Not only freedom: the dark ethnic side of the Tibetan Buddhist revolt
April 28, 2008 by marranci
No stereotype seems harder to die than the idea that Buddhists are peaceful and non-violent by default, as if they possessed a kind of genetic resistance to an illness affecting the majority of humanity: hate. Since the revolt in Tibet, the majority of the mass media (with few exceptions) have based their reports of the Tibetan uprising through the lens of such a stereotype and their myopia of the reality of Tibet. The stories report the revolt principally as a struggle for independence from the oppressive power of China which started in October 1950. Surely, there is some truth in this. But the mass media, as unfortunately academics, and even anthropologists specialised in Tibetan Buddhism, have hidden what I call the ‘dark ethnic side’ of the revolt. The reasons are multiple and I will not discuss them here, as I will not discuss here the figure of the Dalai Lama, who surely emanates lots of ‘enlightening wisdom’, but also many, often totally unreported and answered, shadows.
Tibet is neither a mono-cultural geopolitical entity, nor a one-hundred percent Buddhist country, even though the BBC appears to believe so (misleading, as frequently they do, their readers). In this short article, I shall first summarise the complex multi-cultural reality of Tibet, and then focus on the ethnic issues affecting it, which see Buddhist Tibetans rejecting, through racism and violence, the Muslim Tibetan minorities (not so differently from the Burmese case I have reported).
Yet, as we shall see, even in this case, religion has nothing to do with Tibetan racism, even though it is fostered and provoked by Buddhist monks, probably ready to accumulate Karma and forfeit Nirvana in favour of their ethno-nationalistic dreams. I can only provide little information here, so if you wish to know more both abut Muslims in Tibet and the discrimination they face, I suggest reading, as interlocution, Dr Andrew Martin Fischer, whose work Close Encounters of an Inner Asian Kind: Tibetan-Muslim co-existence and conflict past and present, is freely available.
In Tibet there are Muslims: the Hui Tibetan Chinese community, and also more recent immigrants. The Tibetan Hui, despite being linked to the Hui Muslim Chinese, are proudly Tibetan, and indeed prefer to marry Tibetan women even when they were Buddhist, rather than other Muslim Hui from different Chinese areas. Muslims arrived in Tibet possibly during the eighth century EC, but documents start to mention them after the tenth century. It is still unclear, however, when the first mosque in Lhasa was built.
A famous legend has that the Great Fifth Dalai Lama, while observing the surrounding mountains saw a man prostrating towards west on the top of the Genpei Wuzi mountain. Surprised, the Dalai Lama observed the man performing the mysterious ritual for several days at clear fixed times. The Dalai Lama was then informed that the strange man was a Muslim praying to Allah. The pious behaviour of the praying man impressed the Dalai Lama who decided to gift him with some land on which the Muslim built the first mosque. The place, because of the legend, is now called rGyang-mdav-gang, which means ‘agrarian scope within the distance of arrow’s shot from the Dalai Lama’.
We could have expected that this beautiful example of religious tolerance could have been the start for future harmonious relations. Despite the propagandistic claims provided by the Dalai Lama’s government which advertise how well the Muslims were treated under Buddhist leadership and how the struggle against the ‘evil’ Chinese see Muslims and Buddhists together, the reality is pretty grim in particular after the beginning of the ‘War on Terror’.
Dr Andrew Martin Fischer (who whoever has not discussed further the topic of Muslim discrimination in Tibet during the present revolt) has highlighted the tensions between the two communities, which are primarily the cause of ‘economic’ differences and opportunities. He has confirmed that the ‘official’ version of the relationships between the Tibetan Muslims and Buddhists provided by the Tibetan Government in exile is, at its best, affected by historical amnesia,
[They] completely ignore the military confrontations that took place between Tibetans and certain Chinese Muslim warlords in Amdo as recently as the 1930s and 1940s. They also sidestep the fact that during the reforms of the last two decades, Tibetan aggression has come to be increasingly directed against the Muslim minority in Tibet, despite the fact that Han Chinese present by far the strongest exclusionary force in the local economy. In addition, despite popular perceptions of Tibetans as pacifists, the racist and violent backlash against the Nepali Bhutanese minority in Bhutan in the late 1980s and 1990s serves as a poignant reminder of the potential for violent ethnic conflict that lies within even these idealised Himalayan Tibetan Buddhist cultures, particularly towards other vulnerable and stigmatised ethnic minorities” (Fischer 2005: 2)
As I was saying, anti-Muslim sentiments increased during the War on Terror, which the Lamas and Tibetan Buddhists very much supported and used as an excuse to increase the discrimination and sufferance of, in particular the Hui minority. Through this discrimination, the Tibetan Buddhists did not understand that they were actually reinforcing the Chinese government which was seriously concerned about the secessionist attempts of the Chinese Muslim regions (such as the Xingjian). As we shall see, exactly because of these anti-Muslim sentiments, the Buddhist Tibetans have failed in coordinating the recent Muslim protests in a unique front for independence and freedom.
During the 1990s Ethnic Tibetan Buddhist started to fear that the economic success of Muslim Tibetans (particularly their restaurants and shops), would have undermined the economic, and so social, status of the Buddhist Tibetans. The Buddhist monks began a campaign against the economic activities of Tibetan Muslims, which epitomised in the 2003 boycott of Muslims’ businesses and saw also violent actions against innocent Muslim Hui families,
The clash in Chentsa Town in January 2003 served as a call to action for Tibetans, an incitement to take matters into their own hands, especially considering the widespread Tibetan belief that the state-imposed resolution of this episode was biased in favour of the Muslims. Interestingly, it seems that the bravado of Tibetans had also been stoked up by the events of 9/11, the Afghan war and the lead up to the Iraq war, the latter two of which appear to have been overwhelmingly supported by Tibetans in Tibet.
A regional boycott of Muslim businesses therefore quickly gained momentum soon after the Chentsa clash and even extended into areas of Kham in Sichuan that had little Muslim presence. Although the Tibetans in Lhasa that I interviewed were hesitant to talk about it, the boycott had evidently reached Central Tibet as well, finding an accord with the anti-Muslim sentiment already built up over the last decade. While the boycott was meant to target all types of Muslim businesses and trade interactions, including Muslim-owned buses, the main symbolic focus became the Muslim restaurants that dominate catering throughout Amdo. (Fischer 2005: 17)
During these clashes and anti-Muslim actions, the Buddhist Tibetans started to reinforce existing stereotypes against the Muslim populations as well as real myths, which show how little they knew about their fellow Tibetan ethnic minority, among those reported, I think the story of the ‘Imam ashes’ offered a clear example,
It is said that passing Muslim motorists throw the ashes of cremated imams in the air, which then lands on or is inhaled by hapless Tibetan pedestrians and has the same effect as eating a tasty noodle soup. It does not seem to perturb these story tellers that Muslims in fact do not cremate the bodies of their dead, but bury them according to prescriptions given by the Koran. Indeed, Rebgong County itself has been the scene of several well known conflicts over Muslim attempts to rent or buy land for the purpose of establishing cemeteries, in which case it should be obvious that even local Muslims bury their dead. However, this lack of corroboration does not seem to perturb ongoing embellishments of the ashy versions of the myth. (Fischer 2005: 19)
Of course, Muslims reject cremation and they do not cremate the bodies of their fellow brothers and sisters! But racist stereotypes do not need to be ‘real’, they should be just ‘believable’ for the target audience; and what more than ‘magic’ can instigate fear in those who strongly, also as part of their own medical traditions, rely upon it?
Since the beginning of the revolt in March, demonstrations against China are held in all those countries through which the Olympic torch is passing. From the politicians, to the public, from Hollywood to Bollywood, from the scholars (with few exceptions) to the students, from the Trade Unions to the Industrial associations: all show indignation against the ‘oppression of the Chinese government’. Yet they ignore the dark side of this ‘revolt’ which is not so different from that in 2003.
The people who are paying the highest price are the Muslim Hui and the Tibetan Muslims, which again have been the innocent target of Buddhist Tibetan violence, expressed in particular by young unemployed Tibetans and fully supported by lamas. One of the reasons, unsaid, for which the Dalai Lama threatened to resign as the ‘head of government’ is that he personally rejects violence and campaigns for a ‘democratic’ Tibet. However, this is not exactly what the lamas in Tibet wish. The Dalai Lama today has lost the support of many of the leaders in Tibet because of the rich and ‘fancy’ life he is accused of enjoying in the West and India.
The mosque in Lhasa was burnt and destroyed, shops and the possessions of Muslim Tibetans smashed, a family burned alive in their own shop, terror and terrorism have affected this community because of a pernicious form of ethnic (Buddhist) nationalism which seems to be the photocopy of the infamous extremist Indian VHP. Of course, the Chinese authorities, as we can see in some of the videos, protect the Chinese shops and people, but are quite happy to leave the Hui Muslims to the fury and indiscriminate violence and organised banditism of young Buddhist Tibetans. Meanwhile monks and lamas are just stoking the fire in the hope of not just a free Tibet but also an ethnically clean one!
Whay is the interest of the monks and lamas? It is clear that monasteries in Tibet live off of the alms of the Buddhists and so the high rate of unemployment and the often unsuccessful business ventures of the Buddhist Tibetans have an impact on the revenues of the monastery, and consequently of the lamas. Furthermore, not all Tibetan political and religious leaders (and often the two roles entangled) agree with the position of the Dalai Lama, who officially envisages a democratic Tibet. Some hope to return to a feudal system in which the lamas would enjoy power and resources.
The Dalai Lama, who has tried from the beginning, probably underestimating the Tibetan reality, to capitalise on the revolt, has subsequently distanced himself from the acts of violence. Yet, as religious and political leader, he has totally failed to report the ethnic violence, and the assault against Muslims. Not one word of apology, despite his being a rather loquacious man, has left his lips to reach the Hui Muslim community or the victims of ethnic and religious Tibetan Buddhist hatred: a failure that can only have consequences, in terms of religious and ethnic harmony, in a future independent Tibet.
Witnessing this, so misunderstood, revolt characterised by an amalgam of legitimate political struggle, hideous attempts at ethnic cleansing, and globalised Islamophobia, we can only ask: will the future of the Muslim minority of Tibet be similarly dark to that experienced by the Muslims in Burma?
Gabriele







[...] Not only freedom: the dark ethnic side of the Tibetan Buddhist revolt (Islam, Muslims and an Anthropologist) [...]
Thanks for the very informative post. The link to Fischer’s article is broken though.
Here’s an alternative: http://www.crisisstates.com/Publications/wp/wp68.htm
I’ve spent a fair bit of time in Lhasa and I was surprised one time to be told some shockingly negative things about Muslim Restauranteurs in Lhasa. I would concur that it was sort of a taboo topic as these were half-whispered in similar tones one hears when talking about politics in Lhasa, always a difficult thing to discuss, especially with foreigners.
Good post, Thanks!!
-Travis
Below an example of the reasons for which I decide to write this post:
from The Times of India: Muslims of Tibet by Atul Sethi
Anthropologically, it is very interesting to notice how the history and current reality of Tibetan Muslims in Tibet is either unreported or mythologized.
Gabriele
Thank you very much for this post!
I think it is one of the best on the subject that I have read! (and I’ve done a fair bit of reading on the subject)
Regards,
Rog(FB)
Untitled Page
I think people confuse "Buddhist" teachings with “human nature.” So, I’m not sure where your getting the stereotype of Buddhists? As a Buddhist and a former Christian I know all to well the carnal nature of human beings, and I for one have never presumed to be "non-violent by default." Though each person can have innate characteristics to their own nature, not related to religion.
Same with any religion, it’s not always the faith, but human nature that causes the problems. Faith if practiced can be good for some people. It’s like every one thinks that Muslims or Islam followers are terrorist, but terrorism goes against Islamic teachings. That’s my understanding.
I think I might be missing the part where “Western” media is biased toward Tibetan Buddhist people. As a Buddhist, I do know that Buddhist communities have fought bloody wars for political reasons, but that’s just the point, it’s political, not the Buddhist teachings itself. Perhaps your equating the "non-violent by default" to Buddhist teachings, not human nature because human nature is defiantly not non-violent by default, and I think every one knows that.
Not all Tibetans practice Tibetan Buddhism, and that is my understanding. Tibetan Buddhism also carries with it some practices of the Tibetan Bonpo practice indigenous to Tibet. Buddhists around the world practice Buddhism, but they some times practice other things, and some Buddhist practices have absorbed into it the indigenous teachings of the region. If I go to Japan they may do some thing different than other places like Tibet, or India. Buddhist basic teaching is a pacifist teaching, whether people want to practice it or not. Only half of the Buddhist practitioners around the world actually practice vegetarianism, as they are suppose to, and in the United States that number is even less than half. This is human nature, not Buddhist teaching.
I don’t know about BBC’s views as I get my news from the worldwide web, and not just from "Western" media.
I’m not trying to "glorify" the Buddhist practitioner nor any other faith; my intent is only to clarify Buddhist teachings from human nature. To many people are greedy, whether that is political, financial or materialistic greed.
Anyway, my issue is the confusion of Buddhist teachings and human nature. When people commit violent acts against others, that is not a Buddhist teaching, it is human nature. Buddhism teaches me to do no harm to any sentient being, and as a human I do my best to practice that teaching.
Also, in many other countries a person can be a Buddhist practitioner and practice Christianity, Islam, Taoism or any other teaching. So, I’m confused why the Tibetan Buddhist’s would treat a Chinese Hui Muslim like you have said? [For clarification, most Hui are similar to Han Chinese, other than headwear and some dietary practices, and who are different from the Uygher Islamic's in Northwestern areas, who are Turkic people.] Though in some countries for example, in the US a Christian would disparage a Buddhist and call them devil worshipers, though not all of them would do that. So, I think most Christian’s would not practice Buddhism, but Buddhism is not suppose to discriminate, human’s discriminate. Buddhism that I know has alway’s taught me to respect all other faither teachings, but I would have a hard time respecting violent acts, and I don’t.
Some of what you bring up sounds like a repeat of Michael Parenti’s Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth
Here is a rebuttal: A Lie Repeated - The Far Left’s Flawed History of Tibet
I feel the issue is a larger issue than simply Buddhists attacking Muslims or the BBC alleging that Tibetan’s are mono ethnics because Tibetan’s don’t believe that nor do I. Sounds like a simple educational course for the BBC or why would they perpetuate it because it doesn’t to any service to the Tibetan people.
Can we have more on…………… ‘racist and violent backlash against the Nepali Bhutanese minority in Bhutan in the late 1980s and 1990s’
Sorry to respond on your blog, Marranci, I will keep it short.
Okawa- I think you are missing the point here. The Dalai Lama is a SPIRITUAL leader, as are his underlings. One cannot dismiss this point with the “human nature” argument, as spirituality aims to assess and then perfect “flaws” in human nature.
I hope you think about this.
Perhaps one day I will elaborate in my blog.
Regards,
Rog(FB)
The problem is the similar to many minorities and indigenous societies around the globe. After the invation of Tibet, the tibetans themself have lost all the political, cultural and economical power too China. Dalai Lama visited the Sapmi Parlament in 1992 in Norway to see the political model this state had done too prevent a norwegian paternalism towards the Sapmi population which has been the case since 18th Century. He wants a similar solution in Tibet.
The chinese are not idiots and are using the same split and rule policy in the area as for example England did in Sri Lanka. What is happening there and what are the cause off the etnical conflicts in Sri Lanka? Is it the buddhisme itself that attack the tamilian population or is it a consequens from the Britains colonial rule in the past? I guess the last.
You have come up with some good information of an minority in Tibet that are an unvisible part in the conflict. I am glad that you bring it up. The tibetans are not an homogenous group. There are often more pluralities in a group than between groups. Even in the minority you are talking about is not homogenous. Do you include the Kashmirians muslims and other muslims in you analyses? I know from India that kashmirian muslims that has settled their bussiness outside Kashmir is not having a good reputation. Not because of their religion, but people comprehension is that they are greedy, corrupt and so on.
I think your analysis is to functionalistic. It is like you have concluded before you did the actual analyses of the situation and that your glasses are looking after what you want too see. For example you easily compare the situation in Tibet with the situation in Burma. What would for example an real cultural relativist say too that like Franz Boas? Also that your analyses have to much assertions without empirical proof for example when you say “The Dalai Lama today has lost the support of many of the leaders in Tibet because of the rich and ‘fancy’ life he is accused of enjoying in the West and India”. You should have good data for this. What people are saying is not always what people mean or how they are acting. You should know that as an anthropologist.
In this conflict area we should have more focus and attention towards individuals that gets violated cause of their background. It doesn´t matter who is discriminating who. That is why your attention too this is very important. Keep on your activism.
“The Dalai Lama is a SPIRITUAL leader, as are his underlings…”
Oh yes, and spiritual leaders are entirely cacooned from any kind of real world politics, especially the Dalai Lama. He’s never said anything that could be remotely construed as politically, and if he did, it was due to the spiritual vapours not quite flambusting on the calobidum.
Someone fetch Russel T. McCutcheon’s corpus and beat this person around the head with it until informed and considered thinking is seen to commence!
Well… in an idealistic sense (which is what spiritual leaders are supposed to purvey) YES!
“To be in the World but not of the World” is the idea…
I’ll put another one forward… Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount was basically preached to people in exactly the same situation as the Tibetan Buddhists are in today…
Compare and contrast with the RHETORIC we see from the Dalai Lama…
Again, this isn’t my blog, so I’m keeping it short… you seem to imagine yourself pretty clued in, so I hope that’s enough informed and considered thinking for you, mate!
Rog(FB)
PS- can you say “Lhasa riot”?
I truly feel enlightened by your post, I am sociology student and it shows me again that there are times that we think we know enough about the world, when we clearly dont. I will be using your post as a reference from now on.
I’m a new reader here, and I just wanted to thank you for your post. This is an important and under-reported story. I’m embarrassed to say that I knew nothing about it, although I did know about state repression in China against Muslims in general. If the international community wants to help Tibet, then it is important to demand that Tibetan political movements include protection of minority rights as fundamental. Otherwise, it all adds up to nothing.