Unasked Question
Too much significance has been seen in the news of the Panchen Lama’s rehabilitation. The consensus among the China-watchers is that the move was a part of the continuing process of righting previous wrongs which the post-Mao Chinese leadership is said to have been carrying. Even some official Tibetan sources in exile are quoted as having called it ‘a major change with positive significance.’
In their haste, the learned commentators do not appear to have noted some peculiar facts regarding this news. Consider the following: The Panchen lama appeared, literally out of the blue, at the recent Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. It was not preceded by “indications” that he might. Secondly, this news, as well as the follow up that he confessed his past errors and has now declared his allegiance “to the Thoughts of the late Chairman Mao and to the present Chinese leadership” and the interview in which he is alleged to have said that he was treated leniently during his years of disgrace, were released by the official Chinese news media. No independent Western reporter saw him. No picture of his was released as, one would have thought, appropriate on such an occasion.
Taking official Chinese “new” at their face value have often proved misleading in the past, as any Tibetan will tell you. One example will suffice here. In 1949, Peking had announced that the same Panchen Lama had appealed to Mao to “liberate Tibet”. At that time the Panchen Lama was 12 years old and was living in a part of Tibet which was already incorporated in to the Chinese province of Chinghai, and had not yet been to the proper Tibet which “needed liberating”.
So whenever China releases a news of this nature, it is wiser not to be over-anxious to treat it as a factual report. While waiting for confirmation from other sources, a question that can be asked profitably is why such a “news” was released. The beauty about this question is that, more often that not, the answer becomes at once obvious. The 1949 “appeal to Mao” was thus one of the several devices used in attempting to lend legitimacy to the forthcoming invasion of Tibet. In the case of the present “rehabilitation”, the reason, again obviously, was exactly the one which it has achieved: to give an impression of new “conciliatory gestures towards the minorities.”
If, one the other hand, the news is treated at it’s face value, several other questions arise—what role did the Panchen Lama play in the proceedings of the CPPCC? Why has there been no further news of him in the course of and after the conference? What position is he going to hold now in the Tibetan or Chinese administration? And, where is he now? If the Tibetan leader has indeed “reformed” and has “repented” as announced, why could he not be sent back to Tibet to take charge of the administration there? If he is sent back to Tibet—as the Dalai lama’s Information Office has reported---why is the Chinese keeping it a secret? Would it not have made another wonderful news?
A possible solution to this can be found in a study of the past. The Seventh Panchen Lama was groomed by the Chinese with the hope of countering the authority of the Dalai Lama. In the early years, when he had scarce contact with other Tibetans, the Panchen Lama acted like a loyal instrument of Peking. By early 1960’s, however, when he had gained sufficient knowledge of the situation in Tibet, he had begun questioning the Chinese policies. The climax came in 1964 when he publicly discarded his puppet role and chose political imprisonment. Now, after an absence of 14 years, during which time, it is fair to assume, he was undergoing ‘re-education’, the Chinese have thought him ready for display again. But he is not sent back to Tibet yet. Could it be that the pragmatist rulers of China are afraid that history might repeat itself and once he is allowed to see Tibetans, the freshly laundered brain of the Panchen Lama might get dirty once again?
Too much significance has been seen in the news of the Panchen Lama’s rehabilitation. The consensus among the China-watchers is that the move was a part of the continuing process of righting previous wrongs which the post-Mao Chinese leadership is said to have been carrying. Even some official Tibetan sources in exile are quoted as having called it ‘a major change with positive significance.’
In their haste, the learned commentators do not appear to have noted some peculiar facts regarding this news. Consider the following: The Panchen lama appeared, literally out of the blue, at the recent Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. It was not preceded by “indications” that he might. Secondly, this news, as well as the follow up that he confessed his past errors and has now declared his allegiance “to the Thoughts of the late Chairman Mao and to the present Chinese leadership” and the interview in which he is alleged to have said that he was treated leniently during his years of disgrace, were released by the official Chinese news media. No independent Western reporter saw him. No picture of his was released as, one would have thought, appropriate on such an occasion.
Taking official Chinese “new” at their face value have often proved misleading in the past, as any Tibetan will tell you. One example will suffice here. In 1949, Peking had announced that the same Panchen Lama had appealed to Mao to “liberate Tibet”. At that time the Panchen Lama was 12 years old and was living in a part of Tibet which was already incorporated in to the Chinese province of Chinghai, and had not yet been to the proper Tibet which “needed liberating”.
So whenever China releases a news of this nature, it is wiser not to be over-anxious to treat it as a factual report. While waiting for confirmation from other sources, a question that can be asked profitably is why such a “news” was released. The beauty about this question is that, more often that not, the answer becomes at once obvious. The 1949 “appeal to Mao” was thus one of the several devices used in attempting to lend legitimacy to the forthcoming invasion of Tibet. In the case of the present “rehabilitation”, the reason, again obviously, was exactly the one which it has achieved: to give an impression of new “conciliatory gestures towards the minorities.”
If, one the other hand, the news is treated at it’s face value, several other questions arise—what role did the Panchen Lama play in the proceedings of the CPPCC? Why has there been no further news of him in the course of and after the conference? What position is he going to hold now in the Tibetan or Chinese administration? And, where is he now? If the Tibetan leader has indeed “reformed” and has “repented” as announced, why could he not be sent back to Tibet to take charge of the administration there? If he is sent back to Tibet—as the Dalai lama’s Information Office has reported---why is the Chinese keeping it a secret? Would it not have made another wonderful news?
A possible solution to this can be found in a study of the past. The Seventh Panchen Lama was groomed by the Chinese with the hope of countering the authority of the Dalai Lama. In the early years, when he had scarce contact with other Tibetans, the Panchen Lama acted like a loyal instrument of Peking. By early 1960’s, however, when he had gained sufficient knowledge of the situation in Tibet, he had begun questioning the Chinese policies. The climax came in 1964 when he publicly discarded his puppet role and chose political imprisonment. Now, after an absence of 14 years, during which time, it is fair to assume, he was undergoing ‘re-education’, the Chinese have thought him ready for display again. But he is not sent back to Tibet yet. Could it be that the pragmatist rulers of China are afraid that history might repeat itself and once he is allowed to see Tibetans, the freshly laundered brain of the Panchen Lama might get dirty once again?
posted by editorla at
9:02 PM
<< Home