PBS Discussions

M.A.Jones · Joined: 06 Jan 2007 Posts: 72 Location: Hangzhou, China

I’m becoming quite adept at turning the other cheek, though whether of the upper or lower anatomy must remain a matter for fascinating conjecture, for as all good readers of Plato will know, all ideal phenomena of the upper kind have their imperfect (indeed, sometimes odiferous) counterparts in the world below.

So now it's time to deal with sundry affairs: Tony Martin, you begin your critique of my position by personally insulting me, before launching into a vitriolic ramble, and one that is based on a misreading of my position. “Your whole theory relating to Tibet is very similar to all of the other respondents supporting the continued illegal Chinese occupation of a sovereign nation,” you say. “Your position appears to be similar to other invaders of land in our history, or to the various slave trading states over the years. Namely, don’t look at how badly off Tibetans are now in comparison to the rest of China and the world, but rather look at how well off they are compared to how they might be if their invading masters weren’t so benevolent and here to help them.”

I have presented no theories whatsoever relating to Tibet, nor have I ever justified the Chinese invasion and occupation of Tibet.

I did, however, point out that life for the majority of Tibetans has been improving under Chinese governance since the 1980s, and I did so because the weight of empirically verifiable evidence shows this to be the case.

Let us look at the evidence. If Tibetans were so fiercely suppressed, and if Chinese leaders in Beijing were really out to Sinocize Tibet by increasing the ethnic ratio of Han to Tibetan, then why are all Tibetan families permitted to have up to three children, and are only fined small amounts of money if they exceed this number? Tibetan families in Tibet average 3.8 children, larger than Tibetan families in India. In fact, the population of Tibet in 1959 was only about 1.19 million. Today however, the population of Greater Tibet is 7.3 million, of which, according to the 2000 census, 6 million are ethnic Tibetans. If we consider the Tibet Autonomous Region only, then according to the census conducted in 2000, as referred to in Wikipedia, “there were 2,616,300 people in Tibet, with Tibetans totalling 2,411,100 or 92.2% of the current regional population. The census also revealed that the Tibetan's average lifespan has increased to 68 due to the improving standard of living and access to medical services.” In 1950 the average lifespan was only 35, and “infant mortality has dropped from 43% in 1950 to 0.661% in 2000.”

As Barry Sautman, who is Associate Professor of Social Science at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology points out in his study on Tibet and the (Mis-)Representation of Cultural Genocide, “the state sponsored transfer [of Han Chinese] to Tibet is on a small scale. From 1994 to 2001 the PRC organized only a few thousand people to go to Tibet as cadres. Most serve only 3 years and then return to China. Those who move on their own to the Tibet Autonomous Region usually return to China in a few years. They come for a while, find the cities of Tibet too expensive, and then return to China. Some of the 72,000 Chinese who maintain their hukou [household registration] in Tibet don't really live there. Pensions are higher if your household is registered in Tibet.”

These facts are supported by articles in the Columbia Journal of Asian Law and by an Australian Chinese demographer in Asian Ethnicity in 2000, and show that the claims of ethnic swamping in Tibet are misleading. "What I think these articles show,” says Barry Sautman, “is that there is no evidence of significant population losses over the whole period from the 1950s to the present. There are some losses during he Great Leap Forward but these were less in Tibetan areas than in other parts of China. Where these were serious were in Sichuan and Qinghai, but even there not as serious in the Han areas of China. There are no bases at all for the figures used regularly by the exile groups. They use the figure of 1.2 million Tibetans dying from the 1950s to the 1970s, but no source for this is given. As a lawyer I give no credence to statistics for which there is no data, no visible basis."

In fact, as Michael Parenti has pointed out in his article on Friendly Feudalism: the Tibet Myth, “both the Dalai Lama and his advisor and youngest brother, Tendzin Choegyal, claimed that ‘more than 1.2 million Tibetans are dead as a result of the Chinese occupation.’ But the official 1953 census - six years before the Chinese crackdown -recorded the entire population residing in Tibet at 1,274,000.33 Other census counts put the ethnic Tibetan population within the country at about two million. If the Chinese killed 1.2 million in the early 1960s then whole cities and huge portions of the countryside, indeed almost all of Tibet, would have been depopulated, transformed into a killing field dotted with death camps and mass graves - of which we have not seen evidence. The thinly distributed Chinese military force in Tibet was not big enough to round up, hunt down, and exterminate that many people even if it had spent all its time doing nothing else.”

Tibetans in exile and their supporters seem to pull such figures out of a hat in the same way that the Chinese exile Harry Wu does in relation to the number of mainland prisoners (see my piece On the Nature of Chinese Governance and Society for details).

Barry Sautman also convincingly challenges claims that the Tibetan language is being devalued and replaced by Chinese. "92-94% of ethnic Tibetans speak Tibetan,” he notes. “Instruction in primary school is pretty universally in Tibetan. Chinese is bilingual from secondary school onward. All middle schools in the TAR also teach Tibetan. In Lhasa there are about equal time given to Chinese, Tibetan, and English.”

There is also an upsurge of the performing arts, poetry and painting by Tibetans, which many visitors to Tibet today cannot fail to notice, all of which are encouraged and funded by Beijing, though of course the growing tourist market also plays an important role in encouraging Tibetans to continue practicing their traditional arts and crafts, albeit, in a commodified form.

Importantly, Sautman, like me, has observed surprisingly “few aspects of Chinese culture in Tibet, but there are many aspects of Western culture, such as jeans, disco music, etc.”

Barry Sautman’s views are by no means marginalised within Western academia either Tony. Colin Mackerras, Professor Emeritus of International Business and Asian Studies at Griffith University, Australia, for example, remarked that Suatman’s book “is a courageous and long overdue study of a highly emotional and extremely important topic’ in that it meticulously details and documents “the processes of cultural change in religion, the arts, language, migration and various other aspects” which are rightly attributed “mainly to Westernised modernity.”

Another interesting and insightful study is the one carried out by Melvyn C. Goldstein, who is Professor and Chairman, Department of Anthropology, and Director of the Center for Research on Tibet at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, and Cynthia M. Beall, who is Professor of Anthropology at Case Western Reserve University. Their study, titled The Impact of China’s Reform Policy on the Nomads of Western Tibet, was carried out over a 16 month period in the Tibet Autonomous Region, and was supported by grants from the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China, the Committee on Research and Exploration of the National Geographic Society, and the National Science Foundation.

It’s worth quoting at length from their conclusion:

“The new Chinese economic and cultural policies implemented in Tibet following Hu Yaobang's investigation tour in May of 1980 have produced a major transformation in Phala. Following decollectivisation, the nomads' economy immediately reverted to the traditional household system of production and management, which, enhanced by the concession on taxes, has led to an overall improvement in the standard of living even though local-level officials have not completely implemented an open (or negotiated) market system. The new policies have also led to increasing involvement in the market economy and dramatic social and economic differentiation. Equally important, the post-1980 policies have fostered a cultural and social revitalization that has allowed the nomads to resurrect basic components of their traditional culture….life in Phala today is closer to that of the traditional era than at any time since China assumed direct administrative control over Tibet in 1959. The post-1980 reforms created conditions whereby the nomadic pastoralists of Phala were able to regain control of their lives and recreate a matrix of values, norms, and beliefs that is psychologically and culturally meaningful. The new polices have, in essence, vindicated the nomads' belief in the worth of their nomadic way of life and their Tibetan ethnicity.”

Tyler Denison reached similar conclusions in his study, titled Reaffirmation of ‘Ritual Cosmos’: Tibetan Perceptions of Landscape and Socio-Economic Development in Southwest China, published quite recently in the Spring 2006 edition of the University of New Hampshire Undergraduate Research Journal.

“Rather than finding Tibetan tradition being destroyed by Chinese rule and the influx of people, goods and ideas from the modern world,” concludes Denison, “I witnessed firsthand the importance of Kawa Karpo and the ritual cosmos in the lives of the Tibetans of Deqin county: it has not been diminished. Tibetans’ enduring perception of the landscape as a ritual cosmos cannot be termed a static reality of tradition, but more a dynamic cultural process, as they are continually renegotiating and redefining their beliefs in light of new social and economic realities.”

So much then Tony, for your claims of cultural genocide. And by the way, most Tibetans, if you ever get a chance to visit Tibet and to converse with the Tibetan locals, will tell you that they are not “forced” to learn Chinese, but rather, do so keenly, and on the expectation that being fluent in both Chinese and English will help to empower themselves by broadening their future employment opportunities.

Tony, I hereby charge you with having a patronising attitude towards the Tibetan people – they are not passive victims, and you really shouldn’t deny them of any agency. In fact, as Tsering Shakya has pointed out in a paper he wrote for the New Left Review back in 2002, "Tibetans are indeed well represented on bodies like the National People’s Congress and the People’s Consultative Conference. In fact I would go further and say that they are over-represented, given the size of the Tibetan population." And don't forget the role that many Tibetans themselves played in the destruction of monastries and the various perscutions that took place in Tibet during the Cultural Revolution. Let's not deny the people of Tibet of any agency.

Your assertion that Western journalists make their observations of Tibet in the presence of “Chinese Communist Party lackeys” also demonstrates your ignorance. Journalist and tourists alike are quite free to wander about most parts of Tibet (provided they have PSB permits) without the accompaniment of officials.

You asked me to provide you with evidence of journalists having met Tibetans in Tibet who have expressed the view that the positives of Chinese rule outweigh the negatives.

Let us take attitudes towards the Beijing to Lhasa railway for starters. In the lead-up to the opening of that railway, the Dalai Lama expressed fears that the railway was going to aid in the Sinocisation of Tibet, and this was quickly seized on by Tibetans in exile support groups throughout the Western world as a development that would aid in Beijing’s alleged policy of genocide. Such claims of course, excited the imaginations of many ordinary Tibetans, many of who not surprisingly then expressed suspicions about what the new train line would bring them. But as many tourists and journalists to Tibet soon discovered, many urban ethnic Tibetans felt as though the positives would outweigh the negatives, and this is because an increasing number of Tibetans now have a very real material stake in the new economy. Their living standards are improving, and although Han retailers and small businesses stand to benefit more from increases in tourism and trade, the fact is that this will likely change as more and more Tibetans accumulate sufficient enough capital to start up enterprises of their own. And many Tibetans know this. Jonathon Watts, of The Guardian newspaper, reported that “Among the four or five unscheduled meetings I had with Tibetans, most were looking forward to the economic benefits the line is expected to bring: 2.5m tonnes of cargo and 1m tourists and business people.”

Indeed, Tibetans are divided on the issue of whether or not the benefits of being a part of China outweigh the negatives. “Tibetans are divided,” noted Jonathon Watts. There are those “independence activists” who expressed disapproval of the railway because they are against being a part of China, and who therefore regard the new line as evidence that Beijing is out to further entrench their rule, while others acknowledged the good that the trains might bring. “I was surprised to find a living Buddha make one of the strongest arguments in favour of the railway,” wrote Watts. "’We've been too backward, too isolated for too long,’ said the lama, who asked that his name not be used. ‘The rest of the world is in the 21st century. We are still in the middle ages.’ A more predictable advocate was the governor of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, Jampa Pahtsok. "It is unimaginable to have a high growth rate without a railroad.’” (see The Guardian, Sep.20, 2005)

And life is improving for many Tibetan farmers also, as Goldstein and Beall’s research (mentioned earlier) shows. When Dexter Roberts came across villagers in Northern Tibet’s Nagqu Prefecture, he discovered that most of the villagers (barley farmers and herdsmen) were quite content. “Life isn’t bad at all”, he quoted one villager as saying. (see "Tibet: Caught in China’s Two Hands", Business Week Online, Sep.19, 2003).

Tony, I have never argued that most Tibetans don’t want some form of self-government. I simply said that I think it is presumptuous to say that the majority of Tibetans want independence. I stand by that. Maybe they do? But to assert with confidence that most want independence without supporting such a claim with any empirically verifiable evidence of a quantitative nature is questionable, especially when there is a growing amount of qualitative evidence to show that Tibetans are divided on such issues. Even the Dalai Lama himself says that he no longer wants total independence from China, but instead, some form of self-government.

Take a closer, more objective look at Tibet today. The mass protests have stopped. As Robert Barnett, author of Lhasa: Streets with Memories (published by Columbia University Press) stated in an interview back in April 2006, “Tibet has become a dispute in which the main weapons are forms of economic change that have benefits and drawbacks: the market, the leisure industry, mass tourism, population shift, uneven wealth, and consumerism.”

It won’t be all that much longer Tony, before Lhasa’s main thoroughfares find themselves hosting McDonald’s, KFC, and Pizza Hut fast food outlets, along with Starbuck’s and other such global enterprises. And don’t be too surprised if some of the license holders turn out to be ethnic Tibetans.

Tony, you argue that “Tibet and Tibetans might [have] been very different had China not invaded, but for sure they would be sovereign masters of their own destiny.”

Bollocks! How many ordinary Tibetans were ever the “masters of their own destinies”? I’m not justifying China’s invasion and occupation of Tibet, which was carried out for geopolitical reasons, and largely in response to continual incursions by Britain and Russia, and which therefore needs to be viewed in the context of the Cold War. The Kuomintang of course consistently made it clear that they intended on invading and occupying Tibet, and had they defeated the PLA, they probably would have gone on to do just that. Had that been the case, I bet the the U.S. State Department wouldn't have objected.

But let us not romanticise the life of Tibetans prior to the invasion either. As Michael Parenti (and many others like Leigh Feigon, in his book Demystifying Tibet) has documented, Tibet “was a retrograde theocracy of serfdom and poverty, where a favoured few lived high and mighty off the blood, sweat, and tears of the many. It was a long way from Shangri-La.”

And “whatever wrongs and new oppressions introduced by the Chinese in Tibet, after 1959 they did abolish slavery and the serfdom system of unpaid labour, and put an end to floggings, mutilations, and amputations as a form of criminal punishment. They eliminated the many crushing taxes, started work projects, and greatly reduced unemployment and beggary. They established secular education, thereby breaking the educational monopoly of the monasteries. And they constructed running water and electrical systems in Lhasa.”

Finally, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the Tibetans in exile and their supporters have consistently exaggerated the human rights abuses that have taken place in Tibet, as Barry Sautman and others have convincingly demonstrated. Such exaggerations from the Tibetan community in exile come as no surprise though. As Michael Parenti says:

“For the rich lamas and lords, the Communist intervention was a calamity. Most of them fled abroad, as did the Dalai Lama himself, who was assisted in his flight by the CIA… throughout the 1960s, the Tibetan exile community was secretly pocketing $1.7 million a year from the CIA, according to documents released by the State Department in 1998. Once this fact was publicised, the Dalai Lama's organisation itself issued a statement admitting that it had received millions of dollars from the CIA during the 1960s to send armed squads of exiles into Tibet to undermine the Maoist revolution. The Dalai Lama's annual payment from the CIA was $186,000. Indian intelligence also financed both him and other Tibetan exiles. He has refused to say whether he or his brothers worked for the CIA. The agency has also declined to comment….Today, mostly through the National Endowment for Democracy and other conduits that are more respectable-sounding than the CIA, the US Congress continues to allocate an annual $2 million to Tibetans in India, with additional millions for ‘democracy activities’ within the Tibetan exile community.”

The Tibetan issue is by no means clear-cut. It is complex, and in constant states of flux. Even Tibetan specialists find it difficult to fit together images and realities, and so one might imagine how much more difficult it is for the great majority who make no pretence to knowledge about Tibet and who, if interested, seek guidance in the formulation of their own images. Those who seek such guidance from the plethora of publications produced by the numerous existing Tibetan support groups should therefore read them with some considerable caution, given their obvious bias.

I am not a Tibetan specialist, by any means, but I have more confidence in the findings of independent academic researchers (who present more objective, more soberly balanced views that are based on empirically verifiable research data of both a quantitative and qualitative nature) than I do in both the claims of official Chinese sources and of the various Tibetans in exile support groups.

Oh, and by the way Tony, your puerile attempt to discredit me by dismissing me as an employee of the Chinese government really is pathetic, and only serves to further demonstrate the height of your ignorance. I have been in China now for five years, not four, and I am not, and never have been, employed by the Chinese government. I teach a university preparation program at a Chinese private university in Hangzhou for a Sydney-based college, and I am paid an Australian salary, in Australian dollars, by my employer of over 15 years, the N.S.W. Department of Education and Training. There is absolutely no pressure on me to “two the Partly line” – in fact, nobody here has ever interfered with my teaching.

I suggest, Tony Martin, that you take a sedative and calm down. A few laxatives will no doubt help!

M.A.Jones
Hangzhou

KCAllen · Joined: 10 Jan 2007 Posts: 19

oh snap!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1-Woq_L-Vpo

WillJ · Joined: 11 Jan 2007 Posts: 2 Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Simply stated, WOW. You actually put together a coherent arguement backed with cited evidence. This has got to be the first time I've ever seen such a display of effort on the internet. I applaud you professor Jones for actually putting time and effort into trying to sway the viewpoints of a person who totally does not deserve your time.

