CND: Have you ever been to Tibet?
Wei: I have never been to Tibet. I have visited many provinces and cities, but never to Tibet.
CND: Then how have you developed your understanding and research about Tibet?
Wei: My initial interests were related to my former girl friend Pingni. As she was a Tibetan, naturally I began to develop an interest in Tibetan problems. For the 1950's her father had served as the Director of the Nationalities Research Institute of the Academy of Sciences, therefore many of the old research fellows were acquainted with me. Through them I got to read a variety of books and documents, which were not publicly available. Thereby I understood the truths about some Tibetan problems. Such truths were almost totally different from the
public propaganda from the Communist Party.
CND: Some people say that, when the People's Liberation Army moved into Tibet, and liberated the Tibetan people from their slavery system, they accomplished an important good deed. How do you look at this?
Wei: This issue should be examined from two perspectives. First, Tibet did not have a slavery system. Rather, what it had was a serfdom system, and a special kind of serfdom system.
CND: Would you explain your perception of the difference between the slavery system and the serfdom system?
Wei: Under the slavery system a person completely loses his freedom -- personal freedom and financial rights no longer exist. He can only obey the master's commands. The slave's master may punish him at will, and may kill him at will. He has become the master's property.
CND: In my impression all serfs in Tibet are like that.
Wei: Your impressions have probably been formed from many years of Communist Party propaganda.
CND: Right, primarily from two sources, one was the Tibetan serfdom exhibition at the Cultural Palace of the Nationalities, and the other was the motion picture "Serfdom."
Wei: The slavery system, which I have just mentioned, is the typical slavery system in the Western world. The slavery system discussed in the Marxism doctrine was also taken from the conception of Western intellectuals, based on ancient Roman and Greek slavery systems. But under the Tibetan serfdom system, serfs still possessed many rights, including the right of not being killed at will. Furthermore, serfs belonged to the public and the so called masters were supervisors only. In addition the serfs had considerable freedom, they were
allowed to go anywhere - as far as their legs would carry them, or as far as their horses would take them, only that they could not emigrate. Actually such prohibition against free emigration was exactly identical to the system practiced by the Communist Party for several decades. I was very surprised when I first realized this.
During the 1980's I sent Hu Yaobang and ZHAO Ziyang several letters, very clearly pointing out to them that, the system maintained by the Communist Party on the Chinese mainland was typical of the serfdom system, even worse than the residual serfdom systems in Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Outer Mongolia before the communists took control. Because even serfdom masters must look after the livelihood of the serfs, such was their responsibility -- not that they would provide when they felt like it, nor not provide when they did not feel like it,
it was a matter of responsibility. The master must keep the serfs alive, providing adequate food and clothing.
CND: This does not sound right. What about all those exhibits in the Cultural Palace of the Nationalities in Beijing, such as human skins, human skulls, as well as criminal slaughtering of slaves, What was that
all about?
Wei: For the exhibitions, they could just scrounge up some stuff. We have lived under the communist system for so many years, do we not know that the Communist Party could make things up? The serfdom system was the serfdom system. What I have said were taken from books and Tibetan laws and regulations, and also confirmed by many Tibetans. Even the former serfs themselves, on the basis of personal experience, have said the same thing. There is no question about it. I have investigated it. I had pursued research into this over a long period of time, and in 1978 I took an examination for admission as a graduate student into
the Institute of Nationalities Research of the Academy of Social Sciences, with the intention to pursuing research in Tibetan history, then I got bumped.
CND: What about those human skulls in the exhibits?
Wei: In fact I consulted some Tibetans about those skulls. They said that in certain aristocratic families, sometimes there might have been a particularly well-known ancestor, his descendants wished to memorialize him, by making a lamp out of his skull, filling it with butter, for continual lighting, implying that the ancestor's wisdom would enlighten future generations, that was the significance. What you referred to, at the Cultural Palace of the Nationalities, was in fact a lamp made from a human skull.
It was not from an act of cruelty. If they had held their serfs in despise, why would they place something from the serfs right in front of them every day? Suppose you were the serf master, and you killed a serf, he would bitterly hate you. Then you placed his skull in front of your eyes every day, let him stare at you constantly, how would you feel? I also saw this particular exhibit, when we were very young, but we did not think through this problem. The question you just posed to me, I have mentioned to several Tibetans. Some common folks were unable to explain it, but those with aristocratic origination did explain it to
me. I have also consulted some scholars, who confirmed the explanation.
CND: Would you say that the entry of the People's Liberation Army into Tibet, on the basis of historical considerations, was a good thing or a bad thing?
Wei: If they followed the Twenty-one Conditions, which they had signed in an agreement with the Dalai Lama back in 1950, it would not have been a bad thing; it could rate as a good thing. The problem was that, Deng Xiaoping was anxious to produce results, he tried to push through a system unacceptable to the Tibetans, including reforms.
CND: What reforms?
Wei: The so-called democratic reforms. With drastic moves, total elimination of the serfdom system, and division of all farms of serfdom masters. First of all, the serfs could not accept this, because then no one would protect their livelihood, they were unwilling. If you acted in too much haste, they would also be unwilling. In fact it should be pointed out that, since the 1940's, the Tibetan regional government had started to pursue reforms. Gradual release of serfs, gradual expansion of free citizenship, including reforms of social
legislation and the like, were in progress, and at reasonable speed. Such reforms were all interrupted by the Communist Party in the 1950's. All the reforms were turned back. Many people in Tibet said that, we had not been serfs before, but now we were somewhat turned into serfdom.
It's not hard for Tibetans to make the comparison -- there were still many serfs in Tibet at that time, but they no longer constituted a majority among the populace, although they still accounted for a high percentage. As statistics from various sources differed in details, it was difficult to pinpoint specifics. However, some elderly scholars told me that, while there indeed had been a serfdom system, the numbers of serfs no longer made up a majority among the Tibetan population. When you set up the people's communes there, could they not easily compare, and conclude that everybody has become a serf?
CND: What kind of people was serfdom composed of?
Wei: Serfdom was mostly hereditary, in fact some poor folks, vagrants and the like, who wanted to be serfs, were not even accepted. When they became serfs, they would be fed, no more worries. The work efficiencies of serfs were just like our previous "daguofan" days, they were in no hurry, working leisurely, slowly, doing little by little, as long as they were guaranteed food and clothing.
CND: This is all new to me.
Wei: If you study history, you will discover that the serfdom system was just like this. That was why historically the serfdom, whether in the Western or the Eastern world, never lasted very long, this was the
reason.
CND: Would you talk about the depopulated zones in Tibet? I remember reading an article entitled "Out of Tibet," very well written. The author wrote about his passing through many depopulated zones in Tibet. Does Tibet cover a very large area, with lots of no man's land?
Wei: He might have referred to the Qiangtang area in northern Tibet, which was always lightly populated. If it was indeed the Qiangtang area, I doubt that he could have passed through there. That would be impossible. In those years the military wanted to set up some radar stations there, but none was able to stay there for long.
CND: The article described his walking through the Ulterior-Tibet area.
Wei: That was the Ali area in Ulterior Tibet. It was well populated in the past, and has reasonable population now. It is in Tibet, and cannot be compared with the inland. In fact, in the ancient time, it was quite a prosperous place, a strong empire. Before the entry of the communists, and the British invasion of Kashmir, this place was still quite a large empire, affiliated with the Dalai Lama government, and called the Ladakh Empire. The current Dalai Lama lives in the Ladakh area. It is populated by Tibetans. The Communist Party occupied one
half of Ladakh, only the northern half of Ladakh, which is the present Ali area. Later they reached an agreement with India, virtually ceding them the other half of Ladakh. This was what happened. The Indians had wanted to take all of Ladakh, since the British had simply imposed occupation without any treaty and the Chinese government had never agreed, they just grabbed it anyway. After the Sino-India border war, it seems as if, even without definitive drawing of the border, the other half of Ladakh was conceded to the other side. That area is now controlled by the Indian government.
