Full Text: Tibet's Path of Development Is Driven by an Irresistible Historical Tide
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail Xinhua, April 15, 2015
III. The Essential Intent of the "Middle Way" Is to Split China
Following more than half-a-century's concerted efforts of the peoples of all its ethnic groups, Tibet has embarked on a path of development conforming to the times and the people's fundamental interests, and made tremendous strides forward. However, in their pursuit of "Tibetan independence," the 14th Dalai Lama and his supporters have always turned a blind eye to Tibet's development and progress, denying the achievements made by the people of Tibet and rejecting the sound path that Tibet has taken.
Over the course of the years, the Dalai group has kept modifying its tactics for "Tibetan independence." In March 1959, it fled to India after they failed in an all-out armed revolt that they launched; subsequently it began to publicly advocate "Tibetan independence" and tried to achieve it by force. In the late 1970s, when relations between China and the US improved, the Dalai group, finding that the international situation was unfavorable to it, started to alter its tactics, shifting its attempts from achieving open independence to achieving disguised independence by cloaking them with what is called the "middle way." After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe in 1989, it again misread the situation and believed that the time was right, it began to demand "complete independence" once again. After 1994, having realized that there was no possibility of achieving this goal, it turned again to the "middle way" and began to lobby for what it now termed "a high degree of autonomy." In recent years, it has intensified its efforts to promote this "middle way" and to disguise it.
The "middle way," also known as the "way of meditation on the mean," is a Buddhist term. It is the Dalai group which has politicized it. Its claims can be summarized into five major points.
First, it denies the fact that Tibet has been an integral part of China since ancient times; instead it claims that Tibet was "an independent state" which was "occupied by China in 1951," and that "Tibetans have the right to independence from a historic perspective." Second, it seeks to establish a "Greater Tibet" that has never existed at any time in history, claiming that the "Tibet issue" concerns 6 million Tibetans and that Tibet, Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu, Qinghai and other areas that Tibetans and people of other ethnic minorities inhabit in compact communities should be incorporated into a unified administrative region. Third, it demands "a high degree of autonomy" that is not subject to any constraint whatsoever from the central government, denies the leadership of the central government and Tibet's present social and political systems, and proposes to establish an "autonomous government" under which "Tibetans" (in truth the Dalai party) take full charge of all affairs other than diplomacy and national defense. Fourth, it opposes the central government to garrison troops in Tibet and, despite its superficial agreement that the central government holds the authority over national defense, it demands that the central government "withdraws all Chinese troops" to turn Tibet into an "international zone of peace." And fifth, in total disregard of the fact that the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau has been a multi-ethnic region since ancient times, it denies the access of other ethnic groups to "Greater Tibet" and drives them out of regions where they have lived for generations.
Under the "middle way," the Dalai group feigns acceptance of China's sovereignty in Tibet to seize the reins of power and set up a semi-independent political regime under the control of the "Tibetan independence" forces, and ultimately seek full sovereignty and achieve "Tibetan independence" when its governing power is consolidated.
As a political strategy for achieving independence through a series of steps, the "middle way" does not tally with China's history, national reality, state Constitution, laws and basic systems. Neither does it conform to Tibet's history, reality and ethnic relations. Moreover, it runs counter to the fundamental interests of all the people of China, including the Tibetans.
- Tibet has been an integral part of China since ancient times, and has never been an independent nation.
Tibet has been an integral part of China since ancient times, and, as one of the centuries-old ethnic groups in China, the Tibetans have made important contributions to the formation and evolution of the Chinese nation - a single family sharing a common destiny. Archaeological and historical research shows that since ancient times the Tibetan people have been closely connected with the Han and other ethnic groups in such aspects as consanguinity, language, culture and others, and that there has never been a break in economic, political and cultural exchanges between Tibet and the rest of China. The Tubo regime established in Tibet in the seventh century was a local government of ancient China, which made an important contribution to developing China's southwest frontier.
It was during the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368) that China's central government formally incorporated Tibet into the central administration. The Yuan government set up the Supreme Control Commission of Buddhism and Commission for Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs to directly administer local military, political and religious affairs, conduct censuses in Tibet, set up courier stations, collect taxes, station troops and appoint officials; it also issued and enacted the Yuan criminal law and calendar in Tibet to fully exercise effective administration. The Ming government (1368-1644) implemented a policy of multiple enfeoffment, conferring "prince of Dharma," "national master in Tantrism" and other honorific titles upon religious leaders in various parts of Tibet. Succession to such titles required the approval of the emperor, who would send an envoy to confer the official title on each new prince.
During the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911), the central government granted honorific titles to the leaders of the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism - the 5th Dalai Lama and the 5th Panchen Lama - officially establishing the titles of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Erdeni and their political and religious status in Tibet. From then on, it became an established convention that the central government conferred the titles of Dalai Lama and Panchen Erdeni.
From 1727, the Qing government started to station grand ministers resident in Tibet to supervise and manage local administration on behalf of the central authorities; in total it appointed more than 100 such grand ministers resident in Tibet. In 1751, the Qing government abolished the system under which the secular princes held power, and formally appointed the 7th Dalai Lama to administer the local government of Tibet, thus establishing theocracy there, and it set up the Kashag (cabinet) composed of four Kalons (ministers) that took orders from the grand ministers resident in Tibet and the Dalai Lama. In 1774, when the British East India Company sent a representative to Tashilhunpo in an attempt to build a direct relationship with Tibet, the 6th Panchen replied that Tibet was part of China's territory and all its affairs were handled in accordance with imperial edicts from the Chinese emperor. In 1793, the Qing government promulgated the Imperially Approved Ordinance for Better Governance of Tibet (29-Article), improving several systems by which the central government administered Tibet. The Ordinance clearly stipulated that the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama and other Living Buddhas had to follow the procedure of "drawing lots from the golden urn," and the selected candidate would be subject to approval by the central authorities of China. Observing the Ordinance, the 10th, 11th and 12th Dalai Lamas and the 8th, 9th and 11th Panchen Lamas were selected in this way, but 13th and 14th Dalai Lamas and the 10th Panchen Lama did not go through the procedure of "drawing lots from the golden urn" with approval from the central authorities.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)