fussfun

Tibet:

The history before 1959

The Feudal Serf System in Tibet Before 1959
14:11:22 27-11-2007

A Society Based on a Regime that Combined the Political and Religious Powers, and Divided People into Three Strata and Nine Grades Tibet before 1959 had a society of feudal serfdom. Along with the general characteristics of feudal serfdom, there were many remnants of slavery. This social system was more cruel and reactionary than serfdom in Europe in the Middle Ages. The serf-owners' economic interests were protected by a political system that combined political and religious powers, ruling over the Tibetan people spiritually as well as politically. The local government of Tibet (in Tibetan, Kashag, and meaning "the institute that issues orders") was composed of powerful and influential monks and aristocrats. It upheld a series of social, political and legal institutions that rigidly stratified society. The Thirteen Laws and The Sixteen Laws divided the Tibetan people into three strata in nine grades according to their family background and social status.

The Feudal Lords’ Ownership of Means of Production
The monasteries, officialdom and the aristocrats owned all the arable land and pastures as well as overwhelming majority of livestock. These means of production were granted to them by the Dalai Lama. They had the right to govern and inherit the land.

The Feudal Lords’ Ownership of Their Serfs
Serfs and slaves accounted for 95 percent of the Tibetan population (peasants 60%, herdsmen 20%, and lower-class monks 15%). They were owned by serf-owners, just like the means of production. They had no political rights or personal freedom. They and their children were freely given away as gifts of donations, sold or exchanged for goods. Their marriages had to be approved in advance by their manorial lords. Serfs who married out of the manorial estate had to pay ransom money to their lords. Those who could not perform corvee or went out to seek a livelihood elsewhere should pay “corvee taxes” to show their dependence on the lords. If a serf lost his ability to work, his thralkang field, livestock and farm tools would be those who died without issue was confiscated.

The Serfs’ Economic Burden
Taxes and levies in Tibetan areas included land rent, stock rent, corvee and taxes.

The main form of land rent was forced labor. In addition, there was a mixed form of land rent, which was paid in kind, forced labor and cash.

The manorial lords generally kept 70 percent of their land under their own management and rented out the rest to their serfs as thralkang land. The serf tenants of the thralkang land also had to till the land managed by the manorial lord, using their own farm animals and tools. The entire harvest on land managed by the manorial lords belonged to them alone.

The serfs had to do corvee for manorial lords and local government and pay taxes in kind and cash. Corvee duties were allotted by the local government.

There were two kinds of stock rent: paid in animal products to the manorial lords according to the original number of livestock rented from them, or in products according to the actual number of livestock.

Other taxes included land tax, corvee tax, and countless others.

The Oppression of the Serfs by Manorial Lords
In Tibet under the serfdom, not only did the local regime at various levels, set up judicial institutions, but the big monasteries, manorial lords and tribal chieftains could also judge cases and had their own private prisons.

If the serfs stood up against the manorial lords, violated the law or could not pay rent or taxes in time, the lords would punish them according to the Thirteen Laws or other laws. They used such inhuman tortures as gouging out the eyes, cutting off the feet or hands, pushing the condemned person down from cliff, drowning, beheading, etc

The Serfs’ Miserable life
The wealth of the society was highly concentrated in Tibet before 1959. More than 80 percent was possessed by the manorial lords and less than 20 percent belonged to the serfs, who accounted for 95 percent of the population. The masses of serfs lived in extreme poverty.

Some statistics about serfdom in Tibet
Many statistics and data show that in Tibet before 1959, production stagnated, the population of the Tibetan nationality diminished, epidemic diseases prevailed, the people lived in misery and society as a whole developed very slowly. The facts cited above give a broad outlines.

fussfun

Since early time before Christ, ancient people began to reside on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau in southwest China. After a prolonged period of time, tribes that had scattered on the plateau gradually united and formed a nationality known as the Tibetan ethnic group today.



Having suffered successive wars in the early period of the Tang Dynasty (618-907), the Tibetans fostered cordial relations with the Tang court by marriage links. Tibetan people began their trade ties with the Central Plains in the Song Dynasty (960-1279) on a barter basis. As time went on, in the Yuan Dynasty (1206-1368), the already multi-ethnic realm of China was reunified, with Tibet organically included as an administrative unit ruled by the central court of Yuan. Since then, Tibetans, along with other ethnic groups under the central authorities, had experienced the rise and fall of dynasties and witnessed resultant changes in the history of China.

Tubo Kingdom

Early in the seventh century, the powerful Tang Dynasty was founded in the Central Plains, ending the disintegration and chaotic situation that had prevailed in the region for more than 300 years. At the same time, Tubo leader Songtsan Gambo welded together more than 10 separate tribes and established the Tubo Kingdom covering a large part of what later became known as Tibet. He twice sent ministers to the Tang court requesting a member of the imperial family be given to him in marriage, and in 641, Princess Wencheng, a member of Emperor Taizong's family, was chosen for this role. During the reign of Songtsan Gambo, political, economic and cultural relations between the two nations became increasingly friendly and extensive. This pattern of friendly relations was carried on during the next 200 years or more.

In 821, then Tubo King Tri Ralpachen dispatched envoys to Chang'an, capital of the Tang Dynasty for three times, asking for alignment. Muzong, then Emperor of the Tang Dynasty, appointed his senior officials to hold a grand alignment ceremony in the western suburb of Chang'an. In the next year, the Tang Dynasty and the Tubo Kingdom formally concluded their alliance pact in the eastern suburb of Lhasa. The two sides of the alliance reiterated their close relations bound by marriage and decided to treat each other as a member of one family. The alignment was recorded on three Tang-Tubo Peace Pledgement Monuments, one of which still stands in front of the Jokhang Monastery in Lhasa.

In 842, the Tubo Kingdom broke up, and rival groups of ministers, members of the royal family and various tribes plunged into internecine struggle that was to last in varying levels of intensity for the next 400 years. Reeling under the detrimental impact of such activities on their economic and cultural development, people on the Tibetan Plateau looked to the emergence of a formidable regime on the Central Plains to someday come to their rescue. Those who could no longer stand the bitterness fled to areas in present-day Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces.

Yuan Dynasty (1206-1368)

In the early 13th century, the leader of the Mongolian people, Genghis Khan, established the Mongol Khanate in the north of China. In 1247, Mongol Prince Godan invited Pandit Gonggar Gyamcain, an eminent monk with the Sagya Sect that greatly influenced Buddhist worship on the Tibetan Plateau, to a meeting in Liangzhou (present-day Wuwei in Gansu Province). Pandit Gonggar Gyamcain offered the submission of Tibet to the Mongol Khanate and the acceptance of a defined local administrative system. In return, the Sagya Sect was given political power in Tibet. In 1271, the Mongolian conquerors took Yuan as the name of their dynasty. In 1279, they finally unified the whole of China. The newly united central authorities continued control over Tibet, including it as a directly governed administrative unit.


Taking into account the concrete characteristics of the local historical traditions, social situation, natural environment, ethnic group and religion, the Yuan authorities adopted special measures in the administration of Tibet that differed from the policies applied to the other 10 administrative areas.

First, in 1270, Yuan Emperor Kublai Khan conferred the official title of Imperial Tutor on Pagba, a leading Tibetan lama of the Sagya Sect. This was the highest official post of a monk official in the Chinese history. From then on, Imperial Tutor became a high-ranking official in the central authorities directly appointed by the emperor, taking charge of Buddhist affairs in the whole country, and local affairs in Tibet.

Second, shortly after the Yuan Dynasty was founded, the Zongzhi Yuan was set up to be responsible for the nation's Buddhist affairs and Tibet's military and government affairs. In 1288, it was renamed Xuanzheng Yuan. The Prime Minister usually acted as the executive president of the Xuanzheng Yuan, concurrently, while a monk nominated by the Imperial Tutor held the post of vice president. This marked the first time in Chinese history that a central organ was set up specially taking charge of Tibetan affairs.

Third, Tibet was divided into different administrative areas, and officials with different ranks were appointed to consolidate administrative management, with the Imperial Tutor assuming overall responsibility.

Since Tibet was incorporated into the map of the Yuan Dynasty in the mid-13th century, China had experienced the rise and fall of dynasties and the resultant change in the central authorities. However, this in no way altered the central administration's rule over Tibet.

Ming Dynasty (1368-1644)

In 1368, the Ming Dynasty replaced the Yuan Dynasty. The Ming abolished the system of the Xuanzheng Yuan as a central organ to deal with Tibetan affairs, and stopped conferring the official title of Imperial Tutor on Tibetan monks. But, the Ming rulers introduced a new system of granting official titles to Tibetan monks. The highest-ranking monk official was called Prince of Dharma, which was different from Imperial Tutor in the Yuan Dynasty. He was not stationed in Beijing. He had no right to be in charge of the Buddhist affairs nationwide, nor had he a fixed manor. This points up to the fact that the official post was honorary in nature. Though varying in rank, these Princes of Dharma could not exercise control over each other, nor could they engage in administrative affairs. They were directly under the central administration.

The central authorities of the Ming, following the administrative system of the Yuan, set up local administrations in Tibet to respectively govern the military and political affairs of front and rear Tibet, Qamdo and Ngari areas.

Qing Dynasty (1644-1911)

After replacing the Ming in 1644, the central authorities of the Qing Dynasty introduced a set of rules and regulations for rule over Tibet. As these rules and regulations were legal in nature, they were very effective.

First, creating a legal administrative area of Tibet. While dividing the national administrative areas, the Qing central authorities defined, by legal regulations, the boundaries between the administrative areas of Tibet and Yunnan, Sichuan, Qinghai and Xinjiang. The administrative area of Tibet (then called U-Tsang) was equivalent to that of the present Tibet Autonomous Region.

Second, deciding on Tibet's political and administrative management systems, and the organizational form of local political power. The Ordnance for the More Effective Governance of Tibet promulgated in 1793 by the Qing court and the Legal Code of the Qing Dynasty stipulated that, in Tibet, the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Erdeni were respectively in charge of the religious affairs in the Lhasa (front Tibet) and Xigaze (rear Tibet) areas, and part of the government affairs. They were not under each other. But, the high commissioners the Qing court stationed in Tibet took the overall control over the area.

Third, conferring official titles on the religious leaders in Tibet. In 1653, the central administration conferred on the Fifth Dalai Lama the official title "All-Knowing, Vajra-Holding Dalai Lama." In 1713, it conferred on the Fifth Panchen the official title of Panchen Erdeni. Thereafter, it became an established practice for all Dalai Lamas and Panchen Erdenis to have their titles conferred on them by the central authorities.

Fourth, in order to prevent the religious leaders from seeking personal gain by abusing their position and authority, or expanding their forces, the central authorities, in 1793, introduced a new system of determining the reincarnation of a deceased Living Buddha, the Dalai or Panchen by drawing lots from a gold urn. This then became the only permissible system for choosing a successor to the Dalai Lama, Panchen Erdeni or the Grand Lama. Under the new system, names of the reincarnation candidates were written on lots that were put into the gold urn. One lot was drawn under the supervision of the High Commissioner, and the chosen one was the designated soul boy--the successor to the Dalai Lama, Panchen Erdeni or Grand Lama. The selected successor could not become the legal heir until formally approved by the central administration. This became a key measure for the Qing central government to strengthen administration over religious affairs in Tibet, and fully embodied the central authorities' sovereignty over Tibet.

Republic of China (1912-1949)

China experienced great historic changes after the Revolution of 1911, which brought down the Qing Dynasty and led to the founding of the Republic of China in 1912. During the Republic of China, which brought together the Han, Manchu, Mongolian, Hui and Tibetan ethnic groups, the central power changed hands frequently, but its policies related to Tibet remained unchanged in terms of upholding the national unity, state sovereignty and territorial integrity.

First, maintaining state sovereignty over Tibet by enacting laws and issuing official documents. Article 3 of the General Outline of the Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China, enacted under the auspices of Dr. Sun Yat-sen, Interim President, stipulated that Tibet was one of the 22 provinces of the Republic of China. This legalized the rule of the Government of the Republic of China over Tibet. Stipulations concerning Tibet in the Constitution of the Republic of China promulgated later all stressed that Tibet is an inseparable part of Chinese territory, and the Central Government of China exercises sovereignty in Tibet.

Second, establishing the Council for the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs and the Commission in Charge of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs. The Council for Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs was set up in 1912 to operate directly under the State Council in its capacity as a central state organ to take charge of Tibetan and Mongolian affairs. It was renamed the Commission for Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs in 1914. In 1927, the Republic of China moved its capital to Nanjing, now capital of Jiangsu Province, and the Nanjing Government was founded. Before long, the Nanjing Government announced the establishment of the Commission in Charge of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs. The commission members included people of great influence in the Mongolian and Tibetan areas, such as the Ninth Panchen Erdeni, the 13th Dalai Lama and Tibetan government representatives stationed in Nanjing including Gongjor Zongnyi, Zhamgyia Hutogtu and Master Xeirab Gyamco, a very famous Buddhist master who served as vice chairman of the commission.

Third, giving additional honorific titles to the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Erdeni, and having representatives preside over the reincarnation and enthronement ceremonies for them. In the early days of the Republic of China, the 13th Dalai Lama, who was deprived by the Qing government of his honorific title and left Tibet for India, managed to get in touch with the Government of the Republic of China, and expressed his wish to return to Tibet. On October 28, 1912, Interim President Yuan Shikai announced the restoration of the honorific title of the Dalai Lama. Before long, the 13th Dalai Lama returned home. To ease internal contradictions between the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Erdeni, Yuan, on April 1, 1913, issued an order to give an additional honorific title to the Ninth Panchen Erdeni to honor what he had done to defend the unification of the motherland.

In December 1933, when the 13th Dalai Lama died, the local government of Tibet submitted a report to the Central Government in accordance with historical precedence. The Central Government granted the late master the additional honorific title of Master in Defense of the Country and sent Huang Musong, Chairman of the Commission in Charge of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs, to Tibet to mourn his demise. In 1938, under the auspices of Regent Living Buddha Razheng, Lhamo Toinzhub in Qinghai was found and determined as the reincarnated soul boy of the late 13th Dalai Lama in accordance with the religious rituals and historical precedence. In 1940, Wu Zhongxin, Chairman of the Commission in Charge of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs, went to Tibet, in his capacity as central government representative, to preside over the ceremony enthroning the 14th Dalai Lama.

When the Ninth Panchen Erdeni passed away in Qinghai on his way back to Tibet in December 1937, the Nationalist Government granted him the honorific title of Master. And in 1938, the Central Government sent Dai Chuanxian, President of the Examination Yuan, to Garze to mourn the demise of the Ninth Panchen Erdeni. In early 1949, the Nationalist Government sent its envoy to announce that Guanbo Cidain was the 10th Panchen Erdeni, and he attended celebrations held at the Tar Monastery in Qinghai. In August, Guan Jiyu, Chairman of the Commission in Charge of Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs, was sent by the Nationalist Government to preside over the enthronement ceremony of the 10th Panchen in Qinghai.

Fourth, bringing in upper-class monks and lay people to participate in state administration. During the period of the Republic of China, whenever the National Assembly met, there would be Tibetan delegates who participated. For example, from November 15 to December 25, 1946, when the National Assembly met in Nanjing to work on the Constitution of the Republic of China, 17 delegates including Tudain Sangpi and Jijigmei, came from Tibet.

People's Republic of China (founded in 1949)

The People's Republic of China was founded in 1949. Given the historical conditions and the reality in Tibet, the Central People's Government decided to adopt a policy for the peaceful liberation of Tibet.

The peaceful liberation of Tibet in 1951

On October 1, 1949，the People's Republic of China was founded. The Gelug Sect (Yellow Sect) in Tibet boasted two Living Buddha incarnation systems including the one for the Panchen Erdeni. The 10th Panchen Erdeni Qoigyi Gyaincain cabled Chairman Mao Zedong, PLA Commander-in-Chief Zhu De，expressing strong support for the Central People's Government and the hope that Tibet would be liberated at an early date. On November 23, 1949 Chairman Mao Zedong and PLA Commander-in-Chief Zhu De replied. Later, the Central People's Government called many times on the local authorities of Tibet to achieve peaceful liberation of Tibet and sought agreement through various channels.

However, the local government of Tibet led by Regent Dagzha and the forces of pro-imperialist separatists rejected all positive approaches from the Central Government for the peaceful liberation of Tibet, and obstructed the people dispatched by the Central Government for this purpose. They also assembled 8,000 Tibetan troops and militia and deployed them at Qamdo and along the west bank of the Jingshajiang River, seeking to prevent the PLA from marching westward. To smash the scheme of the enemy and crack down the pro-imperialist separatists, the PLA liberated Qamdo on October 24, 1950, with the assistance of the people of the Tibet an ethnic group, which created favorable conditions for the peaceful liberation of Tibet.

After liberation of Qamdo, the PLA could have gone on to further liberate the whole of Tibet, but the CPC Central Committee and the Central People's Government stuck to the policy of peaceful liberation of Tibet in 1951 and sent decisive orders to hold bacl the PLA and carry out the mass work locally at Qamdo while waiting on the local authorities to dispatch representatives to Beijing for negotiation. At the same time, the Southwest Military and Government Committee and the PLA Southwest Military Area jointly released the 10-Article Notice for the Liberation of Tibet in Tibetan and Chinese.

Persuaded many times by the Central Government and moved by the policy, the 14th Dalai Lama and the local government of Tibet eventually expressed their desire to seek a peaceful solution in January 1951.

On April 29, 1951 the plenipotentiaries of the Central People's Government and the local government of Tibet started negotiations at the Communications Department of the Beijing Military Control Commission. Agreement was reached on all important issues within a month. A grand signing ceremony for the Agreement Between the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet (also known as the 17-Article Agreement) was held at Qinzheng Hall in Zhongnanhai on May 23, 1951.

After the signing of the agreement on peaceful liberation of Tibet, the 14th Dalai Lama sent a cable to Chairman Mao Zedong, saying "The Tibetan Local Government as well as the ecclesiastics and secular people unanimously support this agreement, and under the leadership of Chairman Mao and the Central People's Government, will actively support the People's Liberation Army (PLA) in Tibet to consolidate the national defense, drive out imperialist influences from Tibet and safeguard the unification of the territory and sovereignty of the motherland." The 10th Panchen Erdeni also telegraphed Chairman Mao, expressing his acceptance of the 17-Article Agreement and his resolution to uphold the unity of the motherland's sovereignty.

According to the agreement, the military forces of the PLA in Tibet entered Lhasa smoothly and they were greeted by a grand welcoming ceremony consisting of more than 20,000 people including officials from the local government of Tibet and the monks and lay people. Soon after, the PLA forces in Tibet entered successively the frontier strategic points, such as Nagqu, Ngari, Zayu, Gyangze, Xigaze and Yadong. Wherever the troops arrived, they were welcomed by the Tibetan people. By this time, Tibet was truly liberated and the unity of the Chinese mainland was achieved.

In 1954, the 14th Dalai Lama and the 10th Panchen Erdeni came to Beijing to participate in the First Session of the First National People's Congress (NPC) of the People's Republic of China. At the session, the 14th Dalai Lama was elected as vice chairman of the NPC Standing Committee, and the 10th Panchen Erdeni, member of the NPC Standing Committee.

Democratic Reform in 1959

After the peaceful liberation of Tibet in 1951, Tibet continued to follow the feudal serfdom. Since the conditions were not yet ready for excising such reform, Chairman Mao, in a report on ‘Questions Concerning Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People', fully stated the policy on Tibet of "sustaining for six years without change". The policy was, in fact, another concession to Tibet and its purpose was to await full public awareness of the targets of peaceful reform.

However, a high-level reactionary group in Tibet was against the reforms from the start. They went so far as to openly tear up the 17-Article Agreement and announced the "independence of Tibet" on March 10, 1959. They organized Tibetan forces to surround the Tibetan Military Area and the organs of the Central Government in Tibet and launched a full attack early on March 20th. In order to maintain the unity of China, the Central Government issued an order to put down the rebellion in Tibet, announcing that the Preparatory Committee for the Founding of the Tibet Autonomous Region was to act as the local government. Tibet entered a new stage of suppressing rebellion and carrying out reform.

The Preparatory Committee for the Founding of the Tibet Autonomous Region passed in July 1959 the ‘Resolution on Democratic Reform', deciding to completely put down the rebellion, fully arouse the masses to action and carry out Democratic Reform throughout the region. The first step of Democratic Reform was against rebellion, against the ula corvee labor system and against slavery in reduction of rents and reduction of interest (known in brief as the "3A2R" movement). The serfs and slaves, in the process of struggling against the rebellion, exposed and criticized the crimes of the rebels for their burning, killing and pillaging, for the harm they had done to the people, for their activities in undermining unity, and for their opposition to the Central Government. They denounced through their own experiences their untold suffering that the serf owners imposed on them to squeeze and destroy them ruthlessly with the ula corvee labor and slavery system. The serfs and slaves awakened in the 3A movement had their own leaders. Through selection they organized their own leadership institute, the Farmers' Association, forming their own power center. Several months later, the Farmers' Associations were founded widely in the areas where Democratic Reform was excised and they guided the work in the reduction of rents and interest.

Under the policy, the land of the estate-holders involved in the rebellion was "to be reaped by those who had planted it"; the land leased by the estate-holders (and their agents) who had not participated in the rebellion was "to be reduced in rent by 20 percent"; all the debts borne by the serfs to the three estate holders before 1958 were abolished and the debts owing to the estate-holders who didn't participate in the 1959 rebellion were reduced in interest to a rate of one percent a month. The achievement resulting from "reducing rent by 20 percent" and abolishing the old debts was considerable. According to statistics from 1959 to 1960, when the Democratic Reform was nearly completed, the usury and debts abolished in the region as a whole were about equal to 400 million kilograms of grain, which fundamentally removed the heavy chains from the serfs.

As the struggle against rebellion won an essential victory and the "3A2R" movement developed further, destroying completely the land occupation system of the three estate holders and eliminating the base of the feudal serf system had become an urgent demand for the serfs to win complete liberation. The third plenary session of the Preparatory Committee of Autonomous Regions was held in late September 1959 and passed a "Resolution on Abolition of Feudal Serf-Ownership of Land and Introduction of Farmer Land Ownership". The Resolution decided to satisfy the just demands of the million serfs by abolishing the feudal serf-ownership of land and introducing farmers' land ownership. It particularly stressed the land reform policy in farming areas and emphasized that the livestock breeding ownership in pastoral areas would remain unchanged while carrying out the "3A2B" policy (to struggle against rebellion, against ula corvee labor system and against slavery while being beneficial to hired herdsmen and beneficial to herd owners).

Most of the work for land reform in farming areas was carried out in the winter of 1959 and the spring of 1960. The first step was to confiscate the land and other means of production of serf owners and their agents involved in the rebellion; For serf owners and their agents who did not participate in the rebellion, their excessive land, livestock (limited to the countryside), houses and farm tools were to be handed over. By the end of 1960, when land reform of the whole region was nearly accomplished, the land distributed to serfs and slaves accounted to more than 2.8 million ke (about 186,000 hectares) in total, 3.5 ke (about 0.23 hectare) per capita.

According to the policy, the excessive land, livestock, farm tools and houses of the serf owners and their agents, who had not involved in the rebellion, were bought out. The farmland bought out accounted for over 900,000 ke (about 60,000 hectares) in total, livestock 82,000 head, farm tools 20,000 sets, and 64,200 houses. These were evaluated at market prices to be paid by the government within 8-13 years. In September 1961, over 2,000 households obtained their buy-out certificates and the first-stage payment was made. Progressive personages who had not been involved in the rebellion were given suitable jobs and some became leaders in the Preparatory Committee of Autonomous Regions.

The primary work of Democratic Reform was basically accomplished by the end of 1961.

The Democratic Reform completely overturned the reactionary, backward feudal serf system and enabled the million serfs to be freed from the rigid control and oppression of serf owners and obtain their rights as human beings, which changed the conditions of human rights of the people in Tibet and paved a way for social development in the region.


Establishment of the Tibet Autonomous Region in 1965

Tibet exercises national regional autonomy according to the PRC Constitution. The State protects the political rights of all Tibetan ethnic groups in equal administration of State and local affairs, especially the autonomous rights of the Tibetan people in self-administration of local affairs and ethnic affairs. These rights reach every corner in political, economic, cultural and social development. According to the actual historical situation of Tibet and in consideration of the factors concerning the political, economic, religious, cultural and other features, a special, flexible policy differing from those in areas of other nationalities in China was adopted when implementing national regional autonomy.

On March 9, 1955, Premier Zhou Enlai presided over the 7th enlarged session of the State Council, which passed the "Decision on Establishment of the Preparatory Committee for the Founding of the Tibet Autonomous Region".

The decision points out that "the Preparatory Committee for the Founding of the Tibet Autonomous Region is a governmental organ in charge of the preparatory work for founding the Tibet Autonomous Region and it is controlled by the State Council. Its primary mission is to prepare for the establishment of regional autonomy in Tibet according to the stipulations of the PRC Constitution and the agreement for the peaceful liberation of Tibet in 1951, as well as the actual conditions of Tibet." The State Council also decided to appoint the Dalai Lama as Chairman of the Committee, the Panchen Erdeni as the first Vice Chairman and Zhang Guohua as second Vice Chairman.

The ceremonial founding conference for the Preparatory Committee for the Founding of the Tibet Autonomous Region took place in the newly built Lhasa Hall on April 22, 1956. The establishment of the Preparatory Committee of Autonomous Regions enabled Tibet to take an important step forward in practice of national regional autonomy, which was a cornerstone for Tibet on its way to development.

While national regional autonomy developed smoothly in Tibet, some diehard high-level personages who still favored the serf system instigated armed rebellion on March 10, 1959. When the rebellion was put down and the Democratic Reform was implemented, local people's power was founded at different levels. From the actual conditions of Tibet, the Preparatory Committee of Autonomous Regions passed in July 1959 the ‘Organization of Peasants Associations in Various Counties, Districts and Townships in Tibet', stipulating that the peasant associations at district and township levels may act as primary political power.

By April 1965, seven prefectures and one city, as well as 72 counties, had established people's governments, in addition to people's governments in 20 districts and 300 townships. In March 1962, the Preparatory Committee issued ‘Instructions on Carrying Out Election of Grassroots Cadres in Whole Region (Draft)'. By July and August in 1965, the elections in townships and counties of the whole autonomous region were nearly finished. There were a total of 1,359 townships and towns involved in basic-level elections, while another 567 townships and towns held people's congresses acting on behalf of the People's Congress. The two together constituted 92 percent of the total townships and towns in the Tibet Autonomous Region. The people's political power at basic level was thus founded with absolute predominance of serfs and slaves.

There were in the region 54 counties that held a first session of the people's congress, through which county magistrates and vice county magistrates were elected and the people's commissions of counties were established. At the same time, 301 deputies were elected to the People's Congress of the Autonomous Region.

Based on this, and after the approval of the Central Government, the First Session of the People's Congress of the Tibet Autonomous Region was held in Lhasa on September 1-9, 1965. The Tibet Autonomous Region was officially founded and Ngapoi Ngawang Jigmei became its first Chairman.

http://china-corner.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3577&PN=1

[ 本帖最后由 fussfun 于 2008-6-10 23:56 编辑 ]

fussfun

http://current.com/items/8890632 ... _american_historian

fussfun

“西藏问题”是主权问题

　　何振华

　　毫无疑问，“西藏问题”是这个春天令人关注的“热点”。

　　如果没有足够的“探索”精神，你会为“西藏问题”的复杂性而迷惑。因为达赖集团所谓“西藏问题”中，包括了“人权问题”、“民族问题”、“宗教问题”等一连串“问题”。
这些站在“道义的制高点”上的“问题”，听起来很让一些不明真相的人激愤，也让他们对“西藏问题”格外关注。

　　哲人云，问题是时代的口号。达赖集团所谓“西藏问题”背后，确实有着自己的“口号”——“西藏独立”。这个“口号”隐藏在他们对“西藏问题”所开的药方——“中间道路”里。

　　不久前在西雅图，达赖集团在谈到“西藏问题”时，再次坚称要一如既往地走“中间道路”。这一“道路”看似和缓，但只要稍加研究就可以发现，其内涵和实质与“西藏独立”主张并无二致，即都是要把西藏从中国分裂出去。

　　“中间道路”核心内容就两条：一是“大藏区”, 一是“高度自治”。所谓“大藏区”，就是要将西藏、青海、甘肃、四川、云南等藏族居住区合并在一起，建立历史上从未有过的“大藏族自治区”，总面积约占全国领土的1/4。而所谓“高度自治”，包括要求中央政府不能在西藏驻军，西藏可与其他国家或国际组织保持外交关系。

　　众所周知，如果一个国家的中央政府不能在其领土上驻军，如果一个国家允许其管辖下的地方政府与外国政府保持外交关系，也就无主权可言。可以说， “大藏区”是达赖集团的领土要求,“高度自治”是达赖集团的政治制度要求，“中间道路”的实质是要改变西藏属于中国的法律地位，否定中国政府对西藏拥有的主权。

　　用达赖集团自己的话来说，“中间道路”的框架，便是“和平五点计划”和“七点新建议”，这是“谈判的基础”。对此，早在1987年美国国务院新闻发言人就曾明确指出，这些建议“基本想法是要搞西藏独立”。而达赖集团主办的《西藏通讯》2004年的一篇文章也曾点拨激进“藏独”分子，要“仔细阅读字里行间背后的含义”，并说“中间道路”如能实现，“其效果与真正的独立没有差别”。

　　将本质为分裂的“中间道路”，确立为解决“西藏问题”的药方；将直接“藏独”的居心，转换为变相独立的策略，可见“西藏问题”的实质不是别的问题，而是损害中国主权、破坏领土完整的问题。

　　算起来，自帝国主义企图瓜分中国，所谓“西藏问题”已有百余年历史。“英人对吾确有诱惑之念，但吾知主权不可失”，“不亲英人，不背中央”，面对列强分裂图谋，包括十三世达赖在内的众多藏族儿女的拳拳之心，至今令人动容。正是藏传佛教的爱国传统，让西藏与祖国血脉不断、荣辱与共；也正是无数中华儿女的报国情怀，让中华民族握指成拳、不断壮大。

　　在历史和现实的大视野里看“西藏问题”，答案更加明确：主权关乎一个国家的尊严，关乎中国人民的根本利益。不管“西藏问题”听起来多么复杂，也不管有多少势力试图介入其中，在这个问题上，中国不会让步，人民不会答应。

fussfun

Why You Have Lost the Argument With “Stay Out of Chinese Internal Affairs”
Author: Demerzel

15 Apr

Great Wall of China“Stay out of Chinese internal affairs!” is the quickest way to losing the argument in today’s world. Simply put, globalization makes domestic affairs further entwined with every other nation around the globe.

Every once in awhile I will run across a comment on the web or will be told in person that one (me, Americans, etc.) should stay out of China’s internal affairs. By stating this line one has already put oneself on the defensive and with any knowledgeable person schooled in international affairs this will equate to quickly losing the argument. As to why this line of debate will lose often:

    * Defensive Arguments: By staying on the defensive, one rarely get the chance to turn the argument around while the attacker continues to point-by-point explain why it matters to care about what happens in China. In fact, by playing defensive, one brings out further criticisms and problems about China and China only rather than dealing ever trying to win the argument.
    * International Affairs Majors: Those who lean towards International Economics / Neo-Liberalism will quickly delve into the effects of globalization on the world today. What one country does internally can easily affect the outcome of another country’s economy. When the US continues to subsidize its agriculture industry to help keep agricultural jobs within the US, poorer nations where agriculture is their main export can no longer compete in the world market causing job loses and economic instability in that country. Japanese textbooks that wash over what happened in Nanjing during World War Ii creates diplomatic uproars between the Japanese and Chinese governments due to historical sensitivities.

So, what is the right way to go about dealing with someone who is complaining about what is going on within China? Know international history well and what country the person is coming from. If the person (let’s say an American) is complaining about how horrible things are in a certain Chinese province, start doing comparisons with how Americans treated Native Americans.

Complaints about intellectual property rights? How else do you think the industrial revolution started within the United States except from a man who literally memorized how to make a British-patented device leading to American modernization.

Complaints over Chinese Yuan value to the American dollar? Agree with them but then say that China will first have to reclaim all the debt that the US currently owes China–about $4 trillion dollars worth.

Complaints about the environment? The US chopped down such a wide swath of forests that makes Brazil’s use of the Amazon rain forest look small in comparison.

In conclusion, when a new problem arises out of China (or any other native country), learn the international history associated to the topic and prepare to note their hypocrisy in not dealing with their own internal affairs in the right way first. Tell them they say one thing, but have done something else entirely.

fussfun

Special report: Tibet: Its Past and Present

    BEIJING, April 17 (Xinhua) -- The Guangming Daily on April 15 published an article based on interviews with three Chinese scholars concerning the Tibetan system of feudal serfdom under theocracy and Western European serfdom in the Middle Ages.

    Following is the full text of the article:

    The three experts who gave interviews were:

    Zhang Yun, research professor of the Institute of History of the China Tibetology Research Center (CTRC).

    Tanzen Lhundup, research professor and deputy-director of the Institute of Social Economy of the CTRC.

    Meng Guanglin, professor and course convenor of world history of the Middle Ages at the School of History of Renmin University of China.

    The reporters who conducted the interviews:

    Yuan Xiang and Xing Yuhao with the Guangming Daily

   

    The Tibetan feudal serfdom under theocracy was a combined dictatorship of monks and aristocrats

    Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Jiang Yu said (at a press conference on April 8): "The Dalai Lama is the head representative of the serf system, which integrated religion with politics in old Tibet. Such a serf system, which harbors no democracy, freedom or human rights in any form, was the darkest slavery system in human history. Only serf owners could enjoy special privileges under such a system."

    Jiang also said: "The 'middle way' approach that the Dalai Lama is pursuing is aimed at restoring his own 'paradise in the past', which will throw millions of liberated serfs back into a dark cage. Such a 'middle way', who can accept it?"

    Reporter: Jiang Yu's words revealed that the nature of the Dalai Lama's "middle way" is to restore serfdom. In terms of history, what kind of system was the Tibetan serf system?

    Zhang Yun: Before the democratic reform in 1959, Tibet was a society of feudal serfdom under the integration of religion and politics and the dictatorship of monks and aristocrats, one even darker and more backward than medieval Europe.

    Tanzen Lhundup: British diplomat Sir Charles Bell, who was regarded as "an expert on Tibet", wrote in his book "Portrait of a Dalai Lama: The Life and Times of the Great Thirteenth": "When you come from Europe or America to Tibet, you are carried back several hundred years. You see a nation still in the feudal age. Great is the power of the nobles and squires over their tenants, who are either farmers tilling the more fertile plains and valleys, or shepherds, clad in their sheepskins, roaming over the mountains."

    Serf owners in Tibet were composed of local officials, aristocrats and high-level monks. They barely made up 5 percent of the total Tibetan population but possessed all the farmland, pastures, forests, mountains and rivers, and most of the livestock.

    According to official statistics dating from the early Qing Dynasty in the 17th century, the local government owned 30.9 percent of more than 3 million ke (1 hectare equals 15 ke) of farmland in Tibet. Aristocrats owned 29.6 percent and high-level monks, 39.5 percent.

    Before the democratic reform in 1959, Tibet had 197 families belonging to the hereditary aristocracy, including 25 large families. The seven or eight biggest such families each owned dozens of manors and tens of thousands of ke of land.

    Zhang Yun: The number of serfs surpassed 90 percent of the population in old Tibet. The serfs were further divided into three categories, namely "treba" (sharecroppers), who rented land from serf owners and worked as compulsory laborers and "dujung", which means small households working for lords. Besides these two types of serfs, there were "nangsen", who made up 5 percent of the total population. They were household servants for lords for generations without any production materials or personal freedom.

    Serf owners cruelly exploited serfs through compulsory labor and usury. Serfs toiled throughout the year but could hardly feed themselves, and usually had to make a living by borrowing at usurious rates. French Tibetologist Alexandra David-Neel wrote in her book "Old Tibet Faces A New China": "In old Tibet, all the peasants are serfs who are in debt for a life-long time. They also had to pay exorbitant taxes and levies and do heavy compulsory labor. "They totally lost their personal freedom and became poorer and poorer every year," she wrote.

    Meng Guanglin: As far as I know, serfdom was established in the 10th century in western Europe. As Karl Marx said, serfdom was one of the major slavery systems in human history and the essential representation of the feudal exploitation system.

    Serfs were a kind of agricultural laborer in the feudal society of western Europe. On the basis of feudal land ownership, the feudal lords owned land and other production materials and depended on personal dependent relations to control the serfs. They used "supra-economic coercion" to enslave them. In other words, they used political means, laws and customs, besides economic means, to control their personal freedom and exploit their surplus labor.

    Serfs were subservient to their owners in three respects: first, they did not have personal freedom and were their owners' property; second, the land they worked on belonged to their owners, so they were attached to their owners; third, they did not have equal legal rights the same as their owners and were judged by lords in court.

    Reporter: Serfs did not have any political rights and were exploited in the economic sense. They had to toil and do hard labor year after year. It seems that the system of western European serfdom in the Middle Ages was quite similar to the Tibetan feudal serfdom under theocracy.

    Meng Guanglin: Yes, it was of the same nature as serf systems, under which laborers were deprived of production materials and products, enjoyed no respect for their dignity or personal rights, and their creative spirit was suppressed.

    The system was a concentrated expression of personal dependence relations in traditional societies, which equals "direct governance and dependence relations."

    In this type of relationship, humanity, personality, human rights and humanism were all devastated, and the noble value of human individuals was sacrificed to the rights of lords and theocracy.

    Zhang Yun: In old Tibet, serf owners owned the serfs and treated them as private property. They could sell them, give them as gifts, use them to pay debts and trade them for other serfs. The Thirteen-Article Code and the Sixteen-Article Code, which were practiced in Tibet for hundreds of years, divided people into different categories and stipulated that they had different legal rights.

    Serf owners built public prisons and private prisons in accordance with both written and unwritten laws. The local government had courts and prisons. Large monasteries also had courts and prisons. Lairds could build private prisons in their manors.

    The punishments for serfs, which included gouging out eyes, cutting off ears, hands and feet, pulling out tendons, and throwing people into rivers, were cruel and savage. Handcuffs, fetters, sticks and clubs and cruel instruments of torture for gouging out eyes and pulling out tendons were found in Gandan Monastery, one of the biggest monasteries in Tibet.

    Therefore, the Tibetan feudal serf system under the integration of religion and politics was a dictatorship of monks and aristocrats. "Under such a system, serfs -- who made up a majority of the population in Tibet -- had no democracy, freedom or human rights in any form. Only serf owners could enjoy privileges."

    Meng Guanglin: Based on the above statements, the feudal serf system under the integration of religion and politics was an even darker and crueler system than European serfdom in the Middle Ages.

    Only by breaking loose from the shackles of this system, could the Tibetan people be freed and liberated and their great enterprise and creativity be brought into full play and the development of history be pushed forward. As Karl Marx pointed out: "Liberty in any form is all about bringing back to people the relationship between their world and themselves."

   

    Theocracy shackled people's spiritual life under feudal serfdom

    "To understand 20th century Tibetan history, therefore, it is necessary to understand that Tibet was, in many fundamental ways, a pre-modern theocratic polity, and this was not because of any unusual isolation." -- American Tibetologist and anthropologist Melvyn C. Goldstein, "A History of Modern Tibet".

    Reporter: Under the feudal serf system, no matter in old Tibet or in western Europe in the middle ages, theocracy controlled and shackled people's minds. In addition to expropriation of personal freedom, it also deprived commoners' freedom of thought. Isn't this another dark side of the system?

    Meng Guanglin: Yes, shackling people's thoughts and behavior was indeed a conspicuous aspect of the dark feudal serfdom. Although western Europe in the middle ages was not under a completely theocratic system, the integration of religion and politics was the guarantee of the feudal serf system.

    The problem does not lie in religion or belief, but in the church's monopoly and control of people's religion and thought. For example, in medieval Europe, commoners had no right to read or interpret the Bible. Instead, the right lay in the hands of the clergy. Everyone who betrayed the church's faith, thoughts and criteria would be labeled as a heretic and be expelled from the church, which meant neither his life or property could be safeguarded.

    Zhang Yun: In the old theocracy in Tibet, which featured a dictatorship by monks and nobles, this dark side was more fully demonstrated in a crueler way -- the religious authority ruled people's Earthly lives with administrative power, while terrorizing them in the name of meting out rewards and punishments for their afterlives with religious privileges.

    Due to historical and cultural reasons, many Tibetans believe in Buddhism and thus believe in an afterlife. The ruling class, however, just utilized this to serve their own interests. British expert Edmund Candler said in his book, "The Unveiling of Lhasa," that "the monks are the overlords, the peasantry their serfs." The poor and the small tenant farmers "work ungrudgingly for their spiritual masters, to whom they owe a blind devotion".

    In fact, we know that most of the common monks in old Tibet also failed to cast off their identities as serfs. The so-called "monk forces" were only comprised of an extremely small number of upper-class monks and nobles with a monastic background. As Sir Charles Bell stated in his Portrait of A Dalai Lama: the Life and Times of the Great Thirteenth:

    "Does it not matter to you whether you are reborn as a human being or as a pig? The Dalai Lama can help to secure that you will be reborn as a human being in a high position, or, better still, as a monk or nun in a country where Buddhism flourishes."

    On the contrary, if you refused to listen to them, you would not be reincarnated from generation to generation. The "monk forces" just used this kind of spiritual intimidation to safeguard their theocracy.

    Reporter: Education was vital for people to shed theocracy's control over their spiritual lives. The church had monopolized education in Europe before the 12th century. With the burgeoning of the commodity economy, however, secular schools began to emerge and western universities started to mushroom. Though these colleges were to some extent controlled by the church at that time, they still played a vital part in freeing people from the shackles of medieval theology. Did old Tibet, with feudal serfdom under theocracy, have similar educational institutions?

    Zhang Yun: No. In old Tibet, education and the right to education were monopolized by the ruling class featuring a dictatorship by monks and nobles. The only way to get access to education was to enter monasteries to "read scriptures". Although this made it possible for serf's children to become monks, their status was only shifted from a "serf" of lords to a "serf" of the monasteries.

    Only the offspring of the nobles could use it as a channel to the upper echelons. Under the theocratic system, monks accounted for a large proportion of the members in the Kasha (the former local government of Tibet). They held the absolute power to punish and execute innocent people at will, while members of the Kasha enjoyed practical economic interests. How could commoners have any hope under those circumstances?

    Under such a dark system, people had no right to express their thoughts and they even had no right of thought. They should listen to whatever the living Buddha said, otherwise, it would be considered a crime.

    It was such a dark system that led to a gradually closed and conservative old Tibet. It fully showed that the system not only fettered Tibetan people's thoughts, but also harmed traditional Tibetan history and culture, including the passing on of religion. It merits noticing that as early as the 15th century, Europe had bid farewell to the medieval shadow. The darker dictatorship in Tibet, however, lasted until the 1950s.

   

    Attempts to return Tibet to a feudal serfdom system advocating the integration of politics and religion go against the times

    "As Tibet attempted to adapt to the rapid changes of the 20th century, religion and the monasteries played a major role in thwarting progress."

    -- by American Tibetologist and anthropologist Melvyn C. Goldstein, "A History of Modern Tibet," 1913-1951, the Demise of the Lamaist State, P37)

    Reporter: Why did Europe and China's Tibet react differently to serfdom when it stood in the way of social development and progress?

    Meng Guanglin: The cruel serfdom and theocracy in the West led to the rebellion of farmers in the form of "heresy" at the time. For example, low-ranking missionaries in 14th century England including John Ball, one of the preachers of Lollardy (an anti-clerical movement), demanded: "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?"

    The Lollards demanded the abolishment of serfdom, forced labor, land tax, tallage (an agricultural production tax) and differences in property, to ensure equality among the classes of society. Prompted by Ball, the English Peasants' Revolt erupted in 1381 as peasants led by Walter Tyler entered London and severely weakened the reigning class. The Jacquerie revolt at about the same time in France, and the German peasants' revolt in the 16th century, all erupted for the same purpose.

    Zhang Yun: The old reigning authorities in Tibet integrated politics with religion and isolated the serfdom region (Tibet) from the outside world. In this region, people had no control over their lives, no free will. Social production was suppressed and halted, and the population declined. However, the brutal reign continued, even worsened.

    Tanzen Dhumdup: In the 1950s, the serfdom system in Tibet could no longer fit in with the times. Serfdom became the root cause of Tibet's poverty and falling behind the world. Under the serfdom system, the Tibetan people, both monks and secular people, could not live a better life, and Tibet could not make progress.

    The peaceful Liberation of Tibet in 1951 brought light to the abolition of the serfdom system. However, some leading personages of Tibet at the time still had doubts about democratic reform, and a good number of monks still needed more time to learn about reform. Moreover, some high-ranking secessionists close to imperialistic countries who were among the leading personages used religion and ethnicity as illusions to instigate ethnic conflicts, and it took time to disillusion the common Tibetan people.

    The central government decided to take a more cautious measure to push for reform. According to the "Agreement of the Central People's Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet" ("17-Article Agreement" for short) signed by the central government and the Tibet authorities, "the Central Government will not use coercion to implement such a reform, and it is to be carried out by the Tibetan local government on its own; when the people demand reform, the matter should be settled by way of consultation with the leading personnel of Tibet."

    In the meantime, the central government has provided help for Tibet in terms of goods and financial support. Government subsidies to Tibet topped 357 million yuan between 1952 and 1958.

    The central government waited eight years for the peaceful democratic reform of Tibet, as did millions of Tibetan peasants. But some people in the upper ruling strata of Tibet, in order to preserve feudal serfdom, staged an armed rebellion on March 10, 1959.

    After the rebellion failed, the backers of the Dalai Lama fled abroad, still hoping to restore serfdom in Tibet and advocating "Tibet Independence".

    Their actions since then have gone against the times and the well-being of the people of Tibet, and they will not succeed.

    Zhang Yun: Now, the Dalai Lama has been calling for "democracy" all the time. But as we can see, the "government in exile" of the Dalai Lama's group still advocates the integration of politics and religion. The Dalai Lama claimed that he would give up his power in exchange for the freedom of the Tibetan people.

    That means that the Dalai Lama now actually rules the "government in exile", which advocates the integration of politics and religion, while also stating that he would renounce his ruling position in return for the so-called "high level of autonomy in Greater Tibet".

    Who would believe that kind of self-contradictory statement? In other words, the Dalai Lama wanted nothing other than "Tibet Independence" and the restoration of the feudal serfdom system, which advocates the integration of politics and religion in Tibet.

    Reporter: The old Tibet is far from the Shangri-la of some westerners' minds. Modern Europe cannot return to what it used to be 500 years ago. And China's Tibet cannot return to the old Tibet, ruled by the backers of the Dalai Lama, where a feudal serfdom system advocating the integration of politics and religion still existed. Anyone who attempts to, or dreams of, returning Tibet to a dark reign is doomed to fail.