Tibet
Encyclopedia : T : TI : TIB : Tibet
- This article is about historical/cultural Tibet. See Tibet Autonomous Region for the administrative region located in the People's Republic of China. For other uses, see Tibet (disambiguation).
| The [Neutral point of view>neutrality] of this article is [NPOV disputedisputed]. Please see the discussion on the [Some of the information in this has not been [Verifiabilityverified] and might not be reliable. It should be checked for inaccuracies and modified as needed, [cite sourcesciting sources].
Contents
DefinitionsWhen the Government of Tibet in Exile and the Tibetan refugee community worldwide refer to Tibet, they mean a large area that formed the cultural entity of Tibet for many centuries, consisting of the traditional provinces of Amdo, Kham (Khams), and Ü-Tsang (Dbus-gtsang), but excluding areas outside the People's Republic of China (PRC) like Arunachal Pradesh (or South Tibet), Sikkim, Bhutan, and Ladakh that have also formed part of the Tibetan cultural sphere. When the People's Republic of China refers to Tibet, it means the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR): a province-level entity which, according to the territorial claims of the PRC, includes Arunachal Pradesh (presently under the administration of India). Sikkim, Bhutan, and Ladakh may also considered to be parts of cultural Greater Tibet in addition to Amdo, Kham, and Ü-Tsang. The TAR covers the Dalai Lama's former domain consisting of Ü-Tsang and western Kham, while Amdo and eastern Kham are now found within the provinces of Qinghai, Gansu, Yunnan, and Sichuan. The difference in definition is a major sticking point in the dispute. The distribution of Amdo and eastern Kham into surrounding provinces was initiated by the Yongzheng Emperor during the eighteenth century and has been continuously maintained by successive Chinese governments. Tibetan exiles, in turn, consider the maintenance of this arrangement since the eighteenth century as part of a divide-and-rule policy. A sovereign nation?While Tibet was once an independent kingdom, the government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of Tibet in Exile disagree over when Tibet became a part of China, and whether this incorporation into China is legitimate. The view of the Tibetan Government-in-ExileIn 1959, the 14th Dalai Lama fled Tibet and established a government in exile at Dharamsala in northern India. This group claims sovereignty over various ethnically or historically Tibetan areas now governed by China. Aside from the Tibet Autonomous Region, an area that was administered directly by the Dalai Lama's government until 1951, the group also claims Amdo (Qinghai) and eastern Kham (western Sichuan)Goldstein, Melvyn C., The Snow Lion and the Dragon, University of California Press, 1997, p71. About 45 percent of China's ethnic Tibetans live in TAR, according to the 2000 census. Prior to 1949, much of Amdo and eastern Kham was governed by local Tibetan rulers."During the time of Genghis Khan and Altan Khan of the Mongols, the Ming dynasty of the Chinese, and the Qing Dynasty of the Manchus, Tibet and China cooperated on the basis of benefactor and priest relationship," according to a proclamation issued by 13th Dalai Lama in 1913. The relationship did not imply, "subordination of one to the other." He condemned the Chinese authorities for attempting to colonize Tibetan territory in 1910-12. "We are a small, religious, and independent nation," the proclamation states.[link] The view of the current Dalai Lama is as follows:
Michael C Van Walt Van Praag, a Dutch lawyer and a board member of International Campaign for Tibet Europe, wrote a detailed study of Tibet's legal status which concludes: "In the course of Tibet's 2000-year history, the country came under a degree of foreign influence only for short periods of time in the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries. Few independent countries today can claim as impressive a record"Walt Van Praag, Michael C. van, [The Status of Tibet: History, Rights and Prospects in International Law], (Westview, 1987). The United Nations General Assembly passed resolutions urging respect for the rights of Tibetans in 1959[1353 (XIV)], 1961[1723 (XVI)], and 1965 [2079 (XX)]. The 1961 resolution asserts that "principle of self-determination of peoples and nations" applies to the Tibetan people. The Tibetan Government in Exile views current PRC rule in Tibet as colonial and illegitimate, motivated solely by the natural resources and