I'm starting to get bored of writing about Tibet at all. There are lots of other things that annoy me that I would love to write about as well. But, I had it in my head that I was going to make this a three-parter, so I guess I'm stuck. Anyway...
I guess the whole point of my posting on this topic is to refute (and hopefully clearly)what it is that annoys me about most people's take on the Tibetan situation. This isn't directed at anyone in particular (1:23), of course. It's just that people like those whom I pointed my finger at in the first installment don't usually think things through terribly thoroughly. Of course, judging by the present situation, Tibetan independence is a pretty worthy cause. But the whole conversation is very one-sided. Activists focus solely upon the evils visited upon Tibet by the Chinese, almost as if Tibetan history doesn't extend further back than 1950. This leads them into an absolute sort of belief that China is the entirety of the problem and that simply by gaining their freedom will all the Tibetans' problems be solved. I don't believe that in any of the numerous conversations I've had about this subject, that I've ever heard anyone say anything about what would follow the liberation from China. I really want to be charitable on this count, but I honestly wonder whether most people have even considered this.
Of course, this is only a problem for non-Tibetan pro-Tibetans. It's all well and good if a Tibetan doesn't give a rat's ass about anything beyond saving her homeland from goose-stepping Chinese soldiers. I wouldn't deny her that privilege. She's simply too invested in the issue. "Western" activists, however, are not (or really ought not to be - but that's subject for another post entirely). Consequently, I think it's important that we question the independence movement about their motivations and aims. Under the current circumstances, Tibet deserves her freedom. But I am only willing to advocate that freedom if it will actually improve the lot of the Tibetan nation.
Imagine good ol' Tenzin Gyatso riding back up to Potala Palace, crowds surrounding him, showering him with rice and pieces of coloured paper, prostrating in the streets. People are laughing, crying, shouting, dancing in the streets. Monks chant and meditate as he climbs the stairs and flings the doors wide open. He looks inside the musty old building and sighs, a tired smile tugging meekly at one corner of his lips. Quietly, beneath his breath, he murmurs, "I'm home."
Romantic image, isn't it? Everyone's happy and teary and it's all good again. I guarantee you Hollywood would make a movie about it (and maybe Brad Pitt would star in it). My merely "whelming" narrative skills aside, it is admittedly compelling. There's a pleasing sort of symmetry, a return of the prodigal son sort of thing. It just feels right. The unfortunate thing is that most, if not all, of the "Western" activists that I've spoken to seem to be happy with that picture. "That's great. Good enough. Tibet is free and we've seen the restoration of the legitimate leader, the Dalai Lama. Everything will be super cool now, 'cause he's a nice guy and they're Buddhist monks, man, so they'll rule all great-like. Dude, where are my Doritos. I swear I had them right h... oh yeah, right. I ate them."
Now, it's an easy thing to agree that the regime imposed by Beijing is not a good thing. It's oppressive and undemocratic. It tramples upon the Tibetans' rights to their language, culture, religion, and freedom. It really does need to be replaced with something else, something better.
The thing is, though, that thing's weren't so great under the old system either. Tibet was a theocratic state. That's right: theocratic. I don't profess to know the details about it, but I'm sure it wasn't all roses being a Tibetan before China arrived on the scene. There was no form of democracy in that society. Some particularly misguided minds might suggest that "that's alright because they had their own ways and who are we to say they're wrong?" I think we all know enough about the absurd way that successors to the Dalai Lama are chosen that it need not be explained here. I would only ask these cultural relativists whether they would like their own leaders to be chosen in this fashion. Somehow I would doubt it. If it's no good for us, why would it be any good for anyone else?
Furthermore, the old Tibetan society was thoroughly medieval. While China has been actively suppressing Tibetan culture, must we side unequivocally with Tibetan cultural conservatives? Is enforced change in culture necessarily always for the worse? For instance, in China women have full formal legal and political equality to men (admittedly, this often amounts to beans). I'm just guessing, but I'm going to suppose that under the old regime of the monks women were mere servants and chattel. I'm also just guessing, but I suspect that the laws in Tibet (under Chinese direction) have been altered to correct, at least in principle, this particular piece of backwardness. Also gone is the dominance of the monastic class, who literally lived off the sweat of farmer peasants in an arrangement not unlike the European feudal system, where your station in life was determined by your bloodline. Do we honestly want to see this restored?
Politics aside, activists also seem unaware of economic considerations. After independence, whence shall come the Tibetans' food and clothing? As I have stated above, their economy used to be a closed, feudal agricultural system. They made their own clothes, tilled their own soil, built their own houses. While this once again resonates with the deep current of romanticism so endemic to "Western" culture, we should be very cautious. These people lived in true poverty. Only the severely deluded would actually desire a return to the middle ages. They lacked security in their food supply; if there was a bad harvest, they starved. They lacked medicine. No doubt they suffered (and still suffer) from many maladies which no longer even exist in the most industrialized nations. And this is without even considering the share the monks took.
