|
|
Never before, and not since, has the relationship between the government of the PRC and Tibetan Buddhism been so brutally savage as it was during the ‘Cultural Evolution’. Such was the devastation that Alexander Solzehnitsyn commented that “[Chinas rule in Tibet] is more brutal and inhuman than any other communist regime in the world.”
To enforce its new policy towards Buddhism the state used two main tools, ‘re-education’ groups and the People’s Liberation Army. The ‘Cultural Revolution’ began officially in Tibet on the 25th of August 1966 with the sacking of Tsuglhaklang, or Jokhang, the main cathedral in Lhasa, the capital city of Tibet. The Cathedral was sacked, razed, and the relics destroyed . In itself this was senseless act, not to mention a cultural atrocity, however unfortunately it was only a spark of things to come.
These groups attempted to rout out hundreds of years of values set in Buddhism, and replacing the ideas with ones more favourable to the idea of a socialist workers paradise with Chairman Mao as the great leader. At times the re-education simply consisted of mandatory lectures, however imprisonment, torture, and beatings occurred, in order to install stronger lessons into those who proved unwilling to ‘volunteer’ for re-education. To this day re-education campaigns continue in Tibet especially among the remaining Buddhist institutions.
Along side the states widespread program of re-education the People’s Liberation Army, under the control of the state, conducted a program of destruction and cultural genocide. Following the example set by the attack on the Lhasa cathedral the PLA set upon hundreds of monasteries and nunneries sacking and razing them, and often enough killing the occupants. By 1978, the end of the ‘Cultural Revolution’ of the pre-invasion 2,700 monasteries, only 8 remained . These statistics make it clear that the PRC was at the time conducting a systematic extermination of Tibetan Buddhism.
As the cultural evolution drew to a close in the late 1970’s the state conceded that some level of Tibetan Buddhism would have to exist, and thus took measure to control it. When the PRC took steps to move away from the policy of extermination and towards a policy of control, it once again began to be possible to legally practice religion in Tibet, even if on a restricted scale.
Despite the enormous effort on behalf of the state to crush and control Buddhism in Tibet, it is yet to truly succeed. Tibetan Buddhism is so entrenched in the heart of the Tibetan people that while there is a Tibetan people, there will be Tibetan Buddhism. Despite its past atrocities the PRC has no wish or need to destroy the Tibetan people as they have attempted to destroy their religion and culture.
As is clearly demonstrated by the ‘Cultural Revolution’ the relationship between Tibetan Buddhism and the state of the Peoples Republic of China is one of conflict and control. Communist ideology regards religion as a threat to the revolution, and the Peoples Republic of China as taken steps to control and sometimes eliminate this threat both within China and in the occupied nation of Tibet.
In its efforts to control Buddhism in Tibet, the PRC attempted to first control it, then destroy it. The ‘Cultural Revolution’ represented the height of the PRC campaign to destroy Tibetan Buddhism, however despite their most brutal efforts Tibetan Buddhism continues to exist. Having failed to destroy both Tibetan culture and Religion, things which Tibetan hold as one, the PRC proceeded with a new policy of control towards Tibetan Buddhism. Despite repeated attempts at destruction, and endless efforts at control, Tibetan Buddhism resisted, proving that the Tibetan people and Tibetan Buddhism were and are one. A fact that despite many attempts and efforts, the PRC can never change.
Finn Cheshire
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Finn Cheshire
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
sherilyn | May 13th, 2002
without more info i can only make one minor objection, and that is that you can't define the relationship between two countries just on the events of one historical period- look at Germany.
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