I have read the posts in the other topic in which you've contributed. Because I am not quite familiar with the China - Tibet subject, I do not really have an opinion on this controversial subject. I guess the only way for me to really know what's going on in Tibet and China is to trust the only source that I can trust, myself. I hope that in the future I can visit both places and see for myself just what is going on.

That being said, what I do intend on commenting on is your show of respect of other people's opinions, and Tony's lack thereof. I am surprised you even took the effort to reply to such immature people who post nothing other than insults and stereotypical accusations, in order to get their points accross. Egotistic people like that pollute the internet and feel the need to vent their anger at anyone who opposes them. If a person really has confidence in his or her opinions and knows there are facts that support it, they would not need to deride others in addition to their argument.

My advice to you is, ignore such people like I always do. Do not ever insult them back as it will only feed the troll. You cannot change a person's opinions if even they don't understand the subject matter from which the opinion is formed upon.

Jones, the internet needs more people like you.

M.A.Jones · Joined: 06 Jan 2007 Posts: 72 Location: Hangzhou, China

Dear WillJ - thank you most sincerely for your kind words of encouragement. I should tell you though, that I am not a professor. I am actually a high school teacher of English literature, film studies and history, though I now teach for N.S.W. TAFE colleges, which are tertiary institutions, funded by the N.S.W. State Government. They run various programs in universities throughout China, and I am very fortunate to be able to live and work here on the mainland, especially given that I am on an Australian teacher's salary.

I have posted two other pieces on this forum which you might also be interested in reading. I do not claim any of my assessments as "truth" and since I am not a China expert, I rely on a combination of my own observations and experiences, together with the sober and balanced research of others, in order to formulate my own set of opinions and analyses.

I am therefore more than happy to have my positions challenged, to have the strength of my arguments tested, but to be challanged convincingly, alternative viewpoints need to be backed by empirically verifiable evidence.

All the best WillJ, and thanks again for your feedback.

M.A.Jones
Hangzhou

Tibetan Photo Project · Joined: 11 Jan 2007 Posts: 137 Location: Nor CA

Mr. Jones,

I am going to take you up on your desire to be challenged in that your research is incomplete.

I would only suggest that you consider adding contact with the Tibetan communities in exile to your research.

Since you argue the number of Tibetans, then their numbers in exile become more significant when measured against your total population numbers.

Between 1000 and 3000 Tibetans attempt to go into exile each year. Given that you refute the larger number of Tibetans killed or that they even existed, then again, this becomes a more significant number against your smaller assessment. The number of Tibetans who go into exile are counted through refugee processing proceedures in both India and Nepal.

I have conducted personal interviews with several Tibetans who are free to speak in exile and they offer little praise for the Chinese and the overall treatment of Tibetans or any serious level of respect for their language or culture. The Tibetans I have talked to usually speak 3 or 4 languages and are or have attended college even though they recieved little or no education from the Chinese.

As you must be aware, a Tibetan nun was shot by Chinese forces and the official report was that the troops were being attacked until a video emerged from a climbing expedition.
http://www.savetibet.org/news/newsitem.php?id=1036
Video at
http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?news=15183

On the 1.2 million killed, agreed that the number could be considered in dispute but only because the population itself was not accurately counted but by all estimates, the Chinese wiped out 1/6 of the population. In 1989, the Dalai Lama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize "on behalf of the 1.2 million Tibetans" who were killed by the Chinese forces and policies. The respected body of the Nobel committee has never found reason to refute his number.

The Tibetan government in exile and Tibetans in exile are the first to recognize that much of the concept of Tibet has been romanticized by the West and that in going into exile they walked out of an ancient time and stepped into the modern world.
See our interview with the Director of Information for the Tibetan Government in Exile
http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1703909&ml=fu%3d1623166%26fx%3d&
or another voice from a Tibetan documentary filmmaker might also present you with a Tibetan view of China from a Tibetan perspective that seems to be absent from your research credits
http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1531496&ml=fu%3d1623166%26fx%3d&

As an refugee population in India, and by indian standards the Tibetans have risen from what was basically living in boxes when they came out of india beginning in 1959 to a series of strong communities within india.

As refugees, they are reaching their achievements, (most) without of the benefits of citizenship.
http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1507135&ml=fu%3d1623166%26fx%3d&

I think that while you present a researched position, the research is incomplete without adding a respectable amount of time with the Tibetan community in exile.

Visually and Respectfully Yours, The Tibetan Photo Project
_________________
Please visit The Tibetan Photo Project at http://www.tibetanphotoproject.com

M.A.Jones · Joined: 06 Jan 2007 Posts: 72 Location: Hangzhou, China

Tibetan Photo Project - thank you for your thoughtful response to my arguments above. Your point that my research is incomplete without taking into account more the claims of the Tibetans in exile and their numbers, is a valid one, and so I shall address this a little later in the day, when I have a little more time on my hands.

As far as the figure of 1.2 million killed goes, I am more convinced by those who dismiss this figure as implausible and as greatly exaggerated, and for all the very reasons that Michael Parenti does, as already outlined in my piece above.

Warren W. Smith, in his book Tibetan Nation: A History of Tibetan Nationalism and Sino-Tibetan Relations, also dismisses the 1.2 million killed figure. Smith is clearly sympathetic to the Tibetan cause, yet he dismisses this figure as a gross exaggeration after carefully analyising the dubious and very often-repeated figure of 1.2 million lost due to Chinese mis-rule. He also dismisses the Tibetans in exile claim that Chinese documents acknowledge 87,000 deaths during the 1959-62 rebellion.

The recent shooting of the nun is of course horrifying and inexcusable, and a clear sign that serious human rights abuses continue to occur in Tibet. My position, however, is one that is based on the bigger picture, and when we examine the existing available empirically verifiable evidence, it is clear that Chinese rule has also brought about many overall improvements to the lives of the ethnic Tibetan population - at least on a macro-economic level, and I think it is reasonable to expect that such improvements will continue to develop with the march of time.

You say that "between 1000 and 3000 Tibetans attempt to go into exile each year" and that given that I refute the larger number of Tibetans killed or that they even existed, that this then "becomes a more significant number against [my] smaller assessment." I'm sorry, but I don't really understand your point here, given that significant numbers of Tibetan "refugees" actually return to Tibet each year - which, incidentally, has been the case for decades.

Warmest regards,

M.A.Jones
Hangzhou

cctang · Joined: 12 Jan 2007 Posts: 1

M.A.Jones · Joined: 06 Jan 2007 Posts: 72 Location: Hangzhou, China

Yes cctang, I agree entirely. That's why, in fact, the overwhelming majority of Tibetans who enter India as so-called "refugees" are young. For example, according to figures cited in the Tibet Bulletin of May-June 2005, children under 13 made up 20.58% of the total number of Tibetan refugees who entered India between the months of January to August, 2004. Those aged between 14-25 made up 40.23% of the total - so 61.21% were aged 25 or under.

As noted by P. Klieger et.al, in a study titled "Tourism, Politics and Relocation in Tibet", published in the December 31, 1988 edition of Cultural Survival Quarterly, many exiles, even back then, returned frequently on temporary trips "without renouncing their status as refugees or as patriots." Among the motivations for returning to Tibet, which were based on interviews with many young Tibetans in south Asia and Nepal, "were (1) to reaffirm their identity as Tibetans by visiting their homeland and (2) to make money as individual entrepreneurs, tour guides, 'culture brokers' and tradespeople in the booming foreign tourist market....Being largely adept in English and the history of Tibet according to the Tibetan government-in-exile" made them "eminently qualified for these tasks. Returning refugees, indeed, became native agents who could successfully compete with the Chinese in the development of tourism in Tibet, serving as an alternative to the Chinese historical propaganda aimed at these foreign visitors. Working in the tourist trade in Tibet, then, became not only an economic activity but an act of patriotism as well."

Those older, poorer Tibetans who face few promising economic prospects in their homeland, are happy to agree to send their children to India for a free education on the promise that their children will return better equipped to make a living. The Indian journalist Mohammed Ahmedullah has interviewed many Tibetan refugees: "Some of the escaped Tibetans I spoke with," he reported, "gave me the impression that their escape had been financed by someone else - perhaps the government-in-exile. Otherwise, how could poor peasants who earn less than a dollar a day raise the $150-250 it costs to pay for their escape?" he wrote in an article for the March-April 2000 edition of the Atomic Scientists.

So, we can see now roughly how it all works. As Klieger notes, "approximately 100,000 Tibetan refugees in India and Nepal have received nearly three decades of financial support from the West to maintain their institutions and identity in exile. Refugees have tended to accommodate this outside support within a traditional patron-client relationship (mchod-yon) that historically defined not only the responsibility of the Buddhist laity to maintain and protect the monasteries, but the ideal relationship between the ecclesiastic Tibetan state and the outside world as well. At the highest level, this outside support also defined the relationship between Tibet and the Chinese Empire during much of the Mongol and Manchu periods."

So the West, as Klieger point outs, through the agency of foreign aid, "has become the new 'patron' of the Tibetan government-in-exile. Although donors probably did not intend for this modern humanitarian aid to fuel Tibetan nationalism, because it is coextensive with the traditional practice of patronage, exile institutions and individual refugees have largely interpreted it as such."

You can see where I'm leading to here. In her study titled "The Problem with ‘Rich Refugees’ Sponsorship, Capital, and the Informal Economy of Tibetan Refugees" (published in Modern Asian Studies, 2006), Audrey Prost, of the Department of Anthropology, University College London, points out that "the Tibetan refugees in India have found employment in a number of different economic sectors, among them agriculture, trade and tourism. Dharamsala’s population is mostly employed in public services (the government sector) and private business, and by Tibetan standards constitutes a rather elite segment within the refugee community. Although the Tibetan government’s census reports low unemployment in Dharamsala, many exile Tibetans are employed part-time or on salaries that barely enable them to meet the costs of daily life. Some surveys have even reported as much as 80% unemployment among Tibetan youths. Many of Dharamsala’s families are living on the threshold of poverty despite being reported as employed, and are dependent on external funds to provide education for their children. This under-reported poverty is implicated in the growth of informal economies of exchange and reciprocity, such as sponsorship (rogs ram).

"The majority of Tibetan exile families in Dharamsala," adds Prost, "receive some form of rogs ram for their children to see them through primary and secondary education, after which studies have to be financed either by the family, or again by foreign sponsors. Most newly arrived refugees I have spoken to argued that the term rogs ram is specific to exile and to the relationship which foreigners foster with Tibetan refugees either individually, or through a fundraising organ."

Prost's observations are supported by those of Klieger's, who writes: "Western tourists visiting such large refugee settlements as Dharamsala in northern India and Kathmandu in Nepal are often considered as potential 'bestowers of gifts,' in the traditional patron-client categorisation system. Deliberately maintaining refugee status in exile rather than assimilating into the host society is an ideal usually equated with patriotism in diaspora communities. Tibetan exiles have political incentives to retain legal refugee status in south Asia."

They quite clearly also have financial incentives to retain their legal refugee status. In order to maintain sympathy and financial support from Western patrons, the Tibetan Government in Exile needs to maintain a constant influx of arriving "refugees". Financing journeys is but one incentive used to entice poor Tibetans to make the journey to India. The promise of providing their children with an education is another, as it the promise to provide religious blessings from the Dalai Lama himself.

The Tibetan Goverment in Exile and their supporters rarely mention the fact that so many refugees return to find employment, or that various incentives are offered in order to entice or to facilitate such journeys. Instead, for obvious reasons, they choose to present to the world a rather different narrative.

I have no doubt that many of the Tibetan refugees now living in India are genuine, that there are indeed those who have experienced real persecution at the hands of Chinese authorities. Many, I know, have indeed suffered terribly under Chinese rule, and have had good reason to escape. The traumas that some Tibetan refugees have suffered under Chinese rule have been verified by psychological assessments, and are hardly deniable.

But this is simply not the case with the majority.

Finally, I should add to this too, the fact that the Tibetan Government in Exile is by no means the only party with a financial incentive in bringing over large numbers of refugees. As Ed Douglas reported in The Guardian of October 28, 2002, an entire industry of smugglers exist to guide groups across the Himalayas during the winter season, when border patrols are less active. "Palkyi, 16, claimed she had paid $700 (£370) to smugglers who guide groups over the Himalaya mountains," reported Douglas.

And the nun that was fairly recently shot dead by an over-zealous Chinese border patrol guard whilst making the trek to Nepal was a typical Tibetan "refugee", in that she was young and motivated by the prospect of an education. According to The Guardian, she was aged 17, and was "shot in the back by Chinese border guards as they tried to stop a group of 73 refugees crossing the Nangpa La, a 5,800 metre pass 15 miles west of Everest, to Nepal...The nun was Kelsang Namtso from Nagchu prefecture, the only daughter in a family of six. Like many Tibetans, she had no access to education and planned to study at the Dolma Ling nunnery in India." And like most of these young people, she was "sold" the dream of being able to gain a great education in India by profiteers. As Daniel Pepper, of The Christian Science Monitor reported in the October 25, 2006 edition, the nun in question, Kelsang Namtso, "managed to save nearly $1,400 for the arduous journey through the Himalayas. Half would go to the smugglers."

The cowardly murder of this young woman is of course inexcusable, and the person or persons responsible ought to be held accountable for their behaviour. Sadly, such occurances are thought to occur almost yearly, which is probably true. It's just that in this case, the word got out, along with video footage.

Still, this doesn't change the fact that the majority of Tibetans who make this journey do so for educational and spiritual reasons, not because they supposedly face systematic human rights abuses under Chinese governance. As further evidence in support of cctang's case, Daniel Pepper, of The Christian Science Monitor, also noted that "the estimated 2,500 to 4,000 Tibetans who try to reach India every year via Nepal, pay smugglers to bring them to India because obtaining the official travel permits and a passport can be too difficult. Most come seeking an audience with the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, who resides in Dharamsala, in northern India."

Pepper then backs up his statement with the following qualitative evidence:

"'Our aim only is to get the blessing of His Holiness the Dalai Lama,' says Ms. Wangmo, one of the nuns. 'We were planning to go back afterwards, but now it won't be possible after the trouble in the pass. If we go back to Tibet, the Chinese will definitely arrest us.' The nun killed was typical of the many Tibetan refugees who make the journey: she was poor, young, and religiously motivated. At least half of those making the journey from Tibet are children, sent by parents who want their children to grow up with a strong Tibetan identity and who often cannot afford school fees at home. Among the group of Tibetans that just arrived in India, the youngest was a 7-year-old girl, Deki Pantso, who came without her parents." [emphasis added is mine]

I rest my case.

M.A.Jones
Hangzhou

M.A.Jones · Joined: 06 Jan 2007 Posts: 72 Location: Hangzhou, China

One more thing that interests me, and that's how Western journalists continue to use the word "refugee" in their reports to describe Tibetans that they themselves know are really only religious pilgrims. The report by Daniel Pepper that I quoted from in my response above is a good case in point. He interviews the Tibetan travellers, and reports their stories on how their "only" reason to come to India was to be blessed by the Dalai Lama, or in other cases how the main motivation was to gain an education. And yet, rather than describing such people as religious pilgrims, he instead continues to describe them as "refugees".

It's also interesting to note that there are numerous politicians and academic researchers from India who don't believe that the yearly influx of Tibetans into India ought to be classified as "refugees". But the problem for the Indian and Nepalese governments, is that if they were to start denying these Tibetan pilgims entry into their borders as "refugees" then the plethora of Tibetans in Exile support groups throughout the Western world would voice enormously harsh criticisms of them - criticisms and charges that the Western media would then pick up on and report uncritically.

Some independent travellers to this region report what they actually see, and occasionally you come across one daring enough to call a spade a spade. Timothy Doye, for example, titled his travelogue to India as follows: A Pilgrimage to India: Three Tibetan monks travel overland to India on foot. In it he describes his encounters and conversations with three Tibetan "pilgrims".

"Dorje, Dhondrup and Sonam came from a small village in Kham, a Tibetan province" of China, he writes. "They say the villagers there live traditional lives. They grow barley, potatoes and peas and they keep yak, sheep and goats. They celebrate the festivals and even young kids still wear traditional clothes. Two Chinese live in the village and they are married to Tibetans."

I have travelled throughout the Kham region myself, back in 2002, and I was pleasantly surprised by just how "Tibetan" these communities have remained, although the Lama monastic village of Songzanlin, just outside of Zhongdian (in Yunnan Province) was undergoing extensive restoration while I was there, and I could see that the writing was on the wall - that, like most such places throughout the entire world, it was destined to exist in a commodified form.

Doyle then goes to write the following:

"Human rights activists blame the Chinese occupation of Tibet for the death of 1.2 million Tibetans. Activists also accuse Chinese authorities of responding to Tibetan political and cultural dissent with imprisonment, torture and the transfer of thousands of Chinese subjects into Tibet. The monks have heard of the Chinese atrocities but say they don’t know much about the situation. But they are firm in their opinion that the Dalai Lama should return to their country. 'It was good when the Dalai Lama lived in Tibet,' says Dorje. 'We think that if he came back it would be good for sentient beings and for the Tibetan people. He is a great Lama and he can guide us properly.'"

Interesting how these monks had only "heard of the Chinese atrocities" but were not very aware of them.

"Parents normally send children to monasteries around ten years of age but young adults commonly decide on their own to leave family life and join a monastery," continues Doyle. "During childhood each of the three monks attended school for three years and then quit to work with their families. After leaving school and going to work they separately contemplated joining the monastery. 'When we wanted to become monks,' says Sonam, 'we asked our families and they said it would be a good idea.'"

And what were the monk's motivations for wanting to come to India. Doyle explains:

"The three monks feel a monk’s life is easier than a householder’s life. 'Householders have to deal with worldly existence,' says Dorje. 'We don’t have to look after families. If you want to go to India you can go and not worry. The householder worries all day and he doesn’t have time to practice religion.' The three monks see the chance to become a monk and practice the Tibetan Buddhist path as a great opportunity to accumulate merit, clear obstacles and position themselves for a favourable next life, a life one step closer to Buddhahood and liberation from earthly existence.

In other words, economic and religious - a lifestyle choice, in essence.

And of course the smuggling industry was there to help encourage them to make their decision so that they could provide them with their profitable services.

"After a few weeks in Lhasa the three monks along with 40 other Tibetans packed themselves into the back of a truck. For a fee the passengers would be driven to a remote location on the Tibet-Nepal border and guided south through the main Himalayan range to Kathmandu where they would be received by the reception committee for Tibetan refugees and given passage to India."

All very organised, from the nepalese and Indian end as well.

And these particular three monks saw themselves NOT as refugees, but as pilgims. By the time they reached Nepal, they had exhausted their food supplies and were hungry, so they approached some locals for help. As Doyle writes:

"The monks explained that they were on pilgrimage to India and that they needed food."

Many members of the Nepalese police regard the pilgrims as sources of wealth, as easy targets to rob from. "At one point seven Nepali police arrested the three monks. They ordered the monks to strip. The monks didn’t know any Nepali. They said 'Dalai Lama', 'Dalai Lama,' to indicate that they were pilgrims. The police took their money, a silver bracelet, a watch and a sheepskin jacket. The monks asked for some of the money. The police gave them Rs. 250. The monks asked for more and the police beat them, threw them outside the check post and tossed their bag to them, saying, Dalai Lama go—Go and see the Dalai Lama.'"

"Officials at the Tibetan refugee reception center in Kathmandu asked the monks why they had left Tibet. The monks said that they had come to see the Dalai Lama and the Buddhist holy places of Nepal and India. The reception officials asked them if Chinese rule affected their decision to leave Tibet. Not really, they said. But if the Dalai Lama still lived in Tibet they doubt they would have tried to visit Nepal and India. When they had completed their pilgrimage they intended to return to Tibet."

So once again, yet more evidence, this time of a qualitative nature, to support cctang's case, which is obviously the one that I maintain as well. The overwhelming majority of those Tibetans who venture across the Himalayas each year to India are NOT refugess, but are pilgrims, and most of them do so with the intention of returning.

But the Tibetans in Exile of course prefer to give the rest of the world the impression that these pilgrims are refugees escaping torture and abuse, and that's because the Tibetans in Exile government has both political and financial incentives to do so - as I discussed in my earlier response above.

M.A.Jones
Hangzhou

sarahravensworth · Joined: 13 Jan 2007 Posts: 16

M.A.Jones, don't expect Western journalists to let the truth get in the way of a good story. They know that in order to sell their newspapers and to maximize their ratings, they have to continue using all the old Cold War rhetoric when describing places like China, and when referring to the Tibet Question.

Why? Simple: tell people what they already know to be the "truth" and they'll love you for it, and will lap it all up with infectious enthusiasm. Tell them something new, and they'll hate you for it. But that's human nature for you.

M.A.Jones · Joined: 06 Jan 2007 Posts: 72 Location: Hangzhou, China

Thanks for your comments Sarah Ravensworth.

You congratulate me for speaking out about the financial and political motivations of the Tibetans in Exile Government, but in fact, many people are now starting to speak out.

Tibetan specialist A. Tom Grunfeld is one of them. He is SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor at Empire State College, of the State University of New York, and specialises in the teaching of modern East Asian history with an emphasis on China and Tibet. He has been travelling and living in that region since 1966, and has published several books and over 150 articles and book reviews, including the well received The Making of Modern Tibet. If there is anybody who is an "expert" on Tibet, he is.

Grunfeld has pointed out that the "exiled Dalai Lama's money and power only continues as long as there are many stateless refugees. Consequently, it [has been] to the benefit of the exile leadership to keep the masses of Tibetans in children's homes, transit camps and temporary facilities for decades. For the same reasons, the Dalai Lama's 'government' opposes mixed marriages between Tibetan exiles and Indians and opposes masses of exiled Tibetans applying for citizenship in India - even though this legal status would make their lives much easier. Meanwhile it is common for the wealthy Tibetan upper class to apply for non-Tibetan status - including two of the Dalai Lama's brothers who are U.S. citizens."

Grunfeld also has a great deal to say about the hypocrisy of the Dalai Lama and his theocratic side-kicks. For example, Tibetans in exile and their supporters are constantly harping on about how Tibet's schools teach in the Chinese language rather than in the Tibetan language, and accuse the Chinese of cultural genocide for doing so.

Yet the lamaists adopted English as the main language of instruction in their exile school system in Dharmasala. The Dalai Lama himself justified this practice in his 1990 autobiography on the grounds that English is "the international language of the future." Fine. Schools in the Tibetan Autonomous Region also teach English, just as they also teach Tibetan as a language, though most subjects are taught in Chinese. And there is a very good reason why most subjects in Tibet are taught in the Chinese language too, I might add: there are precious few books and teachers available to teach many advanced political and scientific subjects in the Tibetan language. Simple as that.

Is the Tibetans in Exile Government also guilty of cultural genocide then, for teaching everything in the English language?

And as A.Tom Grunfeld also notes, there is plenty more hypocrisy: "the Tibetan upper class exiles make a fetish about 'Tibet's traditional culture' yet in reality many have contemptuously shed this traditional culture, sending their children to expensive English boarding schools. The Dalai Lama's authorised biographer, Roger Hicks, describes how, by the late 1960s and early 1970s, the younger generation of this elite had become largely Westernised."

And finally, as Grunfeld so rightly also points out, and as I too have been arguing all along on this thread, "China, including the Tibetan Autonomous Region, has undergone dramatic changes. Tibet has roads, schools, hospitals, a burgeoning middle class, internet cafes, karaoke bars, discos, and some 100,000 tourists annually. Religion is widely practiced. There are thousands of Tibetan officials, CCP members, and military recruits in Tibet. Indeed, many of the most ardently anti-Dalai Lama officials are Tibetan."

M.A.Jones
Hangzhou

Ambivalent · Joined: 13 Jan 2007 Posts: 17

M.A.Jones you have produced a convincing argument. I have always been ambivalent towards the Tibetan cause because like all separatist movements, they push a chauvanistically nationalist agenda, in the same way that the Irish Republicans do, and all other such groups throughout the word. And power always corrupts. The old Tibetan elite, as you have shown, are just continuing to run their traditional caste/class system in India.

Tibet Response Network · Joined: 10 Jan 2007 Posts: 28 Location: United Kingdom

I'm not one to see "reds under the bed" but Mr. Jones has a great deal of time on his hands to write long, complex pieces on Tibet and China. I don't even have time to read them all, let alone write pieces of that length and complexity. Is school out at the moment?

Anyway, taking at face value your "bio" of Aussie English teacher in China five years - you may know a great deal about China and Chinese history but you're less well informed on the Tibetan government in exile and His Holiness.

HH is a devout Buddhist who (unlike some Tibetan monks it is true) lives according to his vows. When not travelling he lives a simple life and works hard to accomplish his two main goals - the preservation and propagation of the Buddhist Dharma and the preservation of Tibetan culture.

Tibetans in India are taught English as a second language to Tibetan - they need this lingua fanca to be able to communicate and get by in their country of adoption. In China they are taught Chinese becaue it is the language of their illegal occupiers and most of the teachers don't speak Tibetan.

It is true that a number of Tibetans come to India as pilgrims. Others come for education, hoping to return to Tibet. It is equally true that many come as political refugees and are recognised as such by both the UN and the Indian government.

On the question of the exile government having financial and political motives..... show me any government that does not.