China, to its credit, has been doing something to actually improve the well being of Tibetans in this regard. They've opened Tibet to the booming economy along China's coast via rail links. They've opened the region to tourism. They've brought money into the region to construct hospitals and provide education. (Of course, it's not a lot, but it's more than the nothing that Tibetans could have expected without China's involvement.) And, yes, Beijing is trying to eradicate their culture through the educational curriculum, but arguably Tibetans have a sum total more options than in the past? Certainly no one is stopping them from farming if that's what they want to do.
This is not to excuse China's oppression, but it is to make the point that we need to consider what the economic situation would be. No one has ever suggested to me what the economy of Tibet might look like, post-independence. Besides vague promises (under the heading conclusion) of economic enhancement of Tibetans' well-being, no one seems to have a plan that would work. I recall reading somewhere (and unfortunately, I cannot find a link anywhere) that the Dalai Lama had a vision of Tibet's economy being structured toward the production of health and well-being products to sell to visitors from around the world. People would come to stay in Tibetan wellness spas, etc. They would take home incense and herbal salves, etc. They would be healed without "Western" medicine and Tibetans would labour at all their traditional crafts and everyone would be happy.
This is horrifying. Especially coming from someone as well traveled as the Dalai Lama. His vision of a prosperous Tibet is to turn it into some sort of Himalayan Mexico, in which the people still labour in cottage industry and pamper wealthy "Western" tourists. This isn't going to make Tibetans' lives much better. Mexico (alongside many other tropical so-called "paradises") has been playing the tourist destination game for a long time and the people are still desperately poor. Innumerable cottage industry manufactured knick-knacks have been sold to (comparatively) wealthy tourists and the general standards of living still haven't risen all that much. This is the model the Dalai Lama wishes to apply to Tibet.
Now, I am merely an armchair economist, but the unavoidable fact is that if your aim is to raise standards of living significantly, you must increase (industrial) production significantly. In the Mexican case, it was only after the introduction of NAFTA, which allowed Mexican manufactured goods to travel into the US and Canada, that we have seen the development of industrial manufacturing and, consequently, the first glimmers of improved standards of living. It is conceivable that His Holiness is entirely ignorant of economic theory, though from what has been told of his irrepressible curiosity, I would doubt it. Instead, I suspect that the truth is that he simply wants to see restored, wholly and with the least revision possible, the Tibet of his youth, social and economic justice notwithstanding.
His dream (which is shared by many Tibetans) is ultimately unrealisable. Tibet has changed irreversibly. This brings me to the last issue, probably the stickiest, of the whole Tibetan problem. There is now a sizable population of ethnic Han Chinese in Tibet. They are successful owing to some not insignificant favouritism from Beijing. And they are there to stay. The question is straightforward. What will be their place in a liberated Tibet? The image at the head of this post is of Tibetans and Buddhist monks busy trashing the premises of a Han-owned business. Is this an indication of the treatment that the Han in Tibet might expect following Tibetan independence? Pogroms? What might be done to protect their persons and belongings against any possible retributive action (like we've seen) by vengeful Tibetans? What rights and obligations would they have in an independent Tibet?
All these matters are absolutely of utmost importance to this issue, but not nearly often enough do we hear them discussed. This is unacceptable for (nominally) distanced "Western" activists, struggling alongside Tibetan activists. A Tibetan radical conservative has every right to demand return to the glorious past. Non-Tibetans do not. We have to be ready to ask tough questions, to demand answers to our reasonable questions. We have to be ready to demand promises that there will be reasonable improvements made before we offer our support. We have to have our own visions of a free Tibet and we have to be willing to demand concessions in exchange for our financial, political, and moral support. This is not unreasonable.
So what would I, in a perfect world, like to see in Tibet?
I would very much like to see a real democracy develop in Tibet. As with the Quebec example that I described in the previous post, I would not feel strongly about whether Tibet were independent from China if meaningful democracy existed. The institution of the Dalai Lama would survive (being a unique and wholly fascinating cultural gem), but in a similar capacity to that of the Queen in the United Kingdom and its former colonies. The political and social dominance of the monastic class would be ended. Tibetans would be free to practise or not practise any religion they wanted, to think and to enquire. The rights of women would be constitutionally ensured, ending their second-class status. Quality education would be provided in the Tibetan language. Medical treatment (of the effective variety) would be provided to all Tibetans. Economic policy would promote industrial development (even of old cultural goods). The Han population would be legally entitled to full equality with ethnic Tibetans and would be protected from prejudicial mistreatment.
Of course, this is my preferred option. It is not entirely realistic, but there you have it. I simply want to see Tibetans have a better lot and I do not believe that a return to medieval society would truly be in their best interests. The sad truth, however, is that there is no possibility of positive change as long as Beijing remains obstinate. If China were to democratise in coming decades, then there might be a chance for Tibet to prosper within China. If things remain as they are, which we may expect, then independence is truly the only worthwhile alternative. Consequently, Tibet must be free from China Beijing's shackles. But not only from Beijing's shackles, chafing though they are. Tibet must also be free from an entirely more restricting set of shackles. Tibet must be free from the shackles of its own past.
(3/3)
No comments:
Post a Comment