Banyan

Asia

Looking back on Tibet

Through the eyes of witnesses

Jul 28th 2010, 11:37 by J.M. | BEIJING

YOUR correspondent was on leave on July 22nd, when Human Rights Watch released its report on the abuses that Chinese security forces are alleged to have committed in Tibet since the massive eruption of anti-Chinese unrest there in 2008. The 73-page document describes itself as the first comprehensive examination of the ongoing crackdown. Based largely on interviews with 200-odd Tibetans who left the region as refugees or on visits, it is a valuable contribution to an under-reported story. 

China is adept at ensuring that little news of such repression gets out. In the far western province of Xinjiang, where the authorities have been cracking down since an outbreak of ethnic violence in July last year, the tactic has been to sever communications links with the outside world by mobile telephone or the internet (though restrictions have been relaxed since May). On the Tibetan plateau, the authorities in some places confiscated mobile phones and computers from monks and made it all the more difficult for foreign journalists—who are rarely welcome at the best of times—to visit. By chance I was the only foreign reporter on the spot when rioting erupted in Lhasa on March 14th 2008. I was not allowed back again until nearly two years later and then only for a frustratingly brief tour.

Human Rights Watch documents killings, torture, show trials, beatings and arrests galore. Much to its credit, it does not attempt to weave in reports that come via long-term Tibetan exiles, many of which are difficult to verify. The Tibetan government-in-exile has reported more than 200 Tibetans killed by the security forces since March 2008, including at least 80 who died on March 14th that year. In support of this figure it has cited the alleged spotting of some 80 bodies piled near a Lhasa police station on the following day. 

The report from Human Rights Watch appears to be more cautious. Many Tibetans may well have been killed by police gunfire across the Tibetan plateau, but the report sticks mainly to accounts that it says have been corroborated by multiple sources. In the case of Lhasa, it acknowledges “persistent rumours” that security forces systematically removed Tibetan fatalities in order to conceal their use of lethal force on March 14th and 15th.  The report also quotes several witnesses who describe having seen civilians shot dead during the unrest in Lhasa. Some of them saw an incident in the southern part of the Tibetan quarter on March 14th in which several people were reported to have been killed.

These accounts shed useful light on what is still a murky picture of what happened in Lhasa on those two days. Though I had been able to move about the city with little restriction at the time I did not at any point see troops fire directly on anybody. I did not even did he hear the sound of gunfire until the 15th. But the area affected was so large that brief, scattered shootings could well have occurred around the city without my being aware. (Human Rights Watch notes that China has not yet addressed why its security forces abandoned Lhasa’s city centre to protesters and looters for several hours on March 14th.) Oddly perhaps—given that many residents have camera-enabled mobile phones, access to the internet was not specially restricted and a mood of anarchy prevailed in the Tibetan quarter—no photographs hinting at security forces' use of lethal force have emerged. 

But although the Lhasa rioting was huge in scale and in the extent of its political impact, it was only one of dozens of flare-ups across the Tibetan plateau. The Human Rights Watch report provides record of shootings and other brutality by the security forces that happened in areas where correspondents have had even greater difficulty gaining access, especially in Tibetan areas of Sichuan Province. There is no doubt that the authorities have used fear to cast a pall of silence over a vast territory. Many Tibetans were jailed in connection with the unrest; Human Rights Watch says that seven were sentenced in October and November 2008 for reporting information about the situation in Lhasa to the outside world. Their terms ranged from eight years to life. No wonder so little is known. 

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

Sort:

JAIHA

In my view Indian and Chinese civilization are not oppositional but complementary forces as much as yin and yang are.
The world would be the poorer only if one "won" over the other...

JAIHA

India vs China?

Not the way I look at it and not a line of argument that I am interested in.

India and China are two distinct civilizations (with Tibet historically something of a bridge in between).
The Himalayas kept them neatly apart, and so, while Chinese civilization influenced the whole of East Asia, Indian civilization influenced mainly South Asia but through its religion also West and South East Asia as well as East Asia. And from the 19th century also the Western world.
While India is known in the West as a "spiritual wonderland" which inspired and still inspires a myriad of people with its religious vitality, China's culture is represented in the West by Chinese restaurants and the odd tai chi class or TCM clinic.
I don't want to belittle China but I'd say that is pretty much the case.

