Facts and Fiction

Despite glaring examples of native opposition to the Chinese rule in Tibet, some journalists insists on continuing to give Peking the benefit of the doubt. Most of the foreign correspondents who were on a week-long visit to Lhasa last month encountered people who told them that all Tibetans desire independence. However, this was not considered enough. The only acceptable proof would be seeing the entire population rise up in arms. Those who spoke against the Chinese were termed “dissidents” implying that the rest of the population does not share this feeling. On the other hand, statements coming from Chinese officials are considered facts. Thus they knew for a fact that 20,000 Chinese cadres in Tibet have recently been sent back to China. But they don’t know that an even higher number of soldiers have arrived to replace them, because this fact hasn’t been revealed to them by their hosts. Similarly they solemnly report that Tibet has received several hundred thousand dollars in state subsidy. It is immaterial that Tibetans themselves are curiously unaware of this act of generosity. No attempt has been made to find out if the subsidy actually did exist and, if it did, might it not have been in the form of payment to Chinese soldiers or something equally unproductive as far as the natives were concerned. It would seem quite possible that a certain amount of Chinese money has found it’s way into Tibet, but there is no evidence that Tibetans benefited from them. On the other hand, the journalists are never presented an account of how much Tibetan wealth, in various forms, have been taken to Peking. Some of the journalists, to their credit, have reported that to every boastful contradictory claim made by the Tibetans. But shouldn’t such style of reporting be the rule rather than the exception? Why is it that the Chinese claim of having given subsidy to Tibet is reported as fact while the Tibet claim of not having received any is deemed information not fit enough for print?