World Tibet Network News Monday, January 26, 1998

The Hindu

Date: 10-Jan-1998

by Attar Chand

ACCORDING to the sociologist Max Weber, there is a ``need of social strata, privileged through existing political, social, and economic orders, to have their social and economic positions `legitimised' ''. People ``wish to see their positions transformed from purely factual power relations into a cosmos of acquired rights, and to know that (those rights) are thus sanctified''. (from `The Meaning of Discipline', Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills--eds)

The appeals to Maoism and Chinese cultural superiority on the basis of which China has asserted its right to dominate and reconstruct Tibetan society are not, strictly speaking, religious. It appears, therefore, that the case of Tibet is dissimilar to those of Sudan and Sri Lanka. Unlike them, it would mean that this is not an instance of aggressive religious nationalism instigated by a majority against a minority and undertaken in the name of exercising a right of self- determination.

In Sudan, the various factions of the SPLA have also advocated a reconstituted Sudanese Government based on human rights principles, including the principles of non-discrimination and ``secular'' government. However, because of the undisciplined use of force and other instruments of influence that they widely practise, their deeds do not regularly match their words.

A study on religion, nationalism, and intolerance is a five-year project undertaken by a working group on religion, ideology and peace, and directed by David Little. There have, so far, been three resulting publications: Ukraine: The Legacy of Intolerance (Washington DC: USIP Press, 1991); Sri Lanka: The Invention of Enmity (Washington DC; USIP Press, 1994); Sino-Tibetan Co- existence: Creating Space for Tibetan Self-Direction (Washington DC: USIP Conference Report, 1994). A fourth, Sudan: Plural society in distress is on the anvil.

Whether or not religion is ever a ``root cause'' of nationalist conflict, it is clear, according to Gurr and Associates, that it is an important ``contributing factor'', precisely because custom, language, religion, and so on give the majority a rationale or warrant ``for denying access to people who are different'', and because cultural differences ``make it difficult for minorities to operate effectively in institutions established by dominant groups'' -- Ted Robert Gurr et al., Minorities at Risk: A Global View of Ethnopolitical Conflicts (Washington DC: USIP Press, 1993).

Ernest Gellner defines nationalism as ``primarily a political principle, which holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent''-- Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983).

At present, the international community concurs with China's conviction that Tibet is to be considered an ``Autonomous Region'' and not a ``country'', or an independent political entity. The other six -- Ukraine, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Sudan, Nigeria and Israel are now officially all independent countries.

However, the difference is only a question of terminology. As a matter of fact, the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination based on Religion or Belief is to be understood as prohibiting intolerance or discrimination based on religious or non-religious belief, just as it is to be understood as prohibiting intolerance or discrimination aimed at religious or non-religious belief.

Accordingly, non-religious (or `ideological') nationalism that does not comply with these norms would stand as much in violation of international human rights standards as would religious nationalism of the sort to be found in Sudan and Sri Lanka.

That clarified, the other details of the Tibet case are strikingly similar. The Han Chinese majority, generally supported by the world community, presume that since Tibet is an integral and legal part of Chinese territory, the military ``occupation'' that began in 1949 simply restored Tibet to its rightful position within Chinese national boundaries. Even though Tibet is officially regarded an ``Autonomous Region'' within China, that status has not precluded a persistent, if somewhat variable, pattern of persecution and oppression against Tibetan Buddhist religion and culture. In 1959, the Dalai Lama, the personification of spiritual and temporal leadership in Tibet, fled and established a ``Tibetan Government-in-Exile'' in Dharamsala, India, where it still exists.

Until the early 1980s, and particularly during the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), Chinese policy involved a relentless and systematic attempt to study Tibetan Buddhism in all its forms. Up through the end of the Cultural Revolution, a large number of Tibetans lost their lives or suffered severe injury and deprivation, and the vast majority of Tibet's estimated six thousand monasteries were razed. Religious activity was strictly banned, as was the wearing of traditional dress. The Chinese Government waged war on `the four olds'' -- old ideas, old culture, old customs and old habits -- in favour of the `four news' -- Mao's new ideology, proletarian culture, and communist habits and

customs.

Subsequently, these grossly intolerant policies have been somewhat liberalised. Tibetans have not been subjected to the same degree of oppression, and a few monasteries have been restored. Nevertheless, the monastic system, and the education associated with it, continues to be under close control, and monks and nuns, despite the non-violent forms of protest they typically engage in, are the regular targets of harsh suppression. This includes discrimination, detention, torture, religious and cultural persecution, as well as restrictions on the

freedom of expression. There can be little doubt that even under the relatively more lenient policies of the present, the traditional function of the monastery as a vital repository of Tibetan religion, language and culture continues to be severely compromised.

Moreover, even under present policies, Tibetans were effectively shut out of all but a few positions of real political and decision-making power. This is the result both of official design and of the large numbers of Han Chinese who continue to flow into the large cities and towns of Tibet in search of opportunity. Whether planned or not, Tibetans are denied the chance to exercise anything approximating a reasonable degree of cultural and economic control over their own destiny.

The result, as in the cases of Sudan and Sri Lanka, has been the rise of a vocal and influential independence movement among the minority. The fact that the Tibetan independence movement is led by monks and nuns underscores the religious significance of the Tibetan aspiration for self- determination. The right to political and cultural self-expression is wrapped up with the right to protect and cultivate the Buddhist tradition, which is so central to Tibetan identity.

One thing about the Tibetan movement for self- determination that is, so far, significantly different from similar movements in Sudan and Sri Lanka is the reliance, in general, upon non-violent means. This is, no doubt, in character with Tibetan Buddhism. It also has to do, of course, with the continuing influence of the Dalai Lama, who has consistently defended non-violence as the appropriate form of protest against Chinese domination.

The emphasis upon non-violence has given special authenticity to another theme of equal importance to the Tibetan cause: The stress on observing human rights norms as a basis for just and peaceful relations between the Tibetans and the Chinese.

The Dalai Lama has explicitly advocated a system of government for Tibet founded on the principles of non-discrimination and the separation of church and state, a system that is, as he says, respectful of the rights of religious and other minorities in a way that has not occurred under Chinese rule, nor, for that matter, under the traditional pattern of Tibetan government.

(The author is Professor of International Relations, University of Delhi.)

Pic. caption: With its stress on non-violence, the Tibetan struggle evokes sympathy throughout the world. Seen here are several foreigners joining Tibetans in a demonstration.