Home > Opinions > Is Tibetan democracy only 'skin deep'?

Is Tibetan democracy only 'skin deep'?

By Tsering Wangchuk | Tibet Sun

Tsering Wangchuk in an undated file photo. Photographer unknown

On Boxun, an overseas Chinese community website, I came across an interesting interview of noted Chinese writer/historian Wu Si, the author of Hidden Rules: the Real Game in Chinese History, and Blood Remuneration Law: The Survival Game in Chinese History. He noted that the Communist state system “makes it extremely easy to produce lies, manufacture lies, under which lying becomes legitimate and cost-effective.” Thus, “they produce lies, and we pretend to believe.”

These words serve as an ideal background for the recent article by Du Xinyu, titled “Dalai Clique’s ‘Democratic’ Lies”, which was published by China’s official news outlets in Tibetan, Chinese and English languages. According to the English version published on 7 June by People’s Daily, an organ of the Chinese Communist Party:

“No democratic government would identify with witch-hunting and political assassination; however, these means were commonly seen in the Dalai Clique. Of all the witch-hunting and political assassinations that the Dalai Clique played, the witch-hunting of Dorje Shugden was just an example of international impact. The Dalai Clique resorted to every conceivable means to attack their political opponents. For example, a scholar who resided in Japan once criticised the Dalai Lama in his piece of work, and he was immediately revenged by pouring inks and spitting at his face. His daughter, who worked in the Tibetan Government in Exile, was then kept as a hostage.”

Du Xinyu’s article is nothing but lies. The mind-boggling amount of audacious allegations squeezed into that single para alone speaks volumes for the ingenuity of the writer’s mendacity. Leave aside the grotesque allegation of “witch-hunting and political assassination”, the writer is lying through his teeth. While many would rubbish these statements as figments of the writer’s own imagination, some might argue that they are inspired from his own real-life experiences of surviving and thriving in a corrupt, repressive system.

It takes only a grain of truth to crumble a mountain of lies. Take for instance, the allegation of “attacking political opponents.” In his article, Du Xinyu claimed that:

“A scholar who resided in Japan once criticised the Dalai Lama in his piece of work, and he was immediately revenged by pouring inks and spitting at his face. His daughter, who worked in the Tibetan government-in-exile, was then kept as a hostage.”

The so-called scholar based in Japan and the person who was dealt with, as Du Xinyu claimed, “by pouring inks and spitting at his face” were not one, but two separate creatures. Furthermore, there is more to their stories than the shrewd Chinese writer was willing to spin out.

The first story dates back to 1988, when a Tibetan scholar based in Japan, Khangsar Tsultrim, published a book on the history of Buddhist doctrines in India. The concluding pages of that book carried, to put it little bluntly, a self-conceited cocky verse declaring the author as the only living scholar capable of writing an authoritative history of religion in the language of the Land of Snows. In what was perceived as his intellectual arrogance, the book also carried a blanket presumption that at present there are no genuine Buddhist scholars, except only a bunch of imposters, hoodwinking the people under the guise of “Tenzin” (literally, dharma holder). The readers should note that “Tenzin” can also easily be (mis)understood as “Tenzin Gyatso”, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama.

His ill-advised commentaries were bound to ruffle feathers in the circles of exile intelligentsia, especially among his peers. The issue snowballed into a topic of feisty debate in the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile. Since the exile parliament is a democratic institution that practices and protects free speech, the issue soon came to a dead end, without any impact.

Subsequently, on the occasion of the inauguration of a new assembly hall of Gyuto monastery at Dharamshala, His Holiness the Dalai Lama gave teachings to a large crowd of both Tibetan and non-Tibetan devotees. At that time, Khangsar Tsultrim accompanied a group of Japanese sponsors of the assembly hall when they were granted a private audience with His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Since I also attended that teaching ceremony, I clearly remember His Holiness personally encouraging Khangsar Tsultrim to keep up the good work in writing unbiased, objective accounts of the history of Tibetan religion.

That I think is all there is to say about Khangsar Tsultrim.

Du Xinyu therefore exposed his own lies when he claimed that Khangsar Tsultrim was, ”...immediately revenged by pouring inks and spitting at his face. His daughter, who worked in the Tibetan Government in Exile, was then kept as a hostage.”

His utter lack of respect for moral credibility—a trait common in those surviving on the Chinese state payroll—is clear from the way he mixed up two entirely different people, perhaps for want of better characters to support the Chinese narrative. He also distorted or concealed facts that are crucial to understanding what really happened and why it happened.

If my memory serves me right, the other incident occurred on 31 July 1990 in front of the residential quarter of a female Tibetan staff, Dekyi, at Gangchen Kyishong, the centre of Tibetan headquarters in exile.

