One Reason Why Tibetan Monastics Protest: at Tibet University in Lhasa, Chinese is the official language of instruction

[Harold Schiffman]

Religion Dispatches: José Cabezón on Why Tibetan Monastics Protest

Dr. José Ignacio Cabezón, the XIVth Dalai Lama Professor of Tibetan
Buddhism and Cultural Studies at the University of California at Santa
Barbara and principal investigator for the Sera Project, has posted a
two-part op-ed piece about the situation in Tibet at Religion
Dispatches. Parts I and II of his "Why are Nuns and Monks in the
Streets?" offer an insightful, thorough, and accessible analysis of
the reasons for the protests in Tibet. At the heart of his analysis is
this observation about the media's understanding of the conflict:


"The media has tended to focus only on the political dimension of the
protests. This is understandable, given that it is the most dramatic
aspect. After almost 60 years of living under Chinese rule, there is
no denying that most Tibetans continue to believe that Tibet is an
independent country. They tear down the Chinese flag from public
buildings, raise the Tibetan flag in its place, and chant Pö rang
wang! (Tibetan Independence!). Many Chinese, for their part, claim to
be baffled: "Why do Tibetans feel this way? Have we not modernized
Tibet? Tibetans now have electricity, roads and medical care. Aren't
Tibetans more prosperous than they were sixty years ago?" Despite
these material advances–which in fact are confined almost exclusively
to urban areas–most Tibetans feel as though they are second class
citizens within the PRC, lacking the same rights, privileges and
economic opportunities that the Han Chinese enjoy. They also feel as
though their culture is under siege, and not simply because Tibetans
are increasingly a minority in their homeland–especially in cities.
Tibetans feel as though their culture is devalued and that it is
steadily eroding. To take just one example–a symptom of the underlying
problem, not its cause–at Tibet University in Lhasa, the only
officially recognized institution of higher learning in the TAR,
Chinese continues to be the official language of instruction, and
there is little support or academic programming related to Tibetan
language, literature, culture or the arts.

"The conflict between Tibetans and the Chinese government over the
status of Tibet is complex and multi-faceted, involving issues of
race/ethnicity, economics, language and education–not just politics.
Aside from the political, most of these other factors have been
overlooked in Western media coverage, while coverage of the role of
religion has been particularly unnuanced. Aside from noting that most
of the protests have involved the Buddhist clergy, little attention
has been paid to the role that Buddhist monks and nuns have played in
these events, and especially to their motivations for protesting.
Monks and nuns have been at the forefront of public demonstrations in
Tibet since the 1980s. As with the earlier demonstrations, the most
recent round of protests began with monks. They escalated, spreading
to the laity, when these monks were beaten and arrested. But why do
Tibetan monks engage in public protests in the first place? Those
earlier demonstrators who are currently living in exile in India have
stated that, being unencumbered by the responsibilities that come with
having a spouse and children, they consider themselves more free than
their lay counterparts to engage in political action. They have cited
this as one of the principal reasons for becoming politically active.
If imprisoned or killed, they have said, they have no dependents who
would suffer as a result of their actions. The monks and nuns who have
taken part in the recent protests are undoubtedly of the same opinion.
But statements like this still provide us with few clues about the
clergy's actual grievances–what injustices they feel need to be
redressed. To understand the monks' and nuns' motivations for
protesting is not, of course, to understand the whole of the Tibet
issue, but it is to understand one of the sparks that has led to
conflagrations like the ones we have witnessed this last week.

"In a recently released public statement, the Dalai Lama hints at what
is at stake for the clergy. "It is common knowledge that Tibetan
monasteries, which constitute our principal seats of learning, besides
being the repository of Tibetan Buddhist culture, have been severely
reduced both in number and in population. In those monasteries that do
still exist, serious study of Tibetan Buddhism is no longer allowed;
in fact, even admission to these centres of learning is being strictly
regulated. In reality, there is no religious freedom in Tibet." It may
seem strange to an outsider that the regulation of monastic
institutions–for example, the control of the number of monks in
monasteries–should be such an important issue for Tibetans. Let me try
and explain why monks and nuns risk years imprisonment, and indeed
their own lives, to protest this and other government policies aimed
at controlling their institutions.

"Religion is at the very heart of Tibetan ethnic identity, and
monastic institutions are one of the hallmarks of Tibetan religion.
According to the most conservative estimates, before 1959 monks
constituted 10-12% of the total male population in central
agricultural regions (the percentage of nuns being somewhat lower).
Most Tibetans had close family members—children, siblings, aunts or
uncles—who were ordained. Monasteries served as a focal point for many
lay religious practices, including important village or regional
festivals. Because of the importance of monasteries to Tibetan
religious and cultural life, it is not surprising that Tibetans should
view the Chinese government's attempts to control monasticism as a
threat to Tibetan cultural identity. Tibetan monks believe that they
must have internal autonomy: the freedom to establish their own
policies, to manage their own affairs, and not to be subject to
ideological pressures or other forms of interference from the state.
In Tibet today it is precisely the issue of autonomy—the freedom to
opt for a Buddhist way of life and to establish such a way of life
institutionally—that is the greatest source of conflict between the
clergy and the Chinese state. Viewed from this perspective, the
question of Chinese policy in regard to the Tibetan monasteries is the
"Tibet question" writ small. How much autonomy is necessary to make
monks (Tibetans) happy? How much is the Chinese government willing to
grant them? Can a compromise be reached? The most recent round of
protests suggests how far the Tibetan clergy and the Chinese
government are from a compromise."

Chinese Communist Party (CCP) policy in regard to Tibetan monasticism
must undoubtedly be seen as the historical legacy on the part of
Chinese (and perhaps, more generally, East Asian) polities to
(micro)manage institutions at all levels of the culture: to bring them
under the bureaucratic control of the state. Among the various types
of institutions, religious ones have been seen as a perennial and
special object of concern, in part because of the extent to which they
penetrate all levels of the society, and in part because of their
potential to challenge the power of the state. Without getting into
the details of the bureaucratic apparatus that has been put into place
to control Tibetan monasteries in contemporary China, suffice it to
say that such an apparatus exists in the form of a superstructural
bureaucracy that regulates monasteries from above, and an
infrastructural apparatus (including government informants) embedded
within monasteries to control them from below. This bureaucracy allows
for control of various aspects of monks' and nuns' individual and
institutional lives.

Cabezón has much more to say, and I strongly encourage you to read his
marvelous piece. (Thanks to Joel for the pointer.)

http://chaplaindanny.blogspot.com/2008/03/religion-dispatches-jos-cabezn-on-why.html
-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a
message are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************