Hi,欢迎光临:佛母网

Seeing through the Lies and Wedges of Dissension

文章标签: 密宗学习 密宗研究 密宗修行 密宗实证
admin 发表于 2013-03-12, 12:21 PM. 发表在: TrueHeartNews
Seeing through the Lies and Wedges of Dissension - An echo to the China Time’s article “The Myths about the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Issue” (Part 2) (Reproduced)
Published:2013/3/12 08:00
(By the True Heart News interviewing team in Taipei)In response to Donghua's article The Myths about the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Issue, the Tibet Religious Foundation of H.H. the Dalai Lama published a rebuttal against it on its official website. The “Fact #2” presented in this rebuttal was supported by three arguments - interspersed with divisive lies - that proffer the Dalai foundation’s misrepresentations: “China has implemented the policy of ‘internal colonialism’ in Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia with deliberate political purpose and the Han Chinese are also victims of China's authoritarian system.”
Zhang Gongpu, Chairman of the True Enlightenment Education Foundation comments that this issue needs to be approached from three distinct perspectives. First and foremost, the territories where the alleged "colonization" takes place should be clearly specified; in other words, it needs to be determined whether the territories the rebuttal claimed to be colonized are truly “internal territories.” Otherwise, further discussion would be meaningless and each side would be merely talking to themselves. Once the alleged territories being colonized are defined then the lawfulness of the policy in concern as well as the appropriateness of its implementation can be discussed. The major issues concerning “internal colonialism,” Chairman Zhang points out, have already been scrupulously verified in Donghua’s article. In a stern and principled tone, Donghua presents a thorough explication with regard to the territorial dispute, specifically, the disagreements between the two sides, the historical changes and development of those territories, as well as their current situation.
Chairman Zhang observes that, in contrast to Donghua’s well-reasoned article, the rebuttal gives weak arguments that hardly stand up to scrutiny. Going against usual debate tactics, it addresses the legitimacy of its territorial claim as the last argument. Interestingly, it launches its arguments by recalling a tangential, isolated human rights event that took place years ago. The Chairman believes that this setup was designed to sidetrack the issue by playing a “sympathy card.” However, such “perspective issue” is categorically different from a “governance issue” and should not be tangled up in a rational debate as emotions will skew judgment and render the debate futile.
Moreover, statements such as "the Han Chinese are also victims of China's authoritarian regime” are used to support the rebuttal’s first argument. Chairman Zhang says these sorts of claims amount to political attack and intentionally pit people against those in the office. Apparently, the rebuttal was not seeking to reach a mutual ground via communication but was deliberately trying to engineer more conflicts and larger scale of chaos and uncertainty. The distasteful motive behind this kind of rhetoric serves a particular interest by shifting the focus. Chairman Zhang emphasizes that this dispute cannot be rectified unless we can see through and bypass these divisive lies and restore the focus to the issue which has been purposely played down - the rebuttal’s “Greater Tibet” claim in its third argument.
The Chairman points out that the most controversial part of this dispute concerns the territorial right of Qinghai, Xikang, Sichuan, Gansu and Yunnan. Donghua tactfully showed that these regions have always been the ancestral homeland of various ethnic groups and the Tibetans were actually one of the last to settle down there. A majority of the increase in the number of Dalai’s so-called "immigrants" were actually the natural descendants of the native Han people who have lived there for generations. The “Greater Tibet” regions advocated in the rebuttal not only include the Tibet Autonomous Region, but go so far as to cover most of the Qinghai Province, and a small part of Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan, with an overall area twice as big as the current area of the Tibet Autonomous Region. Chairman Zhang compares this territorial claim of the “Greater Tibet” to a blackmailer who extorts someone with an inflated bargaining chip he doesn’t actually have.
Mr. Xu Mingxu, an expert on the Tibetan issue, states in his book Intrigues and Devoutness: The Origin and Development of the Tibet Riots that “…in the Dalai Lama’s ‘Greater Tibet,’ apart from the Tibetan nationality, there also reside seventeen other non-Tibetan nationalities, including Han, Hui, Mongol, Tu, Salar, Kazak, Lisu, Naxi, Drung, Nu, Yi, Bai, Yugur, Dongxiang, Qiang, Uygur and Bonan, all of which have lived there for generations. While the Dalai Lama claimed that these people were ‘immigrants’ relocated by the Chinese Government to the ‘Greater Tibet,’ he knew very well that no one would find it credible that all sixteen non-Tibetan and non-Han ethnic groups were civilians transferred by the Chinese Government. Therefore, he vaguely referred to all of them as ‘Chinese’ to give Westerners the impression that they were all Han Chinese and fashioned the myth that ‘on the land of Tibetans (Greater Tibet), Han Chinese totally outnumbered Tibetans.’” (Note 1)
欢迎转载分享但请注明出处及链接,商业媒体使用请获得相关授权。
分享到:
|  2015-07-03发布  |   次关注    收藏