Bottom line. China invaded Tibet under force of arms. China denies Tibetans basic freedoms and rights and imprisons, tortures and executes Tibetans without benefit of open trial. When China holds an open , free referendum of all Tibetans on whether they want "two systems, one country" government, Tibetan government or Chinese government I'll start listening attentively to the Chinese apologists. Until then I'll continue to regard them as just that; apologists for an anachronistic, hypocritical dictatorship.

David Meanwell
_________________
Tibet Urgent Response Network - working with Tibetans for Tibet

ChineseHawkeye · Joined: 12 Jan 2007 Posts: 35

Tibet Response Network

I feel astonished you did not realized who those exiles and lama were? Why do you insist slavery return to Tibet? I have no clue where you got the information that "China invaded Tibet under force of arms. China denies Tibetans basic freedoms and rights and imprisons, tortures and executes Tibetans without benefit of open trial".

Do not repeat those silly propaganda from liars. Please go to Tibet province in China yourself and see with your own eyes. I promise CCP would not follow you as long as you do not shout "free tibet" on street there, lol.

M.A.Jones · Joined: 06 Jan 2007 Posts: 72 Location: Hangzhou, China

Dear David Meanwell,

You say that the Dalai Lama lives a “simple” life when not travelling. Perhaps, but he still lives a very privileged life when in Dharmasala by comparison with his fellows in exile. And he certainly does know how to live it up while on the road. Every time the Dalai Lama visitis his movie star friends in Los Angeles for example, he stays in the Presidential Suite at the Huntington Ritz-Carlton Hotel, which normally rents for $3000 a day!

I like to base my assessments on empirically verifiable facts David, and in order to come to a fair and balanced assessment, it is always necessary to examine the big picture, which requires access and attention to quantitative as well as qualitative evidence.

If you were to take a closer look at the real situation for incarnate lamas (or tulkas), both inside and outside of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, then you would appreciate the fact that they do not live “simple” lives compared to most, but rather, lives of privilege and comparative material wealth. This applies to tulkas living in the TAR as well as to those like the Dalai Lama in Dharmasala.

Allow me to be lazy (I do in fact have limited time, as it is the last week of the term before my students begin preparations for their final assessments) by quoting at length for you the findings of a study by Pamela Logan titled “Tulkas in Tibet”, published in the Winter 2004 edition of Harvard Asia Quarterly:

“The transformation of Old Tibet into an integral part of China has meant big changes for tulkus. Yet paradoxically, it has led to greater, not less, power for some. The Karma Kagyu sect, for example, has played second fiddle to the Geluk Sect since the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama. In Old Tibet, the Karma Kagyu held perhaps five hundred monasteries, which maintained loose ties to one another. Economically, these monasteries derived their sustenance from offerings given by local people. These ordinary supporters were subsistence farmers and herdsmen, who tithed grain, meat, butter, animals, and land. A portion of their offerings would have been distributed to the tulkus according to their rank. The highest ranked tulku in the sect is the Karmapa, and he would have had some degree of influence over much of these assets, in addition to his own labrang, or estate. It was a comfortable existence, but it had limitations, too.

....Contrast this to the modern situation. While within Tibet itself, the Karma Kagyu are still a distant second place, the school has been remarkably successful in propagating overseas. The Karmapa's followers are said to number five million globally, and some have claimed his assets to be worth over $1.2 billion. This staggering sum is disputed by many, and I have been unable to discover how it was calculated. Nevertheless, the aggregate wealth of the centres owned by various charities and used for Karma Kagyu worship around the world is astonishing. They operate meditation centres in 34 countries on six continents, including dozens in America, Europe, and Asia. Most of these are simply associations, but some are actual properties, a number of them located on prime real estate in the cities of London, Hamburg, Dublin, Barcelona, Essex, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Hong Kong. They also operate dozens of centres in India.”

So Tibetan incanate lamas, living in the TAR, are doing very well under Chinese rule, it would seem!

“Even lesser tulkus enjoy deep devotion from ordinary Tibetans. Pewar Rinpoche is a minor Sakya sect tulku who keeps a modest labrang in Derge, a small town in eastern Tibet. He spends a good deal of time travelling, but when word reaches Derge that he is coming home, people line the streets, as many as 24 hours in advance. When he is in residence, a constant stream of callers come seeking blessings or advice. They bow low as they enter the room, tears in their eyes, and approach Pewar Rinpoche in the manner of supplicants approaching a king. Each caller, no matter how poor, contributes a tattered bill to the pile on the table beside Pewar Rinpoche's great throne-like chair. Although his house – like most in the town – still lacks a flush toilet, he is not short of cash, food, or gifts.”

Yep, and the theocratic elite living outside of the TAR, in Dharmasala also receive plenty of such gifts.

Over the last 25 years, a portion of China’s new wealth has “trickled up the narrow, winding dirt roads to the Tibetan plateau” and the standard of living for Tibetans has consequently been improving, as I have already argued. “As the climate of fear lifted,” says Logan, “families again began tithing alms and sons. Despite serious political instability in Lhasa, tulkus in most parts of Tibet found that the resources at their disposal were slowly increasing. Punctuating this slow rise were occasional uprisings against Chinese rule at some rebellious monasteries. The resulting crackdowns led to imprisonment for the ringleaders, who sometimes included tulkus, and restraints on movement. But the majority of tulkus kept their heads low, and managed to avoid these problems. By the mid-1990s, many had attained a fairly comfortable Tibetan lifestyle and restored the most important temples in their monasteries. Their wealth continued to increase, and so, like many others belonging to the rising middle class, they discovered a new use for disposable income: travel.”

Yes, today’s Tibetan incarnate lamas are doing very well. Pamela Logan again:

“In 2000 I visited a Buddhist monastery located on the remote grasslands of eastern Tibet. There was not a tree within three hours' drive, and the land supported only a sparse scattering of herdsmen. Nevertheless, the monastery was thronging with people. Hundreds of workers were in the final stages of constructing a grand new temple. The monks were busily preparing for a great dedication ceremony that would soon take place. Workers were also constructing a hospital, a primary school for local children, and a hotel to house the many hundreds of expected guests. To finance these projects, seven million yuan (almost US$900,000) had been raised by a local tulku from his followers. The donors were not in Tibet, nor were they from overseas. They were in the eastern Chinese regions of Shanghai, Guangzhou, Zhejiang, and Fujian. Many tulkus have discovered that Chinese cities are not only good places to spend the winter, shop, and eat well; they are also good places to collect new students and raise funds. I know a number of tulkus who have established second homes in Chengdu, the largest metropolis in the vicinity of the Tibetan plateau. From there they travel to other Chinese cities. More than a few of them have obtained Chinese passports and travel abroad to places such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan. Although many of them do not speak Mandarin well, they seem to fascinate their Chinese followers.”

So much for all of the hyperbolic claims of the Tibetan Government in Exile and its supporters. The Tibetan Government in Exile know damn well how good their counterparts in the TAR are doing under Chinese rule too, which is why even the Dalai Lama himself now concedes that Tibet is better off under Chinese rule. “To remain with the People's Republic of China is in our interest,” he said, adding that China was an economically powerful Asian nation. (Reported by the PTI news agency in December 2006, and picked up and reported by many mainstream newspapers throughout the world).

Tibetans in Exile support groups claim that Tibetans in the TAR are prevented from free religious practice. This is simply not the case either, as many observers to Tibet today will testify to. Pamela Logan again:

“A tulku's most basic responsibility is to his sangha, his religious community. In modern Tibet, Buddhist practice is monitored by the Religious Affairs Bureau, a branch of the Chinese government; therefore, tulkus must tread a careful path through a maze of conflicting demands. If they serve as abbots, they are supposed to participate in periodic 'patriotic re-education' campaigns, and to uphold various rules concerning things like the number of monks at their monastery. Because of their influence, they may be asked to speak out in favour of government campaigns. However, most tulkus I know do not seem much impeded by government-imposed duties. They spend much more time on their traditional responsibilities. Every monastery has a calendar of religious activities in which the local tulkus are expected to take part, and a senior tulku will probably lead. Monks gather in their monastery's main assembly hall, where they sit for hours chanting in unison from printed scriptures, usually to the accompaniment of ritual instruments such as drums, horns, and bells. At times, the chanting is punctuated by other rites such as the giving of an offering, the destruction of an effigy, or the distribution of sanctified gifts such as water, protection yarn, or medicine. A great deal of detailed knowledge is required to understand these rituals and to keep to the complicated script.”

Barry Sautman's research on the present situation of religious practice in Tibet let him to the exact same conclusions.

