(from a larger article about the Tibetan and Palestinian claims to nationhood)
The Tibetan people have occupied their land for upwards of one thousand years, with a shared culture and religion. Tibet is accused by the Chinese of having no real claim to nationhood, of having never existed as an independent state. What validity does this accusation possess? Was Tibet ever a nation, and if not, does it have a reasonable claim to nationhood and autonomy?
The People’s Republic Of China state that Tibet has been a part of China since the Yuan dynasty of the 13th and 14th centuries. This a blatant falsehood. For one, the Yuan dynasty was Mongolian, it controlled China but was not essentially Chinese, and nobody is now making the case that Tibet should be under Mongol control. Tibet never had the Chinese system of Imperial Examinations, nor it’s neo-Confucian policies. Tibet was ruled separately to China. Like China, it had it’s own legal system, separate from that of Mongolia, and generally a great deal of autonomy from the Yuan central government. Kublai Khan, the leader of the Mongols, converted to Tibetan Buddhism, becoming a patron of the Sakya lineage. As the Tibetans claim, the relationship between the dynasty and Tibet was closer to that of patron and priest than that of a conquered and directly administrated territory.
It is worth noting that Tibetan and Mongolian sources never portray the Mongol conquest of Tibet as a Chinese conquest.
After the weakening of the Yuan dynasty in the mid 14th century, Tibet was essentially wholly independent. First under the Phagmodrupa dynasty, then the Rinpungpa and Tsangpa, Tibet had nothing more than a symbolic connection with the Ming who came to rule China. The Ming sided with the Karmapa of Kham against the Phagmodrupa, but the Karmapa refused to attend their court, sending some of his disciples instead. No ordinances or taxes were imposed on Tibet, there were tribute missions sent by the Tibetans but this was likely more a reciprocal arrangement, the Chinese being in need of horses which they couldn’t get from conflict-riven Mongolia.
In 1642 the 5th Dalai Lama was born. Following the fall of the Ming dynasty, he established what is known as the Ganden Phodrang, the Dalai Lamas’ rule of Tibet. This lasted, in one form or another until 1950.
The Qing dynasty entered Tibet in 1720 to drive out a Mongol invasion. After that time they held some power in Tibet, of the nature of a protectorate rather than direct rule. Under the Qing system there were two forms of rule, one in China itself and another in other territories. The Qing installed “Ambans”, who had some degree of authority, though the Tibetans claim that they were more like ambassadors. After the Dalai Lama suppressed rioting in 1747 he was again proclaimed the temporal authority in Tibet, though he may not have had total power he certainly ruled in practise to some extent.
The 13th Dalai Lama stated that the relationship between China and Tibet was, as in the Yuan dynasty, a relationship of patron and priest. Historians suggest that while certain directives from the Qing were supposed to be put into practise in Tibet, in reality they were never fully implemented or discarded, the Qing being more interested in symbolic than practical sovereignty. In reality the Dalai Lamas’ Ganden Phodrang government held more than symbolic authority over Tibet, every aspect of Tibetan life being intimately entwined with religion which the Qing interfered with only slightly. Even where they did try to impose their own ways, such as in the “Golden Urn” method of choosing Lamas, their methods were not actually used in practise.
The Qing dynasty fell in 1912, in 1913 Tibet officially proclaimed it’s independence, as if such an act were necessary when it had de facto existed since long before. In 1904 the British had already signed a treaty directly with Tibet, opening the border with India and prohibiting the Tibetans from relations with other countries without British approval. The British did recognise the suzerainty of China, but never it’s full sovereignty. Furthermore this recognition was later, in 1913-14, stipulated by the British not to include religious matters, over which Lhasa would have full control. After 1912, when the Qing ambans were expelled, Tibet in fact developed it’s own institutions of government over which China had no control. It acted as a sovereign nation and retained it’s own laws, as it had before. Interestingly, the Chinese picture of Tibet as somewhere “backward” is contradicted in this period, as the Dalai Lama banned capital punishment in 1913, long before most Western nations.
In 1950 the Chinese invaded, crossing the Jinsha river on the 6th or 7th of October, and by the 19th they were victorious. They stopped the military campaign at this point and asked Tibet to send representatives to Beijing, whom they then blackmailed, threatening to attack central Tibet unless they signed the “Seventeen Point Agreement” recognizing Chinese sovereignty. At first they left the Dalai Lama’s government some practical authority, planning to implement Communist policies gradually. Yet their plans for land reform led to a large scale rebellion, which ended with the Chinese killing or executing hundreds of thousands of people over the course of the fifteen years of guerilla warfare.
The Chinese soon gave up their initially tolerant attitude towards the Tibetan religion, and began to attack Buddhism and persecute it’s practitioners. They invited the Dalai Lama to a dance show, telling him not to bring his bodyguards, suggesting they were planning to abduct him. Tibetan people then surrounded Potala palace in Lhasa seeking to protect their spiritual leader. He fled to India, where he resides to this day in Dharamsala.
Since his escape the Chinese have imposed many brutal policies on the Tibetans, in total killed something close to one million, imprisoned and tortured many more. They have placed the Tibetans under constant surveillance by the “grid system”, shot peaceful demonstrators and even collectively punish the families of the Tibetans who protest by immolating themselves.
All of this, under the auspices that the Chinese have ruled Tibet since the Yuan dynasty, an idea which we hope this essay proves to be manifestly false. The Yuan dynasty were Mongols, not Chinese, and their relationship with Tibet was not in reality that of one territory ruling another. The Tibetans had their own system, the country wasn’t considered a part of China. The Phagmodrupa and their successors ruled Tibet as an independent nation – at this time, under the Ming dynasty, China had almost no influence over Tibet, beyond the nominal “tribute” of horses they couldn’t source from Mongolia.
The Ganden Phodrang, the rule of the Dalai Lamas, was a genuine government. Though the Qing had more sway than the Ming through their “ambans”, after 1647 the Dalai Lama was officially considered the temporal power in Tibet. Though they nominally imposed directives on Tibet, these were never implemented. The system in Tibet, as it had always been, was not the same system as in China. After the fall of the Qing dynasty, Tibet was an entirely independent state, even if not universally legally recognized – many modern states were in the same legal situation at that time.
All of this suggests that the 13th Dalai Lama was correct in affirming that the relationship between Tibet and China (and, in fact, Mongolia), was that of priest and patron, known in Tibetan as cho-yon. Tibet was independent or had a great deal of autonomy throughout the entire time the Chinese claim it was under their rule. Many modern nations had much less independence for the majority of their history.
Of course, we can also ask the questions of whether the present government of the PRC is even the legitimate successor to the previous Chinese rulers, and whether historical occupation of a foreign territory is sufficient grounds for it to continue being part of a modern state. The British wholly controlled India for a century, would we say that this would be grounds for them to continue ruling over India? Many other countries have been dominated by various foreign powers or empires for periods of their history to a much greater degree than Tibet, and no-one is suggesting this gives the countries that previously ruled them a right to permanent occupation.
Finally, the Tibetans have their own culture, very different indeed from that of the Chinese, or indeed from any other country, even Buddhist countries. It is a culture which has existed for more than a thousand years, which has it’s roots even further in the past. Perhaps a nation is more a product of it’s people, than the people a product of a nation.
Whichever way we look at it, Tibet has a totally valid claim, both historically in terms of it’s political status, and culturally, to independence. Yet it’s voice is silenced by Chinese brutality and Western apathy, and the Tibetans remain under the yoke of tyranny.
The Tibetan people have occupied their land for upwards of one thousand years, with a shared culture and religion. Tibet is accused by the Chinese of having no real claim to nationhood, of having never existed as an independent state. What validity does this accusation possess? Was Tibet ever a nation, and if not, does it have a reasonable claim to nationhood and autonomy?
The People’s Republic Of China state that Tibet has been a part of China since the Yuan dynasty of the 13th and 14th centuries. This a blatant falsehood. For one, the Yuan dynasty was Mongolian, it controlled China but was not essentially Chinese, and nobody is now making the case that Tibet should be under Mongol control. Tibet never had the Chinese system of Imperial Examinations, nor it’s neo-Confucian policies. Tibet was ruled separately to China. Like China, it had it’s own legal system, separate from that of Mongolia, and generally a great deal of autonomy from the Yuan central government. Kublai Khan, the leader of the Mongols, converted to Tibetan Buddhism, becoming a patron of the Sakya lineage. As the Tibetans claim, the relationship between the dynasty and Tibet was closer to that of patron and priest than that of a conquered and directly administrated territory.
It is worth noting that Tibetan and Mongolian sources never portray the Mongol conquest of Tibet as a Chinese conquest.
After the weakening of the Yuan dynasty in the mid 14th century, Tibet was essentially wholly independent. First under the Phagmodrupa dynasty, then the Rinpungpa and Tsangpa, Tibet had nothing more than a symbolic connection with the Ming who came to rule China. The Ming sided with the Karmapa of Kham against the Phagmodrupa, but the Karmapa refused to attend their court, sending some of his disciples instead. No ordinances or taxes were imposed on Tibet, there were tribute missions sent by the Tibetans but this was likely more a reciprocal arrangement, the Chinese being in need of horses which they couldn’t get from conflict-riven Mongolia.
In 1642 the 5th Dalai Lama was born. Following the fall of the Ming dynasty, he established what is known as the Ganden Phodrang, the Dalai Lamas’ rule of Tibet. This lasted, in one form or another until 1950.
The Qing dynasty entered Tibet in 1720 to drive out a Mongol invasion. After that time they held some power in Tibet, of the nature of a protectorate rather than direct rule. Under the Qing system there were two forms of rule, one in China itself and another in other territories. The Qing installed “Ambans”, who had some degree of authority, though the Tibetans claim that they were more like ambassadors. After the Dalai Lama suppressed rioting in 1747 he was again proclaimed the temporal authority in Tibet, though he may not have had total power he certainly ruled in practise to some extent.
