I was talking with a friend over the recent violence in Tibet. She also seemed to be obsessed with the "worst human rights records" of the "communist China" and the sympathy towards the Lama Movement. Nancy Pelosy and her fellow Americans certainly looked great in the photographs with the Dali Lama which speaks a great deal of the cultural richness of Tibet. Do we like to see Tibetans as mere cultural dolls forever? I was asking myself. Below is a letter appeared on Newstatesman.
stanly
The Tibetans that have the biggest voice are from the rich, the nobilities, the religious, the lamas. Does any body hear from the poor class and peasants who are the silent majority and benefit from the Chinese government minority policies. Traditionally they worked like slaves for the rich, the powerful and the lamas. Their minds were controlled by religion not to complain. Now the hollywood kind such as Richard Gere came to find meanings from Dalai Lama. Tibet is viewed as so sureal, so enlightened, local Tibetans are viewed not in human terms. They don't seem to need to eat or to live a material life, but just to exist to entertain the hollywood kinds. The media has been led down this path too. When did you see a good report about ordinary life of common Tibetans, whether their lives fare better or worse than ten or twenty years ago, or for that matter sixty years ago when they were ruled by the lamas. The Tibetan culture is fascinating, but when is the media going to treat the Tibetans in the coverage like ordinary human beings, that they need to make a living, to deal with normal human desires, to move up in the economic ladder. If the media thinks that they don't need all these and they are happy, then the media has been pickled by the lamas deeper and longer than theTibetans.
As for China's Olympics, that is no big deal. All the great nations' olympics have been boycotted, US's in 1984 Los Angeles, USSR's in 1990 Moscow. If you are boycotted in Olympics, that means you have arrived, you have made it.
I understand the point you are talking about. Of course it is a matter of concern. But could u tell, why the ambiguity remains about the people of Tibet? Who is hiding the real life there? I don’t think it is the Dalai Lama. If China was an open structure and the situation is like as we fear, do u believe that the Lama would get such a wide support throughout the world? If the situation is worse because of the Budhist monks, the only force that keeps it hiding is the Communist Govt in china.
And while we call Lama a feudal lord, we must be very careful. You may be aware how the Forbes magazine called Castro a millionaire. Let it be an open system first. Then the rotten things will come out naturally. Even it is Lama or the Communist China.
Deepak Chandran
If Forbes magazine calls Fidel Castro a millionaire, why shd I be "more careful" while calling the Lama Movement feudal? We all know that Fidel was an autocrat. A radical autocrat, who earned the love and reverence of the youth and the left-leaned people across the world. If he's a millionaire, we don’t need to hide it.
I would agree that China, like any previous Leninist country, is a closed society. Many people hate China for the same reason. I was just wondering whether the "global sympathy" towards the Lama Movement is by any chance insulated from this hatred! The international press is very sensitive whenever it reports the Lamas, the elite Tibetans.. I would disagree with you at one level. We have plenty of literature abt the neoliberal turn China engineers and the authoritative brutalities of the communist govt though it is a closed system. So, being politically closed might not stop revealing the other side of the Tibetan sty, I think.
I was also going thru some literature these days abt Tibetan feudalism (which, according to many historians) lasted till early 1950s) and cultural nationalism, the ideological pillar of the Lama Movement. And I would like to continue this exploration a bit further
stanly
Earning love and reverence become irrelevant when a revolutionist become a millionaire through the power he has been given by the people to serve them. Any way that is not the case here. Forbes called Fidel a millionaire by counting the investments Cuba had in their public sector companies and other governmental enterprises. It can only be taken as a conspiracy. It is a tool of capitalist. When we call some one as a feudal we have to make sure we are not using the same tool that makes ant to an elephant. I am not telling he is not a feudal, but in a state where every thing is hidden how I can believe the stories the govt is telling. Let them keep the system open. And more over, what the new companies are doing in china. And what about the party? I dont think Lama is a bigger feudal than them. First of all they must become a open society.
In cuba, many electronic items can not be used as people in the other part of the world do. But they never hide it. They openly tell that there is a mammoth shortage of power due to the sanctions by US. So they keep a regulation on electronic items including computer to serve their hospitals, govt offices and their productive systems. Why we can not see such a straight forward business in china.
Frankly speaking for a sympathy towards communism if we start supporting china it will be another crime towards humanity. And more over I dont keep any sympathy towards communism, unless it doesn't represent the real problem of human kind.
I think our debate gets stuck in one larger question. What shd be the future model of governance in China? Whether it shd remain a one-party ruled authoritarian country or an "open society" perhaps in the same lines of Russia , right? I definitely keep a sympathy towards communism for a variety of reasons. First of all, I believe that it has the potential to change the world, to change the life of the masses, to change the course of history. I know you will have thousands of examples from history to point out the brutalities and the authoritarian course of the communist regimes, right from the Soviet Union to Cuba. But that doesn't prevent me from keeping my sympathy, not towards China nor to Cuba, but to the ideology alive, given the historical context.
In Castro's case, you yourself say that he was called a millionaire by the Forbes magazine counting the asset of the nationalised resources. You call it a propaganda. Castro, like any of the Communist forefathers, was an autocrat. Not even a single communist head of the state has betrayed the dictatorial tendencies of the "proletarian regime", unless I am mistaken. So the question is the fundamental one, which many of the Marxists have been working on at least for the last couple of decades. And I really doubt that it will have a single answer, like what the western liberals argue. Shd that be based on the grand notion of "human kind" which u mentioned? Who is going to "open" the Chinese society? Deepak, the problem with many of us is that we think we could replicate history in all the pockets of the world. If X is "free" Z shd also be "free" (the term is highly relative). Two decades after the disintegration of the USSR, we understand that Russian society remains as closed as it used to be, but sans a Communist Party.
I am afraid that we dont touch upon the history of Tibet. Not even a single Western government is ready to support the government-in-exile of the Tibetans. But everybody seems to be very sympathetic towards the "Tibetan cause". My question is that whether this policy, or position is insulated from the larger hate-China stand or a notion-based historical one? We think the Lamas represent millions of Tibetans. Was the recent upsurge was a political movement or an ethnic attack on the Han Chinese group? China's authoritarian political identity itself does not infuse sympathy into my political beliefs towards the Lamas. That's what I am saying. I am against cultural nationalism. I dont mind calling them feudal either though i would also disagree with the Chinese mainland over a number of issues.
stanly
I was also trying to gather some information of the Tibet movement lately.
a) I think it is a well documented fact that the theocratic state called Tibet was one of the most backward regions on earth, prior to Chinese invasion. Feudal Tibet, in which most of the cultivable lands were occupied by monastery, Dalai lamas were enjoying the unquestionable power for centuries. It has also been documented that there was an instituted condition of slavery and the penile code contains various forms of corporal punishments ( which has also been admited by Dalai Lama). Whatever Dalai Lama is, he is surely not a symbol of freedom. The word "invasion" itself is a bit tricky, because, many parts of the pre -second world war China was ruled by a bunch of feudal war lords. One can also argue that the whole China is "occupied".
Please see the Wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso%2C_14th_Dalai_Lama#Criticismb) All the communist governments now exist were formed during last century, when the idea of democracy was still infantile. It came as a historic experiment to provide something better than the then existing democracy, where a privileged few were still getting all. I think, at present any serious political movement cannot go further without recognizing the spread of democratic values. Many things in China cannot be accepted by anyone. But any analysis won't be complete without seeing incidents on a larger canvas. One has to see the developments in th context of economic and political antagonism of developing countries like china and India towards USA. The blatant involvement of CIA in Tibet is a well documented thing now, as its involvement in Cuba.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOhDBo6x2ZY&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwu5qYosTo0&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2iaIcoHBl4&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJYamwYSe2M&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FviSTNWRgHU&feature=relatedThere are interviews ( can be seen in this video ) of former CIA operatives, one of them happily admits that the Tibet operation was really good because it cost them very less ( all the "man power" were Tibetans) and they made a big menace for the Chinese govt. The CIA involvement was also been admitted by the exile Tibetan govt. officials.
Recently Dalai Lama accused Chinese govt. for bringing more Chinese people to Tibet in order to make Tibetans a minority on their own territory (sounds like Raj Thakrey). But the census data will show that about 93% of population are still Tibetans and there is a large number of Tibetans working and living elsewhere in China just as in any other country where people migrate to other parts of country looking for better living. Critics point out that this is an attempt of Lama to give the issue a racist color and make another Bosnia out of China.
Unfortunately the western media seems to be hiding many of these facts. They are so keen to color Lama as a spiritual leader and symbol of freedom
Raghunath C
There may not be much difference in arguments. But let me clarify my point once again in detail.