CND: Such a large Ladakh Empire, with one-half taken by India, where has the population of the remaining half gone? How come it became a depopulated zone?
Wei: There are still many towns and villages there, with relatively high population. Many people have talked about "passing through the depopulated zone," "entering the depopulated zone," including what I have read in newspapers and magazines. In fact many people have moved into the depopulated zones, and Tibetans have moved in from Sichuan to graze sheep there. With abundant water and grass there, how could it become a no man's land? Actually because the Tibetans had put up very strong resistance at first, the populace were all killed off. Because of their living environment, with relatively low populations, who were concentrated in small places, they were readily surrounded. While in Qinghai I met some soldiers, who had participated in counter-rebellion missions, and then transferred to Qinghai. They said that their cavalry had fought there, killing off entire villages, without leaving
a single soul. They killed off whole populations of small tribes, one by one.
CND: Thus created depopulated zones.
Wei: Yes, created by the so-called counter-rebellion forces. At the time some soldiers felt sick watching the slaughter. On the one hand they were carrying out orders from above, on the other hand resistance by the other side was very fierce. Men and women, old and young, all pitched into battle, thus resulting in wholesale slaughters.
CND: This seems similar to the killing of Indians in American history.
Wei: Possibly worse than that. The Americans mainly wanted to push through and remove them, killing off just some, shrinking their territories, reducing their living resources, causing gradual decreases of the Indian populations. It was worse than that in Tibet, entire villages were surrounded, and everyone was killed.
CND: The current problem between Tibet and the inland central government, some say that it is primarily because the Dalai Lama advocates independence, with unequivocal opposition by the Chinese government ...
Wei: Actually I have met several important representatives from the side of the Dalai Lama. They repeatedly explained to me that the Dalai Lama government was in fact not particularly concerned about independence or no independence. They did not want to advocate independence; the Dalai Lama was primarily concerned with the rights and interests of the Tibetan people. They have already made this into one of their principal declarations, that is to unite the Han people,
in protecting the interests of the Tibetans, but not independence. I have read through the three declarations, quite long, and found no mentioning whatsoever of independence. A very important point is, representatives of the Dalai Lama have told me that, since 1980, they have been to Beijing, to negotiate with Deng Xiaoping and the present Chinese communist authorities. Every year they have declared that they did not wish to pursue independence, they only wished that the Tibetan people could enjoy their own privileges, protection of various human
rights, and protection of economic interests. But the Chinese communist side has always refused to negotiate with them.
CND: So there have been dialogs, not without contacts?
Wei: Not at all without contacts. They actually send representatives to Beijing every year. The Chinese Communist Party's United Front Department in Beijing has received them every year, but the Chinese communist authorities have always refused to negotiate. The responsible officials refused to appear, while others just saying some words of propaganda. They were helpless. Sometimes they would stay there for up to two or three months, trying to contact various sides, but always failing to get a chance to talk. In fact the Chinese communist side has always refused to negotiate. They have insisted on maintaining old policies carried over from the 1950's. In my letter to Deng Xiaoping, concerning the Tibetan problem, I wrote about this. I said that it was time to modify those old policies. Indeed, the Tibetan problem should not have been looked upon as a serious problem.
Tibet and the central government, going back all the way to the Qing Dynasty and the Nationalist regime, had always worked together reasonably well. Even though the central government regularly ignored them, because of internal turmoils, but nonetheless they had strongly resisted British aggression, resolutely demanding to remain in a union with the Chinese, unwilling to split up, unwilling to pursue independence. Why then has the problem become so serious? It is in fact related to the wholesale slaughter carried out by Deng Xiaoping in the late 1950's. Over many years this policy of oppression has treated the Tibetans as inferiors. How could they accept it? No humans would endure it. When foreigners bullied us Chinese, we Chinese would not take it; when you bullied others, they would not take it, all the same.
Only through research over a very long period of time, by way of extensive contacts with Tibetans, have I managed to slowly understand such issues. In the past we were strongly influenced by the one-sided propaganda from the Communist Party, resulting in very deep impressions. First impressions from the childhood are often difficult to change.
CND: Yes. Much of what we have discussed today I am hearing for the first time. Have never even considered them before.
Wei: Yes. I believe that, in order to solve the Tibet problem, first we the Han people must respect them the Tibetan people, and treat them as our brothers. Only thus can the Tibet problem be gradually solved. You can imagine it, so many people were murdered during the counter-rebellion campaign in Tibet that, no Tibetan family is without casualties among close relatives, distant relatives or friends - some families were completely wiped out. Such residual hatred would last for years, not easily relieved. Therefore this is indeed a tough problem for China. Under such circumstances the Dalai Lama has managed to maintain his wise policies, I feel that this person is truly extraordinary, very extraordinary, and I respect him very much.
CND: After you have done your research work, if someone asks you what would be the best formula for solving the Tibetan problem, how would you answer him?
Wei: I believe that we should begin by dissolving the hatred, this must come first. Secondly, the Tibetan people and the Han people should sit down for a calm and peaceful discussion of various issues. Of course I hope that eventually we can still remain together, as we have already lived together for many years. Of course those statements by the Communist Party are basically unreasonable, such as the transfer of sovereignty since the Yuan Dynasty -- such statements are just unreasonable. I wrote about this in detail in my letter to Deng
Xiaoping.
In 1993 I consulted with a number of elderly scholars, asking whether they considered my viewpoint well grounded, they all said it was reasonable, they were practically all in agreement, as a matter of fact. But the so-called sovereignty issue could be set aside, because in reality the sovereignty now belongs to the people. Even if you were once in a union as a country, it is now possible to break away. It would not be an absolute impossibility. On the other hand, there are many countries now leaning toward consolidation. If we can succeed in the establishment of a new democratic system, with adequate protection of the rights of people from all nationalities, then why separate? I
have always said the same thing to the Dalai Lama people; and the formal response from the Dalai Lama side was, they totally agreed with my viewpoint, in total agreement.
CND: So that after all the discussions it still comes down to democracy
Wei: Yes, it comes down to democracy, a problem on human rights protection. In fact, before the Chinese communists executed their policies of violence, there were no insolvable problems between Tibet and China proper. Just think that, during the British invasion, the Dalai Lama escaped from Lhasa to Changdu, refusing to surrender, and unwilling to be separated from China. Why is there such a major problem now? The responsibility must be borne by Deng Xiaoping.
CND: Do you wish to make any more comments about the Tibet problem?
Wei: My main point is that, we the Han people, especially those Han people who do not understand the situation very well, should try to seek the truth about the Tibet problem, instead of placing total trust in the propaganda of the Communist Party. For our own affairs, while we are subject to constant trickery, we all understand that we cannot trust the propaganda of the Communist Party, then why trust them over the Tibet problem? Is this not contradictory?
According to my research findings -- if you all have confidence in my research work -- on this problem there are major differences between the real situation and the propaganda from the Communist Party, and the stands of the Communist Party. They are definitely deceiving the Chinese people. They are stirring up animosity between common Han people and ethnic minority people, resulting in detriment to us the Han people as well. We the Han people should consider seriously, when others oppress us, we do not like it, and we resist when we can no longer endure ... how can we go and oppress other people? Right? While the Tibetan people and the common inland Han people have both been oppressed by the violent regime of the Communist Party, they have suffered from an extra layer, that of ethnic oppression. Those who have never been to that region tend to have relatively limited understanding, even more easily deceived by the Communist Party.
CND: We are all very interested in learning your viewpoints on this problem. We hope that you can tell us more about the results of your research work in the future, at least providing an alternate perspective for examining this problem.
(To be continued ...)
