Have the Serfs been Emancipated?

Propaganda picture showing the 'serfs' being emancipated
The reality was different

I am reposting a two-year old article about the tragic Serfs' Emancipation Day.
Can Communist China forever continue to tell the world lies about the events of March 28, 1959?

On March 28 [2019], China celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Introduction of the Reforms in Tibet and the Serfs’ Emancipation Day.
Sixty years ago, following an uprising of the entire population, the Tibetan capital witnessed the massacre of thousands of Tibetans …Communist reforms could finally be introduced.
Last week, the Chinese media reported: “Representatives from various ethnic groups and walks of life gathered in the Potala Palace square in Lhasa to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the campaign of democratic reform in Tibet.”
The colonial mindset is immediately apparent: “various ethnic groups”, as if Tibetans belonged to different ethnic groups.
Of course, today the Tibetans are a minority in their native land, but the media should have written that “Tibetans and Hans have gathered” near the Potala.

Who is the Boss?
Another telling detail, the report started thus: “At 10 a.m., Losang Jamcan, director of the Standing Committee of the Tibet Autonomous Regional People's Congress, declared the opening of the celebration meeting in both Tibetan and Mandarin, which was followed by a solemn ceremony of raising the national flag and singing the national anthem.”
Lobsang Gyaltsen (the correct spelling of his name), is the Chairman of the People’s Congress of the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) and the TAR’s Deputy Secretary; he is also a member of the CCP’s Central Committee
What is strange is that Lobsang Gyaltsen spoke before the Party’s Secretary (Wu Jingjie), though the Communist protocol is always extremely strict.
But after having proclaimed that sixty years ago, the Tibetan people have become their own masters, it would have not looked nice, if the Party Secretary, always from the Han nationality, would have spoken before a Tibetan.
A small adjustment of the protocol was necessary for the grand show.
Incidentally, not a single Tibetan has ever made it as Party Secretary in Tibet.
Why? Simply, because despite the propaganda, Beijing does not trust the Tibetans.
Look at the list of Party Secretary in Tibet (the most famous is President Hu Jintao):

Gen Zhang Guohua, (January 1950 - June 1951)
Gen Fan Ming (June 1951 - December 1951)
Gen Zhang Jingwu (March 1952 - August 1965)
Zhang Guohua (September 1965 - until the beginning of the Cultural Revolution)
Ren Rong (August 1971 - March 1980)
Gen Yin Fatang (March 1980 - June 1985)
Wu Jinghua (June 1985 - December 1988)
Hu Jintao (December 1988 - November 1992)
Chen Kuiyuan (November 1992 - September 2000)
Guo Jinlong (September 2000 - December 2004)
Yang Chuantang (December 2004 - November 2005)
Zhang Qingli (November 2005 - May 2006)
Zhang Qingli (May 2006 - August 2011)
Chen Quanguo (August 2011 -2016)
Wu Jingjie (Aug-16, 2016 till date)

The Function in Lhasa
Let us come back to the report of the function.
Xinhua explained: “In March 1959, the Chinese central government dissolved the aristocratic local government of Tibet and freed more than 1 million serfs, making them the masters of the nation and society.”
In several previous posts, I have shown that the so-called Emancipation of the Serfs is pure history rewriting of the events of 1959.
Wu Yingjie, the Party Chief, followed his deputy on the rostrum.
He solemnly declared: “Tibet has made historic achievements and undergone tremendous changes since the democratic reform that started 60 years ago,” and added: “The democratic reform completely obliterated the feudal serfdom of theocracy, changed the production relations of the old Tibet, smashed the shackles of feudal spirit and culture and freed local people from feudal political oppression.”
Wu asserted: “The democratic reform is a major historic event in Tibet's development and human rights advancement.”
I wonder if Wu really know what happened at the end the 1950s in Tibet?

The Reforms in Tibet
Interestingly, in January 1957, while on a visit to India, Zhou Enlai, the Chinese Premier had long discussions with Prime Minister Nehru on the introduction of the so-called reforms. It was decided to postpone them at least for six or seven years.
In the course of the conversation with the Indian Prime Minister, Zhou pointed a finger at non-existing foreigners in Lhasa: “those bent on trouble are preparing for an incident in Lhasa. These people have some armed forces. Some three temples in Lhasa have also armed forces and they want to create an incident with the People's Liberation Army there. If it happened, then there would be bloodshed.”
Nehru did not react.
Is it not strange than two years later, the Tibetan resistance was centered around three ‘temples’ or religious places (Ramoche, Norbulinka and Chakpori)?
Did Zhou already know what would happen in March 1959?
Although there was no ‘foreigner’ in Lhasa, except for the Indian staff of the Consulate General, the bloodshed indeed took place in March 1959; it helped Mao to firmly consolidate the position of the Communist regime, which continues to control the restive nation with an iron hand.

Forced to swear for the Communist Party

The Communist Party views
According to historian Melvyn Goldstein, the issue of the revolt was discussed in Beijing by the Party leadership as early as 1957: “If Tibetans revolted, Mao asserted clearly that he would use the PLA to destroy the rebels, wipe out the traditional manorial estate system, end the Tibetan ‘local’ government, and quickly implement forced reforms and create a socialist Tibet under direct control by the CCP.”
Goldstein thought that it was for Mao “an alternative path to success since it would enable the CCP to end the traditional system and ‘liberate’ the Tibetan masses much sooner than under the gradualist policy. Mao therefore presented his Tibet policy as a no-lose strategy for China.”
It is a matter of debate if it was an ‘alternative’ or not, but on May 14, 1957, a cable was sent by the CCP’s Central Committee to the Chinese generals in Lhasa.
It says: “In today’s Tibet, the separatists are still quite popular, and can still stir up troubles on the issue of reforms. This is not accidental. Rather it has its historical and social causes. Although Tibet became an inseparable part of China a long time ago, it has maintained an independent or semi-independent status in its relations with the motherland…”
This admission is interesting to note.
The note of the Central Committee continued: “The fact that it had achieved long-term independence and semi-independence historically distinguishes Tibet from other minority nationality areas in China. First, this is reflected in Tibetans’ centrifugal tendencies away from China and their distrust of Han Chinese. Not only does this exist widely among the upper classes, but also has a considerable influence among the masses. When the imperialist forces penetrated into Tibet toward the end of the 19th century, they instigated distrust between Tibet and China, nurtured pro-independence forces and created an impetus for separation, all of which exacerbated the Tibetans’ centrifugal tendencies away from the motherland.”
It mentioned serfdom and feudal rule in Tibet “[which] have remained intact until now. The upper classes still retain the ethnic banner and the religious banner, and they can still use these banners to influence the masses in order to maintain the old system and rule that is harmful for the development of the Tibetans. This is the reality we are facing. Besides the issues with the upper classes, we also have the issues of the masses.”
The cable continued in the same vein. Was force an alternative? the Central Committee thought: “If we use force, it very likely will create a situation in which not only the majority of the elite will oppose us but also the separatists’ conspiracies will succeed, the leftists will be isolated, and a considerable portion of the working class under the elite’s influence and control will follow them to oppose us. If this situation occurs, either it will force us to stop reforms and place us in a passive political situation, or we will need to start a war to mobilize the masses and implement reforms. This is the last resort in nationality areas…”
The conclusion of the Central Committee was: “If imperialists and traitors start an armed rebellion, that is something different; and then we will have to use armed forces to suppress the rebellion. The Central Committee has made repeated instructions about this. …Having considered the historical and current situations in Tibet, the Central Committee has decided that we will not carry out democratic reforms in Tibet for at least six years, or even longer.”
This followed the assurance given to Jawaharlal Nehru by Zhou Enlai in January 1957. It was the condition for the Dalai Lama, then in India, to return to Tibet and not seek asylum in India or America.

Do they really believe on the Party?

The events of 1959
In January 1959, according to Goldstein, Mao and the Central Committee realized that “the Tibetan insurgency had crossed the threshold from local uprisings to a full-scale revolt. The PLA had to be used to control the rebellion.”
On January 22, 1959, Mao wrote: “The next few years in Tibet will be a period when our enemy and we both will try to win over the masses, and both will try to reinforce their military power. After a few years, three or four years, five or six years, even seven or eight years, a big battle will definitely come, so we can solve the problems thoroughly. In the past, the rulers of Tibet only had a weak army. Now they have an armed force of 10,000 with high morale. This is a serious problem for us. However, it does not mean it is a bad thing. On the contrary, it is good, since there is a possibility for us to solve the problem militarily."
The 'great battle' came earlier than expected.
Mao's views were: "We must do the following: 1) we must win over the masses during the next few years, and isolate the reactionaries; 2) train our army to be strong fighters. These two things should be done during our struggle with the armed rebels.” [Quoted by Goldstein]. 

The Decision
Two days later, the Central Committee told the Chinese leadership in Tibet: “the armed uprisings have expanded to the next level. …The uprisings will continue to expand unless we have a one-time decisive battle. Then and only then will the problem be resolved thoroughly.”
It was indeed resolved thoroughly, the ‘reforms’ were imposed in a bloodshed, and the serfs were 'emancipated', the Communist way...

Today, the tragic episode is repacked by Beijing in a White Paper, showing how happy the Tibetans are.
President Xi Jinping should hold a referendum and ask the opinion of the Tibetan masses if they are happy or not.
I will be interested to see the results.

Ploughing over the Red Flag

 

Happy?

Celebrating near the Indian Border

As Tibet becomes Xizang, Delhi faces a new concern

Tibet No More

My article As Tibet becomes Xizang, Delhi faces a new concern appeared in The Asian Age and The Deccan Chronicle.

Here is the link...

US President Joe Biden greets China's President President Xi Jinping at the Filoli Estate in Woodside, California, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperative conference. (AP)

The long-awaited meeting between the two most powerful leaders of the planet finally took place at a farmhouse on the outskirts of San Francisco on November 15. During his press conference, US President Joe Biden said that Chinese President Xi Jinping was effectively a "dictator", which seemingly undid whatever good could have come out of the meeting.

When asked whether he still held the view (mentioned in June) that Mr Xi was a dictator, Mr Biden answered: "Look, he is. He’s a dictator in the sense that he’s a guy who runs a country that is a Communist country that’s based on a form of government totally different than ours."

Listening to his boss, US secretary of state Antony Blinken made a telling face: "He has done it again."

The Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, Mao Ning, was not long to respond: "This statement is extremely wrong and irresponsible political manipulation," he told reporters on Thursday at a routine briefing. But Mr Xi’s speech at the welcome dinner remained uncontroversial: he mentioned the Belt and Road Initiative as well as the Global Development Initiative (GDI), the Global Security Initiative (GSI) and the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI) and proposed that China was "opened to all countries at all times, including the United States. China is also ready to participate in US-proposed multilateral cooperation initiatives."

He remembered his first visit to the United States: "I stayed at the Dvorchaks in Iowa. I still remember their address -- 2911 Bonnie Drive. The days I spent with them are unforgettable. For me, they represent America… Our two peoples are both kind, friendly, hardworking and down to earth."

These are different ways of dealing with seemingly insurmountable differences.

But remember Mahabalipuram? Everyone had praised the Modi-Xi encounter in 2019, and seven months later the People’s Liberation Army entered eastern Ladakh.

Though the California encounter may also end with a new confrontation (in Taiwan or the South China Sea?), one should not forget the hard realities of today’s life in China, particularly in what Beijing calls the "minorities areas", meaning Tibet and Xinjiang.

On November 10, Xinhua reported that the State Council Information Office had just released a white paper on the governance of the Xizang Autonomous Region.

But what is Xizang?

As a true colonial power, Communist China often changes the names of the people, places and even nations. It is the case of Tibet, which is now called "Xizang".

The main objective of the white paper titled "CPC Policies on the Governance of Xizang in the New Era: Approach and Achievements", is to make official the new name for the occupied territory of Tibet. It goes to highlight the CPC’s guidelines for governing Tibet, showing that Beijing has brought about "all-round progress and historic success in various undertakings in the region".

Of course, it praises Emperor Xi: "Since the 18th CPC National Congress held in 2012, Xizang [Tibet] has experienced a period of unprecedented development and huge change, bringing more tangible benefits to the people."

It also gives figures: "Xizang’s gross domestic product reached 213.26 billion yuan (about $29.3 billion) in 2022, representing an average annual growth rate of 8.6 per cent since 2012. The length of the region’s railway network had almost doubled during this period and 5G network has covered all counties and main townships there. The region had also eradicated absolute poverty."

Before concluding that "together with the rest of the country, people in Xizang have witnessed the tremendous transformation of the Chinese nation from standing up and becoming prosperous to growing in strength, and are now embarking on a new journey of building a modern socialist country in all respects".

The word "Tibet" is never used in the white paper, except as an adjective such as "Tibetan" or in the name of an organisation or institution, such as "Tibet Airlines".

The Central Tibetan Administration (CTA), the Tibetan government-in-exile based in Dharamsala, strongly rejected the white paper, saying that the document was "unacceptable" and filled with "misinterpretation, misconceptions and lies".

It further pointed out that this 19th white paper on Tibet consistently downplaying the region’s distinct political identity by using "Xizang" or "Xizang Autonomous Region".

The CTA spokesperson, Tenzin Lekshay, called it "an insult to the Tibetan people. …The 32-page document talks about the aspirations of the people, but somehow the Tibetan people are missing, so we wonder what kind of aspirations they are talking about, whose aspirations they are talking about".

Also worrying for Delhi, China made official the term "Xizang" with India’s neighbours by sending visit Wang Junzheng, the Tibetan Autonomous Region’s party secretary, on a five-day visit to Kathmandu and then to Colombo. The "Tibet" delegation (without any Tibetans) was received at the Tribhuvan International Airport in Kathmandu by Urmila Aryal, the National Assembly Vice-chairperson.

Mr Wang’s visit was to maintain the "good momentum of high-level exchanges between two countries", a communiqué of the Chinese ministry of foreign affairs said.

During his stay, Mr Wang met with Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal "Prachanda" Dahal: "Since we share a long border with Tibet, during the visit, our officials and the CPC delegation will discuss strengthening the bilateral ties along with implementing the agreements signed during the Prime Minister’s China visit," observed Rupak Sapkota, foreign affairs relations adviser to Mr Dahal.

The "Xizang" representatives also paid courtesy calls on vice-president Ramsahaya Prasad Yadav; later they met deputy prime minister and home minister Narayan Kaji Shrestha, minister for federal affairs and general administration Anita Devi Sah as well as Ganesh Prasad Timilsina, the chairman of the National Assembly.

He also visited "joint" projects in Pokhara, though it was clear that the objective of the exercise was to get acceptance for the name for "Xizang".

That is not all. A day later (on November 14), Wang Junzheng was seen in Colombo with Ali Sabry, the Sri Lankan foreign minister, who wrote on his X handle: "Pleased to meet with Wang Junzheng, secretary of the CPC of Xizang Autonomous Regional Committee in #China at the foreign ministry. Amongst other areas, we discussed potential bilateral cooperation @ChinaEmbSL [@MFA_SriLanka."

This means that more nations are now using "Xizang" instead of Tibet.

The moral of the story: Despite Mr Xi’s sweet words about building a community "with a shared future for mankind", ancient nations like Tibet have no place in Beijing’s schemes.

It does not augur well for humanity … or for India which has a long border with Tibet. After all, President Biden had been perhaps right about the Chinese "dictator".

Communism in China: A hundred years later

My article Communism in China: A hundred years later appeared in The Daily Guardian

Here is the link...

As China prepares to celebrate the centenary of the Communist Party, the world must remember the massacres which Communist regimes have unleashed throughout history and question why Xi Jinping’s march towards the ‘New Era’ is marked by such aggression directed at neighbouring countries.

The year 2021 is supremely important for the Middle Kingdom and its Emperor: Not only will it bring the occasion to unveil the 14th Five-year Plan and China’s 2035 Vision, but, more importantly, Beijing will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Communist Party of China.
Already, in January, President Xi Jinping declared that “the party and country are on the right track… time and momentum are on our side”, and even though the country faced “unprecedented challenges and opportunities,” he urged his Politburo colleagues to “create favourable social conditions” for the important anniversary.
On 1 March, Xi spoke at the opening ceremony of the training class for young and middle-aged cadres at the Central Party School in Beijing. He told the young cadres that they were the successors of the old comrades, “the glory of the party is in your hands”, and exhorted them to be the “faithful successor of the tradition and fine work-style of the Communist Party, constantly enhancing willpower, perseverance and self-control and making contributions in the new journey of comprehensively building a modern socialist country in the New Era while striving to create a worthy party, worthy of the Chinese people!”
And, of course, “loyalty to the party is the primary political quality of Communists,” he added.
The words of the new Great Helmsman sound great, but there is another side to the coin.
In 1997, French scholar Stéphane Courtois, along with other European academics, published Le Livre noir du communisme. It was later translated in several languages, with the title The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression in English.
The Black Book, which sold millions of copies, is still considered by many as one of the most influential publications written about the history of Communism in the 20th century. The authors documented the history of political repression by Communist states, including genocides, extrajudicial executions, deportations, killing populations in labour camps as well as artificially-created famines.
Though some leftist ‘intellectuals’ objected to the Communist label being put on some of these dark events, the facts are difficult to change.
In the first chapter, The Crimes of Communism, Stéphane Courtois recalls, “Communist regimes turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government …and are responsible for a greater number of deaths than Nazism or any other political system. …Communism predated fascism and Nazism, outlived both, and left its mark on four continents.”
And today, it is still thriving in China and North Korea.
Quoting Plato’s Republic and Thomas More as Communist examples of ‘utopian philosophy’, Courtois explained, “We must make a distinction between the doctrine of communism and its practice. As a political philosophy, communism has existed for centuries, even millennia.”
Courtois gives figures, people killed by Communist governments amount to more than 94 million, including 65 million in the People’s Republic of China, 20 million in the Soviet Union, 2 million in Cambodia, 2 million in North Korea, 1.7 million in Ethiopia, 1.5 million in Afghanistan, 1 million in Vietnam.
In China alone, there is no doubt today that the Great Leap Forward resulted in 40 to 50 million deaths. According to Frank Dikötter in his masterly Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, “45 million people died unnecessarily …6 to 8 percent of the victims were tortured to death or summarily killed—amounting to at least 2.5 million people.” Yang Jisheng in Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958–1962 put the tally between 43 million and 46 million.
We could argue that it was another age, another time. But in this case, why continue to eulogise Communism and the Party?
Of course, Xi Jinping’s Thought is known as Socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era. A couple of years ago, it was even enshrined in the Chinese Constitution.
But if it is a new era, why arrest all the pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong? Recently, pro-China prosecutors argued in court that the defendants were involved in a “massive and well-organised scheme to subvert the Hong Kong government” by organising and participating in an unofficial primary election last July, although CNN commented, “such contests are a normal function in democracies around the world, during which political parties select the strongest candidates for an election.”
Look at the situation in Xinjiang where millions of Uyghur Muslims have been forced to live in ‘reeducation camps’, in Tibet, where the Communist regime wants to impose its own Dalai Lama (over one hundred years, the Party seems to have acquired great knowledge in spiritual matters), in Taiwan, which perpetually lives under Beijing’s invasion threat, or closer to us, India, which during the past nine months was subjected to an uncalled for aggression on its borders. Examples could be multiplied to show that China has not really entered a ‘New Era’.
A few weeks ago, I was watching a Chinese program on Tibet and, to my surprise, spotted an old Maoist figure named Pasang, along with the present Standing Committee of the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR). The old lady served Mao well during the darkest days of the Cultural Revolution. She managed to survive the purges of other leftist officials and even the fall of the Gang of Four in October 1976 to become a vice chairwoman of the TAR Revolutionary Committee in September 1968. In 1971, she was made a deputy party secretary in the TAR Party Committee, a position she held until her retirement in 2002.
The fact that China is ready to use figure-heads of the darkest days of Communism tends to prove that the New Era has not yet landed in the Middle Kingdom.
In the coming months, Chinese propaganda will try to convince us of the contrary.
Xi Jinping, the General Secretary of the Communist Party, likes to say, “The original aspiration and the mission of Chinese Communists is to seek happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation… This founding aspiration, this mission, is what inspires the Chinese Communists to advance.”
Today, former Premier Zhou Enlai, who joined the CPC in 1921, the year when the Party was founded, has become a ‘lofty character’ who selflessly pursued a just cause for the common good throughout his life, says Chinese propaganda.
We remember him in India as a Machiavellian politician who took the Nehru government for a ride. The recent happenings in Ladakh have their origin in Zhou’s lofty words—the world’s standard for ‘lofty’ are obviously different than the Chinese’s.
Large-scale massacre may not occur today (mainly due to the information revolution), but has the mindset really changed in Beijing?

It does not seem so, even in the New Era.

Whistleblower spurs China push for change

My article Whistleblower spurs China push for change appeared in Asian Age/Deccan Chronicle.

Here is the link...

The announcement of the surge in new cases happened as the Hubei provincial and Wuhan municipal party secretaries were shown the door.

When scholars will write the history of Modern China, one landmark will certainly be the day Mao Zedong founded the People’s Republic of China from the rostrum on Tiananmen Square in October 1949; another milestone will be when the students’ revolution was brutally interrupted on the same Square on June 4,1989.
The appearance of the COVUD-19 virus in Hubei in December 2019 seems destined to be another turning point in the life of the Communist Dynasty.
As I write this, more than 2,100 casualties have already been officially declared and 75,000 patients would have been infected; these figures are, no doubt, on the lower side of the reality.
Soon after the arrival in Wuhan of Chen Yixin, a Xi Jinping’s protégé, as new Deputy Chief the Central Guiding Group on the virus, the National Health Commission decided to ‘readjust’ the number of infected cases by reclassifying them; in one day, there was an increase of 14,840 new cases in Hebei province alone.
Bill Bishop, the author of the well-informed Sinocism Newsletter commented: “The situation remains very grim in Hubei and more cities in the province are going into quarantine lockdown. Do not be surprised for significantly higher case numbers to come.”
The announcement of the surge in new cases happened as the Hubei provincial and Wuhan municipal party secretaries were shown the door. Ying Yong, the mayor of Shanghai replaced Jiang Chaoliang as Hebei’s party secretary, while Wang Zhonglin from Jinan province took Ma Guoqiang’s seat as Wuhan party secretary. Incidentally, on the same day, Xia Baolong was appointed to replace Zhang Xiaoming as head of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office.
All this shows that the Middle Kingdom is in turmoil, a word frequently synonymous of great disasters such as famine, floods, earthquakes …or epidemic. Often in the past, the Emperor lost the Mandate of Heaven to rule when this occurred.
It is during these days that President Xi Jinping chose to disappear for several days from TV screens and the Chinese media (two of his colleagues of the Politburo’s Standing Committee, Wang Yang and Zhao Leji have not been publically seen since January 25).
On February 10, a masked Xi finally reappeared in a hospital in Beijing, where he talked to workers of three hospitals in Wuhan via videoconference: "Wuhan is a heroic city, and people of Hubei and Wuhan are heroic people who have never been crushed by any difficulty and danger in history.”
On the occasion of his well-orchestrated return, Xi was pompously named ‘Commander of the People's War against the Epidemic’.
Despite many laudible efforts such as building a 1000-bed hospital in one week, the people of China are angry.
Dr Li Wenliang, one of the first doctors who sounded the alarm in December, was in a first place, severely reprimanded by the local authorities. When he passed away, the Wuhan Central Hospital chose to deny his death, triggering a deeper anger among the Chinese public. The regime’s hesitations to announce Dr Li’s death show the dilemma of the Communist Party.
But there are others collaterals with perhaps far more serious implications for China’s future.
Following the death of Dr. Li Wenliang, a letter signed by hundreds of intellectuals asserted that he was a victim of speech suppression: “For thirty years the Chinese have been made to surrender their freedom in exchange for safety, and now they fall prey to a public health crisis and are less safe than ever. A humanitarian disaster is upon us.”
The signatories have five demands; first February 6, the day Dr Li died, should be declared ‘National Freedom of Speech Day’; second the National People’s Congress should implement the right to freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution; third, the state must immediately cease censoring social media and deleting or blocking accounts. The intellectuals also asked that all citizens across the country should be treated equally and receive timely, proper, and effective medical care and finally “beginning from today, [the State should] implement the [Chinese] Constitution!”
Quite an indictment!
That is not all: Xu Zhangrun, a law professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing, who has been under suspension, blamed Communist Party leaders for putting politics ahead of the people in a strongly worded piece published on overseas Chinese-language websites: “The political system has collapsed under the tyranny, and a governance system [made up] of bureaucrats, which has taken [the party] more than 30 years to build has floundered,” he said.
Xu also affirmed: “the level of popular fury is volcanic and a people thus enraged may, in the end, also cast aside their fear. Herein I offer my understanding of these developments in the broader context of the global system. Being mindful also of the cyclical nature of the political zeitgeist, and with a steady eye on what has been happening here in China since 2018 [when Xu published his famous critic of the regime, accusing Xi Jinping to have granted to himself an unlimited tenure].”
At the same time, some Chinese websites quoted Wen Jiabao, the former Chinese Premier, saying: “Without the success in reforms of the political system, a historical tragedy such as the Cultural Revolution may be reborn.”
Wen elaborated: “Now that the reform has reached a certain stage, without the introduction of political reforms, it is impossible to carry out the economic reform to their end, and the achievements already made may be lost. …With the development of the economy, problems such as unfair distribution, lack of integrity, corruption, etc. have arisen. …we must not only reform the economic system, but also reform the political system.”
To make things worse, it appears that there is some unhappiness within the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). On February 10, the Central Military Commission (CMC) issued stricter regulations for the relationship between the PLA and the civil regional governments; this was directly linked with the PLA’s role in the fight against the virus. The Political Work Department, the Logistics Support Department and the Discipline Inspection Commission jointly issued a ‘notice’ which listed thirteen ‘strictly forbidden’ items, for example, “[barring] PLA units to accept visits and donations from local civil units, enterprises, and individuals, in the form of money, marketable securities, and other payment vouchers.”
On the Chinese social media, commentaries said that the CMC did this to prevent the military units and local governments from colluding.
At the same time, the State has increased its monitoring of the common man; many netizens recently received a notice from Douban, the popular Chinese social network, "the news you posted has been removed as it contains radical political or ideological content.” It referred to the lyrics of the Chinese National Anthem which starts: “Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves!”
The words are indeed dangerous for the ruling Party in the present context. All this does not augur well for the future of the Middle Kingdom; one can only hope that the peak of the epidemic will soon to reached; once the epidemic is under control, the leadership in Beijing will have to seriously think of the future of the present authoritarian system.

Turbulent times for Beijing

My article Turbulent times for Beijing appeared in the Edit Page of the Pioneer.


Here is the link...

Only history can reveal the source of coronavirus. But the crucial issue facing China today is how the people perceive the communist regime’s response to the disaster

The world is going through tumultuous times. China, too, has not been spared. A dreaded virus has struck the Middle Kingdom and there’s no end in sight for the epidemic though it seems to be spreading at a slower pace outside Wuhan, its epicenter. The epidemic has strange collaterals. In usual times, internet and social networks are kept under close watch by the communist State and any “reactionary” or “anti-Government” post is deleted immediately. Ever since the outbreak of the virus, monitoring has been extended to topics that are usually out of the purview of the censor.
Recently, netizens received a notice from Douban, a popular Chinese social network, which said, “The news you posted has been removed as it contains radical, political or ideological content.” It referred to the lyrics of the Chinese national anthem, which starts: “Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves! With our flesh and blood, let us build a new Great Wall! From each one, the urgent call to action comes forth. Arise!”
Indeed, it is a revolutionary song … one that is dangerous for the ruling party in the present context as it evokes fears of a popular revolt against the way the Government has been handling the spread of the coronavirus. Take the case of Dr Li Wenliang, one of the first doctors who alerted the public about the outbreak. When Dr Li sounded the alarm in December, he was severely reprimanded by the local authorities. And when he passed away, the Wuhan Central Hospital first denied his death, triggering deep anger among the public.
Bill Bishop, the author of the well-informed Sinocism newsletter, noted: “Social media is blowing up the news that Wuhan whistleblower doctor Li Wenliang has died …but in a morbid twist, it appears that the relevant authorities, probably after seeing the online uproar, may not be allowing him to die officially yet.” The regime’s hesitation to announce Dr Li’s death showed the dilemma the communist party is faced with.
During the first month after the outbreak of the virus, China lost two battles. First, it was unable to foresee the seriousness of the epidemic (on the contrary, for a month, it tried to hide the truth from the public). Second, it lost control over the information warfare, which was then led by the citizens. China has now decided to retake the initiative on the information battlefield even as it uses the toughest possible preventive measures on the ground to manage the fallout of the coronavirus. This, at the risk of facing an economic slowdown.
On February 10, Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the communist party, reappeared (with a mask) on the stage after several days of absence and spoke of “resolutely winning the people’s war against pneumonia epidemic.” According to Xinhua, Xi asserted that the situation remained very serious but expressed confidence that “China will certainly obtain a full victory in the fight against the epidemic.”
At Ditan Hospital in Beijing, Xi talked to medical workers of three hospitals in Wuhan via video conference and praised the work done by them. He said, “Wuhan is a heroic city and people of Hubei and Wuhan are heroic people who have never been crushed by any difficulty and danger in history.”
Xi’s return seems to be a well-orchestrated move to regain the initiative. The Chinese President was pompously termed as the “commander of the people’s war against the epidemic.” Before disappearing, he chaired a meeting with the Politburo Standing Committee. Here, he stressed that the party should “do a good job in propaganda education and public opinion guidance.”
HK01, a Hong Kong-based online news portal, said that such guidance must include “promoting in-depth publicity about the major decisions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, substantially reporting the effectiveness of the joint (epidemic) prevention and control measures in different regions and different departments, vividly telling touching stories about China’s fight against the epidemic and demonstrating the Chinese people’s spirit and the great power of unity and togetherness in fighting the epidemic.”
As a result, Zhang Xiaoguo, Director of the Information Bureau of the CCP Central Propaganda Department, announced that his department would send 300 reporters to Hubei province. The WeChat account of “Reporters Station” said that the scribes, besides providing reports on the epidemic prevention and control, “will present positive stories on humanity to the public to strengthen the guidance of public opinion.”
At the same time, authoritarian methods have been put in place. CNN mentioned, “They (Chinese authorities) are turning to a sophisticated authoritarian playbook honed over decades of crackdowns on dissidents and undesirables to enforce quarantines and lockdowns across the country”. The US channel spoke of a shift in the narrative “from a story of an entire country pulling together in a time of crisis to a darker tale of bad actors undermining efforts to keep people safe and spreading the virus through their own irresponsibility.”
The “Li Wenliang effect” had to be rectified by massive propaganda. The Globe, the Canadian media group, observed: “Stung by public criticism as the Wuhan virus outbreak continues to claim lives, Chinese authorities have reinvigorated the state hero-making machine, with official media promoting stories of sacrifice, dedication and love in arduous times.”
Meanwhile, Xu Zhangrun, a law professor at the Tsinghua University in Beijing who has been under suspension, blamed the communist party leaders for putting politics ahead of the people. He wrote a strongly-worded piece that was published on overseas Chinese language websites. He said, “The political system has collapsed under the tyranny and a governance system [made up] of bureaucrats, which has taken [the party] more than 30 years to build, has floundered.”
Only history can reveal the source of the virus — whether it is animal-borne or originated from a laboratory working on a covert biological weapons programme. The crucial issue today is how people perceive the regime’s response to the disaster. This is the real battle in China at present. Since 1978, the current dynasty in China has managed to bring some wealth and well-being to the masses but in the process, the Chinese people have lost their freedom to think freely.
In every corner of the Kingdom, they are recognised by cameras, which record the most intimate details of their life. They have no choice but to follow the words of the party. With the novel coronavirus still spreading wildly, the system has started showing its limits.
More propaganda cannot undo the much-needed political reforms in China.

1963: Indian PoWs in Beijing

Some Indian PoWs in Tibet in 1962-63 with their Chinese guards
(first row left, Lt Col Gurdial Singh, 3 J&K)

I recently came across an interesting book, My Peking Memoirs of the Chinese Invasion of India by Dr Purnendu Kumar Banerjee, the Indian Chargé d’Affaires in Beijing during the Sino-Indian War.
In the chapter reproduced below, he mentioned the reception given to the senior Indian officers who had spent more than six months as prisoner of war in Tibet, in extremely dramatic conditions.
Against their will, the officers were taken on a propaganda tour of 'New China'.
The Communuist leadership had planned to 'parade' these officers on the Tiananment Sqaure on May 1 on the occasion of the Labour Day.
Brig John Dalvi strongly opposed this final humiliation for his men.
The Chinese had not choice, but to drop their plans.
It is in these circumstances that they were 'allowed' to visit the Indian Embassy in Beijing (it was certainly part of Beijing's propaganda efforts, to show how 'liberal' was China).
Before going into PK Banerjee's memoirs, here is the account of Maj Gen (then Lt Col) KK Tewari, one of the Commanding Officers who spent seven months in captivity.

If you are interested, you can read this old post, POW in Tibet (Gen Krishna Tewari's book, A SOLDIER’S VOYAGE OF SELF DISCOVERY is also downloaded from here).

Extracts:
One day a couple of us even had a walk from the hotel to the Tiananmen Square, which was in the news recently due to the student unrest in China. On 30th April, we were taken to the Great Wall of China which is supposedly the only man-made structure in the world visible from space. Built in 300 B.C. by the Chou Dynasty, it is 3,000 miles long (1,700 miles of it in the plains and the rest in the mountainous area), it took 300,000 men ten years to complete it, used enough material to build a wall 8 feet high and 3 feet thick around the world, has an average height of 28 feet 8 inches with a base width of 24 feet and a top width of 18 feet. We were also shown the famous Ming tombs.
On 1st May, we saw the fire-works from the roof of the hotel to celebrate May Day.
On 2nd May evening we were entertained to tea at the Indian Embassy and a warm reception by Dr. PK Banerjee, who embraced each one of us at the entrance. The Chinese guards, of course, were left outside and it was a lovely feeling to step into the ‘little India’ in Peking. However, all the time our thoughts were on our return to our homeland.
It was on 3 May that we left Peking for our journey home.
On our last night in Peking, we were taken to a musical show put on by an oriental troupe who performed Indian, Pakistani and Ceylonese dances and songs. It was an enjoyable treat. We had to
be up early for the 45 mile drive to the airport and after a lot of photographs, we took off at 5:20 a.m. from Peking in two IL 14 aircraft. We landed at Sian for refuelling at 8:45 a.m., were given, surprisingly enough, a very poor breakfast after all the excellent service we had been given till then and took off again at 10:20 a.m. We had another brief landing at Chengdu at 12:45 to pick up Rattan who had been left behind earlier due to his illness, took off at 13:25 and landed at Kunming at 15:45.

Extracts:
My Peking Memoirs of the Chinese Invasion of India (Clairon Books, New Delhi) by Purnendu Kumar Banerjee (Indian Chargé d’Affaires in Beijing)
Chapter 30

INDIAN PRISONERS OF WAR
I mentioned earlier our attempts to have the International Red Cross in Switzerland assist in the disposal of dead bodies and. the release of Indian troops and officers. As the Chinese refused to deal with the International Red Cross, the matter remained confused and a solution to the problem was delayed. At the same-time the Chinese exploited the situation to their benefit in various ways. Since the invasion and even long after the ceasefire, they played up their propaganda. For example, they maintained that Nehru, as an agent of the imperialists, had forced the Indian troops to attack a friendly neighbour, China; that the Indian troops had never been properly looked after and cared for; that the Indian Government showed no interest in the disposal of the dead bodies and the release of prisoners; that 'due to the goodwill and- friendship of the Chinese troops', the Indian troops were being taken good care of and were being sent home to be reunited with their families despite the Indian government's reluctance to help or assist in the matter; and that the departing troops had been expressing their thanks and gratitude to .China for her "magnanimous" attitude and treatment. Such propaganda was evident in the daily broadcasts on Peking radio, not only in Chinese - but also in Indian languages.
Another matter was concerned with the repatriation of about two thousand Chinese from India which was agreed to by India. Consequently, efforts were made for their transport mainly by boat, but the Chinese turned on their propaganda and compared the situation to Nazi concentration camps. Meanwhile, other attacks on India's news media continued and so did the protest notes.
By early spring in 1963, it was clear the three thousand nine hundred persons belonging to the Indian armed forces were prisoners in Chinese hands. Though a large number of our troops were eventually released after considerable effort by the Chinese to brainwash them with propaganda, an equally large number remained unaccounted for. In the last category were twenty-seven officers and I requested the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs for information about them. This request was turned down and I was told that the Indian Red Cross should approach the Chinese Red Cross in the matter. While this was still pending, I was having dinner one evening at an East European embassy, when a newspaper reporter from another East European country, whom I knew well, asked me in private if I had heard about the captive Indian officers? I told him that I had no news and that my legitimate request for such information had been rejected by the Chinese Foreign Ministry. He then told me, in confidence, that according to the latest information, one of his colleagues had seen the Indian officers in Nanking and that they were being taken by bus and train to many large cities and, possibly, would soon be brought to Peking.
I thanked him sincerely.
The same evening I requested to see the Foreign Minister, Chen Yi.
The next day, I was given an appointment to see the Vice-Foreign Minister as Chen Yi was out of town, which in other words meant that the latter was not prepared to see me. When I met the Vice-Foreign Minister, I opened fire. I told him that the Chinese were continuing to violate international law and conventions such as the Geneva Convention, and this was unacceptable and regrettable. First the Chinese had refused to deal with the International Red Cross in matters of the dead and the release of Indian troops resulting in delay, harassment, humiliation and more suffering. At the•same time, the Chinese were engaged in constant and cheap propaganda about Indian troops being happy to be in Chinese prisons where they were loved. The Vice-Foreign Minister tried to interrupt me because the language and the tone I was using were not often applied in "diplomatic dialogue". He could•not stop me. I continued. I said I had information that the Indian officers in captivity had been separated from their troops. and were being paraded in public, in blatant violation of international law, international practice and international conventions, in particular the Geneva Convention, even though China was a signatory to these conventions. I demanded that this cruel circus must stop, that this kind of thing was unknown in the civilized world; and that the prisoners must be released.
The Vice-Foreign Minister was perspiring profusely and was visibly shaken. His•aide and interpreter fumbled while translating. Though my words were somewhat harsh, I kept my expression calm. I knew with conviction that the Chinese had made a serious blunder. He wanted to know my source of information. I told him that I was not prepared to disclose this but I was prepared to accept his assurance that the Indian officers were not being taken from city to city, in public places and in public view. He tried to avoid the tight corner I had placed him in by saying that they were not prisoners and were not being treated as such. They were visitors to a friendly country and had expressed their wish to see China before going home, which would hopefully be soon. Then I opened my second round of fire. I told him that I would enjoy Chinese fairy tales in other circumstances but not in such a serious matter.
Were they captives of the Chinese or not? If they had been captured, were they not prisoners? Then shouldn't they be governed by the Geneva Convention? If they were not prisoners, why had they been kept under guard for more than six months away from their homes, families and friends? I repeated my two demands, but I added that in case the Chinese failed to respond positively in the matter, India would be compelled to inform the world, in particular the Asian and African countries and the other one hundred signatories of the Geneva Convention, about China's flagrant violations. I thanked him for receiving me and got up to go. He was still shaken when I left.
I informed my Ministry about the latest developments and what action I had taken. When I told my colleagues in the embassy about my talk, they were rather pessimistic about the Chinese response. A few days later, our number two in the embassy, Damodaran, informed me that he had received a message from the Chinese Foreign Ministry that the Indian army officers were in Peking and that facilities would be given to me if I wanted to visit them. I called a meeting immediately of all our officers and placed the facts before them for their views. After some discussion, it was evident that they wanted me to visit them. I disagreed, I told them the officers were prisoners of the Chinese and were obviously kept under strict security.
Therefore they were in a Chinese prison, in law and-in fact. How could the Indian envoy visit a Chinese prison to see the Indian officers? My visit, at the Chinese behest, would legitimise the whole illegal and uncivilised Chinese policy in this regard. My colleagues pointed out that, in principle, I was right. But if the information leaked out that I had refused to visit the Chinese prisons or detention camps to see the Indian officers, there would be severe criticism in the Indian press and in Parliament. They were right. I decided on a compromise solution. Damodaran [No 2 in the embassy] would call back the Chinese official dealing with this matter and say that it would be inappropriate for the Indian envoy to visit the Indian officers. But if they were free and willing, they were invited to visit their own embassy and call on the envoy. If this proposal was not acceptable, we would fly out a representative of the Indian Red Cross to visit the Indian officers. This was communicated in due course. After a three days' wait, we received a message that the Indian officers - would visit the embassy.
The date and time were worked out on the clear understanding that no armed or unarmed guards would be permitted inside the embassy compound during the visit of the Indian officers. We were more than delighted that our gamble had won.

