Publications

---

Annual Report 2004

THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION

Introduction

"The success of our education does not lie in the number of diplomas issued to graduates from universities, colleges, polytechnic schools, and secondary schools. It lies, in the final analysis, in whether our graduating students are opposed to or turn their hearts to the Dalai clique and in whether they are loyal to or do not care about our great motherland an the great socialist cause. This is the most salient and the most important criterion for assessing right and wrog, and the contributions and mistakes of our educational work in Tibet. To successfully solve the problem, we must improve political and ideological work in schools." ¹

Exactly 10 years have passed since Mr. Chen Kuiyuan, the Tibetan Autonomous Region (“TAR”) Party Secretary, expressed so unequivocally his views and concerns over the ultimate goals of education in Tibet. His words exemplified the guidelines that for several decades have been characterizing education in Tibet: an ideology-driven education, which seeks to instill loyalty to China and the socialist cause.

The provision of article 14 of the 1986 Compulsory Education Law, according to which teachers should be committed to the cause of socialist education, further reinforces the idea of a “patriotic education” that legitimizes the use of ideology in the teaching system.

Against this background, it appears to be clear that education in the “TAR” is not directed to the free and full development of the Tibetan children’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities. Instead, it becomes a tool that the central government can use to ensure political stability and ethnic unity within the region. In order to achieve these goals, education policies continue to target the young generations of Tibetans, undermining their identity through a biased representation of Tibetan history, a denial of their culture and traditions, and the relegation of Tibetan as a second-rate language.

In this regard, over the last twelve months there has been no tangible evidence of positive measures taken by the Chinese government with a view to preserving Tibetan historic, cultural, linguistic identity through the educational system implemented in the “TAR”.

Acceptability of education

Article 4 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities states that
“States should, where appropriate, take measures in the field of education, in order to encourage knowledge of the history, traditions, language and culture of the minorities existing within their territory.”

In practice, Tibetan students rarely receive any lessons on their culture or history. They are not allowed to honor any Tibetan holidays except for the Tibetan New Year, and are forced to celebrate Chinese holidays. They are also forbidden to wear Tibetan clothes at school.²

Moreover, Tibetan history continues to be subject to distorted representations in schools across Tibet. Such knowledge should be presented in a positive way in order to encourage tolerance and respect. Instead, bias in the presentation of Tibetan history results in low self-esteem within the Tibetan children and negative stereotypes towards them on the part of the Han Chinese community. It is reported that, because of such negative presentation of their history, Tibetan children are considered backwards and are frequently scolded by teachers and fellow-students.³

History textbooks play a major role in providing a biased representation of the history of Tibet. Chakjam Gyal, a student from Bokor village, located in the Tsolho Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture (“TAP”), stated:

“The school provides education from primary to higher secondary education. On my first year in the higher secondary school, we were introduced to a book entitled ‘Chinese language’ in which a separate chapter on the Potala Palace was given. Fostering an everlasting friendship between Tibet and China was given as the prime reason behind its construction.”⁴

In August 2004, a young monk near the Jhokhang temple in Lhasa, interviewed during a China-sponsored press trip of foreign journalists to Tibet, openly expressed his remorse for the lack of freedom of thought in Tibet and the compulsion to study a distorted version of the history of Tibet. He said:

“If someone from China says something about our history, and we know it is not true, because it is not what our scholars teach as the real history, but we cannot say so. We are not free to dispute. There is only one version of history allowed.”⁵

The biased teaching of Tibetan history and the denial of Tibetan culture and traditions by the education system in Tibet represent a violation of the legal obligations that China has undertaken by ratifying the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). In relation to article 13 (2) of the ICESCR, China has obligations to respect, protect and fulfill each of the “essential features” (availability, accessibility, acceptability, adaptability) of the right to education.⁶ “Acceptability” means that the form and substance of education, including curricula and teaching methods, have to be acceptable to the students. China has clearly failed to fulfill the acceptability of education, as it has not taken positive measures to ensure that education is culturally appropriate for Tibetan children, further depriving them of a genuine knowledge of their history, culture and traditions.

Linguistic identity jeopardized

China’s legislation authorizes the teaching of languages commonly used by specific or local ethnic groups.⁷ However, according to the law, this measure can be implemented only in schools - or other institutions of education - in which students of a minority ethnic group constitute the majority. This condition could open the door to a denial of the use of the Tibetan language in schools across the “TAR”, should Tibetan children become a minority within the school population, as a consequence of changes in the demographics of the region.

Yet, even when Tibetan children represent the majority of the students in the schools, the teaching of Tibetan is marginalized to the advantage of the Chinese language. The case of the Shinga County secondary school exemplifies how the educational policies of the Chinese government have a negative impact on the use and the preservation of the Tibetan language in the “TAR”. The school was founded by the 11th Panchen Lama to promote and revive Tibetan language, and is attended only by Tibetan children. There were initially 70 teachers, out of which only 10 were Chinese. However, the school administration was gradually taken over by the Chinese authority, and, as a consequence, Chinese teachers began to replace Tibetan teachers.

Tsering Kyi, a 19-year-old girl who studied at the Shingha County secondary school until July 2003, reported:

“Ever since then [the takeover by the Chinese authorities] the standard of Tibetan Language has been deteriorating. The class proceedings are now taken in Chinese language with only one hour of Tibetan class. The school administrators draw the attention of the students towards Chinese language, as they reckon that Chinese language will ensure them a career that would be otherwise difficult to pursue.”⁸

Article 4 (3) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities declares:

“States should take appropriate measures so that, wherever possible, persons belonging to minorities may have adequate opportunities to learn their mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue”.

In practice, as far as linguistic identity is concerned, China has not yet integrated the rights of the Tibetan minority in its education policies. Furthermore, instead of ensuring to the maximum of its available resources that the Tibetan linguistic identity is preserved, the Chinese government continues to turn a blind eye to a process that jeopardizes the very existence of Tibetan language, as this is progressively being replaced by Chinese as the sole language of education in school across the “TAR”. As the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, Ms. Katarina Tomaševski, has observed:

“An education that would affirm minority rights necessitates full recognition by the majority of the worth of minority languages and religions in all facets of life. Otherwise, education is seen as assimilationist and, hence, not compatible with China’s human rights obligations.”⁹

Moreover, if China’s 10th Five-Year Plan (2001-2005), which stressed the importance of recruiting teachers from China in order to develop education in Tibet,¹⁰ were to be fully implemented, the situation could further deteriorate as there would likely be an acceleration of the process of “sinicization” in the schools across Tibet.

Professor Dungkar Lobsang Trinley, one of the leading cultural and intellectual figures of modern Tibet and recognized by the Chinese authorities as a “national treasure”, has said:

“All hope in our future, all other developments, cultural identity, and protection of our heritage depends on this [Tibetan language]. Without educated people in all fields, able to express themselves in their own language, Tibetans are in danger of being assimilated. We have reached this point.” ¹¹

Accessibility of Education

In a press statement given on August 30th, 2004, the Executive Director of UNICEF, Ms. Carol Bellamy, expressed her concern over the fact that only 31% of children in Tibet have access to the compulsory nine years of education.¹²

Among the factors that could help explain such a low level of access to compulsory education among the children in the “TAR” is that there are undoubtly the financial obstacles that parents often have to face in order to secure basic education for their children. Article 10 of the 1986 People’s Republic of China’s Compulsory Education Law proclaims that the state shall not charge tuition for students receiving compulsory education. However, the realization of a compulsory education that is free to all in Tibet has not yet been achieved.

As the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, Ms. Katarina Tomaševski, stated, compulsory education has not been made free in China.¹³ Although she did not specify whether she was including the “TAR” in her assessment on the freedom of compulsory education in China, the evidence collected by TCHRD suggests that Ms. Tomaševski’s statement can certainly apply to the school system in the “TAR”.

Over that last twelve months numerous interviews have been conducted by TCHRD with Tibetan refugees. The majority of their testimonies reveal that children across the “TAR” are often facing unaffordable school fees and other informal costs of education.

Tenzin Nyima, a 14-year-old girl from Lhasa, studied for six months at a middle school in Lhasa before her parents withdrew her and sent her to India in search for better education. She told about her brief experience in the middle school:

“The tuition fees are two times higher than in primary school and the expenditures for books and stationery have to be sustained by the students themselves.”¹⁴

Tsering Kyi, a 19-year-old girl who studied at the Shingha County secondary school until July 2003, reported:

“Students need to pay 270 Yuan twice a year as school fees; in addition they also have to pay for their food a sum which increases with the increment of their grade. Moreover, school management often resorts to collecting money from the students for miscellaneous expenses.”¹⁵

School fees and other out-of-pocket costs that prevent families from sending their children to school represent a clear obstacle towards the realization of the accessibility of education.

This is in contrast with China’s legal obligations stemming from the ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which, at article 13 (2) declares that “Primary education shall be compulsory and available free to all” and that “Secondary education in its different forms, [...] shall be made generally available and accessible to all by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education”.¹⁶

Availability of Education

Another factor that may be contributing to the low levels of Tibetan children attending school is the complete lack of schools in some remote areas of the region. The problem affects mostly the rural areas, where children have to walk long distances or are forced to use other modes of transportation such as horses in order to reach their schools. Faced with this difficulty children often find it to difficult to make the journey to school, and, as a result, some of them eventually drop out and are left with no choice but to work in agriculture.

Ngawang Lhamo, a 19-year-old girl from Samye Village, approximately 50 kilometers southeast of Lhasa, stated:

“Children are denied of educational opportunities because there are no schools in their locality. As a result they take up farming. There are schools in the County but I have to travel three hours on a vehicle to reach the school from my place. So it is hard for students to attend school.”¹⁷

Tenzin, an 18-year-old boy from Lhagoag Village in Chatren County, located in the Sichuan province, stated:

“The children of my village and the neighbors have no access to schools. There are almost no students attending the County schools, as there are no adequate roads for vehicles. As a result, from generation to generation the children have been engaged in farming. The villagers have made appeals for the construction of a school, but so far the Chinese authorities have taken no steps in that direction.”¹⁸

Kyizom, a 16-year-old girl living in the same village, stated:

“Until recently, there was no school. As a result most of the people are illiterate. A few years back, under the initiative of the head of the village, parents were asked to send to school one child between 7-14 years old from each family. However, the students have to ride horse and it takes one day to reach the school. Moreover, the education standards of the teachers are poor and the school’s infrastructure is wretched. The students gradually become demoralized and cause problems to their families.”¹⁹

Under article 13 (2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) China has a legal obligation to make education available to all. Thus, the Chinese government’s failure to make schools available in sufficient quantity across Tibet is in contrast to its specific obligations to fulfill one of the essential features of the right to education.

Educational freedom: no choice but exile

As the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, Ms. Katarina Tomaševski, has pointed out:

“China’s legislation defines education as a right as well as an obligation.²⁰ The further specification of nine years of education as compulsory reinforces its definition as an obligation.²¹[...] Local authorities have often resorted to the law on compulsory education to force parents to enroll their children, and fines have been imposed [...] for their failure to do so.”²²

Parents have to send their children to school under the threat of legal enforcement, but they cannot choose education for their children.²³ They face increasing difficulties in securing for their children an education that respects their culture, history and traditions and that help preserve the linguistic diversity of the Tibetan people. Thus, they are often left with no option but to send their children across the Himalayas to Tibetan schools in India.

Tsamchoe Lhamo, who reached the Tibetan Reception Center in Katmandu, Nepal, after fleeing Tibet on April 25th, 2004, stated:

“In June 2003, PSB officials of Shigatse Prefecture made an official announcement in 29 villages of the Dingri County to prevent families from sending their children to study in Tibetan schools in India and instead make it compulsory for families to send their children in Chinese administered schools. The authorities also warned that those parents who failed to send their children to study in the Chinese schools would even face a prison sentence. In Yuljong village, around 20 families were fined 1500 Yuan each for their inability to send their children to Chinese school. [...] Mrs. Passang, mother of three children, was fined 6000 Yuan for sending them to school in India.”²⁴

Against the principle set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, at article 13, proclaims that “everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own”, the Chinese authorities impose upon Tibetans severe restrictions to their freedom of movement, making it nearly impossible for them to travel outside China to receive education in Tibetan schools in exile. Nevertheless, Tibetan children continue to risk their lives fleeing Tibet in search for an education that preserves their language, culture, history and traditions.

Since the early ‘80s well over 7,000 children have risked everything to journey across the Himalayas in the hope that they will receive in exile the kind of education that they have been denied back home. Between January and August 2004, 2,416 new refugees have reached the Tibetan Reception Centre in Dharamsala. Of these refugees, children under the age of 13 constitute 20.98 %, while youth between the age of 14 and 25 constitute 40.23 %. Therefore, young Tibetan refugees account for 61.21 % of the total number of new escapees into India in eight months. In the month of September, 238 new Tibetan refugees arrived in Dharamsala. 81.93 % of whom were below the age of 25. The total number of Tibetan refugees who arrived at the Tibetan reception center from 1991 until June 2004 was 43,634, 59.74% of which were below the age of 25.

Conclusion

In 1996, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), in its concluding observations on the periodic report submitted by China, expressed concerns

“about reports that school attendance in minority areas, including the Tibet Autonomous Region, is lagging behind, that the quality of education is inferior and that insufficient efforts have been made to develop a bilingual education system which would include adequate teaching in Chinese. These shortcomings may disadvantage Tibetan and other minority pupils applying to secondary and higher level schools”.²⁵

Regrettably, the above remarks still accurately describe the situation of education in Tibet to date.

It is unquestionable that over the last eight years the Chinese government has allocated considerable amount of resources aimed at improving the education system in Tibet. Increased budgetary expenditure on education for “minority nationalities” has been greatly emphasized by the Chinese government in its initial report submitted to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR).²⁶ However, no mention is made of any concrete measure adopted by the authorities with a view to integrating minority rights into their educational policies.

China’s report is clearly reflective of the government’s one-dimensional approach to the realization of the right to education in Tibet. The Chinese government seems to fail to understand that spending on education, although necessary, is not sufficient to ensure that Tibetan children fully enjoy their right to receive an education that respects and preserves the Tibetan culture and identity. Mr. Asbjørn Eide, Chairperson of the Working Group on Minorities of the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, has written:

“The protection of minorities is intended to ensure that integration does not become unwanted assimilation or undermine the group identity of persons living on the territory of the State.”²⁷

Thus, as a “minority nationality”, Tibetans are entitled to a special safeguard under a human rights perspective. Tibetan culture, history and traditions require not only acceptance and tolerance of their own characteristics, but also a positive attitude on the part of the Chinese government. Protection of the Tibetan identity means that the China should abstain from policies that have the purpose or effect of assimilating the Tibetan minority into the dominant culture. In this regard, the Chinese government’s educational policies are crucial. Denying Tibetans the possibility of learning their own language and of receiving instruction in their own language, or excluding from their education the transmission of knowledge about their own culture, history, tradition and language, is a clear violation of the obligation to protect their identity.

On June 9th 2003 officials of the Lhasa Public Security Bureau (PSB) dressed in civilian clothes entered the campus of the Tibet University in Lhasa, the capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region (“TAR”). They searched the students’ dorm and found a number of political writings and a letter addressed to the United Nations. Five students were immediately arrested on grounds of “splitting the motherland, undermining unity of nationalities and violating the constitution”. They were detained in the “TAR” PSB Detention Centre. The five had clandestinely written political essays and formed a secret group called “Tibetan Democractic Youth Group.” Since the group was only involved in preparation for a political activity and had not carried out any public activity, four of its members were released after a month of detention and allowed to return to the University. However, a fifth student, Dawa Tashi, was suspected of being the ringleader and was kept in detention. He was eventually released on August 12th 2003. Upon his return to the University the Principal and the Head of the Tibetan Department accused Dawa of damaging the University’s reputation and inciting other students against the government. A University assembly consisting of three thousand students and faculty members was called and Dawa was condemned for his “splittist activities”. As a result, Dawa was expelled from the university on August 25th 2003 with only one examination left to graduate. Therefore he decided to go into exile and reached Dharamsala in early 2004.

In this brief interview with TCHRD, Dawa talks about his experience as a student in Tibet and discusses some issues dealing with the situation of education in Tibet at university level. He also expresses his thoughts as he looks back at life from exile.

Q: Why did you decide to leave Tibet?
A: After being labeled as a “splittist” and thrown out of university, it is hard to lead a normal life in Tibet. You are kept under constant watch by the authorities and your family comes under immense pressure. I lost hope and started feeling useless. Therefore, I made the decision to flee into exile. That way at least my family can be relieved from pressure. Besides, I thought maybe I could be of better use for the Tibetan cause from exile.

Q: Do you think that you made the right decision to flee Tibet?
A: I think so. Here in exile I am able to get information about international news and stories; this is not possible in Tibet. I am happy to learn and gain more knowledge. But I am very sad that I had to separate from the rest of my family members too.

Q: Looking back, what do you think went wrong? Do you have any regrets?
A: I have no regrets, although I regret that I did not have the opportunity to generate the activity we had planned.

Q: What kind of impact do you think your activities, arrest and finally being thrown out of university would have on other Tibetan students in your university?
A: The manner in which authorities handle cases like mine is very intimidating to anyone. I was called a “splittist”, named and shamed in front of 3000 students and teachers. I was rebuked for giving the university a bad name and kicked out of university for my actions. Other students were clearly told that if they got involved in such activities, they too would meet the same fate. In the past many times we were told of Lobsang Tenzin, who is serving a life sentence for his “splittist” activities, and warned that if we did what he had done, we too could be met with the same fate. So students naturally get scared. No one wants to get into trouble but I believe that those who feel the need to protest for the larger interest of our people will do so.

Q: What is your understanding of human rights? Is there any awareness of human rights is in Tibet?
A: Here we here mention the United Nations and human rights on radio and TV. Sometimes, we also hear some persons mentioning these terms in public places like teashops and restaurants. We don’t know who they are. Generally, the local public is unaware of rights as such. People have no knowledge; they don’t talk about human rights. People only know what official media is telling them. That’s all.

Q: Now that you have been in exile for nearly a year in India and have seen Tibetans living here, what do you make of the difference in human freedom between here and Tibet?
A: I can tell that the difference is like the sky and earth. When I arrived here, I had the privilege of watching the annual session of the Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies (ATPD). The Deputies were raising issues and concerns of the public with the representatives of the government-in-exile freely, openly and without fear. You cannot do this in Tibet or China. There, during meetings your facial expression is taken note of. It is utmost important not seen to be disagreeing to the government’s policies or questioning them. It is very dangerous if you do that.

Q: As far as you know, do teachers and students in universities in Tibet have the possibility of freely expressing their thoughts?
A: Generally speaking, teachers and students are free to express their opinions, as long as they do not talk about political issues, especially about independence for Tibet.

Q: Can students freely associate within their universities to form students’ unions and other associations of the kind?
A: Yes, students are allowed to form associations aimed at improving the students’ general welfare, but they cannot freely set up any kind of association that tries to advance a political cause.

Q: Do students have a saying, individually or through their associations, in the matters concerning the university’s administration and policies?
A: Students can voice their concerns over certain issues, for instance to push for the introduction of the Tibetan language as a teaching medium. However, I would not go that far as to say that students can exert a real and effective pressure upon the university administration. In fact, they cannot have an impact on the educational policies and cannot really change things within their university.

Q: What is the level of political pressure, if there is any, exerted by the government authorities on the university administration?
A: Generally, the university administration has a certain degree of autonomy in deciding matters concerning education within the institution. However, it has to strictly adhere to the regulations and guidelines set out by the Ministry of Education and cannot cross the line when it comes to implementing those regulations. Moreover, if very serious matters arise, the university administration generally has to report to Government officials.

Q: How are subjects like politics and history taught in universities?
A: If a teacher gives classes on the history of Tibet, he can only follow the official guidelines established for the teaching of history, and, most importantly, he must stick to what history textbooks say. There is no possibility for the teacher to go beyond what is in the textbooks.

Q: Can students challenge the content of the textbooks and engage in a debate with the teacher?
A: When I was taught the history of Tibet, students and teachers seemed to believe that what was said in the textbooks was correct, so there was no need for any debate. Students can challenge the official version of history presented, but they seem to be genuinely convinced of the veracity of the version presented to them.

Q: Do students have the possibility to find textbooks presenting alternative version of history and politics in the university libraries?
A: Books that do not deal with politics are usually available in libraries. However, as far as politics and history are concerned, only books whose publication has officially been authorized by the Government are made available to the public.

Q: Is there any liberty to establish educational institutions at the university level?
A: As far as I know, there are several private-funded initiatives to establish educational institutions, but not at the level of University.

Q: Do you mean that there is no possibility of receiving a college education that differs substantially from that provided by the State?
A: That is correct. In Tibet there is no trace of private academic institutions at the university level. All universities are established and run by the Government.

Q: What are the basic requirements to get admitted into college?
A: The basic requirement is the achievement of a national pre-established admission score, which is calculated on the basis of the marks that students receive when they complete high school. The admission score is the same all over China. However, in Tibet the admission threshold is set at a lower level. This provision has been designed to encourage students belonging to the Tibetan minority to enroll at universities.

Q: Are university fees affordable?
A: The annual tuition fee is around 3000 Yuan. Boarding is approximately 800 Yuan. Books and stationary can cost up to 150 Yuan.

Q: Do you think that is affordable considering Tibet’s standards of living?
A: I could not tell if that would be considered expensive for an average Tibetan. What I know is that in mainland China university fees are twice as expensive as in Tibet. I can also say with absolute certainty that for the average Tibetan family living in a rural area those fees would be almost prohibitive.

Q: What do you think are the most negative aspects of the education in universities in Tibet?
A: I think that the most negative aspect is that only a restricted number of subjects, like Tibetan history, culture and traditional medicine, continue to be taught in Tibetan. All the other subjects are not taught in Tibetan but only in Chinese. Students have absolutely no chance to receive teaching in Economics, Political Science, Law, etc. in their own language.

Q: If the Chinese Government were not be in charge of education in Tibet, do you think that the situation of universities would be better?
A: I would definitely say that the education system in Tibet would be better, mainly because all subjects would be thought in Tibetan. I think it would be more interesting and easier for students to learn. Moreover, students would have the opportunity to discuss political issues, something that is still being precluded to them. I also think that if China were not ruling Tibet there could be more Tibetan students studying in Universities across Tibet, as Chinese students are increasingly occupying seats that are meant for Tibetan students.

Dawa Tashi, was born 25 years ago in Nagartse County, Lhoka Prefecture, “TAR”. He studied in a village Elementary School from 1988 to 1991 and in Nagartse Government Primary School from 1991 to 1994. After completing Secondary School in 2000, he studied in the Tibetan Department at Tibet University in Lhasa until his expulsion in August 2003.