The 13th Dalai Lama stated that the relationship between China and Tibet was, as in the Yuan dynasty, a relationship of patron and priest. Historians suggest that while certain directives from the Qing were supposed to be put into practise in Tibet, in reality they were never fully implemented or discarded, the Qing being more interested in symbolic than practical sovereignty. In reality the Dalai Lamas’ Ganden Phodrang government held more than symbolic authority over Tibet, every aspect of Tibetan life being intimately entwined with religion which the Qing interfered with only slightly. Even where they did try to impose their own ways, such as in the “Golden Urn” method of choosing Lamas, their methods were not actually used in practise.
The Qing dynasty fell in 1912, in 1913 Tibet officially proclaimed it’s independence, as if such an act were necessary when it had de facto existed since long before. In 1904 the British had already signed a treaty directly with Tibet, opening the border with India and prohibiting the Tibetans from relations with other countries without British approval. The British did recognise the suzerainty of China, but never it’s full sovereignty. Furthermore this recognition was later, in 1913-14, stipulated by the British not to include religious matters, over which Lhasa would have full control. After 1912, when the Qing ambans were expelled, Tibet in fact developed it’s own institutions of government over which China had no control. It acted as a sovereign nation and retained it’s own laws, as it had before. Interestingly, the Chinese picture of Tibet as somewhere “backward” is contradicted in this period, as the Dalai Lama banned capital punishment in 1913, long before most Western nations.
In 1950 the Chinese invaded, crossing the Jinsha river on the 6th or 7th of October, and by the 19th they were victorious. They stopped the military campaign at this point and asked Tibet to send representatives to Beijing, whom they then blackmailed, threatening to attack central Tibet unless they signed the “Seventeen Point Agreement” recognizing Chinese sovereignty. At first they left the Dalai Lama’s government some practical authority, planning to implement Communist policies gradually. Yet their plans for land reform led to a large scale rebellion, which ended with the Chinese killing or executing hundreds of thousands of people over the course of the fifteen years of guerilla warfare.
The Chinese soon gave up their initially tolerant attitude towards the Tibetan religion, and began to attack Buddhism and persecute it’s practitioners. They invited the Dalai Lama to a dance show, telling him not to bring his bodyguards, suggesting they were planning to abduct him. Tibetan people then surrounded Potala palace in Lhasa seeking to protect their spiritual leader. He fled to India, where he resides to this day in Dharamsala.
Since his escape the Chinese have imposed many brutal policies on the Tibetans, in total killed something close to one million, imprisoned and tortured many more. They have placed the Tibetans under constant surveillance by the “grid system”, shot peaceful demonstrators and even collectively punish the families of the Tibetans who protest by immolating themselves.
All of this, under the auspices that the Chinese have ruled Tibet since the Yuan dynasty, an idea which we hope this essay proves to be manifestly false. The Yuan dynasty were Mongols, not Chinese, and their relationship with Tibet was not in reality that of one territory ruling another. The Tibetans had their own system, the country wasn’t considered a part of China. The Phagmodrupa and their successors ruled Tibet as an independent nation – at this time, under the Ming dynasty, China had almost no influence over Tibet, beyond the nominal “tribute” of horses they couldn’t source from Mongolia.
The Ganden Phodrang, the rule of the Dalai Lamas, was a genuine government. Though the Qing had more sway than the Ming through their “ambans”, after 1647 the Dalai Lama was officially considered the temporal power in Tibet. Though they nominally imposed directives on Tibet, these were never implemented. The system in Tibet, as it had always been, was not the same system as in China. After the fall of the Qing dynasty, Tibet was an entirely independent state, even if not universally legally recognized – many modern states were in the same legal situation at that time.
All of this suggests that the 13th Dalai Lama was correct in affirming that the relationship between Tibet and China (and, in fact, Mongolia), was that of priest and patron, known in Tibetan as cho-yon. Tibet was independent or had a great deal of autonomy throughout the entire time the Chinese claim it was under their rule. Many modern nations had much less independence for the majority of their history.
Of course, we can also ask the questions of whether the present government of the PRC is even the legitimate successor to the previous Chinese rulers, and whether historical occupation of a foreign territory is sufficient grounds for it to continue being part of a modern state. The British wholly controlled India for a century, would we say that this would be grounds for them to continue ruling over India? Many other countries have been dominated by various foreign powers or empires for periods of their history to a much greater degree than Tibet, and no-one is suggesting this gives the countries that previously ruled them a right to permanent occupation.
Finally, the Tibetans have their own culture, very different indeed from that of the Chinese, or indeed from any other country, even Buddhist countries. It is a culture which has existed for more than a thousand years, which has it’s roots even further in the past. Perhaps a nation is more a product of it’s people, than the people a product of a nation.
Whichever way we look at it, Tibet has a totally valid claim, both historically in terms of it’s political status, and culturally, to independence. Yet it’s voice is silenced by Chinese brutality and Western apathy, and the Tibetans remain under the yoke of tyranny.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/31vtIB0
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire