Doublethinking About Tibet

I sometimes wonder if the rulers of Chinese-occupied Tibet have read George Orwell’s 1984, as any good dictator should. If so, they’d be familiar with the concept of “doublethink,” which is “holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. … to deny the existence of objective reality.” Certainly in the 1950s, the Chinese rulers who invaded Tibet doublethought by believing that they were “peacefully liberating” a grateful Tibet from foreign imperialists, while simultaneously carrying out a military campaign to defeat the Tibetan army, supply an occupation force, and then fight a spreading guerilla resistance movement.

But given how much China has changed since the Mao years, does China still doublethink about Tibet? The answer – unsurprising to people familiar with how retrograde China’s rule in Tibet is – is “yes”.

An example of doublethink that would make Big Brother and Chairman Mao proud is how the rulers of Chinese-occupied Tibet claim to be the “protectors” of Tibetan culture and religion, while simultaneously waging a multi-pronged fight against Tibetan religion (which China sees as a continuing threat because it reinforces Tibetans’ separate national identity). Consider the contrast between two recent developments:

FIRST, officials in Chinese-occupied Tibet recently issued new religious regulations that stipulate, “All religious artifacts in places of worship in Tibet belong to the Chinese state.” On top of all the violence and repression the Chinese government has perpetrated on the Tibetan people, it adds ultimate insult by claiming their cultural heritage out from under them. But beyond the shameful audacity, this statement says much about the relationship the Chinese government sees itself having with Tibetan culture. The Chinese government wants to own, and thereby control, Tibetan Buddhism. It wants to take a spiritual civilization that developed over many centuries, and which forms an integral part of the Tibetan national identity, and “tame” it.

Tibet’s Chinese rulers cannot admit that the true owners of Tibetan culture are the Tibetan people, not the very same government that is guilty of genocide against the Tibetan people. It’s as if a robber broke into your home, beat and killed your family, vandalized some of your family heirlooms, and declared that henceforth the robber would be the owner and protector of your remaining possessions (which, after all, are part of the robber’s glorious cultural heritage). Now imagine the shameless robber keeping a straight face… actually you don’t have to imagine: China’s official Xinhua news agency helpfully explains that the “revised regulation clarifies the government’s role in supervision, management and protection of cultural heritage” in Tibet.

SECOND, officials in Chinese-occupied Tibet have been on a rampage of sorts against Tibetan Buddhism, and actually used the same set of regulations mentioned above as the basis for ordering the People’s Armed Police to demolish a large statue of Guru Rinpoche at Samye, Tibet’s oldest monastery, in the middle of the holy month of Saka Dawa. According to the Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy:

In order to cover up the information from being leaked outside, the Chinese PAP accordingly quickly barred pilgrims, devotees and foreign tourists from visiting Samye Monastery. A huge network of Chinese PAP were deployed around the monastery area. Few local Tibetan devotees after questioning the monks of the monastery about the demolition did not dare to disclose any information. On being asked, the monastery officials told the devotees that the statue was demolished because a new religious structure cannot be built without official consent. One local Tibetan told TCHRD that, “Tibetans in Lhoka, particularly in Dranang County did not dare to challenge the officials openly but deep inside their heart, people fear and worry that the demolition of Guru Rinpoche’s statue and transportation of its rubble bear a resemblance to the dark era of the Cultural Revolution.”

Article 13 of the new regulations states that official permission must be given to construct a “religious structure such as an open-air religious statue, stupa, or Mani Lhakhang [Prayer (wheel) Temple].” Where governmental permission is not given, Article 48 states that, “the people’s government … orders redress, suspension of construction, and demolition.” Therefore the Chinese government has given itself veto power over Tibetans’ religious activities, and the authority to demolish any temple or statute it does not specifically approve.

Meanwhile, the Chinese government forced the respected abbot of a large Tibetan Buddhist monastery to step down after the abbot refused to denounce the Dalai Lama, the spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhism. An official at the local religious affairs department confirmed that “From the government’s perspective, many monasteries must be evaluated and brought into compliance” with the “patriotic education” campaign aimed at ripping out the spiritual heart of Tibetan Buddhism.

And lest we think this is just about the Dalai Lama, we should also remember that Zhang Qingli, the hard-line Communist party secretary in Tibet, declared that “The central party committee is the real Buddha for Tibetans,” indicating his total disdain for Tibetan religion. Under Comrade Zhang’s rule, Chinese authorities in Lhasa prohibit government workers from visiting monasteries (not just Party members but anyone with a job at a state agency, and remember the state sector is much bigger in Tibet than in free-wheeling Shanghai). The Chinese regime also threatened Tibetan school children with expulsion for participating in religious activities during the holy Saka Dawa month (in direct violation even of China’s own laws on religious freedom).

As Orwell wrote, “war is peace, freedom is slavery.” And, he might have added, “occupation is liberation, attacking is protecting.”

Chinese officials’ inability to bring Tibetan religion under their control makes them feel threatened, so they doublethink themselves into a muddle – are they protecting, tolerating, taming or attacking? But if the Tibetan identity and religion survived invasion, occupation, Cultural Revolution, and systematic repression, so why should we think China can succeed in controlling the Tibetan spirit now? Despite whatever claims and campaigns the Chinese government tries next, the Tibetan identity, religion, and nation will endure, waiting to reassert itself on the day the Chinese hold over Tibet begins to crack (as empires inevitably do).