Sperling Chin.historiography Kopie

8/10/2019 Sperling Chin.historiography Kopie

1/13

25

N o 2 0 0 9 / 3

S p e c i a l F e a t u r e

History tells truthTibet, part of China

For several months in late 2008, the China CentralTelevision (CCTV) website carried a set of state-ments under the above banner designed to highlightChinas proper sovereignty over Tibet via recourse to histo-ry as the arbiter of that sovereignty. As much as anything

else, this indicates rather clearly the importance Chinaattaches to history as an element in its polemical campaignover Tibet. Of course, the issue of Tibet itself is composedof diverse components: there are questions of human rights,demographics, development, language usage, etc. But thequestion of history touches one particular nerve in this com-plex: the matter of Tibets status and, therefore, the questionof the legitimacy of its incorporation into the PeoplesRepublic of China.There are parties to the Tibet question who would like tosee the historical question settled, or at least ignored, as aninconvenient impediment to a discussion of concrete steps to

resolve the issue in the present day. But even here the basesfor side-stepping the question of Tibets status are often for-mulated differently. Those outside China will often contendthat the incorporation of Tibet into China is simply an irre- versible fait accompli. On the Chinese side, however, thereis generally a strident response to all hints that the incorpo-ration is or was tainted, and that response falls back on theMarxist notions of history and its teleological movement (notparticularly recognised as such, but so internalised as to benonetheless a recognisable part of official Chinese assertionson Tibetan history). Such rigid ideologically-rooted teleolo-gy refuses to be ignored; accordingly, one of the constantconditions imposed on the Dalai Lama is that he publicly

accept Chinas interpretation of Tibets historical relation-ship with China.

T h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t Ti b e tb e c a m e p a r t o f C h i n a u n d e rt h e Yu a n D y n a s t y

The primary debate over Tibets status is thus a debate

about history. Even when interlocutors are willing to side-step the question of status, and by extension history, Chinagenerally asserts its case as a given. Hence, the locutioncommonly encountered in Chinese introductions to discus-sions about Tibet: As everyone knows, Tibet has been anintegral part of China for centuries (or sometimes more pre-cisely, for over 700 yearsalthough, as will be seen below,even this limit is going by the wayside). In the internationalarena, Tibets status as a part of China has been argued overfor at least a century, but only over the last quarter centuryhas China mobilised an intense array of studies and docu-ments to support its case.(1) The banner on the CCTV web-

site(2)

just cited is set over several links relating to Tibet, oneof which asserts, Historical records show Tibet a part ofChina. That link leads to a recent Xinhua report:

BEIJING, April 7 (Xinhua) - Chinas State Archives Administration on Monday published historical records that showed Tibet had been under jurisdic-

Tibet and China: The

Interpretation of HistorySince 1950ELLIOT SPERLING

1. For examples of some of the documentation assembled in China to support theposition that Tibet has historically been part of China, see Elliot Sperling,The Tibet- China Conflict: History and Polemics , Washington, East-West Center Policy Studies,no. 7, 2004, pp. 37-38, note 10.

2. http://www.cctv.com/english/special/Tibethistory/02/index.shtml, 2 November2008.

c h i n a

p e r s p e c

v e s

This article examines the way Tibets history and its relations with China have been interpreted and described inChina since 1950. While China has long claimed that Tibet became part of China in the thirteenth century under theYuan Dynasty, much evidence shows that this interpretation is a twentieth century construction. A more assertiveChinese position holds that historical China consists of the territory of the Qing Dynasty at its height, and that allwithin those boundaries have been uniquely part of China since ancient times, well before the Yuan era, and indeedsince before the beginning of recorded history.


2/13


tion of the central government for more than 700 years since the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368).The archives, including 15 official documents about the conferring of titles upon Tibetan officials or about the central government setting up offices in Tibet over history, were published via a video on the administrations website (www.saac.gov.cn).They are only a tiny part of the historical records, said Yang Dongquan, the administrations director.The records are indisputable proof that Tibet has been a part of China since the ancient time, and Tibet has been under jurisdiction of Chinas central government during the past 700 years, he said,adding any attempt to separate Tibet from China was not allowed.According to the administration, the records include: an edict issued by Emperor Thogan Themur to Yontan Gyaltshan in 1362 that appointed YontanGyaltshan as the Pacification Commissioner in Tibet.It showed the Yuan Dynastys central government set up the Pacification Council in the capital Dadu and the Pacification Department in Tibet in order to exer- cise jurisdiction over the region.

an edict issued by the first emperor of the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) to Hrogskunrgyal, appointing him the general of Olisi, a post in charge of the military and administrative affairs of an ulterior region inTibet.

The most interesting document in the batch, from theauthors perspective, is the Ming document, since its inclu-sion is meant to underline a Ming inheritance of Mongol Yuan domination of Tibet. The edict in question is found ina volume entitledXizang lishi dangan huicui , published inBeijing in 1995. The actual language of the document is

straightforward:From the Emperor to Whom Heaven Has Entrusted Rule. An Imperial Decree.We rule that which is under Heaven. In the four directions all who admire righteousness and return inallegiance to Us are treated with proper decorum and appointed with official positions. You, *Shuk knkyab [Shuosi gongshi jian] have long dwelled inthe Western lands and you have heard of Our renown and influence. You are able to follow your own inclinations, demonstrate loyalty and obedience,and maintain the security of the frontier territory. We

praise this. Now We have established the Ngari Tribal Military Command and have ordered that you take up the post of Marshal. Moreover you should think things through thoroughly, be circumspect, and respect discipline, so as to suitably comfort the tribal masses and ensure peace in the frontier regions. Our intention for this appointment is to create the Huaiyuan General [the General who Cherishes the Remote Lands], Marshal of the Ngari Tribal Military Commission, and We appropriately order that *Shuk knkyab (3) act according to this [appointment].The 2 nd Month of the 6 th Year of Hongwu [23 February 24 March 1373 (4)]

At this point it becomes interesting. I underline that thisappointmentviewed with such signal importance in theXinhua press release, as well as within the archival collec-tion within which it is presentedis dated to February-March, 1373. It is striking, then to find an entry in theMing shilu for February 10, 1375 recording that [The emperor]ordered the creation of the Ngari Tribal Military Command,the Phagmo drupa brigade and the tsang Longda battal-

ion. Thirteen officials were appointed.(5)