As far as I am concerned, China deserves better. I always liked to read Zhuangzi or visit Daoist monasteries or do my qi gong. Spirituality may not be a hallmark of Chinese civilizations but that doesn't mean that it is completely devoid of it.

But then, all of this is not to your liking anyway...

As it is, I watched Feng Xiaogang's 'Aftershock' last night and had yummy Sichuanese food afterwards. And I found nothing wrong with it, except perhaps that the movie could have had more depth:
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2010/07/30/critics-say-aftershock-whi...
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/china/feng-xiaogang/
Still, everyone of us was touched.

Daveycool

JAIHA,

good one... so you're just gonna go with telling me that I have no humor and some fuzzy principle of how people should be left to their own devices?

Relax. In real life I'm a lot more mellow than my Economist persona. The Economist being a British publication and all is meant to be slightly more.. um... what's the word? ... "tight"? That's why I developed my Economist persona...

BTW, why is the comments period for this article longer than 15 days? I've been wanting to sneak a last word on you for the longest time!

JAIHA

Daveycool

"Funny" exchange we have here...

To me Descartes made a JOKE and not a statement!

Do you know what humour is?

From http://www.personal-development.com/chuck/learning-to-laugh.htm:

"5. Develop your sense of humor. A sense of humor is the ability to see and laugh at the incongruities of life. For example, imagine a disabled man with a sense of humor struggling to row a canoe in a pond. He's moving so slowly that a turtle passes him! "I lost a race to a turtle!" laughs the man. Become like him, ever watchful and aware of the inconsistencies and absurdities of life so you will always have something to laugh about, regardless of the severity of the challenges you face."

And how about that?

"4. Yet another reason for the absence of laughter in one's life is the inability to laugh at oneself and accept criticism. If we are overly sensitive, we will be too tense for laughter. Remember the natural habitat of laughter is relaxation. So stop worrying about what others are thinking about you because they're not. That's right, they're not thinking about you because they're too busy worrying about themselves. So, relax!"

I am sorry but I don't have time for a more "serious" response at the moment. Besides, I don't know whether a more serious response would be fitting... ;-)

Again, don't get me wrong. You do have a point in principal. So how about relaxing and laughing about it? You know like the disabled man and the turtle.

Daveycool

JAIHA,

if Descartes had actually said

"Nothing on earth has been distributed as fairly as intelligence. Everyone's convinced he's got plenty of it! This is true except in my case, I actually do have plenty of intelligence (thus I can make this statement without irony)"

Then the statement can actually make sense.

Daveycool

JAIHA,

"But let me ask you this:
Are you Tibetan? Is it your business to decide what is best for someone else?"

Sometimes your advocacy of choice can go too far. If this was in the mid-60's and China was under the spell of Mao or if it was in 1939 and Germany was under the spell of Hitler. What would you do? You needn't have been Chinese or German to warn them or even actively prevent them from following these dangerous messianic characters.

In his previous incarnations, the Dalai Lama and that institution have demonstrated that he/the institution can be brutal to his own people in worse ways than Hitler. He should pay for his crimes against humanity. What's that? You don't think he's reincarnated? So what's he doing up there leading his people? He owes everything he is now to the institution of the Dalai Lama. His very existence perpetuates the superstition. You can't see this? Would you advocate choice for people under the spell of the Devil?

The key assumption that you're making is that these people have a capability to be objective enough on this matter to break this *spell* if they so choose. They don't. They aren't stupider than the Germans or the Chinese. They are just under similar spells. Even smart people can come under this sort of spell. Heisenberg, Werner von Braun hung around in Hitler's Germany. These guys have through the roof I.Q. So, no don't throw the intelligent/stupidity angle at me.

"Nothing on earth has been distributed as fairly as intelligence. Everyone's convinced he's got plenty of it!" (Rene Descartes)

And I'm glad you found a quote that sounds intelligent (how's that for irony). Was Rene Descartes convinced that he had plenty of intelligence when he made this statement? If he was thus convinced, then was he telling us to discount this statement since he was clearly telling us to beware of people who thought they had plenty of intelligence?

If he was not convinced he had plenty of intelligence then his statement cannot be true since he has no idea what others (those who DO think they have plenty of intelligence) are thinking. How did Descartes know that those who believe in their own intelligence aren't actually very smart? This is too mind-bending. I believe this is an illogical statement. It is a non-statement dressed up to look smart and wise. You cannot fool me with this quote. Rene Descartes made a nonsensical statement.

Let me just say that crowds can also be stupid. Like lemmings, they can fall into group-think and a desire to conform. There can be homogeneity and no diversity. This is especially true when a messianic figure is at the center of that crowd's cohesion. They don't think for themselves anymore. And if that messianic figure leaps off the cliff, that crowd will too.

Still I think Tibetans should be freed from the Dalai Lama and all these superstitions to enjoy 21st Century lives like the rest of us. If you choose to call my advocacy an imposition, I do not know what else to say except that you're wrong.

JAIHA

Daveycool

Don't get me wrong. I don't mind your point of view. It's fairly reasonable. Why should I object?

But let me ask you this:
Are you Tibetan? Is it your business to decide what is best for someone else?

You know, my Chinese father-in-law lamented some time ago that times weren't good anymore because his wife and children did not listen anymore to what he said. He missed the good old days when his word was the last word...
Some call it emancipation, others democracy, but why should anyone have to listen to someone only because he thinks he is right (and has some position to enforce his opinion)?

As for funny, do you know that one?

"Nothing on earth has been distributed as fairly as intelligence. Everyone's convinced he's got plenty of it!" (Rene Descartes)

Daveycool

JAIHA,

Unfortunately you seem to think that spiritual enslavement is OK. It's not. Physical freedom is one thing but mental/spiritual enslavement is horrible.

Let me ask you one thing: If you give someone freedom and he, with that freedom, chooses to be a slave what would you do? This is the same thing, except it's being done on a mental/spiritual level. Well, most "civilized" societies have made slave ownership illegal. It's not even a choice if someone chooses to be a slave.

By the way my last post may sound funny to you, but I stand behind it. I don't mean to make the Dalai Lama illegal but at least there should be an effort in making his institution irrelevant to Tibetans.

It has always been my view that because of the backwardness that the Lama system has imposed on Tibet that if it wasn't the Chinese, it would have been the Russians, the British, or even the Indians who would sweep in and do it anyway. Still it doesn't make it right. But it's been done and since then the Chinese have done their best to put Tibet together again. From what I can see, it seems Tibet is better than ever before minus the Lamas' over-imposing presence. [I think to myself, "good riddance".]

Yet people like you only find things to complain about. It's sad. I feel sad for you. I see the positive but you dwell on the negatives. I see possibilities but you only get catatonic. Is this a good way to get spiritual fulfillment?

JAIHA

Funny comment, Daveycool... A bit simplistic but funny. ;-)

I wish for you that life may remain that simple for you and that you may always be able to pick right from wrong so effortlessly.

As for other people, how about letting them pick right from wrong according to their own insight and motivation?

I don't know whether you have brothers and sisters. Has it ever occured to you that siblings regardless of the same family background usually turn out to be very different in terms of interests, abilities, likings, tastes...

That's the way it has always been, and that is why the world is such a colourful place - thankfully.
Mao, Pol Pot and other fascists/communists have tried to impose uniformity on people while trying to kill off those that were thinking differently. Rightfully they are considered totalitarian mass murderers now.

This is the 21st century, and we live in a globalized world where ideas from all corners of the world are accessible to everyone and "compete for the favour" of people. Everyone has the choice to follow whatever he or she finds "good" and worthwhile.
The US has been the first country which established this principle politically and which has become the most successful human society (in many but not all ways) in recent centuries, the one that to this day keeps attracting the best from all corners of the world to study and live there.

The beauty of democracy is that it protects people's right to pursue happiness in their own ways - be it along religious/spiritual lines or material lines.
You are not interested in the former? Great! You don't have to.
The same applies the other way round.
Any amount of sophism will not change that.

