(By the True Heart News interviewing team in Taipei) An
assistant professor published an article on 2 Dec. 2012 entitled The
Myths about the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Issue in The China Times
under the pen-name, Donghua. In his article, Mr. Donghua wrote: "Taiwan
society is permeated with myths about the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan
issue. Because of these myths, Taiwan’s mainstream media and political
figures shower one-sided support for the Dalai Lama and his
government-in-exile, drowning out all other viewpoints." Backed
by the historical evidence and compelling arguments, Mr. Donghua’s
incisive views and analysis dispelled much of the delusions that have
been clouding the general public’s understanding about the Tibetan
issue.
Donghua directly poked the weak spot of the Tibetan issue. Fearing that
Donghua’s views would shake the myths that bolster its long-enjoyed
false prestige, the Tibet Religious Foundation of H.H. the Dalai Lama responded vehemently. It published a rebuttal against Donghua’s Op-Ed in the "Comment on Current Tibet Affairs" column
on its official website. While the author of this rebuttal article
scrambled to uphold the three myths picked apart by Donghua, the
historical evidence he cited did not add up and the arguments he set
forth were far-fetched and incoherent. Not only did it fail to refute
Mr. Donghua’s views, it actually laid bare the untenable weaknesses of
his arguments and unwittingly reinforced Mr. Donghua’s conclusions.
For instance, one of the myths Mr. Donghua challenged was the biased
historical perspective that has been employed to mislead the public,
which “depicts the multiethnic China as an ethnically homogenous
nation in order to undermine the legitimacy of modern Chinese governance
over the ethnic minority regions after 1912.” However, historical
accounts of China show that the current national maps of the territory
of the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China were
inherited from the Qing Dynasty. This territory was not acquired by an
expanding agricultural regime from the Central Plain of China. Rather,
it was formed by the theocratic regimes of Old Tibet and the Western
Regions (Xiyu) which, following the example set by Mongols during the
Yuan Dynasty, sought to conquer the Central Kingdom and become upper
class rulers of the Han Chinese. Tibetan politicians and people cannot
claim innocence of this historical fact, nor is it necessary for them to
resort to self-denial. Nonetheless, the Tibet Religious Foundation of H.H. the Dalai Lama denied the historical facts with four counterarguments, and claimed that “In the history of China, countries established by ethnic groups along the Chinese border are different from China.”
The first counterargument in the rebuttal states: “In AD 763,
Tibetan (aka Tubo) troops took over the Chinese capital Chang’an and
forced Tang Emperor Daizong to flee to Shanzhou. In 787, Tibet signed a
peace treaty with the Tang Dynasty. Between 821 and 822, the Zhongbo
Treaty was drawn up in the Changqing Alliance, which stipulated that
Tibet and China were two equal sovereigns and confirmed the borders
between the two countries. Steles engraved with the content of the
treaty were erected in three locations: Lhasa (the capital of Tibet),
Chang’an (the capital of China), and the borders of the two countries.” Zhang
Gongpu, Chairman of the True Enlightenment Education Foundation
comments that the Tang history cited above paints a biased picture of
history and sidesteps all the detracting details. With a closer look of
the full historical picture, this counterargument does not stand.
Chairman Zhang points out that it is widely known that the Tang
Dynasty’s decline was first spurred by eunuch problems and party
conflicts, but the unexpected turn was the “An Shi Rebellion.” While the
secession of fanzhen (local generals) was the direct consequence of
this rebellion, it also indirectly invited devastating foreign
intrusions. After the rebellion of General An Lushan, the central
government of Tang mobilized the troops stationed in the military
districts of Longyou and Hexi, which were guarding its southwest border,
to fight the insurgence in the Central Plain, leaving no defense at the
borders.
Presented with this opportunity, the Tibetan nobles decided to launch a
full-scale invasion of Tang in AD 763, resulting in the exile of Emperor
Daizong and the fall of Chang’an, its capital city. Since then the
Tibetan armies frequently plundered and ravaged the Guanzhong Plain as
the Central Plain was embroiled in chaotic clashes among the fanzhen,
leaving the western border undefended. (Note 1) Chairman Zhang comments
that, although the Tibetans never established new regimes outside Tibet
or within Chinese territory, they beleaguered China like bandits when
China was in a precarious state. Tang history never denied the status of
Tibet as a foreign feudal state, but rather Tang and Tibet were
maintained, nominally and in formalities, an uncle-and-nephew
relationship which was established by the two Tang princesses Wencheng
and Jincheng, who were purposely married to Tibetan kings. The rebuttal
article cited the above history to argue for “fact #1”: "In the history of China, the nations established by ethnic peoples along its borders are distinct from the Chinese state." However,
this superfluous argument entirely misses the point. It serves no
meaning other than politically inciting ethnic division to benefit the
Dalai Lama’s government-in-exile. In addition, the rebuttal used the
words “In the history of China,” which obviously indicates the issue in concern is a Chinese issue. In that case, twisting words is unacceptable.
Note 1: Bo Yang, The Chinese History Outline, Vol. 2, Star Press (Taipei), 1st edition, May 1992. pp. 552-553.
In AD 787, Tibet finally signed a "peace treaty" with the Tang Dynasty;
however, the proceedings of this treaty were far from peaceful. Emperor
Dezong (Li Gua), the successor to Emperor Daizong, sought to make peace
with the Tibetan troops. Yet Tibet considered this reconciliation an end
to its fortune and was unwilling to cease its plundering. At the end,
Tibet accepted Emperor Dezong’s treaty with a treacherous twist. In 787,
Tang’s Prime Minister Hun-Yu met with his Tibetan counterpart in the
city Ping Liang Chuan in Jingzhou to seal the treaty. As Hun-Yu entered
the venue, a Tibetan ambush came from all directions. Fortunately,
Hun-Yu grabbed a horse and fled, but all the other Chinese officials
left behind were captured and brutally tortured. (Note 2)
Note 2: Bo Yang, The Chinese History Outline, Vol. 2, Star Press (Taipei), 1st edition, May 1992. p. 553.
After the ambush, Tibetan troops took the chance to charge into
Longzhou, where they rounded up its residents and slaughtered all the
old and infirm. Most residents had their eyes gauged and arms chopped
off and were abandoned on roadside. Such savage cruelty exactly mirrored
the way aristocrats treated the serfs in old Tibetan society. At the
time, there still remained several tens of thousands of young men and
women. They were forced to march westward. When they reached the Anhua
Gorge, they were told: "You can bid farewell to your homeland in the east!" They
wailed and howled. Several thousands of them threw themselves into the
valley while the rest were sold into slavery. Chairman Zhang explains
that he is just citing these historical accounts to make clear that
China has not always played the role of an “aggressor” in its relations
with Tibet. Ethnic conflicts or interactions have always been dynamic
and volatile; the switch from friends to foes happens all the time and
is simply inevitable, as Mr. Donghua stated in his article: "If people propose to drive out their aggressors, then the score will never be settled."
Mr. Donghua’s insightful opinion bespeaks his high-mindedness and
clemency. In comparison, the rebuttal article muddies the facts and
advances divisive and embittering arguments. It goes without saying who
is more credible. (Note 3)
Note 3: Bo Yang, The Chinese History Outline, Vol. 2, Star Press (Taipei), 1st edition, May 1992. p. 554.
The rebuttal states that “Between AD 821 and AD 822, the Zhongbo
Treaty was drawn up in the Changqing Alliance, which stipulated that
Tibet and China were two equal sovereigns and confirmed the borders
between the two countries. Steles engraved with the content of the
treaty were erected in three locations.” Here the rebuttal’s author
seized on the opportunity, twisting the historical facts to suit and
serve the standpoint publicized by Dalai’s regime in-exile. Chairman
Zhang points out that, according to historical records, eight sessions
were held between Tang and Tibet from 705 to 822. Since the eighth of
these sessions was held between the first and second year of Changqing
(821 to 822) of Tang Emperor Muzong, it was therefore called the
Changqing Alliance. The steles erected as a result of these sessions
were engraved in both Tibetan and Chinese and commonly referred to as
the Changqing Steles or the “Nephew-Uncle Alliance Steles.” They were known as the “Nephew-Uncle Alliance Steles”
because after Emperor Songtsän Gampo married to Princess Wencheng, all
Tibetan emperors (Tsenpos) regarded themselves as nephews to Tang
emperors and paid respects to the Tang emperors in the manner of
son-in-laws. Therefore, the Tang Emperor Muzong and Tibetan emperor
Tritsu Detsen were in an uncle-and-nephew relationship. Since Tritsu
Detsen allied with Tang and set up the steles for the purpose of
“continuing the good will between uncle and nephew,” thus the name
“Nephew-Uncle Alliance Steles” appeared.
The inscription on the steles included the pledges carved out during the Changqing Alliance, such as “…proposed the states to be treated as one, forming an alliance of great peace…” and “…as the states are considered now as one, great peace is thus agreed upon.” The term “nephew and uncle” or “uncle and nephew”
appeared four times in the inscription. The inscription also includes
the wording that “Tibetan’s tribute offering must abide by the etiquette
appropriate for uncle and nephew relationship.” The Chairman explains
that “states as one” obviously means the two
states are not in opposition; the relationship of “uncle and nephew” is
governed by the code of ethics, which obligates that the offering and
receiving of tribute between Tibet and Tang must follow the etiquette
appropriate between superior and inferior. How could this be called
“equality between two sovereigns”? This counterargument presented by the Tibet Religious Foundation of H.H. the Dalai Lama is
untrue and misleading, employing deceitful interpretations and
distortion of historical facts to justify its stance. How could this be
called credible and convincing?
The rebuttal’s second counterargument for “Fact #1” is that “The Jurchen Jin occupied northern China while the Song Dynasty retreated to southern China (south of Yangtze River).”
Chairman Zhang says that this fact is recognized by Chinese scholars,
historians, as well as all Chinese people and ruling regimes in history.
Nobody ever tried to deny it or hide it. Even the officially compiled
Twenty-Four Histories includes the histories of Liao and Jin Dynasties.
It is both needless and pointless for the Dalai Foundation to use this
as an argument. In fact, Chinese people never resent the fact that China
was once ruled by foreign ethnicities. Not only did the Liao and Jin
people not distinguish themselves from Chinese, they even actively
assimilated themselves into the mainstream culture of Han Chinese,
injecting new blood into Chinese culture as a whole. Ironically, the
rebuttal’s second argument confirms Mr. Donghua’s statement that these
territories of China were not the result of the expansion of an
agricultural regime from the Central Plain, but the outcome of foreign
powers’ participation in the ruling of China, and becoming the upper
class rulers of the Han Chinese. “Rivers and oceans never exclude
smaller streams and thus achieve their greatness.” Chairman Zhang
remarks that this attitude toward foreign rulers highlights the
magnanimous bearing of China as a great nation since its ancient days.
The third counterargument is that “the historians who compiled the ‘History of the Yuan Dynasty’ did not regard either Tibet or Mongolia as part of China.”
Chairman Zhang remarks that this argument actually underscores the
emphasis on the purge of falsities and preservation of facts in the
Chinese tradition of keeping historical records as well as the
incorruptible candidness of historians. During the Yuan Dynasty, Tibet,
the Han Chinese and Southern Chinese (according to the classification of
the Yuan system) were overtaken by the Yuan Empire; therefore, like
Mongolia, they were regarded as the territory of the Great Yuan Empire.
Chairman Zhang says the discussion of “which is a part of which” would
be illogical and meaningless if we ignore historical evidence.
The fourth counterargument set forth is that “the official history of the Ming Dynasty (Mingshi) did not include Tibet in its territory.”
Chairman Zhang points out that historical record cannot be handled like
literary rhetoric, where the parts can be taken to represent the whole.
The territory of Ming Dynasty should not be defined according to the
domain it covered when its founding emperor Hongwu had just established
rule, as this does not represent the territory the Ming Dynasty
controlled in its heyday. Under the reign of Emperor Yongle, the Ming
Dynasty’s national strength peaked and enjoyed the largest territory in
its history. Tibet was not only included in its territorial map, but
even under the administrative control of the Ming court, who employed
the policy of “title conferment” to solidify the Tibetans’ loyalty.
For instance, after the establishment of the Ming Dynasty in 1368, it
adopted the “title conferment” policy and appointed various titles such
as “Princes,” “Princes of Dharma,” “Empowered State Tutor” to the
influential political leaders of the different sects of Tibetan lamas.
The succession to these titles required approval of the emperor, who
would send delegates to preside over the conferment ceremony. During
this time, Tibet saw the rise of the Gelug Sect, to which the two tulku lineages - the Dalai Lamas and the Panchen Lamas - belong. The
third Dalai Lama Sonam Gyatso paid tribute to the Ming court and was
granted the title of “Dorjechang (Vajradhara Dalai Lama).” As
for the governance of the Tibetan region, the Ming court largely carried
over the administrative system of the Yuan court. It set up the "Dbus-Gtsang
Itinerant High Commandery," the "Mdo-khams Itinerant High Commandery"
and the "E-Li-Si Army-Civilian Marshal’s Office" to handle civil and
military administration in inner and outer Tibet as well as the Qamdo
and Ngari areas respectively. Evidently, Tibetan affairs were treated as
the domestic affairs of the Great Ming Dynasty.
Chairman Zhang further points out that not only the Dalai Lama and
Panchen Lama of the Gelug Sect received titles from the Ming emperors,
even the leader of the Kagyu Sect did as well. The fifth Karmapa
was bestowed by the Yongle Emperor with the title of "Great Treasure
Prince of Dharma” together with a valuable “Black Crown.” Since
then the Kagyu Sect has been called the "Black Hat Sect." The Black
Crown was handed down to and worn by the heads of the Kagyu Sect, who
have been historically referred to as the “Black Hat Sect Karmapas.” Now
still, this article of imperial bestowment is still cherished as a
heritage and is even sometimes fought over during power struggles. On a
side note, the identification of the Seventeenth Karmapa has been the
subject of controversy because both "Urgyen Trinley Dorje” and “Trinley Thaye Dorje" were
enthroned as the seventeenth “Great Treasure Prince of Dharma.” Neither
of them is ceding their leadership nor are they recognizing each other.
In conclusion, all these historical facts prove that Tibet has long
been an inseparable part of Chinese territory since the Ming Dynasty.
The Qing Dynasty inherited the territorial map of the Ming Dynasty and
continued to rule over the whole of China. Citing Mr. Donghua’s article,
Chariman Zhang says: “As demonstrated by historical records, not
only were the official territorial boundaries of the Republic of China
and the People’s Republic of China inherited from the Qing Dynasty
(rather than being gained through invasions of foreign lands), but also,
even the largest territory the Qing Dynasty ever controlled in its
history did not exceed the traditional territorial boundary of old
China.” The Chairman says that this directly and indirectly proves
the fact that, historically, China has always been governed and
developed by different ethnic groups together - contrary to the biased
perspective constructed by Japanese and a small number of Western
scholars, which imagines China to be an ethnically homogenous country of
the Han Chinese. They completely overlook the facts that the Qing court
had more than once sent troops to ward off the Gurkhas’ invasions of
Tibet and that the administration of Dalai Kashag XIII sought assistance
from Qing court when the British in India were harassing Tibet.
The Chairman reproves the rebuttal for its attempt to distort historical
facts in order to echo those biased views, which seeks to undermine the
legitimacy of the present Chinese government’s ruling over the regions
populated with minorities. The author of the rebuttal has made himself a
willing tool for the ambitious regime of the Dalai Lama to segregate
China. However, this segregation is only in the political interest of a
few individuals or groups. Besides openly violating the current
constitutions of both the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of
China, it also deviates from the true wishes of today’s residents of
Tibet. Its motive was essentially not much different from the
imperialists who intended to split up China hundred years ago.
These arguments are groundless, yet the author still attempted to cover
up these outdated myths with lies; it indeed reveals a mindset which is
in fact far trickier than the polemics. The public should take great
caution not to be misled by such sophistry and untruths.
Editor’s Note:
This article is an English version of the Chinese edition published on
January 31, 2013.
Reference Source: http://foundation.enlighten.org.tw/trueheart_en/47
沒有留言:
張貼留言