This sort ofappointment record is fairly well known within the study ofSino-Tibetan relations and relates to the administrative struc-tures for dealing with those who engaged with the Ming intribute relations and other frontier matters, in part by grant-ing them titles. This was, after all, the time in which, if we were to go by such Ming notices, the whole of Tibet wasgoverned from Hezhou (modern Linxia in Gansu) by one Wei Zheng,(6) at least as of 23 August 1374.(7) That, ofcourse, was not the case, and Wei Zheng is essentiallyunknown in Tibetan history, in spite of his being placed by

26

N o 2 0 0 9 / 3

3. The * refers to a phonological transcription of the Tibetan.

4. Xizang zizhiqu danganguann, Xizang lishi dangan huicui ( A Collection of Historical Archives of Tibet ), Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing, 1995, doc. 23. The identifi-cation of Shuk Knkyab remains somewhat problematic. I am, however, indebted toRoberto Vitali for kindly pointing out to me the likely reconstruction of this persons sur-name as Hrugs (i.e., =Shuk, in vulgar phonetics) on the basis of both the Chinese ren-dering of the name (Shuosi) and the existence of the important Hrugs clan in the region.Indeed, this is the clan of the famous tr anslator Rinchen Sangpo. See Guge KhyithangpaDznyana shr , The Lamp of Austerities of the Successive Lives of the Bodhisattva Translator Rinchen Sangpo: A Continuous Crystal Rosary of Biography , OrganizingCommittee for the Commemoration of 1000 Years of Tholing Temple, McLeod Ganj,1996, p. 12.

5. Gu Zucheng et al., Ming shilu Zangzu shiliao (Tibetan Historical Material of Ming History),Tibet Peoples Publishing House, Lhasa, 1982, p. 34.

6. On Wei Zheng, see his biography in Zhang Tingyu et al., Mingshi (Ming History),Zhonghua Press, Beijing, 1974, 134:3905-3906.

7. See Gu Zucheng, Ming shilu Zangzu shiliao , op. cit., pp. 29-30.

c h i n a

p e r s p e c

t i v e s


3/13

27

N o 2 0 0 9 / 3

the Ming in charge of Tibetan affairs. But the conspicuouspoint remains: the edict cited by the Xinhua release is from1373 and tells of the creation of the Ngari Tribal MilitaryCommandat that time , while theMing shilu records animperial order to create such an office only in 1375. What happened? Did the mail to Ngari go astray? Unlikely,since the original edict was discovered in Tibet. Rather, thisis best understood by reference to the Ming invitation toTsongkhapa: his refusal led to mention of it being omittedfrom contemporary Ming records. We must assume that forone reason or another, there was no follow-through from the

original edict. Whether it was ignored or simply notansweredperhaps it was received and stored awaywecant say. Perhaps, just perhaps, the creation of the NgariTribal Military Command and the placement of*Shuk...knkyab within it could not simply be effected byimperial order, but had to wait until envoys from Ngari (orperhaps *Shuk knkyab himself) came to court to be agreedon. The edict, it should also be pointed out, is a monolingualChinese document (and not the only one of this sort sent toTibet at the beginning of the Ming). Nevertheless, theentire episode underscores that such ceremonial appoint-ments did not carry any subordination to the Ming court with them. Its inclusion in the Xinhua story actually under-

cuts the storys claims once the further circumstances of thisNgari Tribal Military Command are understood. Two fur-thershilu notices dealing with the Commands dispatch ofenvoys with tribute do similar damage.(8)The primary point of modern Chinese interpretations ofTibetan history, insofar as the status of Tibet is concerned,has been that Tibet became an inseparable or integral partof China during the Yuan Dynasty. But this is a relativelyrecent interpretation. In the late Qing the subjection ofTibet to the Qing dynasty was what was recognised by rele- vant parties, in form if not in substance. It, and not the Yuan

period, was considered the starting point in Tibets beingruled from China. British officials and writers tended to referconsistently to Qing dominance as a form of suzerainty, aterm whose vagueness came to bedevil later interpretationsof Sino-Tibetan relations. Britain signed several agreements wherein Chinese suzerainty over Tibet was explicitlyacknowledged.(9)Essentially, the current official position, i.e., that Tibetbecame a part of China during the Yuan Dynasty, evolved

8. Gu Zucheng,Ming shilu Zangzu shiliao , op. cit., pp. 59 and 60, which refer to tribute mis-sions recorded in entries for 28 December 1381 and 28 February 1382.

9. See the texts of such agreements in Alistair Lamb, The McMahon Line , Routledge andKegan Paul, London, 1966, pp. 23764.

The Panchen Lama (second from left) and the Dalai Lama (second from right) in 1956, by theirCommunistprotectors, Mao Zedong (Center), Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai (Left) and Liu Shaoqi (Right)in Beijing.AFP PHOTO/STR/FILES


4/13


over the course of the first two decades of historical researchand writing in the PRC and was in part spurred by the cri-sis of 1959. Prior to that time there was a period in whichthe assessment of Republican-era writers, that subjugation tothe Mongols aside, Tibet had become a part of China dur-ing the Qing period, continued. Moreover, whenRepublican-era writers asserted Chinas claim to sovereignrights over Tibet, they tended to view Tibet as having beena vassal state of the Qing rather than (as the present-dayChinese position has it) an integral part of China. The termsused to categorise Tibet during the Qing,fanbang , fanshu ,etc., are specific in that regard and can generally be ren-dered as vassal state or dependent state.The imperial paradigm that Republican-era writers used indescribing Tibets place in the Chinese state left no room forambiguity. To choose from several examples, we find the fol-lowing in a 1926 work:

Thus, in both the 57th and 58th years of the Qianlong period (1792 and 1793), the relationship between China and Tibet was radically reformed.Chinas sovereignty over Tibet was firmly established and afterwards implemented in practical terms.

