Kalon Tripa Professor Samdhong Rinpoche’s Keynote Address on Round Table Discussion on “Greater Tibet”
Peter Terpstra
on Round Table Discussion on “Greater Tibet”
in New Delhi, 27 August 2009
Introduction
Since 1979, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has adopted the Middle-Way Approach of
not seeking separation but for Tibet to remain within the People's Republic of
China (PRC). His Holiness the Dalai Lama has repeatedly requested for the
implementation of National Regional Autonomy provisions to the entire Tibetan
nationality in order to preserve and promote Tibet's cultural and spiritual
heritage and identity.
Since 1951, during the negotiations for the 17-point agreement, the Tibetan
side had asked for one autonomous administration for the entire Tibetan
nationality. Since then, this aspiration of Tibetan people has remained
consistent.
In 2002, after the restoration of direct contact between Dharamsala and
Beijing, eight rounds of formal dialogue and one informal consultation were
held between the envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the concerned PRC
officials. In the process, we have further clarified how the entire Tibetan
nationality can be brought under one autonomous administration within the
provisions of constitution and autonomy law and what are the advantages by
doing this.
Unfortunately, the PRC officials twisted our argument by saying His Holiness
the Dalai Lama is demanding “Greater Tibet”. Although we never use the phrase
“Greater Tibet” at any time, this propaganda can create confusion or
misunderstanding in the minds of people who do not have full understanding of
the issue.
I appreciate the Tibet Study Group for arranging this round table discussion
and allowing me to submit the reality in detail.
1. Definition and usage of “Greater Tibet”
The expression “Greater Tibet” has been used by ancient Indian scholars to
indicate the geographical distance of the parts of Tibet from India. The
regions of Tibet which border India or are near it were called Tibet (Bhota)
and the regions of Tibet which are far away from India were known as Greater
Tibet (Mahābhota).
In Sanskrit idiom, with reference to geographical area, distant places are
usually qualified by the word greater. For example, the jungle which is near a
town is called jungle (Arañya) and the jungle which is far away from the town
is known as greater jungle (Mahārañya). Indeed this expression doesn’t refer
to size or quality but it connotes distance.
In the ancient times, the Chinese and Tibetans, occasionally, used to refer
each other as Great China and Great Tibet as an honorific word. But these were
used referring to the whole of China and whole of Tibet not specifying the
parts of the territory. Sino-Tibetan treaty of 821-822 also used the word
Great Tibet and Great China. Later on, Chinese changed this honorific word
from Great Tibet to High Tibet, which indicates high plateau rather than
greatness. During the Ming and Manchu period, they coined different words to
indicate different parts of Tibet such as familiar Tibet and unfamiliar Tibet
to distinguish between Tibetan areas which border China and those which are
far away from China.
However, Tibetans themselves have never used the word “Greater Tibet” to
classify any part of Tibet. There are traditional ways of distinguishing
regions of the country such as upper, middle and lower or U-tsang, Kham and
Amdo or the three Cholkas, etc.
The Republic of China’s, pre-1949, official term for distinguishing different
parts of Tibet was Inner Tibet and Outer Tibet, similar to that of Mongolia
which was identified between Inner and Outer Mongolia. Inner Tibet refers to
the regions which were under China by that time and outer Tibet refers to
independent or autonomous Tibet. These terms were used in the documents of the
Shimla Convention (1913-14) by the three parties.
Moreover, it is strange that in Tibetan and Chinese language there is only one
word for big or great. This is used as an honorific or refers to size. In
English there are two different words, "Great" and "Greater". When word
"Greater" is prefixed to a country, its meaning may encompass a political
boundary referring to language and cultural domain. This creates
misunderstanding in the minds of English-speaking people. Thus this is a
matter which needs subtle analysis and one should not be carried away by the
words.
2. Propaganda over “Greater Tibet”
In recent times (after 1979) the authorities of the PRC coined the new term,
“Greater Tibet”, to refer to the total areas habited by Tibetan nationality
which are at present divided into Tibet Autonomous Region and other Tibetan
autonomous prefectures and counties.
In reality, Tibet is Tibet. There is no greater or smaller Tibet. All Tibetans
belong to one minority nationality among the 55 minority nationalities of the
PRC.
Beijing tries to mislead the international community by saying that His
Holiness the Dalai Lama is demanding “Greater Tibet” which is one fourth of
the PRC’s territory. This propaganda is done to make people believe that His
Holiness the Dalai Lama’s aspiration is unreasonable and that he is asking for
separation of one fourth of the PRC or that His Holiness is asking for
inclusion of certain areas into autonomous region that are not already
declared as Tibetan autonomous areas.
