Publications

---

Annual Report 2004

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Introduction

The state of religious freedom in Tibet in the year 2004 continues to be of concern with religious repression affecting many levels of Buddhist life and practice. Despite the fact that, the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China promises freedom of religious beliefs for all people, where in reality Chinese authorities continue to violate religious freedom in Tibet.

In recent years, ensuring stability and security are cited as major reasons by the Chinese authorities for justifying religious restrictions in Tibet. The tightening of religious freedom in Tibet is being carried out through the legal management of religious institutions, such as by the Democratic Management Committee (DMC)¹ and the Religious Affairs Bureau (RAB)². As the Democratic Management Committee’s “work teams”³ are concentrating their “patriotic re-education”⁴ campaigns in major monasteries and nunneries, such as by prohibiting the display of the Dalai Lama’s photo, inciting the closure of schools and monasteries that are suspected of teaching “splittist ideology,” along with constant interference by the DMC authorities in the administrative affairs of religious institutions. Subsequently, the activities of monks and nuns in larger institutions are strictly controlled and monitored.

Officials at all levels in Tibet are now being exhorted to strengthen control over monasteries and over the process of identifying reincarnations of important Buddhist monks and nuns. Crackdowns on prayer ceremonies for the Dalai Lama and important religious institutions in eastern Tibet in recent years have been described by some Tibetans as being like a ‘second Cultural Revolution.”⁵

Particularly of great concern to the Chinese Party in recent years, has been the influence held over the people by important religious leaders which is seen as a threat, or a “split loyalty” to the Chinese State. However, Buddhism is the fabric of Tibetan identity, which the Party views as intrinsically linked to nationality and thus it is seen as a threat by the Chinese authorities over their rule in Tibet. As a result, eligious leaders in Tibet continue to face persecution, official harassment and intimidation. This year was no exception, and witnessed the ongoing persecution of religious leaders in Tibet. For instance, the whereabouts, and well being of the11th Panchen Lama Gendun Choekyi Nyima still remain unknown after he and his parents disappeared in 1995. The fate of Trulku Tenzin Delek’s death penalty is still uncertain; his execution is set for 26 Jan 2005. In the case of Chadrel Rinpoche, the former abbot of Tashi Lhunpo Monastery he completed his six years prison term in 2002, but is still being kept under house arrest by Chinese authorities. Also, Champa Chungla, the secretary of search committee for the 11th Panchen Lama’s reincarnation continues to be held in detention by Chinese authorities despite the completion of his prison term on 16 May 2003.

Ironically, on 26 September 2004, the Chinese appointed Panchen Lama, Gyaltsen Norbu made his third official visit to Tibet, and praised the Chinese leadership for protecting and ensuring religious freedom in Tibet.

On a positive note, the Geshe Lharampa degree examination was officially resumed in August 2004, after a ban of fifteen years. The Geshe Lharampa degree is the highest level of erudition in Tibetan Buddhist philosophy and takes more than twenty years to master, and is equivalent to Doctorate Degree in the West. Unfortunately, the Geshe Lharampa exam was reinstated with an additional State prerequisite to study six books concerning political ideologies.

Democratic Management Committee (DMC)

In 1990 during the Standing Committee meeting of National People’s Congress the former President Jiang Zemin, and the then Premier Li Peng proposed the legal management of religious affairs.

In the spirit of such legal management, the Democratic Management Committee or (Tib: mang gtso bdag nyer uyon lhan khang) poses a serious challenge to freedom of religious beliefs’ in Tibet. As the DMC is meant to empower Chinese authorities legally to carry out inspection, vigilance, supervision, searches, raids and infiltration by tightly controlling all aspects of religious activities in monasteries and nunneries. Moreover, DMC policies have a disregard for the traditional Tibetan monastic system, and are a break in the convention of Tibetan culture. Thus the Democratic Management Committee is a further attempt to replace the functioning of traditional Tibetan Buddhism by a Chinese version of monastic administration and control. The cardinal principle of the DMC is the legal management of religious affairs, where monks and nuns are expected to display a level of allegiance to the Party in the form professing loyalty, and allegiance to the State.

It was during the Third Work Forum on Tibet in 1994 that the relationship between the monastic institutions and pro-independence movements in Tibet were established. In an article appearing in the Tibet Daily (Chinese language version) 25 November 1994 the Party’s view of the Dalai Lama is stated as the following:

“We must emphasize that we must look squarely at the reality that the Dalai clique is using religion for its splittist activities; we must expose the fact that the Dalai is using the mask of religion to cover up his political features; and we must firmly stop the Dalai clique from influencing lamas and nuns in Tibet in any way. The broad masses of people, lamas and nuns, no matter whether or not they are Party members or cadres, must politically draw a clear line of demarcation with the Dalai clique.” ⁶

The exact origin and date of the development of the Democratic Management Committee are difficult to pinpoint. However, it was in 1994 as an outcome of the Third Tibet Work Forum held in Beijing, that the role of the democratic Management Committee’s implementation in Tibet continued to be given great importance.⁷ The resulting new emphasis led to a renewed vigor in DMC activities in Tibet from 1996 onwards.

The DMC administration was set up in all temples, monasteries and nunneries so that monks and nuns can manage their own affairs under DMC guidelines while being over- seen by DMC representatives. DMC representatives could be officially endorsed monks and nuns or could be a State approved lay person. The DMC “work team” officials are responsible for distributing State documents and enforcing Government policies in the religious institutions. DMC officials pay special attention and vigilance to implementing their policies in larger religious institutions. In other words, DMC management and policies are an apparatus of Party control, in which the long-standing independence of religious institutions once enjoyed in Tibet is under threat.

Through the official means of the Democratic Management Committee, affairs within religious institutions are being restricted and controlled in the areas: of ritual and esoteric practices, transmission of oral instructions, retreats, as well as studying and worshipping. It is through the DMC, that authorities in last ten years successfully carried out the implementation of political education classes, and the propagating of Party policies and ideologies in religious institutions wherein monks and nuns are required to study political books. The entire campaign of “patriotic education” which proliferated for the last ten years was in fact being carried out under the mechanisms of “work teams” in initial years and later by the DMC. These restrictions will inevitably lead to the erosion of the foundation of Buddhism in Tibet, thus placing a serious strain on Tibetan Buddhism. Furthermore, the Democratic Management Committee, in hand with “patriotic re-education” campaign, subsequently implemented in religious institutions are undoubtedly ideological attempts by the State in usurping the foundations of Tibetan Buddhism, in an attempt to supercede the ideologies of an atheist State into Buddhist practices.

Source Book of Current Chinese Documents on Religious Policy⁸ contains four documents on religious policy with a number of key questions and answers given by Chinese authorities. The documents contain rules for monks and nuns in monasteries, advocating Science and Technology and doing away with Superstitions, educating in Anti-Splittism and an education in Party Policy on Religion. The documents outline the ongoing religious repression in Tibet. The document also stressed the importance of the theoretical and ideological Marxist views in the context of modernizing Tibet. It is in this attempt for modernization, that the sensitivity towards the maintenance and preservation of Tibetan Buddhist heritage is being overlooked and in the process faces neglect and destruction. In short, the implications of such policies are that religious institutions are being operated to a certain degree under the authority of the State; in other words the Chinese State is working towards a shift in power from Tibetan religious leaders to the central authority of the Party.

Ironically as stated in Chinese published book China’s Tibet, 2004, Facts and Figures:

“The policy of freedom of religious beliefs shall be carried out in Tibet. The religious beliefs, customs and habits of the Tibetan people shall be protected, and lamaseries shall be protected.”⁹

Nevertheless, it is apparent that Religion is to serve the “overall aims of the Party and state, deepening the tie between the Party and the masses and to safeguard the state security.”¹⁰ Moreover, clearly mandating religion to serve the purpose of State means the Party is violating the freedom of people’s choice to separate religion from political obligation.

“Patriotic Re-education” Campaign

It was during the Third Tibet Work Forum, convened in 1994, that Chinese leaders explicitly began to focus on the Dalai Lama and the so-called “hostile separatist forces” based abroad.

The “patriotic re-education” campaign was the outcome, resulting in the Party’s new policies on religion, with the placing of new restrictions on religious institutions. The “patriotic re-education” campaign was then carried out by the Democratic Management Committee. The intensification of the patriotic re-education campaign was later stepped up in Tibet in 1996, which introduced as a new requirement a series of political texts into monastic studies, and also stressed allegiance to the State and the denunciation of the Dalai Lama. The patriotic re-education campaign was also meant to target and suppress any sign of political unrest in religious institutions, which the Chinese authorities seem to consider as a source of political dissidence.

Here, politically the issue of religion is a sensitive topic in Socialist China, given the fact that the communist ideology is based and founded on the principle of “atheism”. While attempting to understand Beijing’s view of the Dalai Lama one must also consider the complex political history of the violently suppressed pro-independence movements in Tibet during 1987, 1988, and 1989 which prompted a shift in China’s religious policies in Tibet. Another factor that may have led to the compounding fears of political unrest among Chinese leaders was the unexpected outbreak in Beijing of the student-led protest in Tiananmen Square. The violent handling of the protest by the PRC brought about international shock and condemnation; subsequently prompting China’s human rights abuses to the forefront of international attention. Around this time the Dalai Lama continued to gain growing support in the international community for the Tibetan cause. Not surprisingly, this complicated fabric of socio-political events have had a lasting bearing on the way Chinese leaders see loyalty of the Tibetans to the Dalai Lama, and how such loyalty threatens the legitimacy of Chinese rule of Tibet.

Thus, under the directive of Religious Affairs Bureau (RAB) and its smaller committee of DMC, “work teams” were established to carry out and conduct the patriotic re-education classes instituted in the religious institutions for monks and nuns, making them among other things, to write essays denouncing the Dalai Lama. This campaign also entails a five point requirement, including the acceptance of Tibet as an inalienable part of China, as well as attempts to cultivate the love of one mother country under the slogan “Love Your Country Love Your Religion” (Tib: rgayl khches ring lugs bsam bloi slob gso), recognizing the Chinese appointed Panchen Lama and finally, denouncing the Dalai Lama as a traitor/splittist.

Under the “patriotic re-education” the authorities also imposed bans on admitting monks and nuns under the age of eighteen, saying that those individuals under the age-limit are too young to study in religious institutions. All other monks and nuns are required to register with the DMC officials, those who do not possess a registration card or stay permit, are expelled from the monasteries. Furthermore, the monasteries and nunneries have a required “ceiling” of monks and nuns who are allowed to legally stay and study at the monasteries. Moreover, monks and nuns who have not registered with the DMC and those who have resisted the re-education classes, are forced to leave the monasteries, or go into hiding when “work teams” visit their monasteries.

In relation, under the banner of “patriotic re-education” campaign the Chinese authorities have also expelled large numbers of monks and nuns from religious institutions who refuse to adhere to the requirements of the ‘patriotic re-education’ campaign.

Official interference by work team officials an dlater under the DMC has also arisen in regards to monastic reconstruction efforts, as expressed by Dhamchoe Dolma¹¹ a nun aged 29, who served six years in Drapchi Prison in (“TAR”), Dhamchoe testified to TCHRD about her activities in Tibet and atrocities she suffered in Prison. She was from the Changra Village, Lhundup County, Lhasa City. At the age of seventeen she was ordained as a nun at Shar Bumpa Nunnery in Phenpo County. The Shar Bumpa nunnery was badly destroyed during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) and the local Tibetans tried to reconstruct the nunnery through donations within the town. Nuns participated in the reconstruction through manual labor, and collected donations for reconstruction. In March of 1993 a team of Lhundup County officials came to the reconstruction site when majority of the work was completed. The officials stopped the rest of reconstruction, created disturbance, and intimidated the nuns. They also issued fresh guidelines for the number of nuns allowed in the nunneries, calling for additional reductions in the number of nuns admitted to the nunnery.

In the aftermath of the confrontation at the nunnery, “work team” officials from Lhasa City and Lhundup County later returned to the nunnery to conduct patriotic re-education classes, for one month.

Clearly, this incident is a violation of the Chinese constitution, which claims freedom of religious belief and worship for all citizens in which is stated in Article 36, Chapter two that,

“Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion.

The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state...”

Here it is apparent that the continuing restrictions imposed on religious practice in Tibet contradicts the freedoms enshrined in the constitution, as well as ignores the provisions of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR). As stated in Article 18 of the UDHR

“Everyone has the the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief , and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Despite international and Chinese law, it seems apparent that religion in Tibet is greatly restricted, particularly in areas deemed politically sensitive by the Chinese administration.

Anti-Dalai Lama Campaign

A point of contention for Beijing is what is seen as the issue of Tibetans’ “split loyalty” towards the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authority. The Chinese authorities intensified their official anti-Dalai Lama stand during the policies of Fourth Session of the Sixth Regional People’s Congress held on 24 May 1996, where they stated that the Dalai Lama is the “chief villain” who must be “publicly exposed and criticized...stripping away his cloak of being a “religious leader”.

Moreover, the restrictions of religious freedom in Tibet are being implemented in a two-prong strategy. The first being to force Tibetans particularly monks and nuns, to adhere to a five point denunciation, wherein they must state that the Dalai Lama is a traitor and splittist, while also forcing them to agree to the historical unity of Tibet as having always been a part of China. Next, monks and nuns must recognize the Chinese appointed Panchen Lama; and finally they must declare their personal opposition to separatism. The Chinese authorities also banned all Tibetans from possessing the Dalai Lama’s portraits/photos, praying for his well being, invoking his name, observing his birth day celebrations or showing any expression of faith and loyalty to his historical stature.

From a reference taken from an International Campaign for Tibet report, When the Sky Fell To Earth, Party members officially involved in the “patriotic re-education” campaign in the “TAR” in 1997 summed up their view of the Dalai Lama as this,

“what kind of person is the Dalai? The Dalai is the main leader of the splittists who conspire for Tibet Independence, a tool used by international anti-China forces to promote hostility, the chief inspiration for those causing unrest within Tibetan society, and all those who obstruct the re-establishment of discipline in the regulations of Buddhist [monasteries] in Tibet “¹²

Overall, it is apparent that a great challenge for Chinese leaders is winning the hearts and minds of Tibetan people in their favor. Since, the communist state runs on the absolute loyalty and allegiance to the State, it is natural that the stature of Dalai Lama in the hearts of Tibetan people is taken as a point of concern to the PRC’s legitimacy over their rule in Tibet. Thus, one of the main concerns in China’s battle over Tibet has been dealing with the spiritual authority of the Dalai Lama and his political stature in the world community. Clearly, this year religious repression under the banner of “patriotic re-education” continues to be very high.

Persecution

TCHRD has received information about the continuing anti-Dalai campaign in the Kardze region of Sichuan Province. According to testimony received by TCHRD, it appears the year 2004 was marked by the continued enforcement of the anti-Dalai Lama campaign. Samten¹³, 38 from Ghechoe Village in Kardze Prefecture (“TAR”) states,

“In 1992, Chinese officials visited Kardze Monastery. The monks were called in for meetings thrice every month and were instructed to denounce the “Dalai Clique” while claiming allegiance with the State. The officials then restricted the number of monks allowed to stay in monastery to only 300.”

He further elucidates the special restrictions on the religious ceremonies and festivals particularly the annual Monlam (Prayer Festival) held at the monastery. Samten goes on to further explain how restrictions and the stifling of religious freedom in religious institutions has led to the flight of many monks who decide to live in exile in India in order to study freely.

From 1992 to 2000, Samten studied Buddhist philosophy at Drepung Loseling monastery in south India. He returned to Tibet to meet his relatives after procuring a year’s leave from the monastery. He recounts “For my journey back to Tibet, I took along 18 Tibet related video cassettes and 150 portraits of Dalai Lama for distribution in my native town.” After few days stay at Lhasa, on 11 December 2000 he was arrested by eleven policemen and detained at the Lhasa PSB Detention Center. A month later he was sentenced to three years of reform through labor at Trisam Labor Camp, near Toeling County. On 11 December 2003, Samten was released after completing his term. He reached Dharamsala in May 2004.

In November 2003, authorities in Kardze and Lithang County threatened the local populace with confiscation of their land if they failed to hand over portraits of the Dalai Lama displayed in their homes. Jampel Gyaltso¹⁴, 35 from Phu Village, Mangdu Township, Lhatse County in Tibet Autonomous Region (“TAR”). He became a monk at 18 at Mangkar Dharling monastery and joined Sera Monastery when he was 25 years of age. “In 1998, “Love Your County, Love Your Religion” (patriotic-re-education campaign) campaign began in Sera monastery. We were forced to denounce the Dalai Lama, and there was a banning of the Dalai Lama’s portraits.” Five plain clothed policemen stationed in the monastery arrested Jampel on 9 September 2001 for listening to the audio teachings of Dalai Lama. The Lhasa Intermediate People’s Court charged Jampel of “Anti Government Propaganda” and sentenced him to two years imprisonment, along with deprivation of political rights for one year. He was released on 8 August 2003, and arrived in India in April 2004.

Further testimony received by TCHRD in November 2004 from a monk named Jigme Dorjee¹⁵ states,

“Teams of officials consisted of three to seven “work team” personnel from the County Government Administration Office, and they frequented the monastery. They conducted political classes, demanding monks to denounce the Dalai Lama, making the monks pledge loyalty to the motherland and to accept that Tibet is a part of China. A certificate upon completion of the political classes is issued to monks belonging to the monastery. Those monks who were not registered officially go into hiding or go home when “work teams” officials visit the monastery. The monks who are registered officially are not happy in the monastery, as they have to criticize the Dalai Lama against their will in order to receive the official endorsement certificate to remain in the monastery. They have no choice but to follow the official instructions or lose their stay in monastery or face detention if matters turned worse for them... the Chinese claim of religious freedom is totally false. I am a monk but it is a huge struggle for me to stay in the monastery and study peacefully.”

Expulsion

The expulsion of monks and nuns who fail to either complete or follow the requirements of the political re-education campaign continues to date. According to testimony received by TCHRD, a monk named Jigme Namgyal¹⁶ went to Lhoka Samye Drakmar Monastery to undertake a meditation retreat. However, Chinese authorities stationed in the monastery would not allow him to meditate saying that he would need a permit letter in order to stay in retreat. He states, “The monastic population decreases every year due to such strict regulations and political indoctrinations. I have strong concerns that Samye Drakmar monastery will perish in the near future as there is no religious freedom in the monastery.”

Additionally, Lodoe Nyima¹⁷ a monk from the Tashi Lhukpuk monastery testified to the Tibetan Reception Center (TRC) in Nepal. After the launch of “patriotic re-education” in 1994 and the increasing religious repression led to the destruction of the monastery and at present it housed only thirty monks compared to several hundred in the past. Lodoe explains,

“That the small number of monks at the monastery is not because of the unwillingness of the local people to become monks, but because of China’s policy of imposing a limited ceiling on the number of monks in the monastery. Recently, a new directive was issued which says the monastery is not allowed to house any more than 35 monks. The PSB officials of Yuri County are keeping the monastery under a watchful eye. Many of the senior and learned monks were expelled from the monastery under the pretext that they were corrupting the minds of young novices. The officials are promoting ‘atheism’ under the “patriotic re-education” campaign and senior monks are forced to admit non-allegiance to the Dalai Lama under threat of expulsion. The failure to fulfill the official’s demand would result in eviction from the monastery and the imposing of a fine of 2000 Chinese Yuan. The “work team” inspects the monastery twice a month. Later I joined Drepung monastery on 5 December 1995 and studied there for more than five years. I was not able to put my best foot forward in Buddhist studies due to the lack of religious freedom. We have to live a life under constant panic and fear because of sudden raids conducted inside the monastery by the Local Bureau officials, while they also forced us to praise communist policies and denounce splittist activities”.

Dukarkyap¹⁸ a graduate student from the Nubchang (North-West) Nationalities University who reached Kathmandu Tibetan Reception Center in October 2004 testified to TCHRD that,

“During vacations, I visit my home town and give tuition to students at a rented house to earn some money. In 2003 when I was returning to my hometown, I met a western tourist who gave me a book “Footprints of Spring” containing a picture and a speech by the Dalai Lama. I wrote the speech on the blackboard of the class and explained it to the students. However, the next day around 3.pm, seven local officials dropped in and started searching my house. The officials found a small photograph of the Dalai Lama and asked where I got them from. Later I was taken to the PSB office and interrogated. However, my family secured my release with the help of an influential person. I was directed to stop the tuition classes.”

A Ganden monk named Kunga¹⁹ who recently escaped to India reported to the Tibetan Reception Center in Kathmandu on 16 March 2004, that,

“On 12 February 2004, Chonden, 25, was detained by Chinese police. They found a portrait of the Dalai Lama in Chonden’s room during a sudden raid of Gaden Monastery. During a second raid of the monastery, police found a Tibetan flag in Chonden’s room. Immediately Chonden was arrested.”

Kunga further describes, later, five to six policemen came to the monastery and called all the monks for a meeting. However, the details of Chonden’s imprisonments and “illegal” possession of the Dalai Lama’s portraits were pronounced. Then the officials threatened the rest of the monks with punishments if they were caught with any such materials in the future. The present whereabouts of Choden are unknown, but many believed he is being held in Gutsa Detention Centre.

Persecution of Religious Leaders

Legal management of Tibet’s religious institutions through the political education campaigns, implemented by Democratic Management Committee officials, are further attempts of the People’s Republic of China at promoting allegiance to the State, as well as an opportunity to target expressions of loyalty and faith to the Dalai Lama. In relation, China has also targeted high religious Lamas, as officials feel threatened by the religious influence (which officials may be equating with political influence) they exert on the Tibetan people. Since communist ideology hinges on the support of the people in order to maintain the Party’s political power, it is natural to argue that Chinese leaders feel uneasy by Tibetans’ displays of faith for the Dalai Lama as well as other high religious Lamas.

As previously mentioned, the Third Work Forum on Tibet convened in 1994 in Beijing was a turning point as a report by the International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) highlights new crackdowns on Buddhism in Tibet. It says

“The Third Work Forum guidelines demonstrate a deep concern on the part of the Party over the continued popularity of Tibetan Buddhism intensified by the perceived relationship between religion and the pro-independence movement.”

Li Dezhu, the Minister of China’s State Ethnic Affairs Commission in his strategy paper writes²⁰ “Historically, the western region was a sensitive region for ethnic relations. The negative impacts of some ethnic relations problems left over by history cannot be eliminated in the short term, but still require long term effort. The religious influence of the western regions is far-reaching, and the intermingling of nationality and religious issues has increased the complexity of managing ethnic relations. ‘Anti-separatist’ policies have thus been built into China’s western development strategy in order to support Beijing’s objectives of ‘national unity and stability’. In this way, the perceived goal is to reduce the negative effects of religion on the region’s development and stability”. In order to implement the Party’s directives and policies in Tibet the Chinese authorities consider it important to restrict and play down the influence of high religious Lamas among the Tibetan people.

Gendun Choekyi Nyima the 11th Panchen Lama
The continued detention of the Panchen Lama Gendun Choekyi Nyima (originally detained on the 17th May 1995, at the age of six) is yet another instance of severe Chinese intervention into Tibetan religious affairs. Additionally, the Panchen Lama’s state of health, and whereabouts has been unknown for almost the past 10 years. China has officially refused to admit the State’s detention of the Panchen Lama; however on one occasion Chinese authorities stated that his parents requested the State’s protection for fear that Gendun Choekyi Nyima might be kidnapped, and thus he is being held in “safe custody” with his parents. Shortly after the Panchen Lama’s disappearance, in an effort to discredit the Dalai Lama’s recognition of the Gendun Choekyi Nyima as the 11th Panchen Lama, the Chinese leadership announced their own State appointed Panchen Lama, a boy named Gyaltsen Norbu as the 11th Panchen Lama.

Historically, the Panchen Lamas and the Dalai Lamas have (since the 16th century) enjoyed a special ‘Teacher Disciple’ relationship for many centuries. For example, the first Panchen Lama was the teacher of fifth Dalai Lama, and it was at this time that the Panchen Lama was given a the honorable title “Panchen” which means ‘Great Scholar’. As long as the real Panchen Lama Gendun Choekyi Nyima, is not given the due recognition and the religious authority he deserves, he will be deprived of proper and complete religious education and practices thereby affecting the transmission of lineage of the Panchen Lama. In this context, the implications of the ongoing detention of the 11th Panchen Lama, is a supreme act of religious repression for political means, and poses to upset the functioning of traditional Tibetan Buddhism.

Chadrel Rinpoche
Chadrel Rinpoche, the former abbot of Tashi Lhunpo Monastery of Shigatse was arrested in May 1995, days after the recognition of Gendun Choekyi Nyima as the reincarnation of the 11th Panchen Lama was announced by the Dalai Lama. Chadrel Rinpoche was the chairperson of the search committee for the reincarnation of the 11th Panchen Lama. After a brief trial, he was sentenced to six years of imprisonment for what authorities called “conspiring to split the country and disclosing state secrets”. His only crime was that he had communicated with the Dalai Lama over the reincarnation issue before the announcement was made. Chadrel Rinpoche has already completed his prison term of six years, yet he was not allowed to return to his traditional Tashi Lhunpo monastery. So far there have been no reliable reports about his whereabouts and well being. He was supposed to have been released in January 2002, however he is currently being held under some kind of unofficial “house arrest”, at an undisclosed location.

Chadrel Rinpoche’s case not only illustrates the violation of human rights but also a violation of the right to religious freedom. Chadrel Rinpoche’s case is yet another instance of the lack of freedom and independence in religious institutions under Chinese rule.

Jampa Chungla
Jampa Chungla’s case is similar to that of Chadrel Rinpoche, as he is being held in illegal detention even though he completed his prison term on 16 May 2003. He was the secretary of the Search Committee for the finding of the 11th Panchen Lama, and was a close aide to Chadrel Rinpoche. He was sentenced to four years of imprisonment, and was also charged with, “leaking state secrets,” and “endangering state security”. He is reportedly under house arrest upon completion of his prison term.

Geshe Sonam Phunstok
On 25 October 1999, about 20 PSB officers arrested Geshe Sonam Phunstok, the popular Buddhist teacher and scholar from Dhargay Monastery Kardze “TAP” in Sichuan, from his hometown. They sentenced him to five years imprisonment on allegations of “inciting splittist activities among the masses” and for having conducted a long-life prayer ceremony for the Dalai Lama. Apparently, Geshe Sonam Phunstok had traveled to India on a document procured from Lhasa to seek an audience with the Dalai Lama. He was imprisoned in Chuandong No 3 Prison in Tazhu County, Sichuan

This year Chinese authorities released Geshe Sonam Province upon the completion of his prison term on 24 October 2004. However, his movements and actions in the Kardze Region are restricted and monitored. He is currently said to be in poor health due to the maltreatment he suffered in Prison. Currently, Chinese authorities are also said to be monitoring his movements in the Kardze region.

Trulku Tenzin Delek
Trulku Tenzin Delek is a prominent Tibetan Lama currently facing a death sentence with the suspension of two years. Trulku Tenzin Delek is an outspoken proponent for the preservation and propagation of Tibetan culture and religion, and holds a high level of respect within the Tibetan community; he was also an active force in the construction of several new monasteries, and an orphanage in Eastern Tibet. Perhaps because Chinese authorities feel threatened by the level of respect shown to Trulku Tenzin Delek by the Tibetan people, and also for his expressed allegiance to the Dalai Lama, he has faced persecution by the Chinese authorities.

Trulku Tenzin Delek was arrested for his alleged involvement in a series of bomb blasts that occurred in Kardze and one in Chengdu City on 3 April 2002. Chinese authorities arrested Lobsang Dhondup, a disciple of Trulku Tenzin Delek, and linked Trulku to the bomb explosions. Trulku was arrested on 7 April 2002. At a closed trial held on 2 December 2002 at Kardze people’s Intermediate Court. Lobsang Dhondhup was sentenced to immediate death penalty and was executed on 26th January 2003, while Trulku Tenzin Delek was given a death sentence with a suspension of two years. The present state of Trulku Tenzin Delek’s health and remains unknown.

Nevertheless, the death sentence with two years reprieve ends on 25 January 2005, but so far there has been no additional developments in his case, despite immense pressure from the international community.

Exile Returnees Face Expulsion

Due to the falling standards of religious instructions in Tibet, many monks and nuns come to India to pursue religious studies. However, upon return to Tibet, DMC officials who suspect them of having ties with “Dalai Clique”, or the Tibetan Government in Exile expel many monks and nuns from their home monasteries.

As evidence of this, Phunstok Gyaltso²¹, 33 from Tso Chang Village in Tsojang, Qinghai Province, testified to TCHRD

“After staying in the monastery for some years, I wished to pursue my monastic studies in a monastery in south India. On 20 December 1994, I arrived in south India and joined Gaden Monastery. For the next five years, I stayed in Ganden Monastery and studied the Buddhist scriptures. On 15 January 1999, I returned to Tibet.”

After Phunstok Gyalsto and his friends reached Tibet and rejoined their monastery they faced intimidation from the Democratic Management Committee authorities, which was followed by their expulsions. He explains,

“On 14 October 1999, an official letter was sent to the monastery demanding the expulsion of monks who have returned from India. The letter also threatened the monastery administration with severe punishment if they failed to comply with the order”.

The letter was sent from the Religious Affairs Bureau, Public Security Bureau, and the United Work Front Department. As per the directives of the letter Phunstok Gyaltso himself was expelled along with the monks, Khenrap Gyaltso, 30, Lobsang Dhondup, 32, Gedun Rabgay31, Sonam Gyaltso, 32, Lobsang Anyen, 28, Sherab, 27, Sangay, 21 were all expelled.

In another case monks were beaten for crossing the border to pursue an audience with the Dalai Lama. Dhondup 22, Tashi Dhargay 19 and Dhondup Namgyal were monks from the Dhargayling Monastery located in Lhatse County in Mangpo Township. They began their journey to India on 1 December 2003. Unfortunately, on 29 December 2003 Nepalese police arrested them and deported them back to Tibet. They received severe beatings from the police and were kept in Shigatse Detention Centre for 23 days in poor condition before being transferred to Lhasa. Instead of being allowed to return to their monasteries, the authorities in Lhasa ordered them to return to their respective homes.

In recent years religious repression and restrictions have extended to isolated regions outside the “TAR”. For instance, even remote hermitage centers come under the official scrutiny. The following testimony from monk Jigme Namgyal²² shows religious repression in retreat centers. He became a monk at a young age and enrolled in Phunstok Norling Monastery and started his retreat when he was 24 years old. After many days of strenuous search he discovered a good retreat place at Samye Dragmar Monastery. The monastery’s staff told him about the requirement of permit letter from the office of Tsethang Prefecture People’s Religious Department to undertake any retreat. He applied for three years, but was only granted three months permission for retreat after many days of appeal. The continuing violation of religious rights in Tibet by the Chinese officials prompted Jigme’s escape into exile. His aspiration to stay in retreat for a long period of time was made difficult and he was not able to tolerate the “work teams” constant harassment and the “patriotic education” in the Monastery. He reached Kathmandu on 14 April 2004.

An additional testimony received from a nun named Jigme²³ reported to TCHRD on 18 April 2004 that,

“In July 1998 a total of six officials, two officials from Tanang Township along with two Chinese appointed members for the monastery from Religious Department had a meeting from morning 8 am till 3 in the afternoon. Those monks with retreat permits were also called for the meeting”.

Those monks who possess permits but have not signed the pledges requiring denunciation of Dalai Lama were subsequently threatened with eviction from the Dragmar Kyetsang Monastery. Similarly Wyantsa Monastery was also threatened with demolition if any nun failed to put their signature on the statement. Later senior clergies urged the nuns to write a symbolic signature without due spirit in order to save the monastery from destruction.

Another case of religious rights violations was reported from Phelpar Monastery. The monk Loden from Chamdo gave this testimony at Tibetan Refugee Reception Center in Kathmandu on 5 April 2004.

“In 2000 the officials of Phelbar County came to know about Loden’s plans for the reconstruction work in Phelkar Monastery. In response the five officials of the town and administrators of the monastery had a meeting, where three conditions were set to ban reconstruction work. The three rules outlined for the reconstruction work were as follows, first if there is no prior government consent for reconstruction work to be done by the monastery then it is not allowed. Secondly, it was announced that there was to be a ceiling of monks allowed in the monastery and that the existing monks of the monastery should apply for a new permit issued by the Chinese Government that allows for monk to remain in the monastery. And finally, monks below the age of 18 are not permitted to stay in monastery and should return to their respective homes.”

Loden further explained

“At present there were around 95 monks with official permit and more than 300 novices around the age of 18 without official permit. Those 300 monks secretly attended the monastery, but have to return to their room when they came to know about the sudden visits of officials from the town and County PSB”.

On 11 June 2003, ten officials from the County PSB visited the monastery at the beginning of the summer retreat and the monks were called for a meeting. The officials ordered senior clergies not to allow more than the 95 registered monks and warned of fining them 2000 Yuan if they were to violate the directive. In addition, the display of the Dalai Lama’s portrait in the central hall was banned and all the monks were ordered to sign the denunciation of the Dalai Lama. However, all of the monks in the monastery refused to sign, saying that they cannot accept, or fulfill every wish of the Chinese officials. Now the “work teams” of five to six members visit the monastery on a regular basis, once every two months. Shortly after the incident Loden fled to India, as he felt there would be a dim future of religious freedom in Tibet under such circumstances.

Politicization of Geshe Lharampa Degree

In Tibetan Buddhism there are four major sects or schools, among which the Gelukpa School is most prominent and has the largest following. Tibet’s greatest scholar saint Tsongapa founded this school in 1410 A.D. One of his prominent disciples was Gendun Drupa, who was posthumously recognized as the first Dalai Lama of Tibet. Gelukpa School produced a successive generation of imminent scholars based on their strict monastic rules and wide Buddhist literature.

One of the most important traditions of the Gelukpa School is the institution of Geshe Lharampa exam. It comprises dialectical debates, or is best described as a test on Buddhist philosophy. The applicant who wishes to acquire this religious title must submit to strenuous testing on the five major cannons of Tibetan Buddhism through debate in the presence of a large assembly of religious scholars. Hence, the title Geshe means a learned man or a scholar, and Lharampa means the most profound or the highest erudition. In Gelukpa Geshe Lharampa is the highest academic religious honor, and is considered the most important aspect of Gelukpa Tibetan Buddhism.

The Geshe Lharampa examination was first banned in 1959 by the Chinese, who claimed it was a “feudal practice”. Then in 1986 after repeated appeals of the 10th Panchen Lama it was revived after a ban of 27 years. However after the popular pro-independence demonstration in 1988 it was again banned, since Chinese authorities felt there was a large number of monks and nuns participating in the demonstrations from Drepung, Sera and Ganden monasteries (the three largest Buddhist monasteries in Tibet). The Chinese officials announced the resumption of Geshe Lharampa for the second time after the ban of fifteen years in August 2004.

Recently, China announced on 28 July 2004, on the Xinhua.net web-site that there would be a resumption of the twice-banned highest academic degree, the Gelugpa (Yellow Hat School) of Tibetan Buddhism. The exam was to be resumed; but with the condition that from now onwards the applicants for this Degree have to study six other books on political thought under the “Love Your Country, Love Your Religion” (Tib: rgayl khches ring lugs bsam bloi slob gso); which falls under the political re-education campaign.

Furthermore, 77 members (chosen by the PRC) Committee for the Conferment of Degree for the highest Buddhist Studies were formed on 20 August 2004 to supervise the examination of the Degree. In the past, monks on the sole basis of their academic merit and scholarship earned this prestigious and highly symbolic aspect of Tibetan Buddhism. It is a very sacred thread of Gelukpa Buddhism. The examiners themselves were the source of erudition and mastery of Tibetan Buddhism.

Unfortunately, the addition of political texts to be included in the Geshe Lharampa exam acts as a disruption to the essence of Tibetan religious tradition, particularly in the wake of pronounced display of loyalty to the State. This is a serious political intervention in the religious affairs of the Tibetan people.

Thus, there are number of negative implications of the reinstatement of the Geshe Lharampa exam by Chinese authorities. The scholarship and qualification of those whom the Party has hand picked, act as supervisors in terms of administering the examination. Thus the actual level of scholarship of the exam, will likely lead to falling standards of achievement among the new generation in Tibet, who undertake and earn this degree. It is also a point of concern that this new pre-requisite to study political thought contributes to the deviation from the Buddhist learning, especially since applicants are now judged on this new modified curriculum which includes political education, apart from religious texts. In this respect there is an inherent contradiction in China’s religious policy, as one of the professed objectives of Chinese authorities is to separate Religion from State, while in contrast the Party seems to be incorporating religion into the State, through the requirement of politics in a religious environment.

A month after the revival of Geshe Lharampa Degree, Gendun Tsundue²⁴, who recently arrived at the Tibetan Refugee Reception Center in Kathmandu on 24 July 2004, told TCHRD about the biased and unjust selection of candidates for the re-introduced Geshe Lharampa examination and the activities of Chinese authorities in Ganden Monastery. Gendun further explained:

“On 27 July 2004, the authorities selected six monks, two each from Drepung, Sera and Ganden monasteries to appear for the preliminary test in front of 16 judges. However the selection of six monks was not done on the basis of their academic merit but on the basis of their allegiance to the authorities directives”.

In the ultimate sense, the introduction of six books on political thought directly challenges and disrupts the traditional institution of the Geshe Lharampa exam prior to Chinese occupation. Moreover, in its revised version, the true culture, practice and ritual of the institution of Geshe Lharampa exam and degree faces an endemic threat to it’s very existence and the continuation of this overall important Buddhist scholarly tradition.

The Chinese-appointed Panchen Lama

On 15 September 2004, the U.S. State Department released its latest International Religious Freedom Report, which described the Government of China’s “respect of religion poor” and “level of repression high” (the report also mentioned the11th Panchen Lama Gendun Choekyi Nyima who is currently being held in an unknown location by Chinese authorities). Shortly after the release of the U.S. State Department report, the Chinese -appointed Panchen Lama, Gyaltsen Norbu, made his third official visit to Tibet. He was quoted in an interview, which appeared in Xinhua news on 26 September 2004 saying that,

“The policy of allowing the freedom of worship is fully respected (in Tibet), and that makes me very happy”.

Apparently, the visit of the Chinese chosen Panchen Lama to Tibet was nothing short of a propaganda campaign and an attempt to counter the U.S. State Department’s International Religious Freedom Report’s criticisms of China’s religious record. It seems the visit of was perhaps an attempt to seek approval and support for the Party amongst Tibetans as endorsing Gyaltsen Norbu as the real Panchen Lama. It appears that through this visit of China’s chosen Panchen Lama, Beijing is trying to convey to the international community that there is a level of religious freedom and respect for human rights in Tibet.

Conclusion

In 2004 there has been no significant change in China’s religious policies, with no major improvements in China’s handling of religious rights in Tibet. As the Tibetan people continue to face varying, and sometimes fluctuating degrees of religious repression and persecution at the hands of the Chinese State. It would seem that religious persecution will remain unabated in Tibet as long as the Chinese government continues to view the Dalai Lama and expressions of Buddhist belief and practice as an inherent threat to the legitimacy of Chinese rule in Tibet.