strategic value of Tibet, and in gross violation of both Tibet's historical status as an independent country and the right of Tibetan people to self-determination. It also points to PRC's autocratic policies, divide-and-rule policies, and what it contends are assimilationist policies, and regard those as an example of ongoing Chinese imperialism aimed at destroying Tibet's distinct ethnic makeup, culture, and identity, thereby cementing it as an indivisible part of China. That said, the Dalai Lama has recently stated that he wishes only for Tibetan autonomy, and not separation from China, under certain democratic conditions, like freedom of speech and expression and genuine self-rule [link]. Another view supported by a number of international groups including the Free Tibet Campaign is that Tibet should be granted total independence from China. The view of the government of the People's Republic of ChinaThe view of the government of China, whether Han or non-Han, whether imperial, republican, or communist, has remained constant for centuries Grunfeld, 1996, p255. The position of the PRC, which has ruled mainland China since 1949, as well as the official position of the Republic of China, which ruled mainland China before 1949 and currently controls Taiwan, For PRC's position, see State Council's whitepaper [Tibet - Its Ownership and Human Rights Situation], 1992 and Beijing Review's [100 Question about Tibet], 1989; for ROC's position, see Government Information Office's [online publication], is that Tibet has been an indivisible part of China de jure since the Yuan Dynasty seven hundred years ago Such view is supported by Grunfeld, A. Tom, [Reassessing Tibet Policy], 2000 ([also in PDF file]), comparable to other states such as the Kingdom of Dali and the Tangut Empire that were also incorporated into the Middle Kingdom at the time and have remained in China ever since. The PRC contends that according to the Succession of states theory in international law all subsequent Chinese governments (Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, Republic of China, and People's Republic of China) have succeeded the Yuan Dynasty in exercising de jure sovereignty and de facto power over Tibet.In particular, the PRC contends that during the period (1912-1951) held by Tibetan exiles to be the last period of Tibetan independence, China continued to maintain sovereignty over Tibet [link], and on other occasions Tibet even indicated its willingness to accept subordinate status as a part of China provided that Tibetan internal systems were left untouched and provided China relinquished control over a number of important ethnic Tibetan groups in KhamGrunfeld, A. Tom, The Making of Modern Tibet, M.E. Sharpe, 1996, p245, saying "The historical reality is that the Dalai Lamas have not ruled these outer areas since the mid-eighteenth century, and during the Simla Conference of 1913, the thirteenth Dalai Lama was even willing to sign away rights to them" and Amdo Goldstein, Melvyn C., A History of Modern Tibet: 1913-1951, 1989, pp 239-241. Throughout the Kuomintang years, no country gave Tibet diplomatic recognition For the British and U.S. positions on Tibet, see Goldstein, 1989, p 399, p386, UK Foreign Office Whitepaper: Tibet and the Question of Chinese Suzerainty(10 April 1943), Foreign Office Records: FO371/35755 and aide-mémoire sent by the US Department of States to the British Embassy in Washington, D.C.(dated 15 May 1943), Foreign Office Records: FO371/35756. Tibet also sent delegates to the Drafting Committee for a new constitution of the Republic of China in 1925; to the National Assembly of the Republic of China in 1931; to the fourth National Congress of the Kuomintang in 1931; to a National Assembly for drafting a new Chinese constitution in 1946; and to another National Assembly for drafting a new Chinese constitution in 1948 [link] Li, T.T., The Historical Status of Tibet, King's Crown Press, Columbia University, 1956. Finally, the PRC considers all proindependence movements aimed at ending Chinese sovereignty in Tibet, including British attempts to establish control in the late 19th century and early 20th century Jacques Gernet's A History of Chinese Civilization [Cambridge University Press, 1996] saying "From 1751 onwards Chinese control over Tibet became permanent and remained so more or less ever after, in spite of British efforts to seize possession of this Chinese protectorate at the beginning of the twentieth century", the CIA's backing of Tibetan insurgents during the 1950s and 1960s, and the Government of Tibet in Exile today, as one long campaign abetted by malicious Western imperialism aimed at destroying Chinese integrity and sovereignty, thereby weakening China's position in the world. The three UN resolutions of 1959, 1961, and 1965, condemning human rights violation in Tibet, were passed at a time when the PRC was not permitted to become a member and of course was not allowed to present its version of events in the region. A prominent Tibetologist further notes that:
