enact regulations in accordance with the need of the
areas.
Article 117 and 118 explains provisions of autonomy in the field of economy and financial development.
Article 119 provides autonomous provisions in educational, scientific, cultural, public health and physical culture affairs.
Article 120 explains provision of autonomy to organise local public security forces for the maintenance of public order.
Article 121 explains provision to use local language of the area
as an official language. Similarly article 134 of Section 7 on
Judiciary provides provisions to use local language in judicial
proceedings.
Preamble of National Regional Autonomy Law (NRA Law) states,
“Regional national autonomy means that the minority
nationalities, under unified state leadership, practise regional
autonomy in areas where they live in concentrated communities and set
up organs of self-government for the exercise of power of autonomy.
Regional national autonomy embodies the state’s full respect for and
guarantee of the right of the minority nationalities to administer
their internal affairs and its adherence to the principle of equality,
unity and common prosperity for all its nationalities.”
Article 10 of Chapter 1 on General Principles of NRA Law
guarantees the freedom to use and develop one’s own spoken and written
language and to preserve one’s own folkways and customs.
Article 11 clearly guarantees freedom of religion.
Similarly ariticle 19 of Chapter 3 provides provision to adopt autonomy regulations.
Article 20 provides rights to not to implement resolution,
decision, order or instruction of a state organ at a higher level if it
does not suit the conditions of the autonomous areas.
Article 43 provides provision to work out measures for control of the transient population.
Likewise there are sufficient provisions to ensure self-rule and
autonomy in terms of culture, economy, usage of natural resources,
taxation, trade, health, public security and education.
Moreover article 31 of the constitution provides provision to
establish special administrative regions when necessary. This
essentially provides that accept foreign relations and national
defence, all other affairs are left under the domain of the
administration of regional autonomy.
If these provisions of constitution and autonomy law are
implemented in true spirit it will ensure the welfare of Tibetan people
and the protection of Tibet’s unique culture, religion, tradition and
language. It will further enable Tibetans to perform their universal
responsibility. However, at present, unfortunately it is a universal
fact that none of these provisions are implemented in all Tibetan
autonomous region, prefectures and counties.
All Tibetans lived together on the Tibetan plateau since time
immemorial, sharing the same religion, culture, language, customs,
geographical location and livelihood, and if the PRC truly accepts
Tibetan nationality as one of the 55 minority nationalities of China as
they already claim, one cannot divide them into different parts or
designate them into inner or outer region and smaller or greater. It is
essential to implement self-rule provided under the provisions of
national regional autonomy to all Tibetans.
PRC’s Concerns and Differences in Opinion
Since 2002 six rounds of meetings were held. Though we have time
and again clearly explained our aspirations of Middle-Way Approach,
they still do not understand or prefer not to understand. Though there
are many differences in opinion, it comes down to two main points.
Firstly difference on history and secondly regarding the unification of
Tibetans.
The Chinese side insists that His Holiness the Dalai Lama
accept Tibet was part of China from a historical point of view. Tibetan
side has explained that is not true. Therefore, His Holiness the Dalai
Lama is not in a position to accept it. Chinese concern is that if we
do not accept Tibet as a part of China from past history, then
liberation of 1951 will be considered as invasion and the present
Chinese rule of Tibet will be viewed as illegal occupation. His
Holiness the Dalai Lama sees that no nation today has remained the same
as its past history and this will never make the present status
illegitimate. Tibet will naturally become a legitimate part of China
the moment Tibetans have voluntarily decided to remain as a part of the
PRC. For such a thing to happen, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has
repeatedly agreed to work on this.
Similarly the Chinese side supports their position by saying
that united Tibet has never happened in history and it will be
impossible to change the boundaries of the present provinces. To this
we explained that since time immemorial the Tibetans lived together in
concentrated and compacted groups and not scattered. For larger period
of the history, all the Tibetan were ruled by the early Kings as well
as during the early period of Sakya reign. Moreover, PRC considers
Tibetan nationality as one of the 55 minority nationalities, it is
imperative that Tibetans come under one single administration. If
Tibetan nationality does not come under one single administration then
this will be tantamount to a policy of ”Divide and Rule” as practiced
by the past imperialist regimes. Especially, this aspiration is not a
new aspiration. During the signing of 17-Point Agreement, the Tibetan
delegation raised the unification of the Tibetan nationality. The
Chinese side responded by saying that the time was not yet ripe but the
idea of unification of the Tibetan nationality was appropriate. This
was again discussed during the meeting on the establishment of the
Preparatory Committee of the TAR and a special committee to make a
detailed plan was appointed under the leadership of senior Communist
Party cadre, Sangye Yeshi (Tian Bao). However, due to ultra-leftist
policy this could not materialise. Similarly there are many incidents
where the boundaries of the provinces are altered according to the
needs of the time. In the future too boundaries can be altered.
Though Chinese side has unleashed massive propaganda to project
that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is demanding a “greater Tibet” and
“high degree autonomy”, but in reality Tibetans are one single
nationality and it cannot be divided into greater or smaller parts. Our
aspiration is to implement the provisions of national regional autonomy
as enshrined in the PRC constitution. Apart from that we have never
talked about high degree or low degree autonomy. We see that these
differences can be resolved if PRC leadership possesses political will.