Daveycool

JAIHA,

"And while I do understand your point of view (as much as Richard Dawkins's), it is just *one* point of view.
It is not any more right or wrong than mine."

I have a way to show that I am probably more right about this view than you. Pay attention now, this requires some logical thinking:

There are only two reasons why the Tibetans seem to center so much of their lives on the institution of the Dalai Lama and the whole idea of reincarnated good beings.

The first is that the reincarnated good beings really have something going on. They are here to save the Tibetans and indeed all mankind from evil. Yet for all their magic, they are thwarted by the evil people in Beijing for six full decades (even before that if you count the Qing, Ming and Yuan). Therefore, Good does not triumph over Evil. If it does then Good must require more than 60 years to work its magic, we need something more potent like science. We should throw out the Lamas because they "allowed" evil to go on for too long. Or the other option is to join the Dark Side, again throw out the Lamas and let them return to their state of Nirvana which they so selflessly gave up, and so that they can't interfere with the rest of us being on the Dark Side.

Second possibility: Tibetans are really just a lot more spiritual. They turn their heads away with some disdain on the face of any materialism. That's why better food, longer life, cell phones, and buses, even planes, trains and automobiles don't move them. ;-) In which case, why are they complaining about the lack of opportunities? It shouldn't even matter. Not speaking Tibetan, spending your physical life in jail, not having any physical rights, etc., these are material matters. Although, as an aside, I'll admit that the Tibetans seemed a lot happier back when they were brutally treated and exploited by their own Lama class and when they were mostly illiterate. Did their spiritual happiness derive from the emanations of their Lamas? If you think "yes" please refer to argument #1 above. Of course, Beijing could restore conditions similar to the time before the PLA so rudely invaded. This new stuff: running water, electricity, cell phones, the Internet... what manner of evil is this?! Off with it!

One thing is especially true: if the Tibetans are truly spiritual, there is no need for their own nation.

The fact that these two possibilities simply cannot be true shows that my view is more correct than yours. Or to put it simply, correct: The institution of the Dalai Lama is an anachronism set up to fool an entire culture into being uncritical followers, incapable of thinking about Tibet without even mentioning this superstitious concept of things. It's time for Tibetans to realize that they don't need the crutch of the Dalai Lama or the temples to live fulfilling modern lives. They can be materially and spiritually happy without the Dalai Lama because they are normal human beings. They are not closer to God or better than the rest of us. They just got stuck in some backward idea that's imprisoned their mindset for the last several centuries.

Let's talk about real freedom, shall we?

JAIHA

Daveycool

[The last time I checked, Shaolin Temple (established 495 C.E., about one and one half centuries before Buddhism even arrived in Tibet) is thriving. They don't do politics.]

Yes, it is indeed thriving - as a business venture!
I have been there myself and found it appalling. I prefer Zhongyue Miao which is just a few kilometres down the road.

I appreciate if you have no sense for religion. You're not the first and not the last in that mould. As I wrote: you might neither have the genes nor the cultural exposure. Fair enough.
But why do you have to impose your world view on others?
What right do you have?

Tibetans had their basic needs fulfilled before the Chinese took away their land. What need did they have for "Beijing providing these things" (while robbing them of their personal freedom)?

Daveycool

"Did you know that there's not just the famous "god gene" but also something like a "compassion gene" (shared by about 10% of the population)? You might not share any of the two but that doesn't mean that they don't exist and that others might perceive the world accordingly (and different from you)?"

JAIHA,

Do you mean that some people don't get hungry or cold or want companionship? Because that's all I'm talking about. Basic needs. And Beijing has tried to provide for these things. Everything else, the Tibetans, and Hans, in fact, are free to pursue on their own. Yes, they can even pursue their own brand of religion as long as it is about religion and not politics.

[The last time I checked, Shaolin Temple (established 495 C.E., about one and one half centuries before Buddhism even arrived in Tibet) is thriving. They don't do politics.]

Daveycool

JAIHA,

Let's get one thing clear. The institution of the Dalai Lama is diametrically the opposite of democracy. It was created to fool a people into thinking that their nation and culture should be an immutable one because it was guarded by a pantheon of reincarnated (and infallible) beings at the helm. At the moment, the people are still stupefied enough into believing this. Why, western world leaders are encouraging it too.

