A debate stifled

ALL areas of Tibet8217;s cultural life are circumscribed by state intervention8230; Tibetans on internet forums and on mobile phones must discuss the pressing issues in a kind of code, never addressing politics directly, and never uttering the name of the one cherished leader who unites them. The spoken Tibetan language is being eroded by Chinese as the language of administration and higher education, and traditional Tibetan livelihoods are under threat8230; China depicts Tibetans as backward, colourful, childish and superstitious. It casts itself in a paternal, caring role, helping Tibet to develop and progress. Tibetan consent to this development is an irrelevance8230;

The political contestation of Tibet is pervasive and multifaceted8230; On the one hand, Tibet is an 8220;inalienable and integral8221; part of the 8220;multi-ethnic Chinese nation8221; according to the Chinese government and the millions of Chinese nationalists who swamp internet forums and university lecture rooms across the globe. On the other hand, according to most Tibetan voices, it is a country with centuries of independent history, intellectual and religious traditions, and literary culture, which has been forcibly annexed by China in the modern period. The two views are hard to reconcile because of the absolutism of the Chinese stance8230;

The question of Tibet8217;s historical status is a closed book in China. Tibet, according to the official narrative, has been a part of China since the Mongol Empire of Kublai Khan. Only in the nineteenth century, when China was weakened by European encroachment, did Tibet, egged on by the British, begin to foster the historical fantasy of independence. When China was finally able to 8220;stand up8221; with the victory of the Chinese Communists in 1949, Tibet was 8220;reunited with the motherland8221;8230;

One of the main strategies of the Chinese narrative is the depiction of Tibetan society before the 8217;50s as a cruel, oppressive feudal tyranny. In material terms Tibetans have benefited from China8217;s boom, and China has also liberalised its cultural policies in Tibet. However, the insistence on denouncing the Dalai Lama, and the refusal to respect Tibetan linguistic autonomy, have failed to win the Communist Party popular legitimacy. A lesson from history might be appropriate: Tibetan culture produces its own leadership. The Chinese would do well to recognise that in Tibet they do not bestow power, they can only acknowledge it.

Excerpted from a review by George FitzHerbert in TLS