Dekyi’s father, Alo Chozed, was once a people’s delegate in pre-1959 Tibet. He later escaped to exile and settled at one of the Tibetan settlements in South India. There, in partnership with others, he ventured into a business enterprise of corn farming. Unfortunately, due to highly erratic weather and fluctuating market prices, the business sustained heavy losses, rendering him bankrupt. His partners also filed lawsuits against him. Eventually, out of utter desperation, he returned to Tibet.

His situation in Tibet turned out to be even worse. The Chinese authorities initially fawned on him, only to exploit him as their propaganda stooge. They lured him into their trap by treating him to lavish banquets and a luxury apartment.

One day, the regional United Front Work Department hosted a gala dinner to celebrate his return from India. Present also at the dinner were members of the “TAR Regional People’s Congress” and Communist Party cadres. In an attempt to extract comments out of him, an official asked him to share his thoughts on returning to the bosom of the Motherland. Alo Chozed summed up his thoughts in this way: He said that while he was in India, each and every day, he would pray to the three Precious Jewels to grant him three wishes:

“Firstly, I prayed for Tibetan independence, but for that I see no hope now. Secondly, I prayed for a chance to go back to my homeland, which I have now achieved. Lastly, I prayed for the prosperity of Buddha dharma, which I think is already happening in the present Tibet.”

Needless to say, the Chinese media dressed up his comments with bogus details and splashed it across their front pages in bold letters. His comments no doubt courted the wrath of popular outrage. Everywhere he went, people in the capital city of Lhasa greeted him with derision and scornful insults. His own sister refused to allow him into her house, saying “You should be ashamed of yourself.” Even the apartment provided to him by the Chinese government was dubbed as “The traitor house.”

He tried to lodge complaints to various government authorities, but to no avail. Since the authorities had already exploited him to his full potential, treating him thus as use-and-throw, they took no heed of his repeated pleas for help. Life in Tibet became increasingly untenable for him. He had no option but to go back to India once again, as the only place where he could hope for solace was at Dharamshala, with his daughter.

The reception he got in Dahramshala was naturally not friendly. Thanks to extensive Chinese propaganda about him, he was already quite notorious in the exile community also. As a result, within just few days, talks of his arrival swiftly spread across the town.

Thus, on the morning of 31 July 1991, at about 9:30, a group of 30-odd elderly women—perhaps on their way to circumambulating the temple, got word of him being at his daughter’s residence, and descended down the hill to Gangchen Kyishong. The protesters stood outside the staff quarters building, shouting comments at Alo Chozed, daring him to step outside.

Even though Dekyi tried to convince them that her father was lodged at a nearby Indian hotel, the grannies would have none of that. They were adamant that he was holed up there and soon barged into her house, but found him not there.

Fearing for the safety of her father, Dekyi promptly reported the matter to the Tibetan Security Department and the local Indian police. In about an hour, two Tibetan officers were escorting him to the Security Department, when suddenly they were confronted by a bunch of angry grannies. Many of them were crying in their anger and disgust. They surrounded him, demanding explanation for why he defected to China, and why he slandered His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Alo Chozed rejected all those allegations, saying he never said such things. He added that the comments attributed to him by the Chinese media were nothing but lies. His clarification, unfortunately, came rather too late. The grannies kept on agitating, calling him a traitor. Some spat on him. In the heat of the moment, an elderly woman, also named Chozed, suddenly came to the fore and smeared black soot on his face. More security officers and local Indian policemen arrived at the scene, and he was safely escorted to his daughter’s residence.

It must however be pointed out that there was no violence or injuries during this entire incident. Along with several of my colleagues, I witnessed the entire drama as it unfolded in front of the Security Department. Contrary to Chinese allegations, the Tibetan administration was in fact extremely thoughtful and considerate in swiftly arranging for (or assisting in) the migration of Alo Chozed to Australia, as his son-in-law was already in the country, as the secretary of Tibet office in Canberra.

There is thus absolutely no truth whatsoever to Chinese allegations of “attacking political opponents” or keeping daughter “as a hostage”. For those in the free world, who are familiar with the culture of Tibetan democracy, no amount of Chinese deception and persuasion would suffice to compel them into believing this so-called “witch-hunting and political assassination.” Throwing up such wild allegations without corroborating them with adequate facts can only backfire on their own credibility, which is already next to level zero.

If the recent blitzkrieg of Chinese propaganda on Tibetan polity is any indication, the introduction of democracy in exile has been highly successful and effective. No one kicks a dead dog, as they say. Only those on the path to success get shoved around.

Furthermore, this also demonstrates why Chinese propaganda is meant mostly for domestic consumption. To sum it up in Wu Si’s words, the Chinese state manufactures lies, while the Chinese people fake buying them.

NB: The article was originally posted on Boxun in Chinese language. It has been translated and adapted into English by Dhundup Gyalpo.

Copyright © 2010 Tsering Wangchuk

Published in Tibet Sun