Captured Indian army officers visit the embassy
All the members of the embassy joined together and with great enthusiasm produced enormous quantities of excellent and varied food, delicacies from almost all parts of India. Rosha, one of our first secretaries, a dear friend and a fine officer, looked after the arrangements. The drinks included lassi (buttermilk), different fruit juices, tea, coffee and of course champagne, wines, scotch and cognac. The reception rooms were decorated with flowers and Indian flags. I called a meeting with all members of our embassy, both diplomatic and non-diplomatic. I explained to them that our officers had a very hard time as prisoners for almost six months, completely cut off from their families, friends and home, and even news from India. The Chinese had attempted to brainwash them. They inevitably had feelings of loss, defeat and humiliation, all for no fault of theirs. We then agreed on the following programme and arrangements:

1. On their arrival, we would garland each officer;
2. The national anthem would be played;
3. I would say a few words of welcome, telling them how India was proud of them, of their courage and dedication, and that a great and warm welcome would await them in India;
4. We would then take them inside and show them their places in six separate groups;
5. Each group would have at least two members of the embassy as hosts, looking after them with warmth and affection, and helping them with food and drinks;
6. It was expected that these groups would break up and regroup according to the inclinations of our guests;
7. The military attaché Lt.-Colonel Khera and I would move freely from one group to another;
8. While the embassy staff were playing host, they were not to show any curiosity and ask questions, but would reply if the officers asked them a question;
9. Whatever was heard or whatever impressions were formed by the hosts would carefully be remembered, and reported to me later, after the officers’ departure.

The army officers duly arrived in buses, at the time fixed earlier. There were no Chinese guards either with them or outside in the street where the buses were parked. The officers cried and so did we, as we embraced them; the atmosphere was charged with emotion and affection. Some of the officers were in their military uniforms; they explained that this was because they were officially visiting their embassy. We took them inside to their seats, but very soon they started to regroup.
Food and drinks were offered. They were delighted to have such a variety of Indian delicacies after such a long time. They showed their appreciation by consuming large quantities of the food. It was wonderful to have them with us. The conversation in the different groups continued. We soon learned that because of the unrelenting Chinese propaganda which was based on distortion of statements, mainly made by the opposition parties in India, the officers were deeply worried about the future after their return to India. I kept assuring that they would be given the warmest welcome, a hero's welcome. Brigadier Dalvi however, was most worried; he was depressed, dejected and disappointed. He had a distinguished career behind him and he impressed me as an intelligent person. He had legitimate and serious complaints against the planning and implementation of India's defence policy. In his book Himalayan Blunder, he did not refer to his time in China or the visit to the Indian embassy in Peking. It is understandable, considering the unavoidable tensions and dissensions endured by these officers during the previous six months.
One of the most joyous moments of that reception was when Lt Colonel Khera called me to a corner and quietly pointed out an officer who had been declared dead in combat and whose wife had received from the President• of India a high decoration awarded posthumously, We had another round of champagne to celebrate.
The time came for them to leave. We did not know then where and when they would be released, nor did they.
After the army officers left, we sat down together to draft reports on our conversations and impressions. In the meantime, I also sent a top secret and most urgent telegram in code addressed to the Secretary-General of our Ministry, in which I described briefly the visit of the officers, their main worries and my assurances, and indicated that a detailed report on the information obtained and our impressions during three 'hours of conversation was being sent by special courier to New Deihi. 
I also suggested. that pending a serious study of my report, the government and if possible the opposition should desist from discussing matters relating to these twenty-seven officers;• that all of them should be given a hero's welcome but if later on, after careful and discreet observation, "bad eggs" were discovered, they should be removed without publicity because otherwise we would be strengthening China's pernicious propaganda about the Indian armed forces; and that we had as yet no information about when •or where the officers would be released. I also gave information about the officer who was presumed dead but was alive. By the time all the reports were coordinated, written or dictated and finally typed, it was well past midnight. Everyone was happy and we were teasing each other. My colleagues teased me too, saying that I was at my best after midnight because of my association with Chou En-lai. I will always remember with gratitude the warmth and affection of these colleagues during my time in China.

Return of Indian prisoners
In diplomatic circles in Peking, everyone soon came to know about the visit of our officers to our embassy. After a few days, Terence Garvey (later Sir Terence Garvey), my opposite number from the British Embassy came to see and tell me in confidence that, according to information he received from Hong Kong, the Chinese were planning to release our officers from the-border of China and Hong Kong. I told him that this could be to draw the attention of the international press; TV and radio representatives who would witness the release and handing over of the officers as a gesture of peace and magnanimity by the Chinese. I thanked him for this information and for being such a good friend. I reported to New Delhi immediately and requested them not to inform the press. I sought an interview with Marshal Chen Yi urgently. This time Chen Yi received me himself.' He asked me whether I was satisfied and happy to have seen and spent some time with our officers in our embassy. I had a feeling that both Chen Yi and Chou had received a report from their Vice-Minister about our "warm" discussions previously in this regard, Chen Yi said that the officers had, as they desired, seen a good part of China and her achievements, and that soon they would be going home. I referred• to my earlier discussions with his Vice-Minister and strongly affirmed our-view-that China had violated and continued to violate the Geneva Convention by parading them publicly.
Our officers were no more and no less than prisoners in Chinese hands. If China had any respect for international law and respect for humanitarian considerations, the officers should have been released months ago and reunited with their families.
Chen Yi got angry. He said he forthwith rejected my false and fabricated allegations against China. I should have been grateful and pleased that I had been I given the opportunity to see the officers. I said I was sorry to upset him but I had to tell him: the truth as warranted by the facts. I added that I had come to see him about another very serious aspect of the matter. I told him that according to my information, China was planning to release the officers on the border of China and Hong Kong. Chen Yi cut me short and asked me my source of information. I said I was- not prepared to disclose my source since it was not relevant. What was relevant was that if my information was wrong, I would withdraw it and offer my profound regrets, but if it were true, I would lodge a most serious protest in the strongest terms. Chen Yi was boiling in anger and I was enjoying it in calm satisfaction. He said that China was not answerable to anyone as to where and when the officers would be returned. I told him they were our officers, prisoners of war' who had to be returned to us, and therefore we would need advance information about the date, time and place of their release. If the Chinese authorities had decided to release them on the border of China and Hong Kong, a colonial territory, we would not need advance intimation of time and date as there would be no representative from India to take them over from the Chinese representative. Of course the Chinese representative could hand them over to the colonial representative of Hong Kong and might get an extra mileage of propaganda. Chen Yi was so upset he had to make an effort to calm himself before he could speak; but before he could do that I got up and thanked him for receiving me and said that I would leave him with my earnest request because the decision- was his in the matter. I returned to our embassy, informed New Delhi and briefed my colleagues. We were not very optimistic about the outcome from this last gambit.
At a National Day reception the next day, I saw Chou En-lai when he came to our table to clink glasses in a toast. I asked his permission to mention a matter of utmost urgency, He signalled me to continue. I told him very briefly that I had information that China was considering releasing our officers on the border of China and British colonial Hong-Kong. When China and India had two thousand miles of common frontier and a history of hundreds of years of friendship and cultural ties, why not release them anywhere on our common border or inside China? Why on colonial soil?
Despite the recent unfortunate relations between our two countries, both India and China had fought against colonial rule. So why now involve Hong Kong? Before I could continue, Chou looked at me and said in English, "I don't know anything about it and have nothing to do with it." He turned round and left for the next table. I felt at that moment that it was not much of a diplomatic success for me.
I reported my talk with Chou En-lai to New Delhi. Three days later, in the morning, Lt-Colonel Khera rushed into my room bubbling with excitement and radiant like a child, holding a piece of paper in his hand. He said, “We got it, we made it, it worked." I asked him if it was my transfer orders! He became serious. He said he had an urgent message from the Chinese Defence Ministry giving the date, time and place where the Indian officers would be handed over, and requesting the time, date and identification of the Indian aircraft which would fly the officers back to India. We were so relieved and happy. I informed New Delhi accordingly.
A few days later, I received a letter from General Chaudhuri, Chief of Staff of the armed forces of India. It said, "I join the armed forces in saluting you." His generous comment, obviously, was related to my recent telegrams and special report on our officers' visit to our embassy. I knew General Chaudhuri because for three generations our families had had connections: our grandfathers were friends, our fathers were colleagues and, much later, I had more occasions to see him.
The tensions continued on the border: The Colombo proposals had buried by the Chinese. The atmosphere was one of stalemate and uneasy calm. The protest notes continued to be fired by each side with regularity and rapidity. Having completed two years of my two-year assignment, I wrote MJ a personal letter, requesting a change to a calm, pleasant and easy capital. He wrote back that a change was not possible because the normal rules did not apply to me, and that he had obtained the approval of the Prime Minister in the matter. In fact, it was the Prime Minister's wish that I should continue for longer.

Lord Bertrand Russell's representatives in Peking
A few days later, in early July, a peculiar if not ominous event happened. -I was told by a friend in a foreign news agency that two men from Britain, representing Lord Bertrand Russell, were in Peking. They had brought a new offer from Mr. Nehru for Chou En-lai, Their names were Schoenman and Pottle. I was surprised that I had not even been informed by New Delhi about this. I consulted my British colleague, Terence Garvey, and he, knew nothing except that the two men were in Peking.
I sent a telegram to New Delhi asking for information and guidance. In the meantime, I was told in Peking that Mr. Nehru had made an offer to Chou En-lai that if China accepted twenty kilometers along the Western Sector of withdrawal as "no man's land", he would start negotiations with Chou En-lai without any other preconditions. I reported this to New Delhi and received a reply stating that

1. Mr. Nehru had never made any such offer or proposals, and 
2. The two men had come initially to discuss, on behalf of the Russell Peace Foundation, some matters with the Gandhi Peace Foundation. 

They were given an opportunity to meet Mr. Nehru when they discussed the possibility of starting a dialogue between China and India.
After a couple of days, the Chinese came out with a statement in the press concerning the discussions with the two representatives of Lord Russell, which made it clear that Mr. Nehru never made the proposals; the two Britishers had mentioned to Mr. Nehru that when in Peking they would make the proposals to the Chinese leaders, and Mr. Nehru raised no objection. What a fiasco, what a farce!
Later, when I inquired privately as to why Mr. Nehru had decided to see the two men and discuss matters of such vital national importance,-which ended in futile, unproductive and immature manoeuvring, I was told that Krishna Menon who was sometimes a visitor with Mr. Nehru, had recommended that Mr. Nehru should see them. No wonder, the whole episode reminded me of my earlier experiences during Krishna Menon's reign. He had been vanquished but had not yet vanished!

In Tibet, an atheist regime talks of reincarnation

The Dalai Lama in Tawang (April 1959)

My article In Tibet, an atheist regime talks of reincarnation appeared in The Asian Age/The Deccan Chronicle


Here is the link...

A worse contradiction is about the position of the atheist regime on the Dalai Lama’s rebirth.

China is the land of dichotomies, not to say contradictions. On March 31, 1959, the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet crossed the Indo-Tibet border in the Kameng Frontier Division, north of Tawang; he met a detachment of the Assam Rifles waiting to welcome him. He had had no choice but to flee his native land, as severe repression had taken place in Lhasa.
Three days before the Tibetan leader reached the Indian border, the Communist regime declared that the “feudal lord” had left his native land; that this would allow the serfs to be emancipated. Though thousands had died in Lhasa in the process of “emancipation”, Beijing still celebrates the massacre as the “Serfs Emancipation Day”.
On March 26, the 24-year-old Tibetan leader had sent a message to Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India: “Ever since Tibet went under the control of Red China and the Tibetan government lost its powers in 1951...”
The Dalai Lama had decided to take refuge in India — a free nation.
On March 11, 2019, the Global Times affirmed: “Sixty years since the epoch-making democratic reform in Tibet, people in the plateau region have enjoyed unprecedented human rights in history.”
The tabloid of the Communist Party added: “The democratic reform in Tibet in 1959, led by the Communist Party of China, ended the cruel serfdom system and emancipated one million Tibetan serfs, or more than 90 per cent of the region’s then population.”
The article compares the massacre of the Tibetans in Lhasa in March 1959 by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to “the Abolition Movement led by former US President Abraham Lincoln, viewed as an immortal achievement for civilisation and human rights, the end of Tibet’s feudal serfdom”.
But it is not the last of the contradictions.
While proclaiming that the “Tibetan people enjoy unprecedented human rights in history”, the region has not only been closed to foreign tourists, but according to Human Rights Watch, on March 7, the Chinese authorities “staged mass rallies in Lhasa and other provincial cities”. A parade of armoured vehicles and military hardware was seen on the streets of Lhasa. Thousands of armed police and other security forces from across the region gathered to “pledge” loyalty to the party and its political objective of “comprehensive, long term stability”.
Though Beijing’s propaganda said “human rights” in Tibet have never been so good, it was announced that “24-hour patrols of some 100 police service stations in Lhasa had greatly improved the city’s peace and stability. …Not a single criminal case was reported in the palace area in the past eight years, mainly because of the police service station since 2011, which can respond to emergency calls in three minutes”.
Wang Yongpu, a police station chief working in Tibet for seven years, explained to the Global Times, “through the surveillance system, 24-hour patrols, security checks and cooperation with traffic departments, police in the service station can prevent crimes”.
The Epoch Times reported: “Having perfected facial recognition and Artificial Intelligence-enhanced surveillance systems, the Chinese regime is now applying the technology to taxis in Lhasa, the capital of Tibet.”
The US-based publication quoted a report which appeared in Tibet News on March 6: “a Chinese state-run online news site, 200 new taxis were put into operation in Lhasa in February — equipped with real-time video surveillance — before they were assigned to taxi drivers. The GPS (Global Positioning System) has been upgraded from running on 2G mobile networks to 4G to optimise real-time monitoring”.
This technology was intended to “prevent drivers from violating safety regulations such as smoking and making phones calls while driving”.
So much for human rights!
The Chinese propaganda has a tragicomic side.
The reason given for banning foreign visitors visiting Tibet was given by Wu Yingjie, Tibet’s Communist Party’s secretary during the National People’s Congress (NPC) — he said that the restrictions were necessary because some visitors suffered from altitude sickness.
Where it become more grotesque is when it comes to the Dalai Lama, China’s bête noire.
Again, according to the Global Times, during an open-door discussion with the Tibetan delegation to the 13th NPC, Wu Yingjie came down heavily on the Tibetan leader: “The Tibetan people have more affection for the government. The Dalai Lama has not done a ‘single good thing’ for Tibet since he left (in 1959).” Wu added that the people of Tibet were “extremely grateful for the prosperity that the Communist Party has brought them”.
Tashi Gyaltsen, a young Tibetan grassroots delegate from Lhoka, affirmed that “there is no such thing” as adoration for the Dalai Lama among Tibetans.
This should be easy to test — let Beijing allow the Tibetan leader to visit Tibet for one week — the adulation of the Tibetans for their spiritual guru and protector will be seen by all.
Go Khok, deputy party chief and mayor of Lhasa, however, asserted that maintaining stability would be a key task for the city government this year.
A worse contradiction is about the position of the atheist regime on the Dalai Lama’s rebirth.
The Tibetan leader jokingly told Reuters: “China considers Dalai Lama’s reincarnation as something very important. They have more concern about the next Dalai Lama than me,” before adding: “In future, in case you see two Dalai Lamas, one from here (India), a free country, (and) one chosen by the Chinese, then nobody will trust, nobody will respect (the one chosen by China). So that’s an additional problem for the Chinese! It’s possible, it can happen.”
A couple of years ago, a Chinese “expert” quoted by the Global Times, affirmed that it is so ridiculous to talk about reincarnation “when the 14th Dalai Lama is still alive.”
It is ridiculous, but Beijing has been working hard since years to put everything in place for when the day comes.
Already in 2007, the stage was set for the tragicomedy when China decided to implement the “Measures on the Management of the Reincarnation of Living Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism”.
Beijing had started preparing for the Lama’s succession: the Chinese government had decided to use the Manchu-favourite type of selection, the Golden Urn lottery, which can easily be manipulated.
Today, China is actively preparing for the post-Dalai Lama period.
On March 7, 2019, a panel discussion took place during the People’s Political Consultative Conference in Beijing; the Chinese-selected Panchen Lama Gyaltsen Norbu presided. Apart from the young lama considered as “fake” by the Tibetans, a few lamas, mostly unknown to the Tibetans, met to discuss the future of Buddhism; it included, Dupkang Thupten Kedup, vice-chairman of the Buddhist Association of China, Tsemonling, a former regent of Tibet in his previous reincarnation, Gomangtsang Rinpoche, Rinchen Namgyal Rinpoche, from Qinghai province and Lodro Gyatso Rinpoche from Sakya Monastery. China would like these lamas to lead the process to find the next incarnation of the Dalai Lama.
Is it not a contradiction when an atheist regime works hard on soul reincarnation? It does not seem to disturb the apparatchiks in Beijing.

Dalai Lama in China?

Communist Party officials 'recognizing' the Panchen Lama: a rehearsal?

My article Dalai Lama in China? appeared in Mail Today.

China, though constantly preaching Communist orthodoxy, today believes in reincarnating souls. Hours after the Dalai Lama had told Reuters that it was possible that his incarnation could be found in India, Beijing reiterated its knowledge on the subject.
This comes 60 years after the momentous event which took place in the North East Frontier Agency (NEFA), today’s Arunachal Pradesh, on March 31, 1959; the 24-year old Dalai Lama crossed the Indo-Tibet border at Khenzimane in the Kameng Frontier Division, north of Tawang. Since then, he has lived in India as an honoured guest.
In a recent interview with Reuters, “pondering what might happen after his death, the Dalai Lama anticipated some attempt by Beijing to foist a successor.”
The Tibetan leader jokingly told the news agency: “China considers Dalai Lama’s reincarnation as something very important. They have more concern about the next Dalai Lama than me,” but more seriously, he added: “In future, in case you see two Dalai Lamas, one from here [India], a free country, [and] one chosen by Chinese, then nobody will trust, nobody will respect [the one chosen by China]. So that’s an additional problem for the Chinese! It’s possible, it can happen.”
Beijing did not appreciate his point.
The Dalai Lama further commented: “If the majority of [Tibetan people] really want to keep this institution, then this institution will remain.  …Then comes the question of the reincarnation of the 15th Dalai Lama.”
The Chinese Government was quick to counter; Geng Shuang, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, immediately relayed by The Global Times, the Communist tabloid, stated: “The reincarnation of Living Buddhas, including the Dalai Lama, should abide by the laws and regulations of the state, as well as religious rituals and historical conventions.”
‘Living Buddha’ is a term invented by Beijing to describe the reincarnated Lamas. Whether, Karl Marx believed in reincarnation suddenly become irrelevant; the political stakes, i.e. the control of the Roof of the World, is politically too vital for the Communist regime, whose mouthpiece proceeded to explain: “The reincarnation of Living Buddhas is a special inheritance of Tibetan Buddhism. It follows fixed rituals and procedures. The Chinese government respects and protects it. The system of reincarnation has a history of several hundred years and the title of the 14th Dalai Lama itself also follows religious rituals and historical conventions, and was granted by the then China central government.”
According to a Chinese ‘expert’ quoted by The Global Times, the Dalai Lama’s only interest is to sabotage Tibet’s regional stability; it was “reflecting the Dalai's anxiety and fear of losing his influence in the world.”
Another ‘expert’ affirmed that it is so ridiculous to talk about reincarnation “when the 14th Dalai Lama is still alive.”
It might be ridiculous, but Beijing since year has been obsessed to put everything in place for when the day comes.
Already in 2007, the stage was set for the tragicomedy when China decided to implement the 'Measures on the Management of the Reincarnation of Living Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism.'
The ‘measures’ stipulated that “the Dalai Lama should follow the religious rites, historical mechanism and the national laws and regulations” and the present Dalai Lama had “no authoritative power on his own reincarnation issue.”
When the Dalai Lama objected, an article in China’s State media called the Tibetan leader’s statement “a blasphemy towards the religious rites and historical mechanism of Tibetan Buddhism, a great disrespect to the followers of the religion, and an absolute provocation towards the authority of the central government.”
Pointing a finger at the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, the Chinese media stated: “Reincarnating living Buddhas shall not... be under the dominion of any foreign organization or individual;” in other words, no reincarnation in the Land of the Buddha, i.e. India.
China watchers already knew that Beijing was 'preparing' for the Lama’s succession and that the Chinese government was keen to use the Manchu-favorite type of selection, the Golden Urn, which can easily be manipulated.
In his book Forging the Golden Urn, Max Oidtmann explained that it is only in 1995, that “China resurrected a Qing-era law mandating that the reincarnations of prominent Tibetan Buddhist monks be identified by drawing lots from a golden urn. The Chinese Communist Party hoped to limit the ability of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile to independently identify reincarnations.”
China would like to use a Golden Urn lottery which was first used in 1792, at a time the Tibetan State was extremely weak; forgetting that the Dalai Lama’s institution dates from the 15th century; further the Golden Urn was not used for the present pontiff.
Today, China is actively preparing for the post-Dalai Lama period.
On March 7, 2019, a panel discussion took place during the People's Political Consultative Conference in Beijing; the Chinese-selected Panchen Lama Gyaltsen Norbu presided. Apart from the young lama considered as ‘fake’ by the Tibetans, a few Lamas, mostly unknown to the Tibetans, met to discuss the future of Buddhism; it included, Dupkang Thupten Kedup, vice chairman of the Buddhist Association of China, Tsemonling, a former Regent of Tibet in his previous reincarnation, Gomangtsang Rinpoche, Rinchen Namgyal Rinpoche, from Qinghai province and Lodro Gyatso Rinpoche from Sakya Monastery. China would like these lamas to lead the process to find the next incarnation.
Incidentally, during the ‘sensitive’ month of March, the authorities organized mass rallies in Tibetan cities. According to Human Rights Watch, on March 7, thousands of armed police and other security forces from across the region gathered to pledge loyalty to the Party and its political objective of ‘comprehensive, long term stability’.
Ding Yexian, the Party’s Deputy Secretary responsible for law and order in Tibet, called on the people to “intimidate and terrify hostile forces and splittist forces, giving them nowhere to hide.”
This does not denote a compassionate Buddhist attitude.

The Lamas who will select the Chinese 15th Dalai Lama

China is working hard to prepare the post-Dalai Lama era.

Interview with Reuters
In a recent interview with Reuters, pondering what might happen after his death, the Dalai Lama “anticipated some attempt by Beijing to foist a successor.”
The Tibetan leader jokingly told the news agency: “China considers Dalai Lama’s reincarnation as something very important. They have more concern about the next Dalai Lama than me,” but more seriously, he added: “In future, in case you see two Dalai Lamas, one from here [India], a free country, [and] one chosen by Chinese, then nobody will trust, nobody will respect [the one chosen by China]. So that’s an additional problem for the Chinese! It’s possible, it can happen.”
Beijing did not appreciate his point.
The Dalai Lama further commented: “If the majority of [Tibetan people] really want to keep this institution, then this institution will remain. …Then comes the question of the reincarnation of the 15th Dalai Lama.”
The Chinese Government was quick to counter; Geng Shuang, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, immediately relayed by The Global Times, the Communist tabloid, stated: “The reincarnation of Living Buddhas, including the Dalai Lama, should abide by the laws and regulations of the state, as well as religious rituals and historical conventions.”

Wu Yingjie: "The Dalai Lama has not done a single good thing"

Buddhism and the Dalai Lama at the Center Stage in Beijing
During the recently-held 'Two Meetings', Tibetan Buddhism was at the centre stage of many discussions.
In an interaction with the Tibetan delegation to the 13th National People's Congress (NPC), the Party Chief of Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), Wu Yingjie came down heavily on the Dalai Lama.
Wu said, "The Tibetan people have more affection for the government. The Dalai Lama has not done a 'single good thing' for Tibet since he left."
The Hong Kong newspaper also quoted Go Khok, deputy Party chief and mayor of Lhasa, as saying that maintaining stability would be a key task for the city government this year, which marks the 60th anniversary of the departure of the Dalai Lama for exile.
According to the ‘political advisors’ who attended the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) in Beijing beginning of this month, Buddhist religion is well-respected and well-preserved in Tibet.
China displayed a collection of Tibetan ‘Living Buddhas’ as the Communist atheists term the reincarnated lamas; all are known for their loyalty to the Communist Party.
Xinhua reported: “Chinese religious figures serving as political advisors at this year's ‘Two Sessions’ [or Two Meetings] are pleased with the country's protection of Tibetan Buddhism in southwest China's TAR.”
Several of the Tibetan lamas were quoted by the news agency.

The Use of Tibetan Lamas for Communist Propaganda
The use of ‘Living Buddhas’ for political purposes is not new, but it appears that it has intensified since the Chinese State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA) issued a State Order No.5 for the “Management Measures For the Reincarnation of Living Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism” in 2007 and the unrest on the plateau in 2008.
It is done in a very systematic way mainly in view of the hopefully not too soon, departure of the Dalai Lama and in preparation for his reincarnation.
I am compiled a list of the Communist ‘lamas’ who will be co-opted to find the Chinese reincarnation of the 15th Dalai Lama.

Phagpala Gelek Namgyal
Phagpala is presently the Vice-chairman of 13th CPPCC National Committee; he is also honorary president of Buddhist Association of China and chairman of CPPCC Tibet Autonomous Regional Committee.
The CPPCC’s vice-chairmanship gives him a Central Minister rank.
He was born in February 1940 in Litang, presently in Garzê Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture of Sichuan Province. He is known as the 11th Chamdo Phagpala Hutuktu, (Hutuktu is a Mongol title for a high incarnated lama).
He formerly served as a Vice Chairman of the National People's Congress, Vice Chairman of the Tibet Autonomous Region, and Vice President of the Buddhist Association of China; he was vice chairman of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 10th, 11th and 12th CPPCC national committees.
He was one of the first Tibetans to join the Communist Party soon after the Chinese invaded Tibet in 1950/51.
Incidentally, Phagpala is one of the senior member of the 'Chamdo Clique' as the reincarnation of the head lama of the Jampaling Monastery in Chamdo - he is also known as Chamdo Phakpalha.
Lobsang Gyaltsen, the head of the TAR Government, a member of the Central Committee, is also from Chamdo.
On March 14, 2013, Jampa Phuntsok, also from Chamdo, was appointed as Vice Chairman of the National People’s Congress.
At that time, Pema Thinley (alias Padma Choling) became Chairman of the TAR People’s Congress; further, he was the only ethnic Tibetan, seating as a full member in the 18th CCP’s Central Committee.
Phagpala, Jampa Phuntsok, Pema Thinley, and Lobsang Gyatsen are the highest ethnic Tibetan cadres in the Communist hierarchy in Tibet today; all from the Chamdo Prefecture.
It is also rumoured that they all support the Shugden cult, against the Dalai Lama.
Can you guess from where the Chinese 15th Dalai Lama will come from?

Gyaltsen Norbu, 11th Chinese Panchen Lama
This is the Panchen Lama ‘found’ by China.
He is presently Vice President of China Buddhist Association (BAC) and Member of the Standing Committee of the 13th CPPCC.

Gyatsen Norbu was born in Lhari County, Nagchu Prefecture on February 13, 1990.

On November 29, 1995, he was recognized by Beijing as the 11^th Panchen Lama in front of the statue the Buddha Sakyamuni in the Jokhang cathedral in Lhasa. 

The Golden Urn was used; later the outcome was approved by the State Council.

See Reincarnation with Marxist Characteristics on this blog. 

He is the person who ultimately will 'recognize' the 15th Dalai Lama.

7th Drukhang Rinpoche Thubten Khedrup
He was born in December 1955 in Naqu. He joined the Party in July 1980.
He is presently the Vice Chairman of the TAR’s Political Consultative Conference, BAC’s Vice President, President of the Tibet Branch and Dean of the Tibetan Buddhist College.
He is regularly used by the Communist regime when senior Party cadres visit Tibet.
See The Ethnic Religious Faces of China.
See also China lacks 'Buddhist' credibility.

Tsomoling Rinpoche
Vice Chairman of the TAR’s Political Consultative Conference and BAC’s Vice President.
Tsemonling Tenzin Trinley Rinpoche was born in 1950 in Lhasa; he was one of the Four ‘Lings’, who from time to time acted as regents of Tibet (mostly when the Tibetan state was weak; particularly during the 19th century).
The Four 'Lings' (Ling Shi) were Kundeling, Demoling, Tsemonling and Tsechokling. They had their estates in Lhasa and around Lhasa.
Like his colleagues Reting, Phagphala or Dorje Phagmo, Tsemonling also  shoots for the Party from time to time.
Tsomonling has been a deputy in the National People’s Congress (NPC) from the 7th NPC (1988) to the 13th (2017).
He once declared that he was most impressed by the last report of Premier Wen Jiabao in the National People’s Congress. He found it inspiring and truth-reflecting. According to him, despite difficulties and challenges, the Chinese government has behaved well and there can be no development and innovation without Beijing’s support. This is what the Party wants to hear.
He has undertaken the task of re-carving (on wooden blocks) the Kangyur, which is a collection of Buddha’s sayings.
A few years ago, he spoke about self-immolation which, for him, is an insane act and violates Buddhist doctrine. He believed that the Xi Jinping's Chinese Dream is ‘related’ to the improvement of people’s livelihood, maintenance of social stability and steady economic development. Once again, the Lama is used by the Party to pass on its messages to the masses.
Also read A Battery of Rinpoche guns for China.

Drikung Chungtsang Rinpoche
The Drikung Kyabgön Chungtsang, the 36th throne holder of the Drikung Kagyu Lineage and the 8th reincarnation of the Chungtsang Rinpoche; he is said to be a manifestation of Manjushri.
He was born in the Water-Horse-Year 1942 in Lhokha as the youngest of five sons into the prominent aristocratic Lhagyari family, one of the oldest noble houses of Tibet descending from the ancient royal dynasty. The family branch is called Dewa Lhagyari Trichen.

Gomatsang Rinpoche, Lobsang Jampa Gyatso
He is from the important Labrang Tashikyl Monastery in Gansu; he is Vice President, Chinese Academy of Tibetan Buddhism.

Samding Dorjee Phagmo
Born in 1942, at the age of five, the Lady Lama was chosen as the incarnation of the abbess of Samding monastery, near Lhasa.
Deputy Director of the TAR’s Standing Committee of the People's Congress and Director of the China Tibet Cultural Protection and Development Association.
Dorje Phagmo was the only female reincarnation in Tibet.
In 2008, she declared that she was upset and angered by riots in Lhasa and accused the Dalai Lama of violating Buddhist teachings. She publicly affirmed that before Tibet’s incorporation into Communist China, Tibet was a backward feudal society. People were largely illiterate serfs with no medical care. The female ‘Living Buddha’ remembered that when she was a child, Tibet was dark and cruel; the so-called serfs lived worse than horses and cattle. Today, Tibet is transformed, thanks to the Party.
Her statement regarding Tibet needing to be ‘incorporated’ nonetheless shows that it was earlier a ‘separate’ entity.

After the unrest of 2008 and a few months before the Olympic Games, she was extensively used by the Party for propaganda. She was quoted as saying that the acts of the Dalai Lama and his followers seriously violate the basic teachings and precepts of Buddhism and damage traditional Tibetan Buddhism’s good reputation.

Lhakpa
He is born in August 1967 in Drung Dechen District. He joined the Party in June 2016. He is currently the vice chairman of the Lhasa CPPCC Vice Chairman of the Lhasa CPPCC, Vice President of the TAR’s Buddhist Association, Vice President of the Lhasa City Buddhist Association and Executive Deputy Director of the Jokhang Temple Management Committee.
He was used by the Chinese propaganda during the 'Two Meetings' (see interview quoted below).

Jewan Koondor Tulku
67 year old tulku originally from Champa Ling Monastery in Chamdo which has strong Dorje Shugden connections and has been present at every CPPCC in last 15 years. When 8 years old, his parents took him and followed the Dalai Lama to India. He eventually ended up in Switzerland. In 2011 he returned to China. Today he was made Vice Chairman of the TAR Overseas Friendship Association.

7th Taksang Tulku，Garang Thubten Lashay Gyatso
The 51-year old Tibetan tulku is from Taksang Monastery in Dzoege, Ngaba county.
He was born in July 1967 in Sichuan province. He joined the Party in November 2006 after graduating from the Chinese Department of Tibetan Languages.
He is currently a member of the National Committee of the CPPCC and the president of the Ngaba Prefecture Buddhist Association.

3rd Shangen Tulku, Phalden Dorje
He was born in April 1949 in Litang, Eastern Tibet (today Sichuan province). The-69 year old Tibetan Rinpoche is Deputy Director of the Standing Committee of Garze Prefecture People's Congress, Deputy Director of the National Committee of the National Committee of the CPPCC.

Lobsang Samten Rinpoche
Vice Chairman of the CPPCC Ngari National Association, Honorary President of the Regional Buddhist Association, Rinpoche from Trugo monastery near Purang in Ngari prefecture.

Rinchen Namgyal
In 1994, he graduated from the Higher School of Tibetan Languages. He is currently the deputy chairman of the 12th Qinghai Provincial Committee of the Chinese People's Consultation Conference, the vice president of the China Interpretation Association, and the deputy director of the National Tibetan Buddhism Teaching Committee, and the president of the Qinghai Provincial Interpretation Association.
On January 29, 2018, the 12th Committee of the CPPCC Qinghai Province was held for the first time; Rinchen Namgyal was elected Vice President of the Provincial Political Consultative Conference.

Lhodro Gyatso Rinpoche
He is the Executive Director of the Tibet Branch of the Buddhist Association, member of the TAR’s Political Consultative Conference, Vice President of the Buddhist Association of Shigatse City, and Executive Deputy Director of the Sakya Monastery People's Management Association.
On January 24, 2018, the 24th meeting of the Standing Committee of the 12th CPPCC National Committee, he was  appointed as a member of the 13th CPPCC National Committee.

17th Dongbo Jampa Tulku
He was born in December 1968 in Gyezur, Garze in Sichuan; he joined the Party in November 1983.

Dongbao Jampa Hutuktu, the 49-year old Tibetan tulku belongs to the Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism; he has been recognized by Tai Situ Rinpoche in India.
He is presently the Deputy Head of the China Buddhist Association, Vice Chairman of the CPPCC’s Shangri-La County in Dechen Prefecture of Yunnan Province and the vice president of the China Interpretation Association.

The 7th Reting Rinpoche
Tough not seen in Beijing during the Two Meetings, another lama Beijing is banking upon is Reting Rinpoche.
In January 2013, a 16-year old boy, recognised by the Communist Party as the 7th Reting Rinpoche was made the youngest member of Tibet’s CPPCC.
The Fifth Reting was the Regent of Tibet during the minority of the present Dalai Lama.
See 'Reting and the Dalai Lama's Incarnations'.

Hu Xuefeng (Mongolian)
Hu is abbot of the Yonghe Temple, also known as the Lama Temple in Dongcheng District of Beijing, China. The building and artwork of the temple is a combination of Han Chinese and Tibetan styles.
Though not Tibetan, Hu is very influential.
He was born in 1966 in the township of the Fuxin Mongolian Autonomous County. In 1981, he joined the Lama Temple and two years later was awarded a Masters degree.
In 1990, he was enrolled in the Senior High School of the Chinese Department of Tibetan Languages and in 1992, he graduated with honor. In 1994, he was elected as the deputy abbot of the Lama Temple. In January 2010, he was promoted to the abbot.
From 1995 to 2000, he was elected as the vice president of the Municipal Interpretation Association and the CPPCC member. In 2009, he was elected as the vice president of the Municipal Interpretation Association.

Beijing is trying its best to increase its control over the reincarnations of Tibetan lamas (and ultimately the Dalai Lamas), thus legitimising Communist rule in the Himalayan region. China has even revived the ancient title of Hutuktu, which was given by the Mongols and later the Manchus to Lama-rulers. Reting, like Pagphala, has also been styled as Hutuktu by Beijing.

Jamyang Shepa
Lamas like Jamyang Shape and Amchok Rinpoche should be added to this list.
Lobsang Jigme Thubten Chökyi Nyima, the present incarnation (the 6th) of the Jamyang Shepa, the head lama of the Labrang Tashikyl Monastery, in today’s Gansu province. He was born in 1948 and currently lives in Lanzhou, the capital of Gansu province. During the Cultural Revolution, Jamyang Shepa became a layman but retained a high degree of prestige in the area. The Jamyang Shepas have traditionally been the most prestigious teachers at Labrang Tashikhyil monastery.
The case of the Jamyang Shepa shows that the Chinese are keen to use the traditional hierarchy to put across their message.
In 2013, when Yu Zhengsheng of the Standing Committee of the Politburo visited Labrang, he met the Jamyang Shepa. At that time, Xinhua affirmed that the famous Monastery was 'one of the six great temples of the Geluk school of Tibetan Buddhism', Yu was received by the Jamyang Shepa as the traditional head of the monastery.

Amchok Rinpoche
A recent returnee from Dharamsala.
According to The Global Times, Amchok Rinpoche (written Achok by the Chinese): “the living Buddha, returned to China in May [2015] and has settled down in the Aba [Ngawa] Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture in Southwest China's Sichuan Province after he gained approval from Sichuan in April.” The Communist tabloid commented: “Move indicates futureless end of the Dalai Lama group”.
He may also play a role in finding the reincarnation …in China.

It seems that Beijing has now decided to bring forward its entire collection of ‘Living Buddhas’ to ‘spiritualize’ the Roof of the World; this, at a time when the Dalai Lama is working towards ‘secularising’ Tibetan society.
Moreover, their role will be to find the reincarnation of the 14th Dalai Lama.

The Propaganda battle has started
One of the ‘political advisors’ mentioned above, Lhakpa spoke at length to Xinhua about the progress of the religious freedom and the Jokhang Temple, “in downtown Lhasa, the regional capital of Tibet, is a must for visitors to Tibet and a sacred site for Tibetan Buddhists. It attracts about 800,000 tourists and receives over three million Buddhist followers each year.”
The Jokhang cathedral is “home to plenty of historical relics and typical Tibetan architecture. It was included in the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2000,” noted the agency.
Lhakpa is quoted saying that Beijing attaches “great importance to the protection and preservation of the temple. Five years ago, for example, the government invested over 60 million yuan (8.94 million U.S. dollars) in gilding the five golden roofs of the temple. The Buddha figures, thangka and murals in the temple have also been well preserved. To better protect these precious cultural relics, a database for Buddha statues and thangka in both Mandarin and Tibetan languages, launched in 2015, will be completed next year,” said Lhakpa.
According to the monk administrator, “more than 6,000 Buddha statues and over 600 thangka have been included in the database. The government has invested 100 million yuan in protecting the cultural relics."
Lhakpa concluded that as a political advisor, his job was “to serve all the people, including tourists, believers and researchers who visit the temple. We have personnel working 24/7 in the halls of the temple, including monks, firefighters and police officers to prevent the cultural heritage from being destroyed or stolen, and to ensure tourists' safety. …On the Lamp Festival, we have Dharma assembly here and the butter lamps are lit on top of the temple. Believers come to pray for happiness and health," he added.
It is clearly said that the monks’ duty is to serve the millions of Chinese tourists.
According to Lhakpa, like the Jokhang Temple, almost all the temples and monasteries in Tibet are under national or regional protection.
Incidentally, according to the official Tibet Daily, a fire broke out at 6:40 pm on February 17, 2018 in part of Jokhang Temple in Lhasa. It was eventually put off in the evening; the News Agency said: "Located at the center of old Lhasa, Jokhang Temple is a renowned temple for Tibetan Buddhism. It has a history of more than 1,300 years and houses many cultural treasures, including a life-sized statue of Sakyamuni when he was 12 years old."
This inauspiciously occurred on the second day of the Losar, the Tibetan New Year (Earth Dog Year).
During the Two Meetings, another ‘Living Buddha’, the Drigung Chungtsang stated that today's Tibet observes many traditional folk and religious activities: “The Shoton [yoghurt] festival at Drepung Monastery and the worship activities at Sera Monastery are among the most popular ones.”
The Drikung Lama added: "Tibetan Buddhists, young and old, would sway their praying wheels and chant sutras when significant activities are launched."
As vice chairman of the Tibet branch of the Buddhist Association of China, Drigung Rinpoche is in charge of the Kangyur printing: “The precious wooden templates of the Kangyur have been well preserved and printing is suspended in winter because cold weather may cause damage to the templates.”
Another ‘political advisor’ Lodro Gyatso, a senior monk from the Sakya Monastery told Xinhua that the monastery has two Buddhist colleges, “offering various classes including Tibetan language, Tibetan calligraphy, Buddhist texts, astronomy, calendrical calculation and philosophy to monks and lamas.”
A ‘returnee Living Buddha’ Jewan Koondhor is also one of ‘political advisors’. Xinhua noted that he spent most of his life outside (in Switzerland) and when he was 60 in 2011, he returned to his hometown, Chamdo in Tibet: “My hometown Chamdo has changed a lot and is continually improving. The traffic there today is much more convenient. I'm happy to be back," he told the agency.
He is a proponent of Shugden cult, and therefore violently anti-Dalai Lama.