Let's face it, this has nothing to do with democracy or even self-determination. What self-determination? Is the protection of the superstitious part of the Lama culture even compatible with self-determination?

The main Tibetan complaint at the moment is that they are not allowed to practice their culture and when we think about it, it pretty much boils down to worshiping the Dalai Lama and other plain humans who've been lucky enough to be "recognized" as reincarnations of some boddhisattva or other. Even then it's quite possible for them to do so as long as these reincarnated beings do not dabble in politics.

Reincarnated beings running a government, grafting this superstitious (and debilitating) idea into its culture, and also, at the same time, calling for democracy. I don't know what else to say to emphasize how preposterous the idea is.

[Unless, of course the way people choose their DL changes. Perhaps using the western democratic model (one person one vote) to choose the next DL. Nominally calling that guy a "reincarnated" being. But then it would be cultural genocide, wouldn't it?]

JAIHA

"Every human, Tibetan or Han are driven by the same basic needs. They endeavor to live better, be healthier, eat better, live in safer homes, and have their children do better than themselves."

Not wrong but not comprehensive either...
If your list were comprehensive, we wouldn't have had the Upanishads, Zarathustra, Mahavir, Buddha, Sokrates, Laozi, Jesus, no ashrams, monasteries, darghas, no schamans, saints, ...

Did you know that there's not just the famous "god gene" but also something like a "compassion gene" (shared by about 10% of the population)? You might not share any of the two but that doesn't mean that they don't exist and that others might perceive the world accordingly (and different from you)?

"We cling to our own point of view, as though everything depended on it. Yet our opinions have no permanence; like autumn and winter, they gradually pass away."

Zhuangzi

JAIHA

And while I do understand your point of view (as much as Richard Dawkins's), it is just *one* point of view.
It is not any more right or wrong than mine.

And while democracy is not some miracle solution to all ailments, at least in combination with a strong constitution and rule of law, it safeguards the freedom of any individual to pursue happiness in his or her own way.
As for me, there is much beauty in

LET A THOUSAND FLOWERS BLOOM!

I consider this the main (and not a mean) achievement of what is generally called "democracy".

P.S.
As for any claims of yours as to what the Dalai Lama claims:
Can you please back them up with links to proper sources?
I have seen him half a dozen times or so, and I have read books on him/by him, and from my own experience your claims are wrong, wrong, wrong!

Having said that, you're entitled to your opinion even if it's wrong! ;))))
And I am with Voltaire who said,
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.",
although I might not quite put my life on the line for it...

JAIHA

Daveycool

"By a similar token, the Chinese experience in following Mao with such zealotry was not to be criticized?"

Well, Mao's rule is said to have caused the deaths of millions (or tens of millions) in political struggles, campaigns, famines, the wholesale destruction of an ancient culture...

Personally I prefer if people follow (if they must) an "ideology" (if we must call it such) like Tibetan Buddhism which has wisdom, compassion and non-violence at its heart to some political ideology like communism which treats individuals as expendable and does not look beyond materialism.

If we look at 2000 years of Buddhism in the Himalayas, how much harm has it brought to its people, environment and culture?

About Banyan

In this blog, our Asia correspondents and our Banyan columnist provide comment and analysis on Asia's political and cultural landscape. The blog takes its name from the Banyan tree, under which Buddha attained enlightenment and Gujarati merchants used to conduct business

RSS feed

Advertisement

Trending topics

Read comments on the site's most popular topics

Advertisement

Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Link exchange
From Free exchange - 37 mins ago
Not free to fly
From Schumpeter - 3 hrs 37 mins ago
The weekly papers
From Free exchange - February 8th, 18:24
A right to be called "married" in California
From Johnson - February 8th, 18:11
On opinions beyond the reach of data
From Democracy in America - February 8th, 17:29
Still Mitt by a mile
From Lexington's notebook - February 8th, 17:01
Mario blinks
From Free exchange - February 8th, 17:01
More from our blogs »
Products & events
Stay informed today and every day

Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.

Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter

See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.