As for the Dalai Lama himself, he seems to spend more time moving around the planet with the skilled opportunism of a political chameleon, preaching mysticism to Western New Agers rather than participating in traditional Tibetan religious rituals. Let us not forget that he lent his support to the conservative religious forces of the West by signing the "Seamless Garment" anti-abortion statement, he supports nuclear testing, and he even lent his support to Pinochet. Do you remember that David? Think back to April 1999, when His Holiness, along with Margaret Thatcher and the first George Bush, called upon the British government to release Augusto Pinochet, the former fascist dictator of Chile and a longtime CIA client who had been apprehended while visiting England. The Dalai Lama urged that Pinochet not be forced to go to Spain where he was wanted to stand trial for crimes against humanity, though he was careful to add to his call that we, the world, should "not forget about what happened." Well, why should it surprise anybody that His Holiness the Dalai Lama should come out and ask to world not to force the ageing Pinochet to stand trial - since he and his government in exile are also funded by the CIA? Yes David, His Holiness certainly does live by his vows, which I suspect probably read something like this: thou shall not be disloyal to one's own benefactors, regardless of what they ask me to do or to say!

And the Tibetan Government in Exile, as Pamela Logan and countless others have observed, “is virtually run by tulkus, just as it was in Old Tibet. The Dalai Lama is at the top. Samdhong Rinpoche heads the Kashag (a body comparable to the Cabinet), and once chaired the Assembly. The Dalai Lama's special envoy to Washington is Lodi Gyari Rinpoche, another tulku. And the list goes on.”

And the tulkus of Dharamasala are quite prepared to purge their political rivals too. As the British journalist Christopher Hitchens reported back in 1998, “supporters of the Dorge Shugden deity - a ‘Dharma protector’ and an ancient object of worship and propitiation in Tibet - have been threatened with violence and ostracism and even death following the Dalai Lama's abrupt prohibition of this once-venerated godhead. A Swiss television documentary graphically intercuts footage of His Holiness, denying all knowledge of menace and intimidation, with scenes of his followers' enthusiastically promulgating ‘Wanted’ posters and other paraphernalia of excommunication and persecution.”

You say David, that while many of the theocratic elite in Dhamarsala do not live according to their vows, the Dalai Lama does. This may or may not partially be the case, but so what? The world doesn't revolve around His Holiness, does t? The fate of the world's entire Tibetan population does not hang on his shoulders, despite what some might like to think. In fact, he is becoming increasingly insignificant. Tibetans in the TAR are moving on, and many of the more educated, as Pamela Logan and so many others have noted, are becoming increasingly cynical about lamaism, as their understanding of the world becomes increasingly more complex. Many of them enjoy frequenting kareoke bars more than they enjoy attending religious festivals and fundraising events. Even the Tibetan youth in India are becoming increasingly Westernised and detached from lamaism, as the recent controversy over the staging of the Miss Tibet pageant, held in India, goes to show. The Aisa Times reported how the Tibetan government-in-exile is opposed to the competition, calling it "un-Tibetan and untraditional". The government even set up billboards at high-visibility locations throughout Dharamsala expressing opposition to the beauty contest and urging all Tibetans to boycott the pageant.

Let me repeat here that I have never denied the fact that human rights abuses occur in Tibet, or that some of the refugees who flee into India are not genuine refugees deserving of refugee status. My argument is that these days, the overwhelming majority of those who make the journey into India from Tibet are not refugees, but are religious pilgrims, and that they should not therefore be given refugee status, which is partly why so many politicians and academics in both India and Nepal are now arguing for consequent changes in policy.

David, you point out that "On the question of the exile government having financial and political motives..... show me any government that does not."

True, all governments formulate policies that are based on both political and financial considerations, but this doesn't excuse the Tibetan Government in Exile from deliberately misleading the world on the real reasons why so many of these thousands of "refugees" from Tibet visit Dharmasala each year, does it?

I am not an apologist for the Chinese government, but I am not an apologist for the Tibetan Government in Exile either. I strive for fairness and balance when formulating my own assessments, which is why if you read my posts more carefully you will see that my comments on China's governance of Tibet are made not without criticisms.

Finally, let me conclude here by saying that I agree with those like A.Tom Grunfeld for example, who argue that although it is important to condemn human rights abuses, we "must also acknowledge the significant gains in personal freedoms for the vast majority of China's citizens," and that we must "support the moderate elements in the Chinese government by portraying Tibet in a more realistic fashion," by engaging more with Tibetan officials from the TAR "and by not pandering to the Tibet Lobby."

Why?

Because as Grunfeld argues, the success of the international campaign for Tibet "has led to a proportional deterioration in cultural conditions for the people of the TAR, since Tibet’s high profile has bolstered the authority of the Chinese hardliners." Moreover, publicity from outside Tibet encourages hardline separatists to continue their struggles against Chinese rule, which, from the point of view of Chinese hardliners, increases the threat of instability, and therefore the need to make further crackdowns."

Pamela Logan appears to agree with this assessment too, and hopes that any future 15th Dalai Lama will prove to be "less divisive".

London and Californian based Tibet lobby groups might "Meanwell", but they are misinformed, prone to exaggeration, over-emotional, and more likely to harm the plight of the Tibetan people than to improve it.

M.A.Jones
Hangzhou

sarahravensworth · Joined: 13 Jan 2007 Posts: 16

M.A.Jones, bravo! You have just hammered the last nail into Mr.Meanwell's coffin (metaphorically speaking, of course!)

Your point about how the Dalai Lama is becoming increasingly politically insignificant is spot on too.

The last three paragraphs that you wrote in your last comment read like breaths of fresh air, and Mr.Meanwell's resorting to tactics similar to Tony Martin's, in implying that you must have some kind of hidden agenda in writing these well researched comments of yours is a sure indication that he is unable to counter your arguments with anything of real substance or meaning.

I look forward to reading more of your comments on this forum.

Ambivalent · Joined: 13 Jan 2007 Posts: 17

I second everything that sarahravensworth just said above. Bravo M.A.Jones!

Socratease · Joined: 14 Jan 2007 Posts: 1 Location: James Island, SC US

M.A.Jones, I want to thank you for your perspective and insight into this emotional issue. I would only suggest that you not stoop to the level of those who are unable to engage in thoughtful discourse by making similar snide remarks.

Good work and good luck.

M.A.Jones · Joined: 06 Jan 2007 Posts: 72 Location: Hangzhou, China

Socratease (I love the name) - thank you for your cautionary advice. I will try my best not to disappoint you, though I think a little light sarcasm is quite acceptable at times, as a way of helping to expose apparent condradictions and hypocrasies.

Speaking of which, I forgot to raise the issue of His Holiness's attitude towards the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, and on the invasion of Afghanistan.

In September 2003, the Dalai Lama said that the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan may have been justified to win a larger peace, but that it was too soon to judge whether the Iraq war was warranted. "I think history will tell," he said in an interview with The Associated Press, just after he met with President Bush.

"In principle, I always believe nonviolence is the right thing, and nonviolent method is in the long run more effective," he said, but some wars, including the Korean War and World War II, helped "protect the rest of civilization, democracy." He said he saw a similar result in Afghanistan - "perhaps some kind of liberation."

For somebody who claims to be "half-Marxist and half-Buddhist" and who preaches non-violence, don't you think it's very odd and inherently contradictory for the Dalai Lama to be preaching what is essentially a fundamentally immoral Randian "the means are justified by the ends" approach? Try telling that to the majority of people in Iraq!

A year later, in November 2004, he visited Stanford University where he addressed (for a price of course - tickets didn't come cheaply) a large audience on the subject, which the Stanford Review reported on as follows:

"On the subject of the Iraq war, the Dalai Lama presented a relatively consequentialist view. 'It is still too early to say whether it is right or wrong. I think another few years, then we’ll see, then history will show whether this war was really justified, because it brought a good result. So, up until now, I think difficult to say. At least the motivation, to bring democracy, freedom, and that goal is right, a right goal.'"

The American historian Howard Zinn had this to say in response: "I've always admired the Dalai Lama for his advocacy of nonviolence and his support of the rights of Tibet against Chinese domination, but I must say I was disappointed to read his comment on the war in Iraq [i.e., 'Wait a few years'], because this is such an obvious, clear-cut moral issue in which massive violence has been used against Iraqis with many thousands of dead."

Adrian Zupp, writing for Thinking Peace, expressed confusion: "So, given his intelligence and enormous sense of compassion, why doesn't the Dalai Lama question the leader of the free world about the downside of globalisation? About 'Star Wars II' and the Bush administration's flagrant disregard of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty? About the unlawful attack on Iraq? Civilian body counts? Why doesn't he even pose such questions rhetorically in the media?"