In reality, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has never used the word “Greater
Tibet” at any time verbally or in written document. If someone surveys the
entire correspondences, statements, documents and any other written dossiers
of the Tibetans since 1979, one will not find a single instance of the word
“Greater Tibet” being used. This is PRC’s word, which they are trying to
project as if it is His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s position.
3. What is His Holiness the Dalai Lama asking for?
What His Holiness the Dalai Lama is asking the PRC’s central government to do
is the following:
* to have one autonomous administration for all the Tibetan autonomous
areas
* to genuinely implement the constitutional provisions of national
regional autonomy
His Holiness the Dalai Lama has made these requests in accordance with the
spirit of the PRC Constitution and its Autonomy Law.
a) Article 4 of the Constitution says:
All nationalities in the People’s Republic of China are equal. The State
protects the lawful rights and interests of the minority nationalities and
upholds and develops a relationship of equality, unity and mutual assistance
among all of China’s nationalities. Discrimination against and oppression of
any nationalities are prohibited; any act which undermines the unity of the
nationalities or instigates division is prohibited.
The State assists areas inhabited by minority nationalities in accelerating
their economic and cultural development according to the characteristics and
needs of the various minority nationalities.
Regional autonomy is practiced in areas where people of minority nationalities
live in concentrated communities; in these areas organs of self-government are
established to exercise the power of autonomy.
All national autonomous areas are integral parts of the People’s Republic of
China.
All nationalities have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken and
written language and to preserve or reform their own folkways and customs.
b) Preamble of the National Regional Autonomy Law says,
Regional national autonomy means that the minority nationalities, under the
unified state leadership, practise regional autonomy in areas where they live
in concentrated communities and set up organs of self-government for the
exercise of power of autonomy. Regional national autonomy embodies the state’s
full respect for and guarantee of the right of the minority nationalities to
administer their internal affairs and its adherence to the principle of
equality, unity and common prosperity for all its nationalities.
c) Similarly article 2 of the Autonomy Law says,
Regional autonomy shall be practiced in areas where minority nationalities
live in concentrated communities. National autonomous areas shall be
classified into autonomous regions, autonomous prefectures and autonomous
counties.
All national autonomous areas are integral parts of the People’s Republic of
China.
d) Division of minority nationalities who live in a concentrated community is
a direct violation of the Constitution as quoted above. This resembles the
policy of “divide-and-rule’’ adopted by the imperialist regimes in the past.
How one can expect the unification of all nationalities as a whole without
unifying the minority nationalities themselves?
In fact, a senior party member, Phuntsok Wangyal, rightly said, “..it has been
proven that the policy of ‘administrating Tibet’ which calls for ‘divide-and-
rule policy’ is a mistake and historically this is a bitter lesson. If the
thinking of Big Nationality Supremacy is abandoned - especially the bias in
the nationalities policy that suggests ‘divide-and-rule,’ then there would not
be any problems in changing and adjusting the administrative division policy.”
e) Preamble of the Constitution solemnly declares,
The People’s Republic of China is a unitary multi-national State created
jointly by the people of all its nationalities. Socialist relations of
equality, unity and mutual assistance have been established among the
nationalities and will continue to be strengthened. In the struggle to
safeguard the unity for the nationalities, it is necessary to combat big-
nation chauvinism, mainly Han chauvinism, and to combat local national
chauvinism. The State will do its utmost to promote the common prosperity of
all the nationalities.
In order for you have to a clearer picture I would like to present some maps.
These maps are taken from various sources only to show internal administrative
divisions of the PRC. Their international boundaries are not necessarily
accurate and do not reflect the views of this author.
http://www.tibet.net/en/image/press/press2309091542.jpg
ii) Autonomous Areas of PRC
http://www.tibet.net/en/image/press/press2309091543.jpg
iii)
http://www.tibet.net/en/image/press/press2309091541.jpg
iv)
http://www.tibet.net/en/image/press/press2309091540.jpg
4. PRC's objection and Tibetan position
Now I would like to respond to the PRC’s objection from our point of view.
i) The size of area
The PRC authorities say that the Tibetan autonomous areas cannot be put under
one administration because the area is so large and it constitutes one fourth
of the PRC’s territory.
It is true that the Tibetan area constitutes one fourth of the PRC’s
territory, but it was not created by us. In fact, it came about by natural
process and has existed since time immemorial, which no one can change at this
point of time. It is not that Tibetan people have moved into these areas in
recent times. They were in these areas right from the beginning of human
civilization in Tibet. Tibetans are the indigenous inhabitants of these areas
throughout history.
ii) Size should not matter
The area of Tibet may appear quite large but we are not seeking separation and
are willing to remain as an autonomous region of the PRC. Despite its
largeness or smallness, Tibet will remain within the territory of the PRC.
There are other large autonomous regions as well such as Xinjiang Uygur
Autonomous Region and Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. In case of the
Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, it constitutes about one sixth of the PRC
territory and the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region is about one eighth.
Therefore, the size of a territory should not be a hindrance to making one
autonomous region for the people of the same nationality.
In fact, 64.3% of the PRC's total territory belongs to 155 autonomous areas
for 55 minority nationalities. This is despite the fact that the population of
these minority nationalities constitutes only 8.46% of the total population of
the PRC.
The PRC authorities did not hesitate to make 64.3% of its total territory as
autonomous areas because these areas remain within the PRC’s territory.
Article 4 of the Constitution declares that “..All national autonomous areas
are integral parts of the People’s Republic of China.” The crucial point is
that whether the Tibetan autonomous areas remain within one administration or
under several administrations does not change either the size of the Tibetan
autonomous areas or the total size of the autonomous areas of the PRC.
Not putting the entire Tibetan autonomous areas under one administration does
not reduce the size of the Tibetan autonomous areas. Anyway, the Tibetan
autonomous areas constitute one fourth of the PRC’s total territory.
Therefore, the size of areas has no relevance with the function of one
administration or several administrations for the Tibetans.
iii) Not history but nationality
a) The PRC authorities say that Tibetans have never remained under one
administration in history. But this is not true. Tibetans were under one
administration until the mid 9th century. Later Tibetans were again re-
integrated into one administration in 1260 under Drogon Choegyal Phakpa. This
was offered to him by emperor Kublai Khan and this offering explicitly refers
to the three Cholkas with clear demarcation of its borders. Such unified
administration remained until 1730s. Parts of the Tibetan areas were merged
into Sichuan, Gansu and Yunnan during the rule of Emperor Yongzheng, after
Tibetan civil war between U and Tsang which invited Manchu’s influence in
Tibet.
b) Moreover, we are not making any demand on the basis of history. As we all
know, history is never static. Throughout history every country in the world,
including China, has never remained exactly in the same status as it is now.
For example, there is no history of Communist Party’s rule in China prior to
1949 but this doesn’t prevent Communist Party of China to rule the country for
the last 60 years.
c) The basis of our demand is the concept of National Regional Autonomy for
minority nationalities propounded by Marx, Lenin, Mao and the provisions
enshrined in the Constitution of the PRC. The concept of National Regional
Autonomy itself is not based on history but it is a concept that came out of a
revolutionary principle.
iv) Re-adjustment of boundary is not a hindrance
The PRC authorities argue that it is not possible to re-draw the boundary
within the PRC.
a) But we perceive it possible because there is a provision for this in the
National Regional Autonomy Law.
Article 14 of the Autonomy Law says:
The establishment of a national autonomous area, the delineation of its
boundaries and the elements of its name shall be proposed by the state organ
at the next higher level jointly with the state organ in the relevant
locality, after full consultation with representatives of the relevant
nationalities, before they are submitted for approval according to the
procedures prescribed by law.
Once defined, the boundaries of a national autonomous area may not be altered
without authorization. When an alteration is found necessary, it shall be
proposed by the relevant department of the state organ at the next higher
level after full consultation with the state organ of self-government of the
national autonomous area before it is submitted to the State Council for
approval.
b) Moreover, we are not seeking additional areas to be included in the Tibetan
autonomous areas. It is only to make alterations in the administration.
Instead of having several autonomous administrations, one autonomous
administration should be established. It neither affects China’s borders with
other countries nor its domestic boundaries between autonomous areas and non-
autonomous areas, nor, above all, the territorial integrity of the Chinese
state.
v) Precedence of boundary re-adjustments in the PRC
There is also precedence of re-adjusting the boundaries of autonomous areas
and provinces. To cite a few examples:
a) Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region
Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region was established in 1947, based on the Soviet
nationalities policy of the Communist Party of China. Initially, it included
just the Hulunbuir region. Over the next decade, after the founding of the
PRC, Inner Mongolia was expanded westwards to include five of the six original
leagues. Eventually, all areas with sizeable Mongol population were
incorporated into the region, giving present-day Inner Mongolia its size and
elongated shape.
Thereafter, in 1969, during the Cultural Revolution, most of the areas of
Inner Mongolia were incorporated into nearby provinces. However, later in
1979, these were once again reorganized back into the Inner Mongolia
Autonomous Region.
b) Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region
Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region was founded in 1958 by transforming Guangxi
Province into an autonomous region for the Zhuang nationality.
In 1952 a small section of Guangdong’s coastline was given to Guangxi, giving
it access to the sea. This was reversed in 1955, and again reversed back in
1965.
c) Hainan Province
In 1988, Hainan Island was separated from Guangdong and became a new province.
d) Chongqing Municipality
In 1997, Chongqing was created as a directly administered municipality by
excluding it from Sichuan province.
5. Not new but long overdue
For the whole of Tibet to come under one autonomous administration is not an
afterthought or a fresh demand.
a) The issue was raised in 1951 during the negotiation of the 17-Point
Agreement. The Tibetan delegation submitted a petition regarding this issue
signed by Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation. At that time
Premier Zhou Enlai verbally responded by saying that the idea of unification
of the Tibetan nationalities is appropriate but the time is not yet ripe.
b) On 29 September 1951, a three-point suggestion was made by the Kashag, the
government of Tibet, to Zhang Jingwu (Central Government’s representative in
Tibet). The first point was to have a single administrative entity for all the
Tibetans.
c) In 1953, Dege Kelsang Wangdue, the deputy Chairman of Chamdo People’s
Liberation Committee and others demanded that whole Tibetan nationality come
under one administrative entity.
d) During the establishment of the Preparatory Committee of the Tibet
Autonomous Region in 1956, a meeting was organized in Lhasa. In that meeting,
Vice-Premier Chen Yi and other representatives of Chinese government said that
it would be very beneficial for the development of the Tibetan area, unity and
stability of the country and harmony between the Tibetans and Chinese peoples
if a unified Tibetan Autonomous Region, with Lhasa as its center, was
established by merging Tibetan areas in eastern provinces of Qinghai, Gansu,
Sichuan and Yunnan with Central Tibet.
Later, the Central leadership dispatched a senior Communist Party member,
Sangye Yeshi (Tian Bao), and appointed a special committee to make a detailed
plan on the unification of the areas in the five provinces. However, this work
could not make progress on account of ultra-leftist elements in Tibet.
e) Similarly, in 1980, a few Tibetan cadres of Kanlho Tibetan Autonomous
Prefecture submitted a signed petition to the central government of China to
establish a single administration for all the Tibetan areas.
f) The 10th Panchen Lama, the then Vice-chairman of National People’s
Congress, said when inaugurating the Tibet Development Project, “The desire
for the establishment of an autonomous region for a unified Tibetan
nationality is appropriate and is in accordance with the legal rules. It is
also in line with the views of the entire Tibetan population. The issue is
only a matter of ripening the conditions and not about postponement or a
reactionary issue.”
g) Central leadership’s acceptance for the unification of Tibetan areas in
principle was acknowledged by senior party member Phuntsok Wangyal. He said,
“The desire for a unified autonomous region of Tibet was accepted in principle
by the Chinese government and its leaders in the 1950s...”
6. Benefits of a single administration for all Tibetan nationality
To the Central Government
* Will help to realize constitutional objectives of establishing equality
and unity among all nationalities
* Will promote confidence and goodwill towards the Central Government
among the minority nationalities in general and Tibetans in particular
* Will help to contain local nationalism
* Will ensure unity and stability of the PRC
* Will ensure peaceful coexistence and harmony between Tibetans and all
other nationalities
* Will help to realize harmonious society and peaceful rise of China
To the Tibetan People
* Will help to protect and preserve unique Tibetan culture and identity
which has a potential to provide valuable service for entire humanity
* Will help to protect Tibetan nationality from assimilation and
disappearance
* Will help to protect Tibet’s fragile environment, which largely
determines the environment of the entire Asian continent.
* Will help to enhance socio-economic development
To the Autonomous Government
* Will be easier to administer
* Will reduce administrative expenditure
* Will help to make integrated developmental plans and the usage of
natural resources for the entire community
* Will help to make uniform policy of education, health, environment and
social custom
* Will help to promote harmonious relation with the Central government,
provinces and other autonomous areas
* Will help in implementing Central government’s policies and directives
effectively for all Tibetan people
7. Conclusion
The basic aspiration of all the Tibetan people in today’s PRC to have a
uniform policy that will enable them to preserve and promote their distinct
identity is a right granted by the PRC constitution and relevant statutes.
Keeping in view of above-mentioned facts, to make one autonomous
administration for all Tibetan autonomous areas is appropriately desirable and
easily achievable. For this to happen there is neither any need to make
amendments to the Constitution nor any change in political system is needed.
It only requires a political will of the leadership.
http://www.tibet.net/en/index.php?id=104&articletype=press&tab=2&rmenuid=morepress#TabbedPanels1.
--
Amnesty International Report 2009 on China:
http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/asia-pacific/china