Third-Party viewsNo country has ever publicly accepted Tibet as an independent state Goldstein, 1989. The closest it has ever come to such recognition was the British formula of 1943: suzerainty under China, combined with autonomy and the right to enter into diplomatic relations., in spite of several instances of government officials appealing to their superiors to do so Goldstein, 1989. Treaties signed by Britain and Russia in the early years of the twentieth century Treaties of [1906], [1907] and [1914] and others signed by Nepal and India in the 1950s Since then Tibet has been regarded by Nepal and the Republic of India as a Region of China, recognized Tibet's political subordination to China. The Americans presented their view on 15 May 1943
NameIn TibetanTibetans call their homeland Bod (བོད་), pronounced pö in Lhasa dialect. It is first attested in the geography of Ptolemy as βαται (batai) and in Chinese texts as fa (Beckwith, C. U. of Indiana Diss. 1977). They refer to a fatherland (pha yul), rather than a motherland as does Chinese. In ChineseThe Chinese name for Tibet, 西藏 (Xīzàng), is a phonetic transliteration derived from Tsang (western Ü-Tsang) The name originated during the Qing Dynasty of China. It can be broken down into Xi 西 (literally "West"), and Zang 藏 (literally "Tibetan"). The term can be interpreted as either "Western Tibet", or "Tibet of/in the West". The government of the People's Republic of China equates Tibet with the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). As such, the name "Xizang" is equated with the TAR. In order to refer non-TAR Tibetan areas, or to all of cultural Tibet, the term 藏区 Zàngqū (literally, "ethnic Tibetan areas") is used. However, Chinese-language versions of pro-Tibetan independence websites, such as the [Free Tibet Campaign], the [Voice of Tibet], and [Tibet Net] use 西藏 ("Xizang"), not 藏区 ("Zangqu"), to mean historic Tibet. Some English-speakers reserve "Xizang", the Chinese word transliterated into English, for the TAR, to keep the concept distinct from that of historic Tibet. Some pro-independence advocates duplicate the situation into the Chinese language, and use 土伯特 or 图伯特, which are both phonetic transcriptions of the word "Tibet", to refer to historic Tibet, though this usage is rare. The character 藏 (zàng) has been used in transcriptions referring to Tsang as early as the Yuan Dynasty, if not earlier, though the modern term "Xizang" was devised in the 18th century. The Chinese character 藏 (Zàng) has also been generalized to refer to all of Tibet, including other concepts related to Tibet such as the Tibetan language (藏文, Zàngwén) and the Tibetan people (藏族, Zàngzú). The two characters of Xīzàng can literally mean "western storehouse", which some Tibetans find offensive and indicative of what they see as Chinese colonial attitudes towards Tibet. However, the offending character, "zàng", can also mean "treasure" or "Buddhist scripture". In addition, Chinese transliterations of non-Chinese names do not necessarily take into account the literal meanings of words; usually a positive or neutral connotation combined with phonetic similarity is enough for the transliteration to come into use. See Transliteration into Chinese characters for other examples. In EnglishThe English word Tibet, like the word for Tibet in most European languages, ultimately derives (via Arabic and Persian) from a Turkic word Töbän (pl. Töbäd) meaning "the heights". (Behr, W. Oriens 34 (1994): 557–564.) The Chinese word for the Tibetan Empire (7th–11th centuries), 吐蕃 (tǔfān or tǔbō), may have the same origin. The Sanskrit name for Tibet is Trivishtap. CitiesLhasa is Tibet's traditional capital and the capital of Tibet Autonomous Region. Other cities in Historic Tibet include, in the TAR, Shigatse (Gzhis-ka-rtse), Gyantse (Rgyal-rtse), Chamdo (Chab-mdo), Nagchu, Nyingchi (Nying-khri), Nedong (Sne-gdong), Barkam ('Bar-khams), Sakya (Sa-skya), Gartse (Dkar-mdzes), Pelbar (Dpal-'bar), and Tingri (Ding-ri); in Sichuan, Dartsendo (Dar-btsen-mdo); in Qinghai, Kyegundo (Skye-rgu-mdo) or Yushu (Yul-shul), Machen (Rma-chen), Lhatse (Lhar-tse), and Golmud (Na-gor-mo).History