I agree with Norman Solomon, who rightly points out that by not speaking out against such murderous imperialism amounts to taking a political position. Solomon writes: "Let the great spiritual teachers basking in acclaim today learn how to emulate Martin Luther King Jr., who in 1967 explicitly condemned 'racism,' 'militarism,' and 'economic exploitation' while also having the moral fortitude to denounce the Vietnam War."

Yes, well, His Holiness's wishy-washy stand on such human rights issues doesn't surprise me at all. In fact, it's exactly what I have come to expect from him. The fact that His Holiness prefers to be vague on such issues is because he doesn't want to offend his main financial and political benefactor - the U.S. State Department. It's the same reason why he supports anti-abortion legislation, India's nuclear testing, and why he tried to help convince the world that there was no need to put Chile's Pinochet on trial - all of his positions reflect those of the U.S. State Department. Simple as that.

Yes, he's a real progressive character, this Dalai Lama, and really deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize too, isn't he?

And the whole reason why he is so popular is because he preaches safe vacuous messages - all of his messages are vague and politically safe. As Adrian Zupp points out, "his various books sell very well: The Art of Happiness, a collection of conversations with author Howard C. Cutler, sold more than 1.2 million copies and was on the New York Times bestseller list for nearly two years. People are prepared to pay considerable money to see him in person too. Tickets for his talk at the FleetCenter, titled “The Global Community and the Need for Universal Responsibility,” ranged up to $100, and in New York City, his final stop, tickets for his teaching sessions were priced at $400 each ($1200 and $3000 for VIPs and big donors) and all sold out well in advance."

And just exactly what do people get to hear for their money? Hollow and vague New Age advice on the "importance of compassion", about “reducing destructive emotions,” about "tolerance", about “internal disarmament,” about restraint, and about the role of intelligence in facilitating these things. What I find incomprehensible is why people would part with so much money to hear someone lecture on such needs. One must be tolerant and learn how to disarm your own internal anger - O.K., fine. Who could disagree with that? And who needs to be given such advice anyway?

M.A.Jones
Hangzhou

sarahravensworth · Joined: 13 Jan 2007 Posts: 16

hehehe.... spot on again M.A.Jones!

As a celebrity, the Dalia Lama not only sells bums on seats at auditoriums - also he has value as an advertizer, so he is often used as a commodity to market other people's books as well by writing introductory forewords, as well as advertizing all kinds of other products like Apple Computers, etc.

I reckon the secret to his business success lies in the application to his philosophical/religious messages of the McDonald's principle.

You see, by making their food as bland as possible, McDonald's is able to maximize the size of its market. Starbuck's does the same. By selling lattes that taste like hot milk, with only a subtle hint of coffee flavor, Starbuck's is able to offend the tastes of no one - well, no one apart from those who actually like real aromatic and flavorsome coffee, that is. But such people are in the minority. It's smart business sense, because the majority of people have bland tastes.

The Dalai Lama applies this same principle to the messages he sells. The more meaningless his messages are, the safer they are. And that's because most people don't like to think. I'm sure there must be a cognitive link between a person's ability to experience and appreciate taste, and a person's ability to be able to think independently and critically.

I like to think of the Dalai Lama as the Ronald McDonald of the philosophy world.

Ambivalent · Joined: 13 Jan 2007 Posts: 17

M.A.Jones writes: "As for the Dalai Lama himself, he seems to spend more time moving around the planet with the skilled opportunism of a political chameleon, preaching mysticism to Western New Agers rather than participating in traditional Tibetan religious rituals."

So we have here a REAL Karma Chameleon!!!!! Anybody remember Boy George and Culture Club?

The lyrics to that song sure do appear to be written about His Holiness:

If I listen to your lies would you say
I'm a man without conviction
I'm a man who doesnt know
How to sell a contradiction
You come and go
You come and go

Karma karma karma karma karma chameleon
You come and go
You come and go

M.A.Jones · Joined: 06 Jan 2007 Posts: 72 Location: Hangzhou, China

Sarah and Ambivalent - thank you for your comments.

Sarah, I agree that the Dalai Lama is seen as a hot commodity in the marketing world, and that if he were to begin criticising U.S. policy in places like Iraq, that his market value as an advertiser would nose-dive and his popularity suffer. By being non-commital and vague, he avoids upsetting both sides of the political spectrum.

It wasn't my intention to turn this thread into a discussion about the Dalai Lama, and to be fair on the man, he does bring to the world a general message of peace. All I'm arguing really, is that he is not quite the person that he is so often cracked up to be - he certainly doesn't have the political and moral integrity of another Martin Luther King. He's no Ghandi either, and I can certainly think of plenty of other people who I would consider to be far more deserving of an international peace prize than His Holiness.

I think there is indeed ample evidence to show that he is a political chameleon, that he is poitically and financially self-serving, but I don't want to over-state my case by arguing that he's the "Ronald McDonald of the philosophy world" or that he is somehow especially bad or evil or stupid. He has on occasions, both in his writings and when giving press conferences, been able to demonstrate quite a reasonable understanding of the interconnectedness of cosmology, neurology, psychology and physics, yet I also recognise so many ideological inconsistences in his world view - he often puts his foot in it when discussing his thoughts about sexuality and the morality of sexual mores for example, expressing at times contradictory attitdues. He may be a paradox of a man, but he is only human, afterall.

And Ambivalent, I'm not ashamed or embarrassed to say that I once paid good money to see Culture Club perform live in concert, in Sydney it was, back in 1985 if I remember correctly, when I was aged 15. I'm not sure whether it's fair to describe His Holiness as a "karma" chameleon though, but he sure is a political one.

All the best,

M.A.Jones
Hangzhou

Tibet Response Network · Joined: 10 Jan 2007 Posts: 28 Location: United Kingdom

Just to say that I will be responding to MA Jones' reply to my posting but I'm in the midst of a very busy day and want to spend some time to try and give a considered and thought-out response. I think the high quality of his post requires that.

I just wanted to say that the reference to reds under beds and Mr. Jones' available time was intended to be ironic. Aussies and Brits, in my experience, understand irony well but it can fall flat with some others. Sorry if that was the case here.

Finally; nope no final nail in my coffin. Might opt for a sky-burial anyway!

David Meanwell
_________________
Tibet Urgent Response Network - working with Tibetans for Tibet

M.A.Jones · Joined: 06 Jan 2007 Posts: 72 Location: Hangzhou, China

David - I look forward to reading your response, but please take your time, as I too will be snowed under with work for the remainder of the day - probably for the next few days in fact.

Your "reds under the bed" remark I took in good humour, by the way - I wasn't in the slightest bit offended by it. If you read my piece On the nature of Chinese governance and society, you will see that I am in fact a Marxian thinker, of the Frankfurt School variety. This in itself hardly motivates me to defend the CCP though, since I regard China's system of governance not as a communist or socialist one, but rather, I see it as an example of a market-preserving federalism that is paternalistically authoritarian (in keeping with the classic Confusican traditon). I do argue though, that China's new capitalism, for all of its undeniable faults, is a historically progressive one.

I agree that Aussies and Brits share a similar sense of humour - I lived and taught in London for two years myself, back in 1994 and 1995, and I very much felt at home there.

Finally, I should like to say that I too would be more than happy to be given a Sky Burial, though you should keep in mind here David that Sky Burials are usued only for the disposing of the corposes of commoners. Stupa burial and cremation are reserved for high lamas like His Holiness who are being honoured in death.

Personally though, I can't think of a more environmentally-friendly form of burial, than a Tibetan Sky Burial.

Best regards,

M.A.Jones
Hangzhou

Tibet Response Network · Joined: 10 Jan 2007 Posts: 28 Location: United Kingdom

Dear Mark,

Thanks for your reply - still gathering information for mine. I am a little disconcerted to hear that you taught in London in 94/95 as based on your Culture Club experience you can only have been 14/15 at the time? (And I now realise that the age quoted of 15 in 1995 would make you just 11 when you began work with your current employer of over fifteen years.) Care to clarify - perhaps you meant 25?

I would also mention allegations, of which I am sure you are aware, made against you in the past in other fora that you make posts in other names congratulating yourself for your contributions. Call me a cynic but I feel some of the other postings here do read like that.

There have also been allegations of plagarism which would at least in part explain your prolific output.

We at Tibet Response like to know who we are debating with, although in this cyber-world this is often hard to ascertain. It seems you are an Australian from Sydney, probably working as an educator in Beijing these last four years or so and a self-confessed "China-lover". Care to add any more detail?

Dixon Green - who may or may not be David Meanwell or vice versa.
_________________
Tibet Urgent Response Network - working with Tibetans for Tibet
_________________
Tibet Urgent Response Network - working with Tibetans for Tibet