INDIAN
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL ENQUIRY (Vol-1, Nr-2,
June-2009) (Released in Sep-2009)
Editor
: Sangit Kumar Ragi
(Author
is a senior Indian journalist, photographer and Tibetologist. Besides regularly
watching Tibetan situation and Tibetan community in exile for over 35 years, he
has been to Tibet on his many photo-expeditions.)
Publisher
: MAHARAJA AGRASEN COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
TIBET &
XINJIANG (E. TURKISTAN)
IT IS DEMOGRAPHIC
COLONIALISM AT PLAY
(China is
using its Han population as a new tool of imperialism. Through demographic
invasion of Tibet and Xinjiang, Beijing is successfully tightening its colonial
control on Tibet and Xinjiang. it has serious security implications for South
Asia too – especially for India – VIJAY KRANTI)
Those who had a chance to watch a spine-chilling
video clip on YouTube depicting anti-Uyghur violence in Guangdong on 26th
June 2009, were
little surprised on the horrible riots which broke out 3000 km away in China’s Xinjiang
region 10 days later. This clip1 gives frame-by-frame view of how a
mob of youthful Han Chinese industrial workers chased and clubbed to death
three young Uyghur (Turk Muslims) co-workers from Xinjiang. (1) Ref: YouTube,27th June, 2009 (To
view, visit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_PJTO2k0PM ).
The victims belonged to a group of over 800
young Uyghurs who were sent this May by a government agency from Xinjiang to be
employed on cheaper wages in a local toy factory. Unfortunately that exposed
the poor Uyghurs to the wrath of Han workers who are being laid off by
thousands in recent months. All three killings were recorded in less than three
minutes from the balcony of a workers’ dormitory complex in a street that looks
like washed with blood. Even as the Han arson and killings spread all over the
industrial town the Chinese government insisted that only two ‘persons’ died in
the disturbances. The international media, quoting non-government sources,
reported that 18 Uyghurs, including two women, were killed and over 300
injured.
HAN JUSTICE
FOR THE ‘BARBARIANS’
The young Han blogger who posted this video
clip identified himself as a ‘Proud Chinese’. Though the blog was flooded with
condemnation from all over the world, yet gleeful endorsements of these
killings by most Chinese reflected the deep Han-non-Han divide that pervades
today’s China. One of them exclaims,” Teach
Turks a lesson!”. Yet another abusive bloggers announces that,”… Chinese dislike ........ and treat them as
animal and slave. …”. Yet another
Han youth expresses his contentment at lynching of the Uygher youths
announcing, “ …. I’
m happy to hear that Chinese are doing their duty....”. One typical Han reaction is, “…These barbarians deserved
this…” But the one who takes away the real cake is a young Han who announced, “......We can all enjoy this video and laugh
......... I enjoy this with popcorn and coca-cola. What about you guys?”
One
only hopes that these Han Chinese youths don’t represent the general Han
contempt against China’s national minorities who are all bracketed in a common
category of ‘Barbarians’ – a term reserved for every non-Han race since the
days when China’s boundaries were limited to the original confines of 6000 mile
long Great Wall of China.
This event was enough provocation back home
in Xinjiang where the indigenous Uyghurs have been always on a short fuse since
1949 when Chairman Mao sent his People’s Libeation Army (PLA) to ‘liberate’ their
country, known as ‘East Turkistan’ until then. Known for their self respecting
and aggressive temper, the Islamic Uyghurs took to the streets in capital
Urumqi (pron. : ‘oo-room-chee’) on 5th July and killed over a
hundred Han settlers within first few hours2. They torched Han cars
and houses extensively. The violence spread to another prominent city Kashghar
too where Islamic freedom fighters had killed 16 Chinese soldiers last year on
the eve of Beijing Olympics. (2) Ref: YouTube 6th July, 2009
(for video images of 5th July, 2009 Uyghur demonstrations visit : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7fAyRnmcLk .)
But the tide turned against the Uyghurs by
next day when all the four types of Chinese Police and crowds of young Han
migrants descended on the local population. Armed Han youths were seen mingling
comfortably with security forces. In separate photos published in newspapers
across the world, uniformed Chinese police personnel and rioting Han youths were
seen holding identical wooden clubs. As the police handled demonstrating
Uyghurs, the Han youths pulled out the locals from their homes and lynched them
unhindered in broad day light. Chinese government agencies have put total death
toll at 184 as government controlled media released selected photos and videos
to present Hans as the victims of ‘Muslim Terrorist’ Uyghur violence. Uyghur
leaders alleged that more than 800 of their people were killed and over 1400 were
taken away by police.
COLONIAL
DIVIDE
In these violent demonstrations the public
slogans from both sides were also noteworthy. Angry Uyghurs were seen shouting slogans
like ‘Go back to China!’ at the Han migrants and police to express their
disgust over the presence of these ‘outsiders’ and occupation of their homeland.
In contrast, migrant Han youths chanted typical patriotic slogans like “Unite!”
and “Modern Society”, to underline that their presence in this remote region was
a mark of ‘national unity’ and a contribution towards establishing ‘harmony’ --
two elements which are being stressed by the communist government under Hu Jin
Tao in the light of popular ‘splittist’ tendencies among communities like
Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia today. Unfortunately for the Chinese
government, a team of foreign journalists was present in Urumqui who were
brought in on a conducted tour to showcase Xinjiang’s ‘economic progress’ under
Chinese rule. That prevented the Chinese government from putting a lid on the
events to hide the real situation from world community.
This violent Uyghur reaction was unlike their
non-violent Buddhist counterparts in Tibet who too had risen last year against
the Chinese occupation. Though their uprising was much peaceful and mostly
non-violent after the first day, yet the spread and spontaneity of their two
month long demonstrations across a wide zone of 2500 km diameter had left Beijing
rulers shaken to their bones.
CHINA’S
MIDDLE KINGDOM SYNDROME
These events of unrest in Tibet and Xinjiang
represent a deep rooted problem that the present day Peoples Republic of China (PRC)
suffers from. It’s origins lie in the Han race’s desire of establishing their
‘Middle Kingdom’ which includes every such region that was ever ruled or
influenced by any Chinese emperor during history. Interestingly, they include in
this list even those areas which were under rule or influence of those races
like the Monghols, Manchurians, and Tibetans
who had conquered Hans’ China at some stage in history but who live
under Han domination today. Forgetting that the Hans had erected the historic
Wall of China exclusively for the purpose of protecting their country from
these ‘barbarian’ races, the present day PRC stakes claim to many parts of
Russia, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, Central Asia and India on these grounds. China’s
claim on India’s Arunachal Pradesh are solely based on the premise that since
Tibet had its influence on some parts of this region at some stage in history,
hence these parts legitimately belong to today’s PRC. Many Chinese think tanks
have started referring to India’s Arunachal Pradesh as ‘Southern Tibet’. Some
of them have started asking Chinese government about when does it intend to
‘liberate’ South Tibet from ‘foreign occupation’.
DEMOGRAPHY
AS A TOOL
PRC comprises of 56 nationalities today. Out
of these, Hans alone comprise of over 92 percent of its population today. This
is result of a consistent Han policy of establishing Hans’ demographic dominance
through every possible means. These means include mass migration of indigenous
populations, mass Han settlement in their areas, killings, forcible birth
control measures or coercive racial integration through forced or encouraged
inter-race marriages. Forcible imposition of Chinese language in a highly
controlled administration, education and socio-political national life has
contributed its multiplying impact in spreading the Han domination over past 60
years.
As a result of these policies, a good number
of these ‘nationalities’ have dwindled to just academic or museum value levels.
Few exceptions are Xinjiang’s Uyighurs
and Tibetans who, helped by their remoteness from Beijing and harsh
climatic conditions which, have been keeping the Han migration at bay. But
phenomenal expansion of Chinese roads and railway networks and communications
has lead to an unprecedented flood of Han population in these regions in recent
years. For example introduction of railways first up to Gormo and then to Lhasa
in Tibet has broken the physical and psychological barriers that dissuaded Hans
from migrating to Tibet despite enormous financial and other attractions.
Before the bullet train’s arrival in Lhasa, a Han migrant official or a
contractor had to undertake at least five days of tiring road journey to visit
his family in mainland China. But today no place is farther than 48 hours of a
comfortable train journey. In Xinjiang this barrier was broken many years before
Tibet.
In China’s history
the importance of railways as a tool of colonialism was underlined long ago in
late nineteenth century when a 16 km long railway line was laid between
Shanghai and Wusong with foreign help. In “Tools
of Empire: Means of National Salvation” Robert Lee wrote about the Chinese
resistance to colonial railway programs.”Fearing
that railroads connecting Chinese villages and towns would have a negative
impact on Chinese cultural values, destroy employment in traditional transport
industries, involve large numbers of ‘European or Westernized Chinese’ working
permanently over a large area, and require foreign loans, Shen Baozhen, in the
late nineteenth centure ordered the demolition of the first railway as Governor
General in Nanjing” 3. (3) (Ref : “Tools of
empire or means of national salvation? The railway in the imagination of
western empire builders and their enemies in Asia”, Robert Lee, University of
Western Sydney, Macarthur)
Taking clue from its own fears Beijing today is
using railways as an effective tool of colonial control over Tibet, Xinjiang,
Inner Mongolia and many other similar colonies. Besides starting a process of
irreversible demographic change in Tibet, China’s success in extending its
railway network right up to Lhasa has also multiplied Beijing’s strategic
logistic capabilities in Tibet vis-à-vis India. Latest developments in Beijing
and Kathmandu indicate that the Chinese railway network may be soon extended up
to Nepal.
When China occupied eastern Tibet’s Kham and
Amdo provinces in 1950 and the remaining parts in 1951, no exact population
figures were available. Later by 1959 when Dalai Lama, the religious king of
Tibet, was forced to flee from Tibet, reliable estimates put Tibet’s population
at around six million.
Although the transfer of Han population from
mainland China to Tibetan areas has gained significant momentum in past five
years, yet China’s official census figures of 2002 show that Tibetans account
for only 3.5 million as compared to 154.7 million Chinese population in the
four Chinese provinces namely Sichuan, Qinghai, Gansu and Yunnan, which have
assimilated Tibet’s Kham and Amdo provinces. No wonder Tibetans have become an
insignificant minority in these Chinese provinces. A majority of these Tibetans
live in ethnic pockets, termed as ‘Provincial Autonomous Regions’ (PAR) in
these four Chinese provinces today. Remaining Tibet, just one-third of its
original size, was renamed as “Tibet Autonomous Region’ (TAR) and accounts for
about 2 million Tibetans according to official Chinese records:
Tibet
(Original) 6,000,000
(1959 estimates)*
Tibet
(Truncated) i.e. TAR 2,616,329
Sichuan
82,348,296
Yunnan 42,360,089
Qinghai
4,822,963
Gansu
25,124,282
Source : (China Statistical Year Book-2002, China Statistics Press, p-100)
*
Based on claims of Tibetan government, headed by Dalai Lama. (Not included in
above Chinese official publication)
Although Beijing leaders today look shy of
admitting population transfer as a colonial tool but until a few years ago they
presented it as a reasonable measure. The process of bringing in Han population
into occupied Tibet started in 1949 itself when PLA first occupied Chamdo and
other parts of Kham province of eastern Tibet. Its first focus was on developing
basic infrastructure like roads and bridges to galvanize PLA’s advance. However,
a major watershed year was 1983 when Beijing sent more than 60,000 workers to
Central Tibet. On 14 May, 1984 (1700 hrs bulletin) Radio Beijing announced, “Over 60 thousand workers, representing the
vanguard groups to help in the construction work in the TAR are arriving in
Tibet daily and have started their preliminary work. They will be helping in
the electricity department, schools, hotels, cultural institutions and
construction of mills and factories. However Radio did not mention the number of
days. 4 (4)
(Ref: Radio Beijing, 1700 hrs bulletin on 14th May, 1984)
In 1985 the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi
officially announced Beijing government’s plans to transfer (Chinese)
population to Tibet on the pretext that it was to be done to “Change both the ecological imbalance and
the population lack” not only in Tibet but also in “sparsely populated
outlying regions”. It said that Chinese “migration
should be welcomed by the local population, and should result in a population
increase of 60 million over the next 30 years in those regions.” The
official announcement further added claimed that “this is a very conservative estimate. As a matter of fact, the
increase might swell to 100 million in less than 30 years.” 5 (5) (Ref: “Movement Westward”, reference
material nr. 2, Embassy of the PRC, New Delhi, 4th Feb. 1985)
Further in 1987, Deng Xiaoping admitted in
his meeting with ex-US President Jimmy Carter that population transfer policy
was in action in Tibet. He asserted that the local population of Tibet “needs Han immigrants as the region’s
population of about 2 million was inadequate to develop its resources”. 6
(6) (Ref: Reuter’s report from Beijing on 10
June, 1987)
In the case of Xinjiang (East Turkistan) too
Beijing has been focused on flooding the region with Han population to improve
its physical control over the colony. In 1949 when China’s People Liberation
Army moved in to occupy what was then known as ‘East Turkistan’, the total Han
population here was not more than 200,000 in a population of around 10 million.
(In Chinese language ‘Xinjiang’ literally means ‘New Land’.) According to latest Chinese census, the current population
of Xinjiang East Turkistan is 18.62 million which includes about 7.5 million Hans
who were settled in the newly formed “Autonomous Uyighur Region of Xinjiang” after
1949. The population of Muslims in this province is slightly over 11 million.
Among these about 8,68 million are Uyghurs of Turk origin and constitute the
majority while remaining are Kazakhs, Taziks and others from adjoining Central
Asian cultures.
Even
though the Uyghurs of Xinjiang have been facing more violence at the hands of
China as compared to their Tibetan counterparts, they have failed in attracting
as much international attention and sympathy, especially from the West. One
reason has been the lack of a charismatic leader like Tibet’s Dalai Lama and
the other was the events of 9/11 in the USA which generated significant
reservations in the West on supporting a ‘Muslim’ freedom movement. Some public
utterances on behalf of Al Quaida in the international media in favor of
Xinjiang Muslims have, unfortunately, done more harm than good to the cause of
the Uyghur’s freedom movement.
Xinjiang’s lack of universally acceptable
leadership has its roots in that fateful and mysterious ‘accident’ of 1949 in
which entire Uyghur leadership was blown off along with the airplane that carried
them to Beijing for a ‘friendly’ meeting with Chairman Mao.
Summarizing
the Chinese policy of ‘Hanification’ of East Turkistan Peter Navaro, a famous
western China watcher writes: “Although China's iron-fisted repression in
Xinjiang borders on the unbearable, what sticks most in the Uyghur craw is the
ongoing "Hanification" of Xinjiang. As a matter of policy, for
decades the Chinese government has sought to pacify Xinjiang by importing large
portions of its Han population from other, primarily poor areas - and even by
exporting young Uyghur women of child-bearing age out of the region.” 7 (7) (Ref: “THE
HANIFICATION OF XINJIANG”, Asia Times, Hongkong, 19 August, 2008. Peter Navarro
is Professor at Merage School of Business at the Univ of California-Irvine and
author of “THE COMING CHINA WARS”).
PRC
has strategically distributed new Han settlers in new settlements in big cities
like Urumqi and Kashghar in a manner that locals have been slowly pushed to a
minority status and limited mainly to old and underdeveloped parts of the
towns. Most of well paid jobs, contracts and businesses now are controlled by
the Han migrants. As it happened in Tibet and some other parts of China, all
private and community lands were transferred to state and commune ownership
during Mao’s ‘Long Leap’ and ‘Cultural Revolution’ campaigns. Later, at the time
of reorganization all good lands were transferred to Han settlers and communist
party functionaries – leaving the locals literally high and dry. In Xinjiang
too this lead to deep resentment against the Chinese rule. No wonder, the
Uyighurs have been giving vent to their anger against the Hans through
innumerable violent expressions since 1949. Anti-Han violence on 5th
July this year was only one of those hundreds of such events. Large dimension of
the riots and presence of foreign media in Urumqui on that day gave it an added
international dimension.
Uyighur
leaders allege that the young Uyighur boys and girls who were target of Han
violence in Guangdong were sent there under the policy of moving out locals to
distant Chinese locations and bringing in larger number of Hans to fortify Han
control over Xinjiang. For a region which holds more potential of natural oil
and gas than all oil reserves of USA put together, it is not difficult to
understand Chinese desire to reduce the Uyighur challenge and improve its
physical control in this region.
Ms.
Rabiya Kadeer, a leading exile freedom fighter of East Turkistan and President
of World Uyghur Congress, summarized this situation while deposing before the
Human Rights Caucus of the US Congress in these words: ”Local authorities consider the transfer of
Uighur women into China's eastern provinces as one of the most important
government policies and they have expressed zero tolerance to any kind of
opposition to it… Already, hundreds of thousands of young Uighur women have
been forcibly transferred from East Turkestan into Beijing, Tianjin, Jiangsu,
Qingdao, Shandong, Zhejiang and other locations,"8 (8) ( Ref: Reuters, Wed Oct 31,
2007 8:53pm EDT: http://www.uhrp.org/articles/554/1/Uighur-activist-asks-US-to-help-stop-China-removals-/index.html)
‘OUTSIDERS’ IN THEIR OWN HOMELAND
Things
are equally serious in neighboring Tibet where heavy migration of Han settlers
in recent years gave rise to an unprecedented anti-China public uprising last
March. It went on uncontrolled for over two months despite heavy Chinese
military and police efforts. Like Xinjiang too, Han settlers in most of Tibetan
cities have turned the table on local populations. During my two photo
expeditions to all the three Tibetan provinces in recent years, I was struck by
the overwhelming predominance of Chinese language on shop boards, road signs
and advertisement hoardings across the country.
A
Tibetan refugee friend who managed to travel to Tibet on some family grounds
was shocked to discover that he needed to take a Chinese speaking member from
his host family to do his shopping in Kongpo because the Chinese sales staff in
shops did not understand Tibetan or English. On one occasion I too had a
similar experience in a big shopping store in a Lhasa suburb where I had gone
to buy some camera films. I was worried when I found my Tibetan guide missing
for over fifteen minutes. Later when the young man finally turned up he told me
that he had gone to the central desk of the store where the manager was
appealing on the public address system for a Tibetan interpreter. The staff was
stuck with a middle aged Tibetan customer who did not speak Chinese and none
among the migrant Chinese staff or customers could speak a word in Tibetan. That
explains the impact of Han migration on the changing ethnic and demographic
character of Lhasa and rest of Tibet.
MIGRANT
HANS: BEIJING HAS NEW ALLIES
This
demographic change caused by massive Han migration to Tibet and East Turkistan
has introduced a new factor to the internal situation in both Chinese colonies.
Recent events in Urumqi and Lhasa involving public protests by local
populations against their Han masters reflect the emergence of an altogether new
factor that has been missing in the entire history of freedom struggle of Tibet
and East Turkistan. This new factor is the supportive and supplementary role of
Han migrants. In 1987 and 1989 when Tibetan people rose up against their
Chinese masters in a big way, all the fire fighting had to be handled by the Chinese
military, police and paramilitary outfits. During the massive and sudden 1989-Lhasa
uprising, Hu Jin Tao, then Governor of Tibet, had to use tanks and armored
vehicles to crush the rebellion. The effectiveness of this approach and his
success in crushing the Tibetans’ uprising established Hu Jin Tao as an
outstanding administrator. This reputation finally took him to the central
power circle in Beijing and paved his way to the supreme seat that he occupies
today. For his role in crushing the 1989-uprising Hu is known as the ‘Butcher
of Lhasa’ in Tibet. Interestingly, it was Hu Jin Tao’s this very ‘Lhasa Model’
which was used by Deng Xiao Ping to crush the historic student uprising at Tien
Anman Square four months later. In Xinjiang too, there have been numerous
events in the past when Chinese security agencies had to live with serious
losses in bloody clashes with angry Uyghurs. In one such extremely violent
event during 1990s almost entire population of Han migrants had to take refuge
in army cantonments and railway stations.
HANS BRING
A DECISIVE TILT
However, a sizeable migration of Han
population to Tibet and Xinjiang in recent years has resulted into an almost
decisive tilt in favour of the Chinese administration of these regions. In TV
footage of March 2008 uprising in Lhasa one could easily see young Han settlers
taking directly at the Tibetan demonstrators. In July events in Urumqi and
Kashgar too, armed Han settlers played a decisive role in subduing the Uyighur
population through mass killings.
HAN
MIGRANTS: BEIJING’S NEW SHOW-WINDOW
A couple of years ago, I had an interesting
interaction with two well known Indians who currently lead India’s two foreign
policy think tanks. Because of their personal positions, both are far better
informed on China than most other well informed people I have known for years
as a journalist. One was Mr. Vikram Sood who is a former Chief of Research
& Analysis Wing (RAW), the counter intelligence agency of India like USA’s
CIA or Pakistan’s ISI. The other was Mr. Mohan Guruswamy who is a known
journalist and a former senior functionary in the Government of India.
Both of them had just returned from a week
long China sponsored tour of Tibet. Both sounded excited over the phone about
the enormous economic progress they were exposed to in Lhasa and surrounding
areas. Both appeared extremely impressed by the wonderful roads, glittering malls,
modern high rise residential complexes and the overall prosperity of the
‘Tibetan’ people under the Chinese rule. Being aware of my close association
with the Tibetan issue and Dalai Lama, both of them had almost identical
comments and suggestions to offer in our two independent and separate phone
discussions: “It seems Dalai Lama is not aware of the progress and prosperity
the Tibetans are enjoying under the Chinese rule; Why don’t you advise him to
visit Tibet to see how happy and prosperous the Tibetans are today; I am sure
if he does, he will stop making many of his routine allegations against the
Chinese rule in Tibet …….”
Both of these short phone discussions sounded
to me like going through the writings of a well known pro-Chinese Indian
journalist who has been religiously representing Chinese government’s views in
Indian media on issues like Tibet and India-China relations since years. Chinese
government hosts several such intellectuals from all parts of the world who in
turn portray positive picture of Chinese presence in Tibet. This time the
Chinese government had picked up the same journalist to accompany these two VIP
guests during their maiden China-Tibet tour.
Had I been hearing such comments first time
from visitors to Tibet or had I not been to Tibet myself before them, I would
have been surely impressed. Rather, I would have been shocked on my sad levels
of ignorance on a subject that is dear to me as a journalist and photographer. In that case these discussions would have surely
put me to shame for being ‘misinformed’ and ‘taken for a ride’ by my friend
Dalai Lama, his colleagues and followers.
As the two gentlemen described separately how ‘happy’ and ‘prosperous’
the Tibetans were in Lhasa streets, shops, cars and impressive housing
complexes, my one straight question brought their eulogies to a screeching
halt. “Before we go ahead on this matter, please tell me frankly: can you
really distinguish between a Tibetan and a Han Chinese face in a Tibetan
street?” The result was electrifying. I must salute the magnanimity and honesty
shown by both of them. Their common and prompt reaction was, “I am sorry. I
must admit that I can’t distinguish….. OK! I will have to think on this issue again….”
Unfortunately, in most other similar cases Beijing’s propaganda
department gets away with presenting hordes of Han Chinese settlers as ‘happy
Tibetans’ to hundreds of their guests from foreign media, diplomats,
researchers and business guests who are taken on sponsored tours of Tibet every
year. One great advantage to Beijing in this game is that despite remarkable
and basic racial differences between Han and Tibetan races, it is nearly
impossible for most of foreign visitors to make the distinction between two
Mongoloid races. Unless a visitor is well informed and understands the
difference between these two races, any smart Chinese official guide can
present a well dressed Han Chinese as a ‘happy Tibetan’. It is not unusual that
a tourist who has come to see ‘Tibetan’ culture and ‘Tibetans’ in cities like
Lhasa or Shigatse, goes back with the impression that “Tibetans are happy, free
and prosperous” in “China’s Tibet.”
WAR
THROUGH STATISTICS
Before 1951 when Chinese troops first time
entered Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, the city’s population would touch the
highest level of 100,000 only during Monlam festival in March every year as
thousands of pilgrims from all over Tibet would descend on the holy city. Today
the population of an amazingly expanded Lhasa is somewhere near 500,000. (The
number of cars registered in Lhasa crossed the 100,000 mark early this year.) But
when Chinese government publications claim that Han migrants account for ‘less
than half’ of Lhasa city’s population, a visitor like me wonders where from so
many Tibetan have come to live in Lhasa? The official Chinese publications
provide an interesting answer to this puzzle when it is explained that the
population figures don’t include ‘temporary’ residents. These temporary
residents actually refer to those hundreds of thousands of Han workers,
contractors and their family members who were brought in for those innumerable
development projects whose main purpose is to create new job opportunities and
living space for more Han settlers.
THE
MANCHURIAN TRAGEDY
It is interesting to note that China has
played this demographic manipulation game with great success in most of its
other colonies like Manchuria and Inner Mongolia in the past. In the case of
Manchuria, the misfortunes of this northern neighbor of China started in late
19th century when Han manpower from across the China Wall was
invited to lay railway lines in this thinly populated region. As swarms of Han
workers descended on Manchuria, their extraordinary talent of multiplying fast
left the host country inundated with the Han population in coming decades. In
later decades, presence of a sizeable Han population in this region played an
important role in spreading Comrade Mao’s communist movement in China. In his
public expressions of taking non-Han nationalities with him in this movement,
Mao promised ‘equal’ and ‘respectable’ participation to them in new China of
his vision. In order to win support of these nationalities during his communist
revolution, he created a special Central United Front Work Department of
Chinese Communist Party. Quite cleverly, he later converted this department into
a powerful central official tool to ensure that all non-Han nationalities (55
in number) remain under the PRC control.
Interestingly, most of these ‘nationalities’
were the same very ‘barbarian’ countries like Manchuria, (Inner) Mongolia,
Xinjiang and Tibet whom the Hans have been fighting and fearing through the
history. It was Hans’ fear of these very countries and races that they had
erected the ‘Great Wall of China” around their country. As an assurance of
‘fairness’ , ‘equality’ and ‘respect towards individual identity’ of these countries
Mao created a special ‘Autonomous Region’ system to govern these regions. In
his public announcements he even granted these nationalities the ‘right to
dissociate themselves from PRC’.
AUTONOMY –
A COLONIAL TRAP
On the face of it this policy appeared to ensure
due autonomy for these nationalities from provincial governments. But in actual
practice it turned out to be a clever ploy of Mao to govern these countries
directly from Beijing. It is interesting to note that while all provincial
governments have their laws and systems to govern their regions, all such
rights on these ‘Autonomous Regions’ were transferred to the Communist Party
leadership in Beijing. The Party, in turn, undertook a special demographic
campaign which was aimed at overwhelming these regions with Han population to
ensure that local populations are reduced to a meaningless minority in their
own homelands. It was an effective ploy to ensure that these nationalities do
not dare to break away from PRC or pose any threat to the ‘unity’ of PRC. It is
noteworthy that Manchuria too was initially labeled as “Autonomous Region of
Manchuria”. But once it was decisively overwhelmed by Han population, this
title was quietly removed. The same process is now in progress in Inner
Mongolia, Xinjiang and Tibet.
MEANINGLESS
MINORITY IN THEIR OWN HOMES
During one of my later visits to Lhasa as a
common tourist, I was surprised to note that most of vantage positions occupied
by Tibetan beggars at popular tourist spots like Norbulingka palace, Drepung
and Sera monastery had been taken over by Han Chinese beggars. Most of the
pavement stalls in various Lhasa bazaars were now owned and overwhelmed by Han
shopkeepers and customers. Situation is still worse in Cities of Amdo and Kham,
the two provinces of Tibet which were scooped out of Tibet and merged in
surrounding Chinese provinces of Yunnan, Sichuan, Quinghai and Gansu soon after
China occupied Tibet in 1950s.
In Xiling, the capital of Quinghai (Tib :
‘Amdo’) one will have to let more than 500 Hans to pass by before one can spot
the first Tibetan face on a heavily crowded road. The famous Kham city of
Gyalthang faces a still more interesting dilemma today. At Dali, a popular
tourist town a couple of hundred km away, the booking girl at the government
bus station shrugged her shoulders in disgust when she found that her computer
had no destination named as ‘Gyalthang’. After seeing my map and a chat with
some colleagues she had a smile on her face. “Its not Gyalthang. Its Zongdian!’,
she exclaimed. Like most of Tibetan towns Gyalthang had been rechristened with a
new Chinese name ‘Zongdian’ as a part of Chinese policy that helps migrant Hans
feel more at home.
Interestingly, Zongdian too is now gone. It
is feverishly being marketed as ‘Shangri-La’ to present the real ‘heaven’ as
described by British author James Hilton in his 1933 novel ‘Lost Horizon’. In this new found heaven of Beijing rulers,
the traditional old town has been uprooted to accommodate new tourist
facilities and resident Tibetans have been pushed out to the new city where
they find themselves reduced to a meaningless minority in the midst of an ocean
of migrant Han population. Nearer home, the first Tibetan town ‘Dram’ that
greets the foreign visitors via Nepal too has lost its Tibetan name and
character. It is now renamed as ‘Zhangmu’ and is more of a Han Chinese town
than a traditional Tibetan one. Just a few more examples of this lingual
imperialism: Labrang is ‘Xiahe’; Rebkong is ‘Huangnan’; Trango is ‘Luhuo’,
Kardze is ‘Ganzi’; Dortsedo is ‘Khangding’; Tsonub is ‘Haixi’’ Tsochang is
‘Haibei’ and Nyarong is ‘Xinlong’. Even famous Kumbum monastery town near
present Dalai Lama’s birthplace has been renamed to ‘Huangzhong’. This sleepy
village of Amdo Tibetans and Hui Muslims is today flooded with over a million
Hans living in a jungle of skyscrapers.
Besides giving new Chinese names to many places
in this region, many new Chinese towns have been developed all over Tibet. 1200
km long Gormo-Lhasa route, known only for snow and yaks, hums with at least two
dozen new towns around new railway stations. In farther and remote region along
Tibet-Nepal-India borders small villages and towns like Nyelam and Lhatse are
buzzing as crowded Han towns. This policy has a serious impact on controlling
the movement of those Tibetan citizens who, until very recently, used to flee
to Nepal -- at an average of 2500-3000 per year. This process of Sinofication
of Tibetan towns and villages has gained a new speed with the arrival of
railway line.
IMPACT ON SOUTH
ASIA
Tibetan occupation
and demographic manipulation by China has its own impact on South Asia,
especially India. China’s geographic interface with South Asia is just as old
as its occupation of Tibet (1951). Before People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of Mao
forced the Dalai Lama’s theocratic government of Tibet to merge Tibet into
People’s Republic of China in 1951, China never had even an inch of common
borders with India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sikkim or Bhutan. Since times history was
recorded, no section of Tibet bordering with these countries was ever governed
or even remotely controlled by the writ or men from Beijing. It was only after
China occupied Tibet that ‘India-Tibet’ border had to be renamed as ‘India-China’
border. Just before occupying Tibet, China had already occupied East Turkistan
which resulted in extending China’s borders further in Central Asia up to Tazikistan,
Kirghizistan and Kazakhastan provinces of erstwhile Soviet Union as well as up
to Pakistan and India. Later when Pakistan handed over some parts of Ladakh to
China it snapped India’s only link with East Turkistan and helped China in establishing
a direct road link from Tibet to Pakistan.
It is a well
established fact that before Chinese occupation of Tibet, Tibetan currency,
Tibetan Post and Tibetan check posts on the Tibetan side of Himalayas defined
an exclusively Tibetan and non-Chinese character of Tibet’s borders with its
South Asian neighbors.
MAO: A
REVOLUTIONARY IMPERIALIST
Soon after Chairman
Mao’s ‘People’s Republic of China’ (PRC) came into being in 1949, the new
communist government announced its intentions of liberating Tibet, Xinjiang
(then ‘East Turkistan’), Hainan and Taiwan in order to give shape to Chairman
Mao’s dream of a larger China. In his dream of a ‘New China’ Mao had a special
place for Tibet. Even before his communist revolution succeeded in China, Mao
had already announced his plans about South Asia and India. He is on record
claiming, “Tibet is China’s palm and Ladakh, Sikkim, Nepal, Bhutan and NEFA
(now ‘Arunachal Pradesh’) are its fingers.”
Though Tibet with its 6 million (1959 estimates) people contributes less
than 0.5 percent of population to PRC, but it accounts for over 25 percent land
mass of today’s PRC. Similarly Xinjiang contributes more than 15 percent of
China’s land while contributing less than one percent of population. This way
Tibet and Xinjiang account for over 40 percent land of PRC.
TWO
DIFFERENT APPROACHES
What followed is a
history of clear focus and smart action on the Chinese part in occupied Tibet
and persistent suicidal indifference and foggy vision on the part of countries
like India. Today China is far more entrenched inside occupied and remotely
located Tibet than India, Nepal or Bhutan are in their own respective territorie
along this 4000 km long border. Today China’s defence machinery enjoys support
of a massive network of roads, military establishments, logistic facilities,
nuclear facilities and communications network in occupied Tibet. For example,
China’s Army along the Indian Himalayas is served by an end to end all weather
roads along this border. These roads are well integrated with the main network
of Chinese highways in Tibet. In sharp contrast, with the exception of Nathu-la
in Sikkim, not a single Indian Army post along this 4000 km long border is
supported by a pucca or all-weather road. Linear road links along the border on
Indian side don’t even exist as a concept. It was only after a barrage of
Chinese claims and threats on Arunachal Pradesh that Indian government has
suddenly woken up and decided in late 2007 to connect some border points with
roads.
IMPACT
ON SOUTH ASIA
It would
be too simplistic, rather naïve, to believe that the impact of Chinese
occupation of Tibet and Xinjiang has been limited only to Tibet, Xinjiang and
their populations. Subsequent events in past 60 years have proved beyond doubt
that no other development in Asia during 20th century has had more
impact on the geo-political character of South Asia than the fall of Tibet into
China’s hands. Perhaps the best possible description of this development was
expressed in the telegraphic message which the Indian Consulate General in
Lhasa had sent to New Delhi following PLA’s attack on Tibet. It said, “Chinese have entered Tibet. Himalayas have
ceased to exist”. Before Chinese occupation of Tibet it has been a common
belief in India that Himalayas were the protectors of India. But events after
the fall of Tibet have shown that it was actually a free Tibet, which stood as
a security buffer between China and India.
NEPAL
: CHINA’S SATELLITE?
When China
occupied Tibet, many political observers feared that Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim
would be the next on Beijing’s list. But going by its typical style of keeping
everyone guessing till the last moment, China adopted the policy of developing
these newly acquired neighbors as levers to contain India’s influence. This
policy has worked very effectively on Nepal, Pakistan, Myanmar and Bangla Desh.
It has made India defensive rather offensive on Tibet. Unfortunately, Indian
diplomacy in most of its neighborhood has failed miserably. In Nepal this
policy has paid best rewards to Beijing. It is difficult to understand that
despite consistent financial aid, close cultural and ethnic links, favorable
treaties and an open border policy with Nepal, Indian diplomacy has proved a
near disaster. Recent emergence of Maoists in Nepal as most influential game
players, this Chinese game appears to be reaching its logical end.
Even
before the Maoists reached commanding heights in Nepal its most governments
have been practically behaving as a virtual ally, if not a satellite state, of
China vis-à-vis India. While anything Chinese is today perceived as ‘friendly’
in Nepal, ‘India’ has almost become a four-letter word in Nepal’s social and
political parlance. A slightest provocation against India can easily lead to
wide spread violence and riots against Indian traders and other Indian interests
in Nepal. While Indian has been heaping tons of money on Nepal’s development,
Beijing has been cleverly investing its chips in winning over Nepalese
political leadership, bureaucracy, army, police, intellectuals and media. It
is, therefore, not surprising that even on a blatantly clear issue like spread
of Maoist movement in Nepal the ordinary Nepalese today has come to believe
that this movement is sponsored from India. It is not surprising that Nepal today
has emerged as a safe breeding ground for all kinds of anti-Indian terrorist
and separatist groups from Pakistan, Banglades and India itself.
