Dalai Lama holds out 'olive branch' again
Updated: 2008-08-26 07:33
Dalai Lama's new "olive branch" is held in a Westerner's hands and is waved to the world through a Western newspaper.
In his article, An Olive Branch from the Dalai Lama, published on the day of the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof wrote: "For the first time, the Dalai Lama is willing to state that he can accept the socialist system in Tibet under Communist Party rule." And the Dalai Lama told him "the main thing is to preserve our culture, to preserve the character of Tibet. That is what is most important, not politics."
What has gone wrong with Tibetan culture? What crises is the character of Tibet facing? What makes the Dalai Lama so determined to preserve these that he is willing to make significant compromises and even to accept the socialist system?
The topic might be too big and Tibet is too far away. So let's just make the big small, the far near. The other day, I went to a small store in Dongdan, a place not far from the Peking Union Medical College Hospital. Statues of Tibetan Buddha were displayed in the window and beautiful thangkas were decorated on the wall.
I really wanted to take a few photos but the owner wouldn't let me for business reason. As far as I know, there are many stores like this in Beijing that are owned by Tibetan people or local residents. Can this demonstrate one aspect of today's Tibetan culture?
Another day I went to the China Tibetology Research Center, which was designed in Tibetan style, just two kilometers away from the Bird's Nest where the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was held. Next to it were a few other Tibetan-style buildings including the Beijing Tibet Hotel, Tibetan Middle School and Tibetan Folk Museum. All these buildings were painted in purple color, the same color of the robe of Tibetan monks. With so many Tibetan-style architectures concentrated here, Beijing seems to have become a Tibetan village.
As for books, arts, literature, music and dance, it can be said that the Tibetan culture never flourished in Beijing as it does today. There is only one problem with the protection and development of Tibetan culture. That is how the Chinese government, after so many years of the Dalai Lama's propaganda and the distorted reports of Western media, can make Western people believe that the "cultural genocide in Tibet" is not one of its policies.
The Tibetan character has long existed in the development of history with both essence and dross. The backward and outdated characteristics such as the serf system and the feudal privileges have been buried in the past. If most people in the West are no longer in favor of the medieval religious court, tithe, and the indulgences that their forefathers experienced in the Dark Ages, then why should Tibet preserve similar backward characters?
The article also talked about one "worrying" prospect that "much of Tibet is likely to have been drowned in a sea of Chinese migration." The author offered a solution to it. That is "to restrict migration into all Tibetan areas, inside and outside the autonomous region through China's existing system of residence permits and the Chinese authorities would stop issuing resident permits, known as hukou, to non-Tibetans for any Tibetan area".
The Chinese government has never adopted any massive migration policy for Tibet, as the Dalai Lama claimed. While the domestic economy is becoming more and more interlinked and people's living standard continues to improve, it is reasonable that people in the eastern region would migrate to the western region. And there are also Tibetans who reside outside the region. Many countries have experienced and some are still experiencing similar ethnic migration .
In China, all ethnic groups are equal. If other ethnic groups from the inland are not allowed to enter Tibet, then should the Tibetan people be also forbidden to go to the inland provinces? If the restriction is one-sided, then some ethnic groups will be granted privileged rights. If the restriction is on both sides, will it become an issue of "human rights" violation?
Furthermore, the fact that intermarriage between Han and Tibetan people started as early as the Tang Dynasty some 1,300 years ago was documented in written records. And the intermarriage between different ethnic groups is one of the characters of Tibetan culture.
If migration were restricted, wouldn't the Dalai Lama be afraid of losing this part of Tibetan character? Could the young Tibetan people still have the freedom to love or does it mean that they have to live separately after marriage? Do those who migrated to Tibet decades or centuries ago and their offspring who were half, one-fourth or one-eighth Tibetan have the right to stay in the region?
The Dalai Lama has once again revealed his wish to go back to China. What he needs to do is admit his past mistakes and accept the reality.
Honestly speaking, the Dalai Lama, with the support of some Western forces who are hostile to China, has done so many wrong and unethical things. Distorting the history of Tibet, damaging the image of the country, hurting the feeling of the people, undermining the unity of the country, just to name a few.
It is not an effective strategy for him to play tricks with the central government and stick to the idea that he is the only person who represents Tibet and the Tibetan people.
The author is a researcher in ethnic and religious theories with the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China
(China Daily 08/26/2008 page9)
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
|