There surely is an obstacle in our debate, not only on the future model of Chinese govt, but also our understanding what really is communism. As Stanly mentioned we have a number of experiences and examples to go through. In Russia, certainly it was a power of change towards the society and the life of common man. That time it was not only in Russia, but all over the world Russian revolution give a great hope of change. That hope was that of common men to change their horrible life to a comfortable one. That is the key element, that to give a comfortable life to the common man, what we expect from a revolution and a communist regime. If my understanding is true, before the revolution in Cuba there was a communist party there and it was against the revolution. After the revolution Fidel and other comrades identified themselves that their questions as a continuation to those fundamental questions what Marx has risen. In china, the party has earned enough to be considered as billionaire corporate. I don't know much about Russia. But it is not difficult to understand from the infrastructure of communist parties of china and India that in Russia also it may not been different. There is no need of a single person to accumulate money using power, but doing the same by a party also is enough to call as an evil.
Cuba still keep a high note because, to consider Fidel as a millionaire Forbs has to count the asset of the public enterprises. But if they are doing the same in china the asset of the communist party alone will be enough. It is not just a matter of assets; sometimes having wealth can be natural. But from the recent history we can see the situation of farmers in China is clearly different from that of the party. In Cuba the party could provide a better life to their common man and still doing that. A Michael Moor can go there and could take a picture called 'sicko' to open up the fake side of American imperialist system. They have shown a great way of agriculture to the world where there is no need of any Monsanto. What is there like that china can convey to their common man and to the rest of the world. Millions of tons of industrial wastes of the global corporates! Nothing more !!! They allow the entire international corporate to come and exploit and torture their people, providing a system with no labor laws and regulations. I was talking about this difference all the time.
The communist parties them self identify as the authority to talk about communism throughout the history. There was a period where they called Fidel a CIA agent. I tell this just to mention the irrelevance of labels. The fundamental thing is that whether they address the questions Marx once aroused in the society which are still relevant. They are relevant not because a Marx raised them, but it addresses the fundamentals of economics and politics from the point of view of a common man. As far as I am concerned, who does address these fundamental thoughts is only relevent. If it is party I will be with them and when they fail to do so, there is no point in defending them.
Specifically speaking the issues in China, as I mentioned before, things are not transparent without a reason. If they can achieve at least a silly thing on the sake of this autocracy, one can have support the rulers. But unfortunately that is not the case. So, I think keep the society open first, let the people see the world beyond china. And let them learn that Lama is a Feudal Lord. And let them reject him if he is the same as those articles say.
What we see and learn about Tibet through Wikipedia, youtube, google etc. are not accessible to Chinese people(
google.cn is allowed). What does it mean? Being the biggest Feudal, the action of the Chinese govt against Lama never is justifiable. It is just like the way US is talking about Cuba for not having a democratic system while they are supporting monarchs throughout the world.
It is true that the Tibetan land was very poor even before Chinese invasion. And still it remains the same. Who is responsible? Lama or Chinese govt. Our country also was not rich and forward before the independence. If it is not developed now whom we will blame, the land lords or the govt.
I thought of talking to Chinese students here at this point. I am not sure what they tell are completely true or not. But I think it is worth to hear what they have to tell.
Initially when the people's republic of china was established, the inner-Mangolia and Tibet were given autonomy. But it lasted for only a few years. That time they were allowed to use their own local language (As our malayalam, tamil etc.). But latter the govt restricted to use them and declared Chinese as the only official language. Even though other languages can be used to speak (!!!) they were not allowed it to use for official purposes. A farmer in inner-Mongolia cannot use their language scripts to write the address on a letter to his son living some other part of inner-Mongolia. Many people of these region still dont know the chinese language. Many Chinese are telling the govt was not interested on Tibet or inner-Mongolia for a long Period. When the govt identified the Tibetan and Mongolian land have tourist and industrial interests (also some other) they tried to access the land. But the people in Tibet don't like the changes in nature due to religious reasons also the mongoliangs for some thir own reasons (That may be the reason of recent issue). The govt tried to send people from the main land to Tibet and inner-Mongolia to defend their stands. When other people comes, the govt help and other benefits restricted only to the new comers. It is because the govt notification and other official helps are accessible only to them due to the Chinese language. I think that may be the reason the Tibetans and Mongolians oppose the migration. Let me tell that I didn't gone through the links provided by Raghu. Let me do it latter and I will discuss it with the Chinese students here and let you their impression on it.
Deepak