In matters
of developmental aid too, it is not a coincidence that Chinese government has
been liberally helping Nepal to develop its road network which is capable of
taking the Chinese army to the Indian states of Uttarakhand, Bihar and West
Bengal in the event of a direct clash with India.
BANGLA
DESH : ANTI-INDIA ALLY OF CHINA ?
Bangladesh
too has emerged as yet another reliable ally of China in the latter’s plans to
encircle and contain India. This all looks paradoxical as Bangla Desh owes its
birth to India and it was China who did everything possible to stop Bangladesh
from getting international recognition when it came into existence in 1971.
Today a defence treaty between Bangladesh and China assures each other
protection in the event of an attack from a ‘third country’. Until recent political
developments in Bangladesh which installed a pro-India government in Dhaka,
almost all previous governments had been giving an free hand to anti-Indian
terror outfits which are directly or indirectly supported by Pakistan and
China. A nightmare that currently haunts Indian security planners is a scenario
that involves China joining hands with such forces in Bangladesh from the South
and Nepali Maoists in the North to choke the 25 km wide ‘Chicken-Neck’ corridor
that offers the only land link between the seven North-Eastern Indian states
and the rest of India. Many security observers fear that the Indian Maoists’ ‘Naxalite
corridor’ from Nepal to Andhra Pradesh has Beijing’s support to make things
worse for India in such an eventuality.
BHUTAN
: WORRIES FROM CHINA
Although
Bhutan has close relations with India, the Chinese presence in neighboring
Tibet has been keeping Thimpu rulers on tenterhooks since decades. Frequent Chinese
aggressive postures along Tibet-Bhutan border which have been continuously
limiting Bhutan’s options in its relations with two giant neighbors. Presence
of some anti-Indian terror groups in Bhutan, with direct or indirect support
from Beijing, has been taxing India-Bhutan relations seriously in recent years.
MYANMAR
: TAKING CHINA TO INDIAN OCEAN
As a result of
Beijing’s material and political support to the Myanmar army dictators, China
has emerged as their most reliable ally. China has cleverly leveraged this
advantage to promote its strategic interests in this region of South Asia -
especially against India. It is not surprising that Myanmar has emerged as a
perfect operation ground for China supported anti-India militant outfits from
North-Eastern Indian states. Indian security agencies have been expressing
concerns over Chinese sponsored air strips in such Mayanmar areas near Indian
border where the Yangoon government had no visible reasons to undertake such
construction.
But worse
has happened for India in the coastal regions of Myanmar where China has established
its naval listening posts in Coco islands of Myanmar which is just 40 km away
from Indian naval bases at Andman and Nicobar islands. Myanmar has also provided
a direct land link up to the coast to Chinese Navy to register its presence in the
Indian Ocean. This littoral access to China in the Indian Ocean is believed to
be a serious threat to Indian security and supremacy in Indian Ocean.
PAKISTAN :
COMMON INTERESTS WITH CHINA
One
of the most serious fall outs of Chinese occupation of Tibet against India has
come in the shape of a direct geo-link as well as military and political
alliance between China and Pakistan. History of past six decades shows that
this alliance has proved mutually suitable and profitable to both in their
dealings with India. All subsequent Pakistani governments, whether elected or
dictatorial, have been religiously sharing one common goal with Beijing ---
going to any length to see India in trouble.
Following Sino-Indian
war of 1962, Pakistan has emerged as China’s most favored ally, rather a proxy,
in its attempts to contain India. China’s unparalleled role in the nuclear
arming of Pakistan; handing over of some strategic chunks of Aksai-Chin in Ladakh
region of Jammu and Kashmir by Pakistan to China; Pakistan’s permission to
China to build Karakoram Road through Pakistani occupied J&K territory; and
recent development of Gwadar naval base in the Arabian Sea jointly with China only
underline the serious dimensions of Beijing-Islamabad strategic nexus in this
region.
China’s new option of
moving its army and Naval troops right up to Arabian Sea through Pakistan has
posed serious danger to India's security. This has considerably eroded India’s
supremacy over Pakistan along its Western coast. Ongoing construction of a dual
purpose port at Hambantota in Sri Lanka by China and hectic scouting for naval
bases in Indian Ocean has only tilted the situation against India further. Recent
reports (May 2009) indicate that Beijing and Islamabad are seriously
contemplating extension of Chinese railway from Kashgar in Sinkiang to
Pakistan. On the nuclear front too, any nuclear flare up between India and
Pakistan is going to prove fruitful to China in every conceivable eventuality.
VULNERABLE
SOUTH ASIA
This way we see that the occupation of Tibet and
East Turkistan (Xinjiang) by China has not only hurt the national interests of the
Tibetans and Uyghur people, it has also created many serious problems for other
countries in South Asia too – especially India. While enormous mineral assets
and land mass of these two regions have added to the economic and geo-political
strength of China, it has rendered many surrounding countries in this region
quite vulnerable.
Vijay
Kranti
www.vijaykranti.com