From the time of the above-mentioned radical reformTibet was purely reduced to a vassal state of China.To China belonged not only suzerain rights over Tibet, but sovereign rights as well.(10)

This interpretation did not change immediately with theestablishment of the Peoples Republic of China. Chinesepronouncements from that period avoided fixing a date forTibets incorporation into China, other than simply noting,as did the Seventeen-Point Agreement on Measures for thePeaceful Liberation of Tibet, signed by representatives ofthe Dalai Lamas government and the central government of

China on 23 May 1951, that The Tibetan nationality is oneof the nationalities with a long history within the boundariesof China.(11)The conclusion that Tibet had become part of China duringthe Qing was not at first problematic. In 1953, four years afterthe establishment of the PRC, one of Chinas better-known writers on Tibet, Huang Fensheng, preserved this basicchronological element in his account of Tibets history.(12)Ultimately, it was the revolt in Lhasa and the flight of theDalai Lama in 1959 that elicited clearer and more forcefulformulations of the PRCs position on Tibets historical sta-tus. In a volume titledConcerning the Question of Tibet ,published the same year, it was stated on the one hand that

Tibet has never been an independent country, but a part ofChina,(13)a position that has recently been revisited, as will be discussed belowand on the other that the Mongolssent an armed force to Tibet in 1253. Tibet was then incor-porated into the Yuan Empire and it has been a part of theterritory of China ever since.(14)This notion that Tibet became an integral part of China dur-ing the Yuan period (12711368) remained a tenet ofChinese historiography in the decades that followed, and agrowing number of books and articles supporting it appearedfrom the early 1980s on. A few references to some of these works will suffice to illustrate the general unanimity on thesubject. There were, of course, anomalies. When the lateHuang Fenshengs larger survey of Tibetan history was edit-ed for posthumous publication, the editor, Wu Jun, notedthat revisions were specifically needed with regard to theauthors account of the Yuan and the Ming.(15) UnlikeHuangs earlier work, this volume conforms more closely tothe interpretation that Tibet came under Chinese rule dur-ing the Yuan and not the Qing. However, owing perhaps toan editing slip, Tibet is said to have become simply a vassalstate of China during the period of Mongol rule.(16)General histories of Tibet published during this period give sup-

port, implicitly or explicitly, to Tibets status as a part of Chinasince the Yuan period. A few other examples are illustrative. Wang Furen and Suo Wenqing (1981):

In 1288 the Zongzhiyuan was renamed the Xuanzhengyuan (). The areas of , Tsang, and Ngari, etc., in Tibet constituted its administrative scope. Thus, the entire countrys Tibetan regions came under the central political administration of the Yuan Dynasty.(17)

28

N o 2 0 0 9 / 3

10. Xie Bin,Xizang wenti (The Question of Tibet), Commercial Press, Shanghai, 1926, pp. 2021.For other examples see Sperling, The Tibet-China Conflict: History and Polemics , op. cit., p. 38.

11. See Xizang zizhiqu danganguan, Xizang lishi dangan huicui , op. cit., doc. 100.

12. Huang Fensheng, Xizang qingkuang (The Situation of Tibet), Map Publishing House,Shanghai, 1953, p. 111. See Sperling, The Tibet-China Conflict: History and Polemics ,op. cit., p. 38.

13. Concerning the Question of Tibet , Foreign Languages Publishing House, Beijing, 1959,p. 195.

14. Ibid., p. 190.

15. Huang Fensheng, Zangzu shile (A Short History of the Tibetans), Nationalities PublishingHouse, Beijing, 1985, p. 9: When I was doing the revisions, I divided those areas on whicha basic consensus had already emerged into those to be corrected and those to be anno-tated, such as the administration of Tibetan regions during the Yuan and Ming, etc.

16. Ibid ., p. 224: In the late Yuan the Mongol ruling classs degeneration was relating to anexcessive reverence for Tibetan Buddhism. Tibet went a step further and became a vas-sal state of China.

17. Wang Furen and Suo Wenqing, Zangzu shiyao (Highlights of Tibetan History), SichuanNationalities Publishing House, Chengdu, 1981, p. 75.

c h i n a

p e r s p e c

t i v e s


5/13

Tibet and China: The Interpretation of History Since 1950

Chabpel Tshetn Phntsok and Nortrang Orgyn (1990):

Afterwards, the Yuan emperor [=Qubilai] installed aunited guard force in Tibet and actually placed the governing power for maintaining Tibet in the hands of the Sakyapa. From then on Tibet was truly subject to the emperors of China.(18)

Gylmo Drukpa (1995):

The ultimate result [of Qubilais use of Tibetan religious figures in his governance] was to create deep and lasting friendship between the Tibetan and Mongol nationalities and to make tangible the great work of unifying the Motherland.(19)

The Zangzu jianshi bianxiezu (The Committee for theCompilation of a Short History of the Tibetan Nationality,1985):

This series of measures constituted the implementationin Tibetan regions of Qubilais general policy to unify the country. The administrative systems established by

the Yuan Dynasty in Tibet and other areas, thoughpossessing characteristics that differed from those inthe Chinese interior, were nevertheless a solid part of the whole countrys administrative system under the direct administration of the Central government.(20)

This is a small sample of works asserting that Tibets posi-tion as a part of China was established during the period ofMongol rule. I have limited these citations to general surveysof Tibetan history, with the specific aim of situating thisposition within the general construction of Tibets historicalpast. Works that deal more specifically with the question of

Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, and which also highlight the Yuan period as the crucial era in the establishment of thatsovereignty, can also easily be found.(21)The contrasting position from Tibetans outside Tibet is bestexemplified by the writings Tsipn Shakabpa, who main-tained that the relationship between Tibet and the Mongolrulers of the Yuan (and also with the Manchu rulers of theQing) was not one of subordination, but rather a relation-ship between a priest and a patron, misunderstood asone of sovereign and subject. His original Tibetan text locat-ed the roots of this misunderstanding within the orientalexceptionalism that rendered the priest-patron relationshipimpervious to Western political categorisation.(22)

Other Tibetan commentators outside the PRC alsoapproached the question similarly. If they did not relegate theissue to a misinterpretation of an essentially religious relation-ship, then they simply framed it within religious terms.Khangkar Tshltrim Klsang wrote that after receiving initia-tion from Phakpa, Qubilai granted him the 13 myriarchies ofTibet, after which all of Tibet became subject to theSakyapa.(23)For his part, Dongtok Tnp Gyltsn writes:

Thus, the country of Tibet was occupied by the Mongol royal lineage for forty-nine years. Ultimately due to Drogn chgyl Phakpa of Sakya, not eventhe life of one human being was afflicted with hard- ship and via the path ofahimsaand peace, the three lgeof the land of Tibet were freed from foreignoppression and the civil and religious system existed with full independence.(24)

T h e a s s i m i l a t i o n o f Ti b e t i n t ot h e P e o p l e s R e p u b l i c o f C h i n a

If Tibet is said to have become a part of China during the Yuan period, we may do well to look briefly at how the

absorption of Tibet into the PRC is represented. For

29

N o 2 0 0 9 / 3

18. Chabpel Tshetn Phntsok and Nortrang Orgyn, Brief History of Tibet: A Turquoise Rosary , Ancient Texts Publishing House, Lhasa, 1990, pp. 56-57: de-rjes Bod-du Yon gong-mai gcig-gyur-gyi srung-dmag btsugs-te gzhi-nas Bod sa-gnas-kyi bdag-skyong dbang-cha de Sa-skya-bai og-tu gcig-bsdus byung-zhing/ de-nas-bzung Bod-di Krung-goi gong-mai mnga-khongs-su dngos-su chod-pa yin/.

19. Gylmo Drukpa, Discussion on the History of Tibet , Nationalities Publishing House,Beijing, 1995, p. 229: mthar-thug don-gyi bras-bu ni Bod-Sog mi-rigs bar-gyi mdza- brel dam-zab dang Mes-rgyal gcig-gyur yong-bar bya-bzhag rlabs-po-che gzugs-can lta-bu di bskrun-pa lags-so/.

20. Zangzu jianshi bianxiezu,Zangzu jianshi (A Brief History of the Tibetan Nationality), TibetPeoples Publishing House, Lhasa, 1985, p. 153.

21. See, among other works, Deng Ruiling, Yuan-Ming liangdai zhongyang yu Xizang difang de guanxi (Relationship between the Central Government and Tibetan Areas during the

Yuan and Ming Dynasties), China Tibetology Publishing House, Beijing, 1989; Wang Gui

et al., Xizang lishi diwei bian (A Discussion on Tibets Historical Status), NationalitiesPublishing House, Beijing, 1995; Wang Jiawei and Nima jianzan, Zhongguo Xizang de lishi diwei (Historical Status of Chinas Tibet), Wuzhou Propagation Publishing House,Beijing, 2000; and Zhang Yun, Yuandai Tufan difang xingzheng tizhi yanjiu (A Study ofthe Administrative System of Tibetan Areas Under Yuan Dynasty), Chinese Academy ofSocial Sciences Publishing House, Beijing, 1998.

22. See Sperling, The Tibet-China Conflict: History and Polemics , op. cit., pp. 19-20, quotingShakabpas original Tibetan text.

23. Khangkar Tshltrim Klzang,Tibet and the Tibetans: A Compendium of Tibetan History ,New Delhi, Western Tibetan Cultural Association, 1980, p. 139: di-nas bzung Bod- khams thams-cad Sa-skya-bai mnga-bangs-su gyur/ .

24. Dongtok Tnp Gyltsn, A History of Snowy of Tibet: Unprecedented Analytical Annals of Movemented Years and Times, A Melody that Rejoices the Learned Witnesses , SapanInstitute, Shoreline WA, 2002, p. 173: de-ltar Bod rgyal-khab Hor rgyal-rgyud-kyis lo bzhi-bcu-zhe-dgui ring btsan-bzung byas mthar/ Sa-skyai Gro-mgon chos-rgyal Phags-pas gro-ba mi-gcig-gi tshe-srog-laang gnod-tshe ma-phog-par tshe-med zhi-bai lam-nas Bod-yul chol-kha gsum phyi-rgyal-gyi btsan-gnon og-nas thar-te chos-srid gnyis-ldan rang-btsan gtsang-mai gnas-la bkod mdzad

c h i n a

p e r s p e c

t i v e s


6/13


indeed, if Tibet was already part of China for centuriesbefore 1951, then the incorporation of Tibet into the PRCought to require serious explanation in Tibetan and Chinesediscussions of history.As with the historical studies produced in the PRC,Tibetans in exile have also produced non-global studies ofspecific, circumscribed areas of Tibetan history and Tibetsrelationship with China.(25) When we turn to the question ofTibet and the PRC, something striking is immediatelynoticeable. While Shakabpas history of Tibet carries thestory past the events of 1950-1951 and discusses the rise ofdiscontent in Tibet, culminating in the uprising of the 1950sand early 1960s, he is almost alone in this. The otherTibetan histories published outside the PRC that have beencited above tend to present Tibets history against a strongerbackground of religious developments and end the story inthe middle of the twentieth century. To be sure, there areimportant Tibetan accounts of Tibet under Chinese ruleand, importantly, memoirs relating to the rebellion in the1950s and subsequent resistance.(26)But they are somehowseparate from the longer view of Tibetan history, and theevents they cover are for the most part not integrated into volumes taking a holistic approach to Tibetan history.

The same is largely true of the works published in the PRC,even though the emphasis in them is not so strictly focusedon the religious factor in Tibetan history. One cannot simplyassume that the nature of the events of the period, especial-ly under the present diplomatic and political circumstances,remains too sensitive, since there are non-global histories ofTibet that do deal with the post-1950 period. Surely this his-torical divide is in part owing to the establishment of thePRC in 1949 being treated as a major watershed in Chinesehistory in general. In Tibet, however the integration of thatperiod into a global view of Tibetan history is problematicfor other reasons as well. Several of the histories adopt a

teleological view of historys workings. This is quite clear inDungkar Lobzang TrinlsA Discussion of the TibetanDual Political and Religious System, (27) wherein the evolu-tionary view of Tibetan history (via Hegel and Marx) isclearly enunciated, and wherein the culmination of the inte-grated religious and political system of Tibetan governmentis reached, historically, with the rise and fall ofGandnPhotrang , the traditional Tibetan government. Thus thebreak is clear, and Tibetan history post-1950 is set aside asanother subjecteven though the Dalai Lamas governmentfunctioned in Tibet up to 1959.For Shakabpa the break is not so absolute: in his eyes, theestablishment of a Tibetan Government-in-Exile is a contin-

uation, not simply of Tibetan polity, but of Tibetan history.But he is somewhat unique in this outside the PRC. For oth-ers we may speculate that the absolute break in history, tothe point of ending the narrative in the middle of the twen-tieth century, is due to the manner in which Tibet within thePRC is viewed from exile: the government within Tibet isno longer a Tibetan government, and cultural continuity isnow viewed has having been displaced to India. The policiesfollowed by China in the decades prior to the rise of DengXiaoping have certainly contributed greatly to the percep-tion of a tremendous rupture.The disconnect between pre-1950 and post-1950 Tibetanhistory presented within the PRC is somewhat different.There is a clear sense, already noted with regard to DungkarLobzang Trinl, that the liberation of Tibet was theculmi- nationof a definite historical process. This then also placesTibet within the periodisation schemes that prevail withinmodern Chinese historiography. In particular, Tibets histo-ry in the twentieth century falls into the categorisation givenover to both contemporary (dangdai ) and modern( jindai ) history.There are studies of various individual topics related toTibets modern history published within the PRC: the paci-

fication of Tibet in the aftermath of the 1959 uprising inLhasa, volumes dedicated to the work in Tibet of importantfigures from the 1950s (Zhang Jingwu, Tan Guansan,Zhang Guohua, etc.), memoirs of Tibet work in the 1950s,and several books dealing with the Tibet-related work andthought of Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai, etc.(28)But at leasttwo volumes deal with recent Tibetan history in accord with

30

N o 2 0 0 9 / 3

25. See Dompa Yntn Gyatso, Proof that Tibet Can Absolutely Not Be Called a Part of China: The Quintessence of Truth , Office of International Relations, Dharamsala, 1991;Dzongtse Champa Thubtn, The Evolution of the Priest-Patron Relationship between Tibetans, Mongols and Manchus , Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, Dharamsala,2000; and An Analysis of the Relation between Tibet and Manchus, in Five Periods ,Dharamsala, Research and Analysis Centre, Department of Security, 1999.

26. For example: Gadraupn Rinchen Tshering and Chamdo Drungyig Lobzang Wangd,eds., History of Chushi gangdruk,Welfare Society of Central Dokham Chushi Gangdruk,Delhi, 2000; and Tsongka Lhamo Tshering, Resisting Agression , Dharamsala, AmnyeMachen Institute, 1992.

27. Dungkar Lobzang Thrinl, A Discussion of the Tibetan Dual Political and Religious System , Nationalities Publishing House, Beijing, 1981, pp. 1-3.

28. See, for instance, Xizang geming huiyilu (Memoirs of the Revolution in Tibet), TibetPeoples Publishing House, Lhasa, 1981; Lin Tian, Xizang chunqiu (Tibet Annals), ChinaTibetology Publishing House, Beijing, 1990; Xiao Hao,Xizang 1951 nian (Tibet in 1951),Nationalities Publishing House, Beijing, 1999; Zhao Shenying,Zhongyang zhu Zang daibiao Zhang Jingwu (Zhang Jingwu, Commissar of the Central Government in Tibet),Tibet Peoples Publishing House, Beijing, 1995; Jiangbian jiacuo,Xueshan mingjiang Tan Guansan (The Famous General Tan Guansan in the Snow Moutains), China TibetologyPublishing House, Beijing, 2001; Zhao Shenying, Zhang Guohua jiangjun zai Xizang (General Zhang Guohua in Tibet), China Tibetology Publishing House, Beijing, 1998;Mao Zedong Xizang gongzuo wenxuan (Selected Works of Mao Zedong on Tibet), ChinaTibetology Publishing House, Beijing, 2001; andZhou Enlai yu Xizang (Zhou Enlai andTibet), China Tibetology Publishing House, Beijing, 1998.

c h i n a

p e r s p e c

t i v e s


7/13


the categorisation just mentioned. One,Xizang difang jindaishi , (29) is, as its title notes, a history of Tibet in themodern era. It deals with Tibet largely from during the nine-teenth century and the first half of the twentieth, in keeping with the understanding of modern history in China. Thesecond,Dangdai Xizang jianshi ,(30)is a brief history of Tibetin the contemporary era, and thus deals almost exclusive-ly with the post-1950 period. In spite of its characterisationas a brief history, it runs to almost 500 pages. Withinthose pages the treatment of the beginnings of Tibets inte-gration into the PRC merits a brief comparison with theapproach taken by writers outside the PRC. Thus, the fol-lowing description of the prelude to the Peoples LiberationArmys advance into Tibet:

In spite of the Tibetan local authorities stubbornadherence to a separatist stance and even their efforts at anti-communist propaganda within the Tibet region, the guiding principles for the Central Governments peaceful resolution of the Tibet Question were nevertheless still communicated to Tibet via broadcasts and other channels, eliciting astrong response from among upper-strata figures and

the masses. Some people absolutely disapproved of Takdra throwing his lot in with imperialism and undertaking Tibetan independence activities. InMay, 1950, Kaln Lhalu Tshewang Dorjes term as Chamdo Chikyab was up and none of the three Kaln in Lhasa wanted to go out and replace him. So the Regent Takdra broke precedent and promoted Tsipn Ngap Ngawang Jigme to be a supplementary kaln, replacing Lhalu in the post of Chamdo Chikyap. Ngap made it clear that they should not oppose the Communist Party, but rather enter into peace talks with the Communist Party. However, his

views were not accepted by the authorities. The three major monasteries and some upper-strata figures also did not advocate armed resistance to the Peoples Liberation Army. The broad mass of the TibetanPeople heard, via merchants who travelled betweenXikang and Tibet, of the model behaviour of the PLA in the Tibetan regions of Xikang, where they had strictly adhered to nationality policy and respect- ed the Tibetan peoples religious beliefs, customs,and habits. They hoped even more so that the PLA would advance into and garrison Tibet at an early date. The unification of the Motherland, the unity of the people of all nationalities, common progress:

these have formed the main current of the historical development of the Chinese People for thousands of years. The adherence of the Tibetan local authorities to a separatist stance and their resistance to the liberation of Tibet received no popular support.(31)

The operative teleology here is evident in the reference tothe main current of the historical development of theChinese People. It serves to connect the historical narrativethat developed after 1959, with Tibet becoming a part ofChina during the Yuan Dynasty, to the understanding ofTibets liberation in 1951: both are part of an inevitablelinear process. This obviously distinguishes the foregoingpassage from the kind of accounts found circulating amongTibetans outside the PRC. There, the approach to this peri-od of Tibetan history has been straightforward political nar-rative, largely based on the perception that Tibets relations with China were rooted in the priest-patron relationship,and the continuity of Tibets independence. Thus, we cansee the place of the relationship that Tibet entertained withthe Yuan Dynasty reflected in Shakabpas narrative up intothe twentieth century. Indeed, Shakabpa recounts theTibetan governments insistence, in pre-1950 correspon-

dence with the new Chinese government, on the priest-patron relationship as the proper form of relations betweenTibet and China. Chinese claims beyond that, he maintains, were historically baseless:

In October, 1949, the Earth-Ox year, the Red Chinese Communist Party, after taking all of China,publicly proclaimed, again and again, over the radio from Beijing and from Xining, in Amdo, baseless proclamations stating that because Tibet was a part of China, the Peoples Liberation Army was to be sent into Tibet to liberate Tibet from the oppression of for-

eign countries; and that the Tibetan people must revolt against the Dalai Lamas government ((32))

31

N o 2 0 0 9 / 3

29. Xu Guangzhi,Xizang difang jindaishi(History of Tibet in the Modern Era), Tibet PeoplesPublishing House, Lhasa, 2003.

30. Danzeng, Dangdai Xizang jianshi (Short History of Contemporary Tibet), Beijing,Contemporary China Publication House, 1996.

31. Danzeng, Dangdai Xizang jianshi , op. cit., p. 45.

32. Shakabpa Wangchuk Dedn, A Political History of Tibet , Shakabpa House, Kalimpong,1976, vol. 2, pp. 408 ff: sa-glang 1949 spyi-zla 10 nang Rgya-dmar gung-bran-tang- nas Rgya-nag yongs-rdzogs blangs-rjes/ Be-cing dang/ Mtsho-sngon khul Zi-ling-nas yongs-grags rlung-phrin thog brjod-gsal/ Bod-ni Rgya-nag-gi khongs-gtogs-shig-yin- pas phyi-rgyal btsan-dbang rgyal-khab-kyi og-nas bcings-bkrol-gtong-bar Rgya-dmar- gyi bcings-bkrol dmag-mi Bod nang-la gtong-rgyu yin-tshul dang/ Bod-kyi mi-dmangs- nas T -lai bla-mai gzhung-la ngo-log rgyag-dgos sogs khungs-med-kyi khyab-grags yang-yang byas

c h i n a

p e r s p e c

t i v e s


8/13

Khangkar Tshltrim Klzang describes Chinese claims toTibet in a manner that draws on Shakabpa:

In 1949, after taking all of China, the Red Chinese made baseless proclamations about how Tibet belonged to China, in response to which the Tibetangovernment answered from the Lhasa Broadcasting House that Tibet was independent. In 1950 the Red Chinese invaded Tibet and reached Chamdo.(33)

Shakabpa also makes no mention of conflict between theTibetan government and Ngap, prior to his dispatch toKhams mentioned in the Chinese account cited above:

As the term of Shabp Lhalu Tshewang Dorje, the official in charge of civil and military affairs in EasternTibet, was at an end, Tsipon Ngap Ngagwang Jigme was named kaln, so as to be his new replacement.He was appointed Dom Chikyap and arrived inChamdo with his staff.(34)

T h e Ti b e t o M o n g o l Tr e a t y

This brings us to another element worth examining. Havingdiscussed the presentation of Tibets history with regard toassertions of Tibets transformation into a part of China, wecan turn briefly to the presentation accorded an historicalassertion of Tibets independence. This is the Tibeto-Mongol Treaty, concluded in 1913 by Tibet and Mongoliafollowing the collapse of the Qing.(35)In China, references to the treatys existence have at timesalso been dismissive, with one publication on the Tibet issuereferring to the so-called Mongolia-Tibet Treaty that wasmuch rumoured at the beginning of 1913.(36) Other publi-cations have cast the treaty as a tool for Russian penetration

of Tibet, and consider it ultimately invalid.(37)

The treaty actually appeared in Chinese references duringthe Republican Period. For the most part, knowledge of itscontents was drawn from the description given by Sir CharlesBell in 1928 inTibet: Past and Present.(38) Xizang waijiao wenjian (Diplomatic Documents on Tibet) , compiled by Wang Guangqi in 1929, consists largely (as its title indicates)of translations of those documents relating to Tibets contacts with foreign countries presented by Bell in the appendices toTibet: Past and Present . Commentary for some of the docu-ments, including the Tibeto-Mongol Treaty, is also provided;the short commentary on the treaty is translated in part fromBell. The treaty itself is given in English and Chinese ver-

sions,(39)though it is important to note that Bells English ver-sion is not a direct translation from the documents originalTibetan text.A more recent work,Zangzu jianshi (A Brief History of the Tibetans) , repeats (and cites) Bells assertions about thetreatys status as unfounded rumoura rumour denied by theDalai Lama, according to Bell.(40)A 2001 Chinese study of British and Russian penetration ofTibet,Yingguo Eguo yu Zhongguo Xizang (Britain, Russiaand Chinese Tibet) , departs from the extensive reliance onBell where the treaty is concerned, and draws from Russian writings and British Foreign Office materials. The accountof the treaty found here notes that correspondence betweenthe British and Russian governments in the first months fol-lowing the conclusion of the treaty expressed common agree-ment that the treaty was not a valid international instru-ment.(41)It would be useful to present here an English translation ofthe treaty directly from the Tibetan, as no such translationhas yet been made. Indeed, the Tibetan text only becameavailable from the Mongolian State Archives three years

ago. As can be seen in the text, the treaty clearly asserts theindependence of Tibetand Mongoliaat the very outset:

[1] Both Tibet and Mongolia have each emerged from under the domination of the Manchu state.Having separated from China, Tibet and Mongoliahave constituted themselves as independent nations.From early times up to the present both Tibet and Mongolia have had very close relations based on their identical esteem for the [Buddhist] Doctrine. Thus,

32

N o 2 0 0 9 / 3

33. Khangkar, Tibet and the Tibetans: A Compendium of Tibetan History , op. cit., p. 620.

34. Ibid ., pp. 414-415: Mdo-smad zhi-drag spyi-doms zhabs-pad Lha-klu Tshe-dbang rdo- rje dus-rdzogs-pas tshab-gsar-du rtsis-dpon Nga-phod Ngag-dbang jigs-med-la bka- blon bsko-gzhag gnang-thog/ Mdo-spyii las-khur stsal-te ngo-las rnams Chab-mdor byor/

35. I am preparing a separate article dealing solely with the treaty.

36. Jing Wei, 100 Questions About Tibet , Beijing Review Publications, Beijing, 1989, pp. 19-20.

37. See, for example, Zhou Weizhou, Ying-E qinle woguo Xizang shile(A Brief History ofEnglish and Russian Invasion of Our Tibet), Shaanxi Peoples Publishing House, Xian,1984, pp. 239-240.

38. Sir Charles Bell,Tibet: Past and Present , The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1924, pp. 151 and304-305.

39. Wang Guangqi, tr., Xizang waijiao wenjian (Diplomatic Documents on Tibet) , TaiwanStudent Book Company, Taipei, 1973, pp. 20-21 and 129-136.

40. Zangzu jianshi bianxiezu, Zangzu jianshi , op. cit., p. 365.

41. Zhou Weizhou,Ying-E qinle woguo Xizang shile , op. cit., p. 369. Note that the termused here for the treaty is xieding , denoting an accord.

c h i n a

p e r s p e c

t i v e s

The Tibetan-Mongolian Treaty of 1913. All rights reserved.



9/13


for the sake of concluding a treaty in furtherance of yet greater firmness [in their relations], the foreignministry [Tib. ya-mon < Ch. Yamen; government office] officer and plenipotentiary invested, by order of the Great Emperor of the Mongolian [2] Nation,with treaty-making powers, Da blam-a Ni ta Biligt[Tib. T bla-ma Nyig-tha sbi-legs-thu] Rabdan; and the secondary high minister, ang un Manglai Baatur Beyile [Tib. Cang-cun (


10/13


al decades. The new position is a more uncompromising one with a much larger claim on history. This new position holdsthat Tibet has been a part of China since ancient times,i.e., since well before the Yuan. This change appears to bepart and parcel of a broader Chinese assertiveness on theTibet issue that has developed in the wake of the series ofevents in 2008 that left China defensive about Tibet but ulti-mately, following the Summer Olympics and the unfoldingof the global financial crisis, in a stronger position as a risingglobal power. Much as China has made a public show of dis-carding the charade that led a large number of credulousobservers to think that China was amenable to a compro-mise with the Dalai Lama over the Tibet issue, so too ahardened position over Tibets historical status has emerged.The recent pronouncements are significant because theyshow the broad agreement and even common language thatcharacterises positions that have been sanctioned as officialpolicy. So it would seem with this case. Several reports ofthis new position have emerged. Most significantly, aXinhua news dispatch of 5 May 2008 imparted a tone ofofficial authorisation as it proclaimed [The assertion that]Tibet has been a part of China since ancient times is builtupon an already existing theoretical base in Chinese histori-

cal geography.And indeed, the theoretical element in this new historical view is laid out very clearly, drawing on the work of TanQixiang (1911-1992), the renowned scholar of Chinas his-torical geography. The article quotes what it views as a sem-inal paper by him from 1981 on Historical China andChinas Dynastic Frontiers, a paper that put things veryclearly:

How do we handle the question of historical China? We take the territory of the Qing Dynasty, after its complete unification and prior to the encroachment of

imperialism on China, specifically Chinas territory from the 1750s to the 1840s, the period preceding the Opium Wars, as the historical sphere of China.What is termed historical China is this sphere.Whether its a question of centuries or millennia, the nationalities active within this sphere are considered by us to be Chinas historical nationalities; the regimes established within this sphere are considered by us to be Chinas historical regimes. This is the sim- ple answer. Beyond this sphere lie no Chinese nationalities or Chinese regimes.() Some comrades take Tufan [ i.e., imperial-eraTibet] to be a part of the Tang Dynasty; this goes

against historical reality. The Tang and Tibet strug- gled many times as enemies and marital alliances and friendly relations were rare. And when there were marital alliances and friendly relations, the Tang absolutely did not control Tibet. The relationship between the Han Dynasty and the Xiongnu and that between the Tang Dynasty and the Turks and Uyghurs was essentially the same. We can only rec- ognize that Tufan, the Xiongnu, the Turks and the Uyghurs were part of historical China; but we cant say that they were part of the Han or Tang Dynasties.(42)

Adding to this, the Xinhua article then goes on to state:

[The assertion that] Tibet has been a part of Chinasince ancient times is built on the base of TanQixiangs famous thesis. Its just as when we speak of Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, the Northeast,Taiwan, Yunnan, Guizhou, Hunan and Hubei,Guangdong and Guangxi, and even Beijing and Nanjing, etc.: these places have been part of Chinasince ancient times. Theres no need to delve deeply

into the question of when they fell under effective administration by the political authority of the Central Plain or of the central government.(43)

This is not isolated political rumination. Indeed, I would ven-ture that this represents a new tack in the polemical casebeing made over Chinese historical claims to Tibet. Othersarticles have appeared echoing the premise set out here. With a clear stamp of authority, Sun Yong, vice-director ofthe Tibetan Academy of Social Sciences, gave an interviewto journalists fromRenmin Ribao that appeared on thepapers website on 26 February 2009, and that set out the

points raised in the Xinhua piece with very precise rele- vance to Tibet:

When we say today that Tibet has been a part of China since ancient times, it is an historical fact. To say since ancient times is not the same as saying since the Yuan Dynasty; it is rather to say since human activity began. In this regard saying Tibet has been a part of China since ancient times is also not to say the regime in Tibet since ancient times

34

N o 2 0 0 9 / 3

42. http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2008-/05/content_8106611.htm, 14 May 2009.

43. Ibid .

c h i n a

p e r s p e c

t i v e s


11/13


has always been a part of the area effectively gov- erned by political authority from the Central Plains or the political authority of the Central Government. Rather, its to say that the history of this piece of land, Tibet, has, since human activity began, been apart of Chinese history. Whether its as a part of the history of Chinas borderlands or as a part of the history of Chinas minority nationalities, it is nevertheless absolutely not part of the history of any foreigncountry. The formulation only after Tibet entered into Chinas territory during the Yuan Dynasty did it become a part of China has an obvious flaw. The famous Tibetologist Wang Furen pointed out in the 1980s that saying Tibet entered Chinas territory during the Yuan Dynasty is tantamount to saying Tibet had a period outside the Motherland; that prior to the thirteenth century Tibet was not within China. This does not accord with the historical fact of the evolu- tionary process of Chinas historical inseparability.() Since ancient times each of the fraternal nationalities have been creating our great Motherland all together. This accords with the verdict of historical development. This sort of thesis is called the Since

Ancient Times Thesis and the All Together Thesis. According to the Since Ancient Times Thesis and the All Together Thesis within the formative sphere of Ancient Chinas boundaries, the nationalities that were active at that time withinancient China are the source of the modern Chinese nationality. The history of the formation and development of these nationalities is an organic part of Chinas history; the political regimes they established,whether they were central dynasties or regional regimes, were all political regimes within China. Seenthis way, we can reach a clear conclusion: the history

of the Tibetan nationality since ancient times is acomposite part of the nationality history of China.The Tibetan nationality has, since ancient times, lived within the frontiers of China. Within the formation of the frontiers of ancient China the Tibetan nationality was an important member of the big multi-national family of China. The Tibet area that the Tibetannationality inhabits has been a part of China since ancient times . (44)

It is fitting to end with a few words on this apparent changein polemical thinking. The arguments premise is strikinglysimple: the boundaries reached by the Qing Dynasty at its

height represent historical China, and within that area thereis only Chinese history. While it is problematic for manyscholars to consider the Qing in its entirety a Chinese state,that is irrelevant for the proponents of the Since AncientTimes thesis, which effectively asserts Chinese historicaldominion retroactively. There is thus no need to quibbleover whether or not the Ming exercised control over Tibetfollowing the fall of the Yuan. In fact, it may perhaps be thatthe weaknesses in the Yuan-based case for Chinese sover-eignty over Tibet, mentioned above, have played a role inthis change in polemics. In any event, the new thesis treatsall historical polities within the Qing borders at their fur-thest extent as Chinese regimes, much as historians havedone with competing dynasties in China during eras of divi-sion. Sun Yong therefore asserts that an area such as Tibethas no history other than as a part of China, starting fromthe time that human activity began on the Plateau. Withinthe bounds of this thesis there is simply no independentTibetan history. It sounds ludicrous, but there it is. The fur-ther ramifications of this mind-boggling proposition shouldprove interesting, for the thesis also appears to allot noplace to independent Mongol history and to ascribe to cer-tain areas that are today under India, such as those in

Arunachal Pradesh, only a Chinese history since timeimmemorial. One thing above all is clear about this: Chinacontinues to take the historical argument over Tibets status very seriously.

35

N o 2 0 0 9 / 3

44. http://big5.people.com.cn/gate/big5/xz.people.com.cn/GB/139187/139208/ 8871595.html, 16 May 2009. My attention was originally drawn to this interviewthrough a post about it on the website of Taiwan Xuangouzi: http://lovetibet.ti-da.net/e2642725.html 16 May 2009.

c h i n a

p e r s p e c

t i v e s


12/13

GlossaryXizang lishi danganhuicui Shuosigongshi jian Ming shilu Hezhou Linxia WeiZheng fanbang fanshu Huang Fensheng W u Jun

Wang Furen

Suo Wenqing

Zangzu jianshi bianxiezu dangdai jindai Zhang Jingwu Tan Guansan Zhang Guohua Xizang waijiao wenjian Wang Guangqi Yingguo Eguo yuZhongguo Xizang Y amen Jiangjun

Tan Qixiang

Tufan

List of Tibetan terms an d book titles, with Tibetan original and meaning Phonologic transcription translation Tibetan Category

A Discussion of the Histor y of Tibet Book title

A Discussion of the Tibetan Dual Political and Religious System Book t itle

A Political History of Tibet Book title

An Analysis of the Relation between Tibet and Manchus, in Five Periods Book title

Annals Without Precedent that Investigate the Passage of Time in the History Book title

of Snowy Tibet. A Melodyto Delight the Learned Witness

Brief History of Tibet. A Turquoise Rosary. Book title

Chabpel Tshetn Phntsok Name of person

Chamdo Place

Chamdo Drungyig Lobzang Wangd Name of person

Chikyab Governor

Dom Place

Dompa Yntn Gyatso Name of person

Dongtok Tnp Gyltsn Name of person

Drogn chgyl:Protector of allBeings,dharmaraja (epithet) Epithet

Dungkar Lobzang Trinl Name of person

Dzongtse Champa Thubtn Name of person

GadraupnRinchen Tshering Name of person

Gandn Photrang:Traditional Tibetan governement (epithet) Epithet

Gendn Klzang Name of person

Guge KhyithangpaDznyana shri Name of person


36

N o 2 0 0 9 / 3

c h i n a

p e r s p e c

t i v e s


13/13


37

c h i n a

p e r s p e c

t i v e s

List of Tibetan terms and book titles, with Tibetan origin al and meaning Phonologic transcription translation Tibet an Categor y

Gylmo Drukpa Name of person

History of Chushi gangdruk Book title

Jetsndampa:Holy and Venerable Lord (epithet) Epithet

Kaln Minist er

Khangkar Tshltrim Klsang Name of person

LhaluTshewang Dorje Name of person

Lobzang Ngawang Name of person

Ngap Ngawang Jigme Name of personNgari Place

Ngawang Chdzin Name of person

Nortrang Orgyn Name of person

Phagmo drupa Name of person

Phakpa Name of person

Resisting Aggression to Save the Country Book title

Rinchen Sangpo Name of person

Sakyapa Religious school

Shabp Minister (Epithet)

Shakabpa Name of person

Shakabpa Wangchuk Dedn Name of person

Shuk Knkyab Name of person

Proof that Tibet Can Absolutely Not Be Called a Part of China. Book title

Quintessence of Truth

Takdra Name of person

The Evolution of the Priest-PatronRelationship between Tibetans, Book title

Mongols and Manchus

The Lamp of Austerities of the Successive Lives of the Bodhisattva Book title

Translator Rinchen Sangpo. A Continuous Crystal Rosary of Biography

Tibet and the Tibetans. A Compendium of Tibetan History Book title

Tsang Place

Tsipn Finance Minister

Tsongka Lhamo Tshering Name of person

Tsongkhapa Name of person

tsang Place

Yeshe Gyamtso Name of person

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ozergyalmo
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times