Paradise explained
Jeremiah is once again doing a great job of advancing the understanding of current events in a historical context. I recommend the whole piece, but here’s a taster:
The Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) is a good place to start as the Manchus did maintain garrisons on the ?ibetan plateau while administering the region through local elites. The Qing rulers, great patrons of Lamamism, consolidated their rule by maintaining cultural and religious ties with ?ibet beyond mere military occupation. They also–generally but not always–ruled with a light touch, allowing relative autonomy in religious and cultural matters, which suited the situation quite well. The Qing Dynasty was, after all, a large, multi-ethnic empire, and maintaining order and peace in outlying territories was the utmost concern.
The problem is that the PRC is a nation-state, and the demands a nation-state places on its people are different than those of an empire. It is not enough that Tibetans merely pay taxes and not revolt, they must also identify with the nation-state first and foremost, with other cultural and religious aspects secondary to the demands of modern state building. Empires want to be respected, nation-states want to be loved. That’s a sticky wicket the Qing never had to face.
This is a telling point. The CCP have always demanded allegiance and have often demonstrated brutality when they don’t get it. Intolerance towards the true feelings of Tibetans with regard to their cultural and spiritual leanings is one example. The latest evidence of this has been the petulant demonisation of the Dalai Lama by China’s leaders, and the requirement of Tibetan students in Beijing to denounce His Holiness:
They are required to provide four answers, Tibetan sources told The Times. First, they must write a reply to the question “What position does the Dalai Lama occupy in your heart?” Second, they must provide the address and place of work of their parents. Third, they must give details of their own identity card. Finally, they must guarantee not to take part in any political activities.
The recent violence should be condemned, as should some of the actions and policies in the last 50 years of Tibetan history that lie at the heart of the current problems. But forcing citizens to swear ‘loyalty to the emperor’ can only be seen as a backward step in a progressive society. This move would be embarrassing even if it was a joke. We know that it’s not a joke because the CCP don’t have a sense of humour, much less respect for free thought.
Whatever the geopolitical reality is for the Tibetan region, its marginalised indigenous population regard their land as being occupied by unwanted forces. There are two alternatives open to the Chinese government. One is to enter into a meaningful dialogue that will produce a framework acceptable to both Beijing and the Tibetan people, a dialogue that must include the Dalai Lama. The other is to drive every last vestige of cultural identity from the hearts and minds of the Tibetan people. Indications so far are that Beijing favours the latter approach.