Little is known of Tibet before the 7th century, though the Tibetan language is generally considered to be a Tibeto-Burman language and related distantly to other Chinese. King Songtsen Gampo is generally considered to have introduced Buddhism to Tibet at this time. Tibet was a strong empire between the 7th and 10th centuries. Christianity is known to have been present in Tibet prior to 782. The distinctive form of Tibetan society, in which land was divided into three different types of holding—estates of noble families, freeheld lands and estates held by monasteries of particular Tibetan Buddhists sects—arose after the weakening of the Tibetan kings in the 10th century. This form of society was to continue into the 1950s, at which time more than 700,000 of the country's population of 1.25 million were serfs.
In 1240, the Mongols marched into central Tibet and attacked several monastaries. Köden, younger brother of Mongol ruler Güyük Khan, participated in a ceremony recognizing the Sa-skya lama as temporal ruler Tibet in 1247. The Mongol khans had ruled northern China since 1215. They declared themselves Chinese emperors in 1271 as the Yuan dynasty. Kublai Khan was a patron of Tibetan Buddhism and appointed the Sa-skya Lama his "Imperial preceptor," or chief religious official. Tibetans viewed this relationship as an example of yon-mchod, or priest-patron relationship. In practice, the Sa-skya lama was subordinate to the Mongol khan. The collapse of the Yuan dynasty in 1368 led to the overthrow of the Sa-skya in Tibet. Tibet was then ruled by a succession of three secular dynasties. In the 16th century, Altan Khan of Tumet Mongolian tribe supported the Dalai Lama's religious lineage to be the dominant religion among Mongols and Tibetans. Up until the early 18th century, China's dynastic central government sent resident commissioner (amban) to Lhasa. Tibetan factions rebelled in 1750 and killed the resident commissioners after the central government decided to reduce the number of soldiers to about 100. Then, a Qing army entered and defeated the rebels and reinstalled the resident commissioner. The number of soldiers in Tibet was kept at about 2000. The defensive duties were partly helped out by a local force which was reorganized by the resident commissioner, and the Tibetan government continued to manage day-to-day affairs as before. In 1841 Tibet was invaded by the army of General Zorawar Singh from the Indian Kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir. After his death in the Battle of To'Yo the Sino-Tibetan armies invaded Jammu but were defeated at the Battle of Chushul——a treaty signed at that place marked out the boundaries of India and Tibet. In 1904 a British diplomatic mission, accompanied by a large military escort, forced its way through to Lhasa. The head of the diplomatic mission was Colonel Francis Younghusband. The principal motivation for the British mission was a fear, which proved to be unfounded, that Russia was extending its footprint into Tibet and possibly even giving military aid to the Tibetan government. When the mission reached Lhasa, the Dalai Lama had already fled to Urga in Mongolia, but a treaty was signed by lay and ecclesiastical officials of the Tibetan government, and by representatives of the three monasteries of Sera, Drepung, and Ganden.Bell, 1924 p. 284; Allen, 2004, p. 282. The treaty made provisions for the frontier between Sikkim and Tibet to be respected, for freer trade between British and Tibetan subjects, and for an indemnity to be paid from the Tibetan Government to the British Government for its expenses in dispatching armed troops to Lhasa. It also made provision for a British trade agent to reside at the trade mart at Gyantse. The provisions of this 1904 treaty were confirmed in a 1906 treaty signed between Britain and China, in which the British also agreed "not to annex Tibetan territory or to interfere in the administration of Tibet."Bell, 1924, p. 288. The position of British Trade Agent at Gyantse was occupied from 1904 up until 1944. It was not until 1937, with the creation of the position of "Head of British Mission Lhasa", that a British officer had a permanent posting in Lhasa itself. (McKay, 1997, pp. 230-1). A Nepalese agency had also been established in Lhasa after the invasion of Tibet by the Gurkha government of Nepal in 1855Bell, 1924, pp. 46-7, 278-80.
In the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906 which confirmed the Anglo-Tibetan Treaty of 1904, Britain agreed "not to annex Tibetan territory or to interfere in the administration of Tibet" while China enagaged "not to permit any other foreign State to interfere with the territory or internal administration of Tibet"[link]. In the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, Britain also recognized the "suzerainty of China over Thibet" and, in conformity with such admitted principle, engaged "not to enter into negotiations with Thibet except through the intermediary of the Chinese Government."[link] Suzerainty is a situation in which a region or people is a tributary to a more powerful entity which allows the tributary some limited domestic autonomy but controls its foreign affairs. The Qing central government established direct rule over Tibet for the first time in 1910. The thirteenth Dalai Lama fled to British India in February 1910. In the same month, the Chinese Qing government issued a proclamation deposing the Dalai Lama and instigating the search for a new incarnationSmith (1996), p. 175. While in India the Dalai Lama became a close friend of the British Political Officer Charles Bell. The official position of the British Government was that they would not intervene between China and Tibet, and it would only recognize the de facto government of China within Tibet at this timeBell (1924), p. 113. In Bell's history of Tibet, he would write of this time that "the Tibetans were abandoned to Chinese aggression, an aggression for which the British Military Expedition to Lhasa and subsequent retreat [and consequent power vacuum within Tibet] were primarily responsible"Bell (1924), p. 113. In February of 1912 the Qing emperor abdicated and the new Chinese Republic was formed Smith (1996), p. 181. In April of 1912 the Chinese garrison of troops in Lhasa surrendered to the Tibetan authorities. The new Chinese Republican government wished to make the commander of the Chinese troops in Lhasa their new Tibetan representative, but the Tibetans were in favour of having all of the Chinese troops return to China Proper. The Dalai Lama returned to Tibet from India in July 1912. By the end of 1912, the Chinese troops in Tibet had returned, via India, to China ProperSmith (1996), p. 181. In 1913, Tibet and Mongolia signed a treaty proclaiming mutual recognition and their independence from China. In 1914, a treaty was negotiated in India by representatives of China, Tibet and Britain: the Simla Convention. During the convention, the British tried to divide Tibet into Inner and Outer Tibet. When negotiations broke down over the specific boundary between Inner and Outer, the British demanded instead to advance their line of control, enabling them to annex 90,000 square kilometers of traditional Tibetan territory in southern Tibet, which corresponds to most of the modern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, while recognizing Chinese suzerainty, but not sovereignty, over Tibet. Tibetan representatives secretly signed under British pressure; however, the representative of Chinese central government declared that the secretive annexation of territory was not acceptable. The boundary established in the convention, the McMahon Line, was considered by the British and later the independent Indian government to be the boundary; however, the Chinese view since then has been that since China, which was sovereign over Tibet, did not sign the treaty, the treaty was meaningless, and the annexation and control of southern Tibet / Arunachal Pradesh by India is illegal. This paved the way to the Sino-Indian War of 1962 and the boundary dispute between China and India today. The subsequent outbreak of World War I and civil war in China caused the Western powers and the infighting factions of China proper to lose interest in Tibet, and the 13th Dalai Lama ruled undisturbed. At that time, the government of Tibet controlled all of Ü-Tsang (Dbus-gtsang) and western Kham (Khams), roughly coincident with the borders of Tibet Autonomous Region today. Eastern Kham, separated by the Yangtze River was under the control of Chinese warlord Liu Wenhui. The situation in Amdo (Qinghai) was more complicated, with the Xining area controlled by ethnic Hui warlord Ma Bufang, who constantly strove to exert control over the rest of Amdo (Qinghai). Neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China has ever renounced China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet Grunfeld, 1996, pp255-257. In 1950, the People's Liberation Army entered Tibet, crushing nominal resistance from the ill-equipped Tibetan army. In 1951, the Plan for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, a treaty signed under Chinese pressure by representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama, provided for rule by a joint administration under representatives of the central government and the Tibetan government. Most of the population of Tibet at that time were peasants, often bound to land owned by monasteries and aristocrats. Any attempt at land redistribution or the redistribution of wealth would have proved unpopular with the established landowners. This agreement was initially put into effect in Tibet proper. However, Eastern Kham and Amdo were outside the administration of the government of Tibet, and were thus treated like any other Chinese province with land redistribution implemented in full. As a result, a rebellion broke out in Amdo and eastern Kham in June of 1956. The insurrection, supported by the American CIA, eventually spread to Lhasa. It was crushed by 1959. Tibetan exiles claim that during this campaign, tens of thousands of Tibetans were killed. The 14th Dalai Lama and other government principals fled to exile in India, but isolated resistance continued in Tibet until 1969 when CIA support was withdrawn. Although the Panchen Lama remained a virtual prisoner, the Chinese set him as a figurehead in Lhasa, claiming that he headed the legitimate Government of Tibet in the absence of the Dalai Lama, the traditional head of the Tibetan government. In 1965, the area that had been under the control of the Dalai Lama's government from the 1910s to 1959 (U-Tsang and western Kham) was set up as an Autonomous Region. The monastic estates were broken up and secular education introduced. During the Cultural Revolution, the Red Guards inflicted a campaign of organized vandalism against cultural sites in the entire PRC, including Tibet's Buddhist heritage. Many young Tibetans joined in the campaign of destruction, voluntarily due to the ideological fervour that was sweeping the entire PRC [link][link] and involuntarily due to the fear of being denounced as "enemies of the people" [link]. Of the several thousand monasteries in Tibet, over 6000 were destroyed [link], only a handful remained without major damage, and thousands of Buddhist monks and nuns were killed or imprisoned. Since 1979, there have been major economic changes, like the rest of the PRC, but the political system remains undemocratic and repressive. Some PRC policies in Tibet have been described as moderate, while others are judged to be more oppressive. Most religious freedoms have been officially restored, provided the lamas do not challenge PRC rule. Foreigners can visit most parts of Tibet, and it is claimed that the less savoury aspects of PRC rule are kept hidden from visitors. In 1989, the Panchen Lama died, and the Dalai Lama and the PRC recognised different reincarnations. While officially an atheist state, the People's Republic of China has affirmed its right to confirming high-level reincarnations, a tulku in the Tibetan tradition of Vajrayana Buddhism, citing a precedent set by the Qianlong Emperor of the Qing Dynasty (The PRC view is that Qianlong instituted a system of selecting the Panchen Lama, the Dalai Lama and other high lamas by means of a lottery which utilised a golden urn with names wrapped in barley balls[Goldstein (1989), p44, n13] the view of Tibetan exiles is that the system was a suggestion made by Qianlong and was not a prerequisite for choosing the Panchen Lama). The Dalai Lama named Gedhun Choekyi Nyima as the 11th Panchen Lama but without confirmation by the vase lot, while the PRC named another child, Gyancain Norbu by the vase lot. Gyancain Norbu was raised in Beijing and has appeared occasionally on state media. Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and his family have gone missing, into imprisonment according to Tibetan exiles, and under a hidden identity for protection and privacy according to the PRC. [link] The PRC continues to portray its rule over Tibet as an unalloyed improvement, and foreign governments continue to make occasional protests about aspects of PRC rule in Tibet. All governments, however, recognise PRC sovereignty over Tibet, and none has recognised the Dalai Lama's government in exile in India. Evaluation of PRC rule
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

