The Red and Black

Issue date: 4/2/08 Section: Opinions

KEVIN YAO

Recent uprisings in Tibet have raised international attention due to the spotlight on the Beijing Olympics. However, the Tibetan Independence Movement is nothing new.

Although we see the Dalai Lama tour the world for the cause of his people, we should define who these people are and then define Tibetan Independence altogether.

Tibet was a theocratic state based on feudalism prior to Chinese governance, and a social caste system existed in which people were born into serfdom. These people then were taught the Buddhist notion of karma and reincarnation - that they were suffering from the sins of the past life.

However, there is a way out of the caste system: One-third of the boys in Tibet forcibly are taken by the monastery and can live a life of harmony - along with a chance for molestation and rape, as cited in the autobiography of Tashi Tsering, a Tibetan nationalist.

The lamas and the feudal landlords who owned the lands of Tibet do not represent the majority of the population, which was illiterate and poor, according to www.asianinfo.org.

The Drepung Monastery was one of the biggest land owners in the world, and it lent money to the poor peasants at a 20 to 50 percent interest rate.

In theocratic feudal Tibet, torturing methods such as eye gouging and amputation were common as punishments for thieves and runaway slaves. Quite contrary to the peaceful teachings of Buddhism, isn't it?

Most of us in the West have a Shangri-La-esque view of the old Tibet, but that is hardly the case. Old Tibet was not a state based on peace and harmony but of oppression and torture.

We enjoy the religious freedom we have and, therefore, should not hypocritically support a sectarian state of Tibet, especially when it is a state that allows slavery and torture.

Reverting Tibet to its old days and restoring power back to the Dalai Lama means Tibet will continue to be backward and oppressive. And in reality, this would be a practice of taking sides with the less of two evils.

If we continue on the current trend, the Tibetans only have two limited options: live under oppressive Chinese rule or live under oppressive Lama rule.

Western proponents of Tibetan Independence often argue on the ground of human rights.

Well, the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights forbids torture and slavery, which are completely legal in the Lama-ruled Tibet.

If you support human rights and Tibetan Independence as I do, I implore you to define what Tibetan Independence really means: a democratic Tibet for all Tibetans or a sectarian Tibet for Lamas.

- Kevin Yao is a senior from Dashi, Taiwan, majoring in international affairs.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools