Impoverishing Tibetans
The Chinese occupation of Tibet has been characterised
by various attempts to control Tibetan identity either through
direct violence or structural means such as assimilation. One such
indirect means of attempting to change and control the nature of
Tibetan culture and identity has been the encouragement of
Chinese population transfer into Tibet.
55
Population transfer has been defined as "the moving of
peoples [as] a consequence of political and/or economic processes in
which the state government or state authorised agencies
participate."
56
The international law of armed conflict first recognised
the possible misuse of population transfer policies
during times of conflict. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention provided that "the occupying powers shall not
deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population
into the territory it occupies." The UN Special Rapporteurs
on Population Transfer have stated in their report that
population transfers constitute a violation of basic
principles of conventional and customary international
human rights law.
57
While most principles of international law which deal with
population transfer address the rights of the subject
group of the transfer, it has also been recognised that
population transfers cannot be used as a policy which
threatens the identity, culture and livelihood of a
minority group living in the area to which the transfers
are made.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Population Transfer has stated
that, "The validity of even the consent of the people being
moved may be subject to the wishes of the inhabitants of
the place of settlement. While the principles of consent
safeguard the forcible removal and dispersal of a minority
settled in a distinct homeland it cannot be used to achieve
the chauvinistic overlaying of national areas by planting of
settlements, and the imposition of cultural hegemony upon
minorities."
58
A transfer mostly of officials and army personnel into Tibet
marked the early period of the Chinese invasion. Since the
1980's, with the Chinese decision to integrate Tibet into
China's economy and social structure, we see a conscious
decision by the Chinese government to transfer Chinese
peasants, agricultural workers and other groups of labourers
and traders into Tibet.
59
From July 2 to 23 in 1994 the
Third National Forum on Work in Tibet was convened in
Beijing. There decisions were made to implement the Chinese
government's policy to integrate Tibet within the structure
of China's economic needs. The major thrust of the
implementation strategy was "to open Tibet's door wide to
inner parts of the country and encourage traders,
investment, economic units and individuals from China to
Central Tibet to run different sorts of enterprises."
60
The population transfer of ethnic Chinese into Tibet has
been massive, and enforced by the presence of over 200 000
troops.
61
According to both Tibetan and PRC statistics,
whilst there were virtually no Chinese in Tibet or
neighbouring provinces,
62
Chinese settlers now outnumber
Tibetans in Tibet 7-7.5 million to 6.1 million.
63
While a
great deal has been written on the large population transfer
of Chinese into Tibet, and the official PRC policies
designed to reduce Tibetans to a minority in their own
land,
64
it suffices here to note that the Chinese
government has publicly acknowledged its encouragement and
support for this illegal migration into Tibet.
65
The population transfer of Chinese settlers into Tibet has
had devastating economic effects for Tibetans. Settlers,
encouraged by government incentives, arrive in search of
jobs in an industrialised Tibet. Their presence threatens
the livelihood of the Tibetan people and is central to the
government’s integration of the Tibetan economy into the
Chinese economy. Chinese settlers have come to dominate the
Tibetan economy, and they own virtually all the businesses
there.
66
There appears to be a degree of segregation
between the mainly urban Chinese settlers and Tibetans
in remote areas such as the nomads. One nomad
who came from Nagchu Prefecture, TAR, and arrived in
Dharamsala on 11 February 2000, said of the Chinese,
"there are Chinese settlers, but they are mainly business
people and they are 4 hours away from my village."
Dhondup, a young student from a farming family in
Kandze County in Sichuan Province (Kham) who arrived in
Dharamsala on 2 April 2000, reported that in Kandze County
centre Chinese settlers constitute at least 50 percent
of the population. They mainly consist of government
officials and business people.
Chinese population transfer into Tibet has a great impact
on the kind of development that takes place in Tibet.
Central government subsidies and much of the infrastructure
in place have been directed at maintaining a distinct,
controlling Chinese community in Tibet, which can be seen
to be mainly urban, administrative, mercantile or military,
and segregated from the bulk of Tibetan communities.
The much-heralded, Chinese sponsored infrastructure
projects such as highways, mines and housing have
mainly been built to facilitate this settlement, fulfil
military objectives and to expedite resource extraction.
Subsidised economic growth has encouraged and facilitated
Chinese settlement as part of the wider attempt to absorb
Tibet. But in many ways this process has been one-sided
and has left much of Tibet's urban landscape sinicised.
Population transfer has also impacted on Tibetan access
to land, food and meaningful employment. Tibetans are
becoming a minority in their own country, excluded from
participating in and benefiting from the development that
is being carried out on their land and in their name.
Chinese officials have made some impressive claims
67
about the changes that have taken place in terms of workers' rights
and labour protection, but what is the situation in Tibet and how
did Chinese communism's conception of development and
industrial growth and production relate to a largely
agrarian Tibetan economy?
Tibetans account for only 5-10% of the labour force in
Chinese controlled industry and usually are placed in the
most low-paid, unskilled jobs, and with no genuine
opportunity of advancement.
68
Compulsory and forced labour
practices are widespread in Tibetan areas with Tibetans
sequestered to build the roads and housing needed to support
Chinese development of the Tibetan plateau. A number of
refugees arriving from Tibet have stated that they have had
to perform labour for various Chinese projects without
receiving any remuneration. The PRC’s development of modern
industry in Tibet has provided some unskilled, subsistence
employment to a few Tibetans while mainly allowing for
further Chinese development, high waged employment and
settlement.
The following accounts highlight the lack of vocational
training and skilled work accessible by Tibetans, and the
haphazard way in which regional authorities find cheap, and
even forced labour for their road building and house
construction projects, projects which seem to seldom benefit
those doing the actual work.
Jinpa, a 26 year-old man from Rongshar in Shigatse
Prefecture, "TAR" reported on 27 January 1999 that in
addition to annual tax paid in the form of butter, he and
members of other families had to work without pay in public
construction jobs. During the four-month construction
period, each person had to work 10 days per month. Officials
described the forced labour as "work tax." However, the
forced labour was not optional. Although the Chinese
describe it as a "tax," it does not replace or decrease
taxes otherwise due.
69
Tsering Norbu, a 37 year-old man from Dzonga Shang
(township), at the border of Kerum, "TAR" arrived in exile
on 13 January 2000. He reports that after the harvest the
farmers in his village are called to work for the Chinese
government either as road builders or as construction
workers for houses. They are not paid because they used the
land owned by the Chinese government. If they were absent
they would be fined 10 yuan per day. If they could not
afford to pay the fine then they would be called for extra
days of work. The work is usually for a month per year. They
were told that the building they were making was for a
school but the school was
never built. Instead the building was used as a guesthouse for
Chinese officials.
Lobsang Yeshi, a 23 year-old from Gyare
Shang, Chamdo Prefecture, arrived in exile on 24
December 1999. He reports that there was a big bridge
built in the village and there were a number of Tibetans
who were asked to contribute work to the construction of
this bridge. There were no wages paid to these labourers.
They generally worked from 9 in the morning to 6 in the
evening and it took twenty-six days to finish building the
bridge. When his mother was sick he did not go to work and
he was arrested and produced before a court and sentenced
to six months in Gonjo County detention centre [Phuchka],
and fined 500 yuan as well. At that time he was sixteen
years old. There were no written laws which allowed for
such detention.
"We were made to do labour for the Shang. We worked
on road and bridge building. We mainly did digging and
moving rocks. We were paid 5 yuan per day but had to bring
our own food. Each family had to send one person to do
the work. If you were unable to send this person, you had
to pay fines of 50 yuan per day. You can understand how
everybody always found a way to send one person, even if
it was hard. We had no choice. The fines were too high
to pay," reported Tashi Lhamo, age 43 from Topthi
Village, Rongsha Township, Shigatse County, on 3 March
1999.
Tenzin Dargay, 26 year-old from Phenpo, Lhundup
County, "TAR" wrote on 4 February 1999: "The Chinese were
building offices within our County. Each village had to
send labourers without payment. We had to bring our own
food. If we refused we had
to pay 16 yuan per day in fines (5 times the average daily
Tibetan salary). We had to carry stones, sand etc. from sunrise to
sunset with two hours break per day. Chinese supervisors watched
the workers and sent those who didn't work hard enough away.
They had to pay the fine instead for every day until the project
was finished."
Chinese authorities even allow young children to do force
labour. Tenpa Chophel, an 18 year-old from Nabhu,
Ratong, Kham province, described on 10 February 1999,
"Once we built a school
and then a house for one of the heads of our district. 40
people (1-2 people per family) were collected and
transported to the construction site. The youngest workers
were 7 and 8 years old and the oldest were 40. We got no
salary and had to bring vegetables from our farm for our
food. If somebody did not work, he or she had to pay 10-15
yuan per day as a fine. We had to carry stones and do the
digging. There were also Chinese workers who built the
walls. They were paid about 25 yuan per day."
The conscription is justified by the Chinese position that
the locals are the ones benefiting from development.
However, interviews suggest that the government benefits
most from the roads and resources built to transport goods
out of Tibet.
Dorje Rabten, 25 year-old from Deva, Martang, Labrang
County, Gansu province, on 5 April 1999 reported that in
1997 and 1998 everyone physically capable in the village had
to work without pay on the local road construction. The
length of forced work was 15 days per year.
Rinchen, age 21
from Ramachen, Chauni, confirmed that his village members
are forced to work without wages on road construction.
Chamba Tenzin, age 13, and his brother
Sonam Dhondup, age
12, from Takyup, Kham, described how the local Tibetans were
forced to work for free on a local road construction
project. A woman from the area near Mt Kailash, who
preferred that her name not be disclosed, described on 19
January 1999 that the forced labour required to annually
repair any damages to the road leading to Mt. Kailash. She
said that every family had to provide an average of two
people to perform repair work without wages once per year.
Nortso, a 29 year-old farmer from Ngamring County, Shigatse
Prefecture, "TAR" reached Nepal on 20 December 1999. In
his village, County and Township officials forcibly engage
villagers on road and house constructions without any
payment for 25 days per year. In his family the 3 members
have to do compulsory labour for a total of 75 days each
year. The fine for failing to do so is 7 yuan per day per
member. All people between the ages of 15 and 60 were
required to go for compulsory labour. Similarly, in Saga
County in Shigatse Prefecture, a 30 year-old nomad
Samdup who arrived
in Nepal on 11 January 2000 stated that all villagers in his
Township area aged between 16 and 58 are required to work on
road construction without payment. Men perform 25 days of
such compulsory labour per year, while women are required to work
for 15 days. There are fines for non-attendance.
Construction of a big powerhouse in Kandze County that
began in 1997 was completed with compulsory labour using local
Tibetan farmers.
Norbu Tso, a 30 year-old farmer from Kandze County
in Sichuan Province (Kham), reported that Tibetan workers were
not paid for their labour and were expected to work for 10 days.
She worked there without pay for 40 days as there were 4 members
in her family and she worked on behalf of all of them.
Dawa, an 18 year-old farmer from Kyirong County,
Shigatse Prefecture, arrived in Dharamsala on 25 January 2000.
According to Dawa's testimony, in his area Tibetans have to go for
compulsory labour without pay. "In a year you must go
for more than 20 days, if you are above 18 years of age
and below 60 years. If you are sick you can stay at home
but must work 2 days for every day you are absent the
next time. It is possible to send someone in your place.
The supervisor of this compulsory labour is Chinese.
If you do not work hard you are scolded. Work starts
from 10 am and continues till 8 pm. There are no breaks
apart from a one-hour lunch break. The work is mainly
road construction connected with forestry."
A young nomad from Lhasa Municipality, arrived
in Dharamsala on 30 January 2000. According to his testimony,
there is compulsory labour every year in his village for 1 month (or
20 days sometimes). There is no pay for this forced labour.
They work from 9 am to 6 or 7 pm with a 2-hour break
for lunch when they have to travel back to their homes
to have something to eat. All those in the village
above the age of 18 (for men 18-55; for women 18-50).
In 1998 they were fined 5 yuan per day for not attending,
this rose to a 10 yuan fine in 1999. There are no Chinese
workers participating at all. The order for the compulsory
labour comes from the dzong (County), and the work
is mainly road and house construction for Chinese staff
or school construction.
20 families are put in each group, some groups go for
house construction, some for fencing and some for road
construction.
This forced labour violates long-standing principles of
international law. The first treaty prohibiting compulsory
labour appeared in 1932,
70
and has (as modified in 1946)
been ratified by 132 countries. This treaty is almost
seventy years old and in Article 1 requires state parties to
"suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its
forms within the shortest possible period." Article 10
states that compulsory labour exacted as a tax should be
progressively abolished.
Upon its creation, the United Nations enshrined the
protection against forced labour in Article 23(3) of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), an axiomatic
right which applied to China when it joined the United
Nations. The Article states: "Everyone who works has the
right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for
himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity,
and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of
protection." The fundamental rights in the UDHR were meant
to be reduced to binding fundamental treaty rights; as was
done when the state parties drafted and adopted the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
and the International Covenant on Social and Economic Rights
(ICESCR).
71
China signed the ICCPR on October 5, 1998 and
the ICESCR on October 27, 1997, although it has not yet
ratified either treaty. Article 8(3) of the ICCPR
72
expressly forbids the use of compulsory labour.
The UDHR does not contain any relevant exceptions to the
prohibition on forced labour. However, Article 8(3)(iv) of
the ICCPR, like the American Convention and European
Convention, excludes from the definition of compulsory
labour, "Any work or service which forms part of normal
civil obligations." In a similar fashion, the Conventions
on Forced Labour exempt from their prohibition:
Minor communal services of a kind which, being performed by
the members of the community in the direct interest of the
said community, can therefore be considered as normal civic
obligations
incumbent upon the members of the community, provided that
the members of the community or their direct representatives shall
have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such
services.
The definition of "normal civil obligation" was considered
by the European Commission on Human Rights in the
Iverson Case.
73
Normal civil obligation means the citizen's duty to
"undertake joint efforts in the common interest on the
local level, such as taking part in fire brigades or
similar measures against other calamities."
74
The exception cannot mean, "a general subjection to direction of
labour for economic purposes."
75
It is evident from the accounts of Tibetan refugees that
these rights are being violated by the Chinese authorities under the
pretext of either being punishment or through terming the labour
as "voluntary labour". This semantic guise for what is actually
forced labour is also enshrined in the Constitution of China.
Article 42
of the Constitution provides that: "Citizens of the People's
Republic of China have the right as well as the duty to
work.
The state encourages citizens to take part in voluntary labour."
76
As we can see from the testimony of Tibetans leaving to
come into exile, in many cases this labour is forced and
without any remuneration. Even where workers are paid,
often the amounts given are negligible and there are fines
levied if they do not attend in any case. Article 42 also
promises occupational safety and health improvements,
improved working conditions, and the provision of
"necessary vocational training before they are employed."
77
These important constitutional rights do not seem to be
realised in practice in Tibet.
Furthermore, unemployment and underemployment
remain serious concerns in Tibet. Forced labour practices come
against this background of many Tibetans searching for work, and are
all the more reprehensible for this. Real figures for unemployment
for rural Tibet are hard to find and analyse. Many Tibetans from
farming and nomad families consider themselves employed in
the sense that they help to look after the family animals or
go for lowly paid construction or forestry work, despite
their wishes to look for other kinds of work and their
inequality of access to different employment opportunities.
This rural underemployment is all the more acute when it is
placed in the context of China's planned urbanisation.
Recently the China Daily reported that "rural labour
experts estimate there will be 600 million available people
in China's rural workforce by 2005, but the demand for
rural labourers will fall to 168 million leaving a potential
432 million unemployed. Without the creation of local
employment, mass urban shifts are expected to occur."
78
The big picture of rural unemployment is reflected in a
number of refugee reports which TCHRD has conducted.
Tamding, a young farmer from Haiyen County, Qinghai Province
(Amdo), arrived in Dharamsala on 15 December 1999.
According to his testimony, no one in Tamding's village
gets an office job, even after they have studied in the Town
or County centres. The only options for young Tibetans from
these farming families is to return and work at home.
Always they have to do farm work, and take the animals
grazing, which is what Tamding does. It is therefore
difficult to estimate the level of unemployment among
Tibetans in the community. Certainly there is no government
assistance for the unemployed.
A 19 year-old nomad from Sangchu County, Gannan TAP, Gansu
Province reports high levels of unemployment in his village
and community. He arrived in Dharamsala on 25 January 2000.
He reported the following to TCHRD.
"Many young people are
unemployed after school. They stay at home idle as mainly
they don't know how to look after animals. 90% of middle
school students return home unemployed, with only 10% of
Tibetan middle school students able to continue their
studies due to the heavy school fees. There is no
government assistance for the unemployed, and the main
reasons for unemployment are: because Tibetans are unable
mostly to pay the bribes to get the jobs; and because only
Chinese or the children of government staff get the jobs.
This is typically long term unemployment."
Bhuchung, a 28 year-old nomad from Lhasa Municipality
came to Dharamsala on 30 January 2000. He reports that,
"around 25% of my village are unemployed in the sense that they have
no housework to involve themselves with, in terms of access to
other jobs there are greater problems. Those who are unemployed go
to Lhasa, but the common Tibetans can't afford the bribes needed
for jobs, only the rich families."
Kelsang, a 22 year-old man from Lhasa estimates
that 40 percent of the Tibetans in the Barkhor area are
unemployed, with many trying to run some small business
or something of this nature. Some of the older generation of
Tibetans who are particularly desperate turn to begging, while the
younger generation, he feels, turn to thieving. Kelsang arrived in
Dharamsala on 6 January 2000.
It is clear that compulsory labour, low wages
and unemployment all form serious obstacles to the realisation
of Tibetans' right to development.
The official Chinese position is that all lands belong to
the communist party
79
and hence farmers and nomads who work on
the land are merely using state land to earn their livelihood.
The following testimony gathered by TCHRD reveals that in many
areas development projects such as the construction of roads, mines
and housing result in local Tibetans losing their land without being
given sufficient compensation. The preceding section has already
shown that many of these projects involve Tibetan forced labour.
Dorje Rabten, a 25 year-old from Deva, Martang,
Labrang County, Gansu province, on 5 April 1999 reported that in 1997
and 1998 the local road construction project took Tibetan
farmland without any compensation. Tenpa Chophue,
an 18 year-old from Nabhu, Ratong, Kham Province, testified
on 10 February 1999 that in 1997-1998 a hydro-electric
power station was built in his area which resulted in
the flooding of farmland. The Tibetan farmers were not
compensated for their lost land. Also, Rinchen,
age 18 from Rabkung, Amdo, told TCHRD that a dam has just
been constructed in his area that flooded the land. The
landowners are occasionally compensated with an insufficient
amount of moneys. Finally, a 22 year-old male from Gyantse
described the land taken by the government for their
construction of a plastic factory. The factory construction
began in 1997 and is scheduled to be completed in the year
2000. His family lost 5 mu of land. About 20 families (or
half of the peasants) lost a similar amount of land. No one
was paid any compensation because the government claimed
that the land belonged to the communist party.
Dawa, an 18 year-old farmer from Kyirong County, Shigatse
Prefecture, arrived in Dharamsala on 25 January 2000.
According to Dawa, expropriation of Tibetan land by the
authorities is common. The Chinese are making the Tibetan
plots smaller and smaller. For each member of Dawa's
family they have 6 mu of land. With 9 family members, the
total holding comes to 54 mu. If any family member works in
an office or is away in a foreign place (such as India), the
authorities will take away that member's allocated land.
His share of the land will be taken away now he has come to
India and his family will be fined 6000 yuan. If the
government need to build housing, they compulsorily acquire
the land and while they claim to compensate Tibetans for
this, in reality this doesn't happen. When Tibetan land is
taken away from a family, they often resort to opening a
small business.
Nyima, a 27 year-old nomad from Nagchu County, Nagchu
Prefecture, arrived in Dharamsala on 11 February 2000. He
told TCHRD that if "Tibetan land falls on a road
construction area, the land is taken away without payment.
This is a common practice." Tamding supports this
testimony. Tamding, a 19 year-old farmer from Haiyen
County, Qinghai Province (Amdo), arrived in Dharamsala on 15
December 1999. He states that families in his area whose
land fell on the main road had such land taken away without
compensation and subsequently moved to the Township to look
for work.
It is also the case that many people have lost land due to
redistribution, and Chinese settlement. Dorje, a 68
year-old farmer from Gonjo County, Chamdo Prefecture,
arrived in Dharamsala on 1 February 2000. There are
10 family members in Dorje's family. Each member has
2 mu of land. This land was allocated by the
government 18 years ago. The Township and Village
officials carried out this land redistribution process
together. Earlier the family had 40 mu of land,
but after the redistribution they were left with around
half of that, only 20 mu. There was no compensation
for the land the family lost, but the quality of the new
land was the same as the old.
International case law advances the international right
to compensation for the governmental expropriation of property.
These cases date from at least 1846
80
through the nationalisation of
Iranian oil fields and the Suez Canal until present day international
arbitral awards.
81
This widespread right is found in nations around
the world.
82
While the PRC may take land for public purposes, it
must pay the farmer a fair and equitable price.
"No levels have been imposed on the peasants and herders
in Tibet since 1950 and there is no compulsory state purchase of
grain there. The income that Tibetan peasants and herders earn is
entirely their own" - Xinhua, 23
January 1999.
One of the most striking features of the taxation policy of
China is its absolutely arbitrary nature. The existence of a strict
taxation policy in the context of a centralised economy necessarily implies
a transparent taxation policy as well as the corresponding use of
such revenue towards social welfare spending. China's taxation
system is conspicuous by the absence of both these principles. There are
no official statistics available which give us detailed figures
or breakdown for tax collected at the county level and below. It
seems that the decentralisation of tax has given greater powers to
local authorities to collect tax, but it is not clear how the levels or types
of tax are set, or what proportion is remitted to the higher
authorities.
83
Despite China's official statements that no taxes have been
collected from Tibetan farmers and nomads, in almost every
single refugee report (that the TCHRD conducted), Tibetan
farmers and nomads spoke of being subjected to excessive
taxes. They were taxed on their crop yield (including
medicinal herbs they were made to collect by hand), number
of animals, animal products like meat, hides, milk, butter,
cheese, fur and wool, number of family members, as well as
water, grass, and building taxes. They are also regularly
made to provide food for the frequent meetings of the same
officials who are implementing and enforcing repressive and
destructive policies against them. Overall, poor Tibetans
are subjected to 27 times the tax rate of non-poor in rural
China.
84
It is interesting to contrast with their taxation policies
the claims made by the Chinese authorities that the Tibetan
economy has been subsidised greatly to allow it to grow. In
1993 alone the subsidies and financial aid from the PRC
government amounted to 1,709 million yuan (US$ 214 million),
which represented 91.6 per cent of the total income of the
TAR government. But a lion's share of these subsidies and
financial aid goes towards meeting chronic financial
deficits accrued by the state-owned enterprises in industry,
construction, transportation, trade and grain management
(that is purchase of grain from Chinese provinces for sale
at subsidised rates to Tibet's urban residents).
85
If there is little or no correlation between the amount of
money spent in subsidies and the severe taxation policy, and
if the revenue from the taxes does not make a comparatively
significant contribution to the economy, then is the
taxation policy yet another means through which the Chinese
government disciplines the Tibetan polity into submission?
These are not questions which can be answered in an
evidentiary manner but a closer look at the lives of the
Tibetan poor would clearly indicate it's efficacy as a tool
of oppression. Some of the features of the tax system are
best inferred by the narratives of the Tibetan refugees who
have supposedly benefited from the economic developments in
Tibet.
Kunchok Sangmo, a 32 year-old from Nagchu Prefecture arrived
in exile on 16 November 1998. She reports that as nomads
her family depended on their animals but the Chinese imposed
a restriction of only four animals per member of a family and
since she had nine members they can keep 36 animals. However, her
family had 62 animals in total and hence had to pay an annual fine of
100 yuan
86
per yak or dri, 50 yuan per sheep or goat and
300 yuan per horse. If any family failed to pay the fine
then their animals were either killed or sold. This, she
said, greatly reduced the possession of animals by nomads
resulting in a threat to their survival. She also said
that there was an increase in the number of Muslim settlers
who bought these animals, hides and yartsa gunbu
87
from them and in exchange sold them basic commodities.
Topgyal, a 32 year-old from Nagchu Prefecture reports
that his family, which had a nomadic lifestyle, had to pay taxes on
the various products of their animals. Annually they had to pay 100
to 150 gyama
88
of meat, 10 to 15
gyama of butter, 1 gyama of
"Ra-khul"
89
for five goats, 30 to 40
gyama for "Nor Khul"
90
, 3 yuan
sok trel
91
for five goats, 3 yuan sok trel per sheep and 24
to 60 yuan sok trel per horse. The collection of
sok trel taxes varied from year to year and some
times they had to pay to officials from other counties
taxes in the form of butter, yoghurt and meat but these
were not considered to be a part of the annual tax.
Phuntsok, a 43 year-old man from Dhingri in
Shigatse Prefecture arrived in exile on 22 November 1999. He reports that
in 1997 the county authorities had announced an "interest free"
loan to farmers and nomads from the Rongshar
Shang township and they called it the "no interest"
loan. As a result, many of the farmers and their families
borrowed money from the county office. However, in November
1998 the county authorities suddenly announced that they
were collecting the interest which had accrued for the
loans taken in the year 1997 and forcibly collected 30%
interest on the so called "interest free" loans. A number
of the farmers had to sell their cattle and in some cases
even their roof sheets to repay the interest on the loan.
Jinpa, a 28 year-old man from Rashuka village, Khaba
Shang, Amdo arrived in exile in December 1999. He reports that he had
to work as a servant despite the fact that he was actually a farmer
and owned land. He says that it did not make economic sense
to continue as a farmer as they had to pay half of whatever
they cultivated to the government as taxes. This is forcing
a lot of farmers in his area to work in different fields
rather than continue in agriculture and be taxed heavily.
For instance in the monasteries even though you earned much
less it was still ultimately your own money.
Sonam Ai-nyen, a 26 year-old monk of Khap Shong monastery
arrived in exile on 21 May 1999. He reports that when there
is a failure to pay the taxes on time, the authorities
either fine them, call them for "compensatory work" or
confiscate their animals. Hence, despite the difficulties
involved, the nomads ensure that they pay the taxes on time
so that they are not called up for compensatory work.
Gelek, a 64 year-old farmer from Kham (Ch: Sichuan Province)
in Kandze, TAP arrived in exile on 7 June 1999. He reports
that his family had around 6 mu of land and that their
annual crop production was around 4000 gyama of cereals. He
paid 270 yuan as land tax in 1998, and a human tax of 240
yuan for his four family members was also paid. In addition,
he had to pay tax on grass, animals, and the collection of
yartsa gunbu. In total his family had to pay 1200 yuan to
the Chinese authorities and if they could not pay it on time
then the authorities charged double the amount in the next
year. Tsering Yangchen, an 18 year-old farmer arrived in
exile on 6 June 1999. He reports that in his village the
farmers have to pay taxes even when there is very low crop
production. When there is a crop shortage, then the
authorities accept other material things in place of the
cereals, which the farmers are supposed to pay as annual
tax.
An anonymous government staff member, from Malho County,
Malho TAP, Tsongon Province (Qinghai), arrived in Nepal on
28 October 1999. He worked in the audit office of Mahlo
County and reports that annually County authorities collect
1000 yuan as land, water and animal tax per nomad. The
majority of the County's population is made up of Tibetan
nomads or farmers. In the whole County there are 400 000
Chinese Muslim settlers who came as traders, government
staff and students. They did not have to pay taxes.
According to the County authorities the estimated annual
income for Malho County nomads is 700 to 800 yuan per year,
less than the average taxes they pay. Therefore "the
Tibetan nomads and farmers pay their taxes to the County
authorities by selling their animals or by doing work or
small business." When a Tibetan nomad or farmer does not
pay his/her taxes, their land and animals are confiscated
by the County authorities. For example in 1998 a nomad
named Jamyang of Malho County had all his cereals and
animals confiscated. There are 6 members in Jamyang's
family and collectively they had 30
yaks/dri. The family paid taxes of
600 yuan per year, but were unable to pay in November 1998.
A Township official was sent to collect the taxes, and
120 gyama of the family's butter along with their
cereals and animals was confiscated until his family's
taxes are paid. Threats were made that the family's land
would also be confiscated. "Presently, Jamyang's family
is looked after and fed by neighbours."
Samdup, a 30 year-old nomad from Saga County in
Shigatse Prefecture, arrived in Nepal on 11 January 2000.
Saga County is the poorest County in the Prefecture and is
mostly inhabited by nomads and farmers. In his Township
which covers a population of around 1500 nomads, there
is very little infrastructure. In the whole Township
there is no electricity, clinic or hospital, though there
is a large military barracks. In Trago Township tax is
collected according to each family's holding of animals.
His family is comprised of 3 members and they have 100
sheep, 10 goats, and 1 horse. They own no land but pay
annually 60-70 yuan for grass tax.
7 animals were taken as a meat tax, and the family were
only given 100 yuan per animals as opposed to their market
value of 250 yuan.
Taklha Kyab, a 29 year-old farmer from Shinghay
County, Tso Lho TAP, Tsongon Province (Qinghai), came to Nepal on
10 December 1998. His family were nomads and their village had
to pay 8 yuan per yak/dri annually as
tax. Some families paid taxes of up to 8000 to 10000.
The nomads mostly sell wool and animal skins but their
trade is declining and 80 percent owe hefty amounts of
money to County banks or money lenders.
Tashi, a 23 year-old monk, from Chamdo County, arrived
in Nepal on 1 March 1999. He came from a farming family with
6 members. The family has 12 mu of land, and cultivate
dru
92,
paikhang
93
and nyungma
94.
Their annual production
was around 1000 gyama. They have 10 yaks, 3 goats, and 1
horse. Annually their taxes add up to 600 yuan. They
always face food shortages and earn money to buy cereal from
collecting yartsa gunbu.
Khedrup, a 21 year-old monk from Lithang County, Kandze TAP
arrived in Nepal on 5 May 1999. His parents are semi-nomads
and his family have 5 mu of land. They have 50 yaks/dri, 20
goats and 2 horses. They grow potato, nyungma, wheat and
cereals. Annually the family produces 130 gyama of butter
which they sell in the market in order to buy other food
supplies for themselves. They also collect yartsa gunbu,
mushrooms and garlic, during the summer which they can sell
in the market. They can earn around 1500 yuan from the sale
of these plants and they spend this money on the family. As
land tax the local authorities collect 5 gyama of butter per
family member. From nomads they collect hides and skins,
animal heads and meat as meat tax. The market rate for yak
skin is 170 to 180 yuan per skin. Nomads must first get
permission from the local authorities before they can
slaughter their animals, otherwise all such skins and meat
will be confiscated.
From the above narratives it is possible to discern a
recurrent pattern which can be summarised as follows:
-
The taxation policy covers almost every aspect of the
right to subsist ranging from taxes on human life, animals,
grass, herbs, animal skins, to education even if there is no
education provided. Thus while there exists a right to
subsist, the means to it are severely impaired.
- The system is closed and self-referential. It defines
even the rules in cases of disobedience to the law. These
rules include the imposition of further taxes and fines,
ignoring the fact that the rules were disobeyed due to an
inability to pay in the first place. These fines are also
coupled with the arbitrary power of imposing punishments in
the form of forced labour.
-
The administrative structure created is arbitrary and both
the taxes and the fines depend on the authority collecting
them. There is a clear absence of any accountability or
provision for appeal against what are in most cases harsh
and unfair taxes. Consistency and transparency are sorely
lacking in the taxes applied to Tibetans.
While it is more difficult to get accurate information on
urban taxation, the following reports indicate that again
it is marked by a lack of transparency and consistency.
An anonymous staff member of the Kandze TAP
Political Assembly escaped to Nepal on 12 May 1999. His testimony
provides an insight into the actual conditions of a success story of
Tibetan employment, but also gives some evidence of the high taxes that
are levied in urban Tibet, especially on shop-keepers. Both his
parents are farmers and he attended primary, middle and then high
school, which is unusual for a young Tibetan. After 4 years at the
Tibetan Sichuan High School, in 1987 he was employed as staff at
the Political Assembly of Kandze TAP. After that he was posted to
an office in Dege County and in 1991 attended Sichuan Socialists'
High School for a further 2 years. After this time he worked at
the Assembly again and at various regional offices as a secretary.
After promotion to the office of senior secretary he received a salary
of 415 yuan per month. During leave for 4 months when he
was conducting business he was fired for failure to pay staff taxes.
Following this he went to Lhasa in 1997 where he worked in a
liquor store run by a friend. His friend had invested 30 000 yuan in
the store which sold imported alcohol, audio and video tapes. His
friend paid 700 to 1000 yuan per month as tax. He also paid 30 yuan
as sales tax, 10 yuan cleaning tax, 20 yuan fire security tax, 30 to
50 yuan as town development tax, 80 to 100 yuan as
lobso tax
95,
20 yuan for security tax, 100 to 200 yuan as
rim-ghok tax
96,
and 140 to 500 yuan as a tax for selling electrical goods.
It is difficult to decipher such an array of taxes, but
altogether they add up to a sizeable tax rate per year, and
a confusing tax structure, neither of which are conducive to
good business or regulation.
An 18 year-old man from Lhasa, arrived in Nepal in November
1999. He lived in the Banak Shol in Lhasa with his mother
and sister in a 2 room rented house. Their average monthly
expenses exceeded 500 yuan. He works in a Chinese hotel as
a waiter. His monthly salary is 500 yuan but he pays a
monthly tax of 150 yuan, and receives only 350 yuan per
month after tax.
Dadon, an 18 year-old from a small business family in Lhasa,
arrived in Nepal on 23 September 1998. Her father is a
tailor and her mother sells miscellaneous goods in the
market. In her family only her mother and brother have
ration cards for Lhasa and she and her father and sister do
not have the necessary themdo (ration card). Without a
ration card, she was not able to access fee reductions for
school and from the age of 12 to 18 she stayed with her
mother doing small business. There are a number of taxes
incurred by her parents for keeping a shop. They must pay
80 yuan monthly for land tax and 250 yuan monthly for
cleanliness and security tax. Profits from a good month of
selling cloth and garments might reach 400 yuan and her
parents use this money to meet household expenses.
But it is interesting to note how there are great
discrepancies even between the experiences of Tibetans in
urban areas. While the general picture is of heavy
taxation, some refugees have reported that certain areas of
small business are free from the heavy taxes which hit
shopkeepers and others. The following account gives an
insight into those who have found ways around the system.
Kelsang is a 22 year-old small businessman in Lhasa who
comes from a farming family of Sichuan Province (Kham). He
arrived in Dharamsala on 6 January 2000. He doesn't know
much about farming as he was all the time hanging around in
Lhasa, and never worked on the family farm. There is a big
wholesale shop in the city where he bought clothes to sell
on the ground in the Barkhor. He did not have a shop as
such and was allowed to sell goods for only 2 hours per day.
He could sell anywhere but had to pay a tax/permit of 1 yuan
per 2 hours. This was paid to police and he was given
a coupon. He did not have to pay bribes. His family were
quite well off and he and his cousin brother took a room
for rent in Lhasa. The rent cost 200 yuan per month.
There was no real problem that his themdo was in
his village, he didn't have to pay double for things and
actually mostly ate outside in restaurants. There was
no double charge for rent. In four years he made 10 000
yuan profit. It was good business, and there were no real
taxes except for his expenses in paying rent, for the house
costs, dustbin collection and various residential charges.
Shops in Lhasa, on the other hand, must pay a lot of tax.
According to Kelsang, the poor Chinese in Lhasa also have
to pay tax and are treated poorly like the Tibetans. The rich
ones, however, are treated much better. In this sense he indicated
that discrimination seems socio-economic, as well as racial, in the
small business area. The broader picture here is interesting because
in other areas we can see how the Chinese government has worked
to keep Tibetans poor through heavy taxation and limits on
animals; in this way racial discrimination can blend with and
metamorphose into socio-economic discrimination.
Heavy taxation and procurement policies, especially in
rural areas (but also those aimed at Tibetan businesses in urban
areas), work to keep a great number of Tibetans poor. The level of
taxation appears to vary greatly and to be on the increase, despite claims
that farmers and nomads are exempt from taxation.
Government procurement of produce at artificially low prices damages
the agricultural economy and acts as a disincentive to production.
Taxation seems mainly to be collected at a regional level and
there are great discrepancies between various Counties, indicating
that corruption and lack of transparency in implementation of
taxation policy are big problems. Excessive taxation remains a
serious obstacle to the enjoyment of the right to
development in Tibet.
Article 11(1) of the ICESCR states that: "The State
Parties...recognise the right of everyone to ... adequate food
and (2) recognising the right of everyone to be free from
hunger, shall take ... the measures ... which are
needed ... "
Furthermore, Article 1(2) of the ICESCR states,
"... In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of
subsistence."
China repeatedly declares that making Tibet self sufficient
in food production is a major goal in their development
policy.
97
The PRC's reference to Tibet's dependency of
food negates the fact that Tibet had always been self
sufficient in producing enough food for themselves for
thousands of years, until the migration of Chinese
settlers.
98
It is the influx of Chinese following their
invasion in 1950 and their enormous new demands that ended
this long history of Tibetan independence and
self-sufficiency. The Chinese themselves are the ones who
created the dependency that they now trumpet the need to
overcome. The PRC has implemented unsustainable, industrial
mass production policies with the intention of increasing
agricultural output in order to feed the overwhelming
amounts of new Chinese settlers. Aside from the immense
environmental damage caused by these policies, as noted in
the previous section, the basic effect on Tibetans of
satisfying Chinese appetites is ongoing hunger.
Poverty is widespread in Tibet, not because of ecological
determinism or Tibetans' "backwardness", but due to the
PRC government policy of taking farmers and nomads surpluses
and subsistence produce.
99
As noted above, the PRC's
taxation of Tibetan farmers, usually taken in-kind as a
percentage of their crop and animal products, is excessive
and frequently leaves them and their families without enough
to eat. Refugees very often report that they and a very high
percentage of their district's residents are forced to
borrow from more prosperous families in order to survive.
Tibetan farmers and nomads are also forced to sell a certain
amount of their crops, animals and animal products to
the State at a fraction of its fair market value so that
they may resell it themselves, either cheaply to Chinese
settlers or to deprived Tibetans at excessive prices.
100
As Gabriel Lafitte has argued, "The procurement bureaus, often
renamed as `producer co-operatives', continue to operate as a
rent-seeking class. They hold down prices received by producersand
divert commodities away from local trading networks towards bulk
supply to the major nodes of Chinese settlement. They have succeeded
at becoming self-sustaining, at the cost of immiserating the
Tibetan producers."
101
While the Chinese take large amounts of the Tibetans
agricultural production, they provide no or little aid to
them in the event of crop failure.
Recent interviews conducted by TCHRD reveal that food
shortages remain a real concern for Tibetans, and a daily
reality for some. Such shortages highlight problems
with agricultural policy and must also be placed in
the context of the heavy burden that rural taxation and
procurement is placing on Tibetan farmers and nomads.
Meanwhile official Chinese media recently claimed increases
in grain production in "TAR" and that at present "Tibet
[TAR] boasts surplus grain capable of meeting local needs
for five years."
102
Norbu Choepel, a 36 year-old farmer from Dhingri
County, Shigatse Prefecture, who arrived in Nepal on 19 December
1999, had 6 members in his family, including 4 children. He has
around 11 mu of land, and his family produce 600
gyama of cereals per year. However, this is all
consumed by the family and lasts for only 3 months of every
year. For 9 months of every year his family faces serious
food shortage, and have to borrow from other families
to eat. The family has suffered terribly since 1989,
and annually face hunger. He lives on the mercy of other
farmers, and currently owes a debt of 700 gyama
of cereals and around 1000 yuan to his fellow farmers.
In his village of the 18 Tibetan families only 4 are
prosperous, while the rest are annually troubled by grain
shortages.
"In my village of the 60 Tibetan families, 15 families
usually face food shortages and borrow cereals from other
farmers to feed their families," reported Tsetan, a 33
year-old nomad from Nagchu Prefecture who arrived in Nepal
on 22 November 1999. There is no help from the government
for these families who have to pay taxes as per usual.
Gelek Passang, a 22 year-old monk from Lithang County,
Sichuan Province, arrived in Nepal on 2 January 1999. His
families are farmers and there are 10 members. From the 300
Tibetan families in the Shang, "around 80 families usually
borrow cereals from other farming families to feed their
families." Despite this these farmers still have to pay
annual cereal taxes.
Upon his arrival in Nepal on 22 January 1999,
Phuntsok, a 43
year-old farmer from Dhingri County, Shigatse Prefecture,
reported that there are 30 families in his village and 28 of
these families usually face cereal shortages. They borrow
money from the County office. These people do not have
enough food to eat. Phuntsok has 6 members in his family.
They have 10 mu of land, 2 yaks, 2 dzo and 3 dri. Their
annual crop production was around 30 to 40 mu of cereals.
He reported that his family regularly faced a shortage of
cereals and had to borrow money to buy cereals.
In autumn of 1997 the County authorities announced interest
free loans to farmers and nomads in the Shang, lending
between 1000 and 3000 yuan to each family in the Shang.
However the following year the authorities announced they
would collect interest on the loans. They forcibly
collected interest at a rate of 3 yuan per 1000 yuan loaned.
Many farmers "sold their animals and even their roofing to
pay the interest on the loans."
Lhapsum Gyaltsen's family is nomad and has 9 members.
He is a 34 year-old monk from Diru County, Nagchu Prefecture,
and arrived in exile on 28 January 1999. He reported that
at the end of 1997 and in the beginning of 1998 the Nagchu
Prefecture suffered heavy snowfalls. Large numbers of the
nomads' animals perished due to the cold and snow. In his
area around 20 nomadic families suffered heavy losses of
their animals. No sufficient relief came
from the Chinese authorities, although they collected donations
for the snow-affected nomads from all over Tibet. "Many
affected families are now seen begging and borrowing food from other
people in the Shang [township]."
In Tsewang Dorje's village there are 76 Tibetan families
and 46 of them face annual shortages of cereal foods for their
own consumption. As such during summer most of the Tibetans
move out of the village in search for work in Ngari.
They mainly work
in Chinese road and factory construction and are paid 10 to 20
yuan per day. From his work in Ngari, Tsewang Dorje earned
around 1800 yuan. He used this money to buy clothing and food for
his family. He has 6 members in his family, including four
children. Tsewang Dorje, a 35 year-old farmer from Ngamring
County, Shigatse Prefecture, fled Tibet and reached Nepal in
May 1999.
Trakok Dawa, a 19 year-old monk from Toelung
Dechen County, Lhasa Municipality, arrived in Nepal on 19
September 1998. In his village of 80 families, 10 families
always face food shortages. In 1997 the region was hit
severely by frost and the great bulk of the villagers'
crops were damaged. The Chinese authorities collected
taxes as per usual and there was no relief or assistance
forthcoming. The villagers have to pay their taxes in the
form of fertilisers when they have run out of cereals,
and these fertilisers are purchased from the Chinese at
a high rate in the first place. Some families try to
pay taxes by killing their animals and selling the meat
to buy the fertiliser needed. Some also raise funds by
collecting dried cow dung and plants used for incense.
"In my village there are 64 Tibetan families and 35 of
these families survive by constantly borrowing food, while a further
20 families have to occasionally borrow food and seeds. Some
families must do without adequate food for long periods of time.
However, due to the generosity of friends and neighbours, no one has
died from starvation or hunger recently," reported
Choe Pak, a 22 year-old farmer from Driru County,
Nagchu Prefecture, who arrived in Nepal on 1 September
1998. His family have also faced food shortages and have
never received any government assistance at these times.
These testimonies reveal that hunger and grain shortages
continue to undercut China's claims for success in
developing Tibet and its agricultural economy. They
counterbalance the official line of mass poverty reduction,
and illustrate that attempts to transform the subsistence
nature of traditional agricultural practices have in fact
led to greater food insecurity for a number of Tibetans.
Chinese assistance to farmers and nomads facing shortages or
economic hardship due to natural disasters is either
insubstantial or non-existent. Critically the procurement
and taxation policies continue to be blind to actual living
conditions and yearly variations, so that Tibetans facing
economic crises are still required to pay taxes as per
usual. Tibetans also report that while traditionally richer
families were previously able to help those in need, in many
areas those families can no longer afford to do this to the
same extent and local government has not stepped in to fill
their place effectively.
In addition there are indications that in some areas local
Chinese authorities are enforcing animal limits on nomads.
These limits act to artificially keep some families and
areas poor and seem an unnecessary restriction on
traditional agricultural practices.
Nortso, a 29 year-old
farmer from Ngamring County, Shigatse Prefecture, reached
Nepal on 20 December 1999. In his village farmers were not
allowed to keep more than 15 goats or sheep per family
member. Chinese authorities inspected the villages in
autumn and slaughtered excess animals. This policy was
instituted by Ngamring County officials in 1994 and those
who failed to comply were publicly criticised and had their
animals confiscated.
A young monk from a nomad family, came to Dharamsala
on 4 January 2000. He reports that in his village in Shershul
County, Ganzi TAP, Sichuan Province (Kham), there are animal
limits.
"My family have no land. We have 20 yaks, 7 dri,
100 sheep, 3 horses. There is an animal limit in the area.
Each family is allowed to keep 7 yaks, not more, 4 dris, 20
sheep and 3 horses. For each sheep over the official limit
there is a fine of 3 yuan, for each yak over the limit
the fine is 5 yuan. It is 2 yuan for each offending
dri, and also 2 yuan per horse over the limit.
The village head collects these fines and hands the money
over to the dzong (County) authorities who issue the
limits in the first place. However, to make any kind of
profit it is necessary to transgress this limit, and it is
still possible to make something after paying the fines,
from selling the skins and so on. As yet the animals have
not been taken away by the authorities for redistribution.
They say this will be done shortly, but no date has been
set."
A young nomad, from Lhasa Municipality, came
to Dharamsala on 30 January 2000. There are 9 members in his family.
The family has 40
yak/dri/dzo; 80 sheep; 1 horse. Each member
is allowed 30 sheep or the equivalent thereof with 1
yak counting as 6 sheep. They are not fined but
they must either kill them or sell
them to others. Every year the village head comes to calculate the
number of animals and sets a date by which offending animals must be
sold or killed. He doesn't know how many animals his family had
before, but redistribution occurred in 1980.
An anonymous nomad from Ngaba TAP, Sichuan
Province (Kham), came to Dharamsala on 24 January 2000.
His testimony points to differing practices with
regards to animal limits. In his area officials
lease animals and also limit them. The family have 80
yak/dri/dzo, 20 sheep, and 3 horses.
"The animals are owned by the government and given to
the people for 10 years by the Township authorities.
This policy came about in 1988-89." Before this he doesn't
know how many animals his family had. Before 1988-89,
groups of 10 families were given animals to share.
Then family allocation occurred. "Each family is given
80 animals and if they have less than this they must pay
money to the government. The Township fixes these fines.
There is little chance of going too far over these limits
either because we have to pay meat tax and kill animals
to pay for their taxes."
The animal limit policies vary widely and seem to
be implemented in a haphazard way like taxation and
procurement policies. In some cases it seems that to
prosper, nomads and semi-nomads must exceed the limits
in any case and pay the fines levied. Such intervention
in the market economy is counterproductive and damaging.
The limits act to unnaturally constrain this integral
sector of animal husbandry within the wider Tibetan
economy, and along with other agricultural policies such as
fencing of nomad grazing lands, reveal an unfamiliarity
with traditional practices and an attempt to control
Tibetan practices and ways of living. Once again, Tibetan
participation and consultation in the formulation and
implementation of such policies is either minimal or
heavily constrained.
There are 9 members in
Dakpa Gyatso's family. They have 70
sheep, 30 dris/yaks. Most of the 400 families in their
village in Rabkong County, Mahlo TAP, Tso-ngon Province
(Qinghai), are nomads and farmers. The family gives around
10 sheep as meat tax, and 600 yuan as land and water tax per
year.
"In 1997 the authorities collected 1000 yuan from
each family in the village to pay for the demarcation and
fencing of the grazing land. The farmers and nomads have
protested these changes but were threatened with police and
the army, and this policy has greatly affected livestock
productivity and further impoverished nomads in the
region,"
reported Gyatso, a 25 year-old monk who arrived in
exile on 23 April 1999.
Nyima, a 27 year-old nomad from Nagchu County, Nagchu
Prefecture, arrived in Dharamsala on 11 February 2000.
Nyima felt strongly that the nomad existence was being
directly threatened by government policies. He said:
"The Chinese authorities do not like the nomads, and they
impose many limitations on our way of life, so that life
will be hard and to encourage us to stop living as nomads."
This discrimination and prejudice is indirect. The nomads
in his area could not move freely. "We are given a
particular piece of land and have to stay there. Generally
we are given around 20 mu of land. We are told to fence the
land or else we are fined 5 yuan per sheep. There are some
nomad families who because of heavy taxation became very
poor and had to leave the nomadic way of life. They open small
tea shops on the road construction."
Kunchok, a 22 year-old monk from a nomad family
from Shershul County, Kandze TAP, Sichuan Province (Kham),
arrived in Dharamsala on 4 January 2000. According to his testimony
his family must fence their pastures and cannot let their animals
graze freely. "My family had to pay 4000 yuan for the cost of the
fencing and if we had refused we would have had to pay 8000 yuan for
the fencing as punishment." Bizarrely, the family can only kill
animals if they have animals over the official government limits and
then are only allowed to kill these offending animals.
The fencing of the traditional grasslands of Tibetan
nomads has led to increased economic hardship for some and
divisions between various tribes over the areas in which they can graze
their animals. There have been a number of reports of fighting
between rival groups with deaths occurring, as a direct result of the
fencing policies. On 20 May 1999 fighting occurred between the Arig
tribe of Sogpo County, Malho TAP, Qinghai Province, and the
Ngulra tribe of Machu County, Gannan TAP, Gansu
Province.
103
This incident resulted in 5 deaths and added to the
total at that time of 29 deaths from such incidents since
August 1997.
104
TIN made the following criticisms of the government's
handling of these disputes, pointing to their origin in
this case in the government policy of fencing:
"The traditional role of influential religious figures has
been taken over by the state, whose hands-off approach is
prolonging disputes, affecting the economic productivity of the
communities involved and contributing to a break-down in the sense of
105
In many cases the cost of the fence construction is borne
by the nomads themselves, and there have been concerns about
those who are allocated inferior land with poor access to water and
other essentials. In addition there are environmental issues such
as increased erosion and the degradation of grasslands due
to "unsustainable herd size" in many areas as a result of state
policies of communisation from the 1960s until the reallocation of
animals in the 1980s.
106
The following testimonies reveal that local government and
higher levels of officialdom are not doing enough on the
ground to alleviate hardship and poverty during times of
economic crisis. This is most obvious when areas are
affected by natural disasters such as heavy snowfall or crop
failure.
"For two years my village didn't have good crops due to
heavy snow fall. Despite the failure of crops, there was no
government assistance, and we still had to pay a heavy rate
of taxation, despite our yield being much smaller. At these
times all the village people faced problems and had to sell
their animals. For the years of 1997 and 1998, my family
had to sell 15 yaks and 20 sheep, as a result of the crop
failures," said
Tamding, a 19 year-old farmer from Haiyen
County, Qinghai Province (Amdo) who reached Dharamsala on 15
December 1999.
A 24 year-old nomad
from Malho Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture
in Qinghai Province (Amdo) arrived in Dharamsala on 3
January 2000. He reports that there have been instances of
government aid during agricultural crises, but that taxation
remained the same at these times. In 1996 Chinese County
authorities gave each family in the village 500 yuan in
government assistance. This compensation was given after a
very heavy snowfall when many lost animals.
"My family lost 20 yaks and 6 sheep. The compensation
was not enough money and we still had to pay our taxes
at the usual rates, though not for the dead animals.
There are no Chinese farmers in the area."
According to Tamding's testimony many animals died of
diseases in his area in Sangchu County, Gannan TAP and
nomads were not given any government assistance at that
time. Tamding, a 19 year-old nomad from Sangchu County, came
to Dharamsala on 25 January 2000. Buchung, a 28 year-old
nomad from Damshung County, Lhasa Municipality, arrived in
Dharamsala on 30 January
2000. He also reports that while previously richer families used
to help those in need in his area, now there is no aid from
the government when there are natural disasters or poor crops.
An Anonymous nomad from Chuchen County, Ngaba TAP,
Sichuan Province (Kham), came to Dharamsala on 24 January 2000.
He told TCHRD, "when we have difficulties, sometimes the
government gives flour but only when there has been heavy
snowfall and at this time 300 gyama is given to
each family. This has happened twice and the source
is the Township authorities, but the amount given was
insufficient."
Despite its many claims to the contrary
107,
China has failed to improve agricultural conditions and
productivity in Tibet by any great margin, especially when
we consider that Chinese officials have had nearly 50 years
to work with. Tsewang Phuntso in his study of the history
of development in Tibet concludes that "the lives in rural
Tibet remain almost unchanged during the past 40 years.
The Tibetan farmers still till the soil with the same old
farming techniques The PRC's well-publicised initiatives
to improve grain production in rural Tibet still remain
concentrated in a few fertile valleys. Most of the
peripheral areas are neglected."
108
In fact many of its experiments with new agricultural techniques such as
the introduction of winter wheat have been failures and have only
further alienated Tibetan rural workers. Winter wheat takes a lot of
input and time and reduces soil quality. Initially it was grown during
the 60s and 70s to feed Chinese settlers, officials and military who
were unused to the traditional Tibetan staple of barley
(tsampa). Phuntso notes that during this phase of Chinese experimentation,
"Wheat outputs declined after some initial huge harvests."
109
Along with such unsuitable crops, fertilisers have also had a detrimental
long-term impact on Tibetan farmland. Dawa, a young farmer
from Kyirong County, Shigatse Prefecture, arrived in Dharamsala on
25 January 2000. He reported to TCHRD that his family is ordered
to buy fertiliser from the government. Fertiliser costs 150 yuan
per small sack and his family has been encouraged to use fertilisers
for 10 years. But "once fertiliser is used, if we do not use it the
next time, then the following crop suffers. This is a big problem
for those in my community who cannot afford to buy
fertiliser anymore."
Yet despite continuing evidence of a failure of agricultural
policy, the Chinese government continues to claim that it is
making life better for Tibetan farmers and nomads. Ann
Forbes and Carole McGranahan concluded in their study of
development in Tibet that local officials exert a great
degree of control over the lives and lifestyles of nomads.
There is also a disjuncture between the policies initiated
in Beijing and Lhasa and the ways in which they are
implemented at a local level.
110
In this, as in other
areas under the broader category of the Tibetan right to
development, there continues to be a widening gap between
the rhetoric of the State and the reality of Tibetan lives.
Article 12(1) of the ICESCR provides that, "The States
Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of
everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard
of physical and mental health." China now claims to have
provided a comprehensive basic medical infrastructure in
Tibet. Recent claims are that:
"By the end of 1997 Tibet [TAR] had 1,324 medical and
health establishments, 127 more than in 1991; 6,246 hospital
beds, 1,169 beds more than in 1991, averaging some 2.5 beds
per 1,000 people; 10,929 medical and health personnel, a
24.46 per cent increase ... In Tibet a preferential medical
policy is being carried out. Medical treatment is free in
farming and pastoral areas, and is financed jointly by
personal medical insurance and the state in cities and
towns."
111
Because of the economy of scale, the majority of the
hospitals and medical clinics are located in urban centres.
This provides treatment to the urban Chinese rather than the
distant, rural Tibetans. This conclusion is verified by
Tibetan interviews. For instance,
Dhorchoe Kunchok Tendar,
age 61 from Chamdo Village, on 16 April 1998 talked about
the cost of treatment in Chamdo. Tibetans must pay 500 yuan
to be admitted to the governmental hospital, even if the
person is dying. The Tibetan Medical Institute also charges
500 yuan. Rural hospitals are rare. One young resident of
Lhasa, age 22 years, arrived in Dharamsala on 6 January 2000 and
reports that "there are so many hospitals in Lhasa". However, he also
reports that a relative who was stabbed had to pay 5000 yuan as an
advanced deposit to receive treatment, and received no refund of this deposit.
Medical treatment in the big cities does not come cheap.
Namgyal Choephel, age 56 from Na-Kar Tse County,
Lhoka Prefecture, "TAR" on 29 April 1998 said that there was no
medical care in any of his village; rather anyone would have to travel 2
hours to the County for treatment, where admission to the clinic cost
100 yuan. The medicine usually would cost more than 1000 yuan.
Dawa Tsering, age 35 from Chamdo Prefecture, Gasok
Shang, said on 8 October 1998 that there was no
hospital in his village. There is
one hospital in the County that charges 700 yuan for an
examination. Tsetan Norbu, age 30 from Shigatse
Prefecture, Ngamring County, Chu-Wok Shang,
described on 1 January 1999 that he
was hospitalised for a fracture of his right arm and paid 1750 yuan.
A woman whom he knew named Bhu Chok applied for admission
to the hospital for an emergency appendicitis; because she did not
have 3000 yuan, the hospital did not treat her.
"In Dhingri County, there are 7 villages with a total
population of 4500 Tibetans. They are mostly farmers. There is no
electricity, and for every 3 people there is a one room house. There is a
small clinic in the Township, but for major treatment or to buy
medicines, people must go to the County hospital, which is 50 km away.
Many times people self-medicate and die in their homes,"
reported Tsultrim Kelsang, a 32 year-old farmer from Dhingri
County, Shigatse Prefecture, who reached Nepal on 19 November 1999.
The two main obstacles facing Tibetans in accessing
adequate health care, are distance and the heavy cost resulting from
the required payment of an advance deposit before admission
is permitted in many of the larger hospitals. These kind of
impediments have lead many Tibetans, especially those in rural and remote
areas to think of the larger hospitals as places they could never go,
except in extreme circumstances.
The following examples given by recently arrived
refugees give further insight into the state of health care
in Tibet.
Dawa, an 18 year-old farmer from Kyirong County, Shigatse
Prefecture, arrived in Dharamsala on 25 January 2000. Dawa
would have to go to the People's Hospital in Kyirong Town
for treatment. A deposit of 2000 yuan is required or else
there is no treatment available. There is no financial help
from the government in paying for health care. Just
recently authorities announced that you needed a green book
to go to hospital. People must pay 10 yuan for this book,
and it is meant to reduce hospital fees by half. In
reality, with or without the green book, you still pay the
full amount for health services.
In fact, health care is meant to be free for farmers, but
according to Dawa this is all lies. For minor problems if
you don't have the 10-15 yuan to pay for treatment, then
you will not be treated. Dawa had heard a story of an old
Tibetan man in a hospital in Lhasa who died in front of
other waiting patients because he didn't have the 2000 yuan
needed to receive treatment.
"There is no hospital in my village. We have to go to the
nearest town when we are sick. It takes a whole day walking
to get there. If it is a minor problem we do not have to
pay an advance deposit. But we do have to pay an advance
for surgery. A short consultation is free, but they must
pay for the medicine," said
Nyima, a 27 year-old nomad, who
escaped to Dharamsala on 11 February 2000 from Nagchu
County, Nagchu Prefecture.
Gangkyi, a 29 year-old nomad from Tsaka County, "TAR",
arrived in Dharamsala on 12 February 2000. She reports that
there is one small village clinic that is Tibetan, but the
standard of health care is poor. For villagers with a major
problem, they have to go to the County hospital. Nomads and
common people simply cannot afford to do this. The cost of
an ambulance to the County hospital is 100 yuan, and
patients must pay an advanced deposit of 800 yuan to be
admitted. The authorities provide no preventative health
measures in the village.
"There is no hospital in my village. Local Tibetans have
to go to the Township for the small hospital and to the
County for a bigger hospital. The major impediment to
access to health care is the 800-900 yuan advance deposit
that must be paid to receive treatment
at these hospitals. Tibetans face problems paying this amount and
if they have a really serious condition must borrow from others.
There are no health care prevention measures," recalls
Tamding, a 19 year-old farmer, who came to
Dharamsala on 15 December 1999
from Haiyen County, Qinghai Province (Amdo), Tibet.
There are no medical facilities in
Namlang's village. In the Township there is a
people's hospital. The basic consultation fee
is 5 yuan, however, to receive admission for anything serious at
this hospital they must pay an advanced deposit of 500 yuan.
Medicine is paid for separately. Namlang had been to the Township
hospital to receive treatment for intestinal problems. He had to pay
2300 yuan altogether for medicine, his bed and treatment for one
month. The facilities in the hospital were good. In this hospital
patients have to bring food from home. "By horse it takes 8 hours to
the hospital from my home, but there are a few buses which take 3 or
4 hours from the village to the Township. The doctors see the
patients in the mornings only and if the patients have a problem they have
to shout and beg for the doctors to come to see them," said Namlang,
a 24 year-old nomad from Mahlo TAP, Qinghai Province
(Amdo), who arrived in Dharamsala on 3 January 2000.
Some Tibetans have reported that they face problems
with being prescribed out-of-date medicines, and being given
poor treatment. One such case is reported by
Kunchok, a 22 year-old monk from a nomad family. Kunchok comes from Sershul
County, Kandze TAP, Sichuan Province (Kham), and arrived in
Dharamsala on 4 January 2000. There are no medical facilities in
Kunchok's home village and but a small clinic in the Township where fees
for a brief consultation are 13 yuan. There is a large Chinese
hospital in the County centre, but the family doesn't go there because
the medicines and treatment there are really expensive. In
addition doctors give expired medicines to the nomads, this is also done
in the Township clinic and sometimes doctors give the nomads
the wrong medicines because they know that the nomads are on
the whole uneducated and take advantage of this. Many people die as
a result of being given incorrect or expired medicines. Kunchok
has seen one such case with his own eyes and heard of many
other cases. One man from Kunchok’s village had lung
problems and was admitted to the County hospital. He was
treated with the wrong injection and expired medicines. He
remained in the hospital for 3 days and died as a result of
this malpractice. The man had to pay 700 yuan as an advance
deposit to be admitted and then 300 yuan on top of this per
day for his bed and medicine. According to Kunchok, the
doctors give expired medicines to nomads only. In his
village those who have been to school can sometimes tell the
others whether the medicines are expired, as they can read.
The people in his village prefer to see a lama for
treatment, even if they are near death, as they know the
treatment in the hospital will be expensive and often
useless. There are no government health prevention
measures, but Westerners once came to their village to give
the villagers injections. Kunchok doesn't know what this
was for.
Clarifying the nature of the right to housing provided by
Article 11(1) of the ICESCR, the Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights has stated that, " the right
should not be interpreted in a narrow or restrictive sense
that equates it with, for example, merely having a roof over
one's head or view shelter exclusively as a commodity.
Rather it should be viewed as the right to live somewhere in
security, peace and dignity."
112
For a number of Tibetans
this right even in its most basic sense of having shelter is
not provided as most of them do not have even the most basic
housing available to them. With respect to the other
constitutive elements of the right, these are constantly
violated by the policies of the state such as high taxation
for basic amenities.
A key theme emerging in this report is that of Tibet as a
land of extremes of underdevelopment and over development.
This can be clearly seen in the area of housing and local
infrastructure where many nomads and farmers from remote
areas simply do not have the access to the infrastructure
that Chinese development has brought.
The following testimony gives an example of how remote
some Tibetan communities can be. Ngawang, is a 24 year-old
farmer from Derge County, Kandze TAP, Sichuan Province (Kham).
In his village there are 60 Tibetan families with a population of
around 500 people. Most of the villagers are farmers. Their village has
no motorable roads, and is located in a deep valley. The villagers
have no electricity, shops, clinics or schools nearby. To buy or
sell anything the villagers must travel to the County or Township.
Tsering Gyatso, a 17 year-old student from Sichuan
Province, Ngaba TAP, Zonge County arrived in exile on 30 April 1999.
Despite the fact that his family had to pay a number of taxes they lived in
a tent during the summer and in the winter they made a small
grass house to accommodate their family, they don't have any
electricity or any other facilities.
"Most of the Tibetans in my village live in mud houses
with one room. The Chinese had concrete houses and only the
Tibetans who worked in the Chinese offices had concrete houses. There
are also a lot of homeless people who are not nomads but because
they do not have a house or any land, they live in a tent. Even they
have to pay 5 yuan as a tax for the land which they pitch their tents
on," reported Tsering Norbu, a 37 year-old man from Dzonga
Shang, at the border of Kerum. He arrived in exile on 13 January 2000.
A 24 year-old nomad from Malho TAP, Qinghai
Province (Amdo), came to Dharamsala on 3 January 2000. There are
five members in the family and they live in a one room mud house.
They have no furniture and no access to electricity. For heating his
family burn animal dung. There is no wood in this village. There are
no telephones in the village, but there is a telephone in the Township.
The family does not have a toilet.
The 6 members of Yeshi's family live in a
yak hair tent. While they do not have beds, tables, or chairs, the family has blankets
and pillows. They put their cup on the floor. There is no electricity
and for heating they burn animal dung and sometimes wood for the fire.
They are allowed to collect dry wood on the ground but cannot
cut any trees. They have no toilet. Yeshi is 20 year-old nomad
from Nyagchuka County, Sichuan Province (Kham). He came
to Dharamsala on 30 January 2000.
"My family has 7 members. We live in a mud/dung house with
4 rooms. We have no beds, only 1 table and burn animal dung
for heating. We have no electricity. The nearest telephone
is in the Township and we use the outdoors for toilet. All
of my family work and I am the youngest. We pay no rent,"
reports a 19 year-old nomad from Sangchu County, Gannan TAP,
who arrived in Dharamsala on 25 January 2000.
A husband and wife from a nomad area in Derge County, Kandze
TAP, Sichuan Province (Kham), arrived in Dharamsala on 31
January 2000. There are only 2 family members. This is
their testimony. "We live in a yak tsipa (black yak hair
tent). We have no blankets or furniture and use our chubas
to sleep in, wearing our clothes at night to keep warm. We
use wood for heating and have a mud stove. At the top of
our tent there is a flap to release the smoke and at night
this is closed. There is no electricity."
There are 9 members in Buchung's family and he makes the
following comments about their housing conditions. "We
have mud houses but also use tents when we take the animals
grazing. Only from last year have we had electricity, and
the authorities collected 50 yuan from each family for this;
those who didn't pay didn't get connected. Then families
have to pay monthly for electricity. Per 100 W bulb you pay
40 yuan per month, per 60 W bulb 30 yuan per month. There
is no wood and so we use animal dung. There is a phone in
the Township or the County centre." Buchung is a young
nomad from Lhasa Municipality. He came to exile on 30
January 2000.
The Chinese government has claimed great improvements in
urban housing, though much of the housing has been built for
Chinese settlers and has resulted in the destruction of
urban cultural heritage. A recent white paper on human
rights claimed, "Municipal
construction has been speeded up in major cities and towns
Since the 1980s more than 300,000 sq m of old residential houses
have been rebuilt in Lhasa, and 5,226 households have moved to
new dwellings. All this has improved the living environment and
quality of life of both urban and rural
residents."
113
But refugee testimony, though difficult to find in this
area, and academic opinion raise questions about whether this new
Chinese housing has in fact delivered improved living conditions to
Tibetans living in the cities such as Lhasa. In fact Lhasa's economy has
been artificially fuelled by a construction boom to such an extent
that buildings built by the Chinese in recent times have been pulled
down only to be built again. There are also reports of much of the
finished construction lying unoccupied, although most of the housing is
built for Chinese settlers and housing policies can be seen to
be interconnected with the policies of population
transfer.
114
In the few areas of Lhasa where traditional Tibetan housing remains,
there are constant pressures for development and further desecration
of Tibetan cultural heritage.
115
The Chinese have also built
poorly constructed "Tibetan-style" housing which has
environmental, cultural, sanitation and comfort concerns. The conditions
for residents are cramped and unhealthy. Whereas previous
structures could have been improved upon through renovation, older
housing has been pulled down and shoddily-constructed,
Chinese-designed housing with a whole new set of problems
has been built. Many
of these problems relate to cultural heritage concerns, but also
stem from the unique nature of Tibet's environment with which
traditional Tibetan buildings had synergised over time.
Scott Leckie, in a major study on the violation of housing
rights in Tibet, listed 10 main areas of violations: racial discrimination
in housing; demolition of houses and forced eviction;
increasing homelessness; restrictions on residency; evictions on racial
grounds; housing insecurity and poor living conditions; intentional denial
of public amenities; selective investment in public housing; lack
of popular participation in planning and design of housing
projects; and expropriation of housing (occasionally as
punishment).
116
A small businessman from Lhasa, arrived in Dharamsala
on 6 January 2000. He comes from a Khampa farming family.
In his words, "earlier farmers had lots of lands, these
were taken away by the Chinese and so now some of us go to
the cities to look for jobs, but there are not enough jobs
and the taxes are high." He and his cousin brother took a
room in Lhasa, with the rent at 200 yuan per month. "We
shared a 2 room flat. The flats are of stone construction,
new Chinese housing. We lived in the Banak Shol area. Our
flat had a table and bed but these were owned by my cousin
brother, who also runs a small business. The flat had
electricity which cost 15 to 20 yuan per month. We used gas
for heating, and one cylinder which costs 40 yuan lasted for
around 2 months. We did not have a phone. In the housing
complex, 15 families had to share the one toilet, for which
we each had to pay 3 yuan per month."
Poor sanitation is a real concern in the Chinese housing and
Leckie has gathered evidence that "the new housing provided
after demolition of historic areas in Lhasa is culturally
barren, more expensive to rent, smaller, less comfortable
and unsuited to Tibetan conditions, causing health
concerns."
117
The new constructions also have inferior
access to electricity, water, and sewage facilities.
118
Furthermore, the new housing has not incorporated the
energy-saving, heat-conserving features of traditional
Tibetan constructions.
Although increasing attention is being focused on the
cultural desecration of Lhasa, and other urban areas in
Tibet, the demolition continues. A
17 year-old Lhasa resident
told TCHRD that in 1997 around 150 traditional
Tibetan houses were demolished in the eastern part of Lhasa.
The residents were poor Tibetans who could not afford to pay
taxes for their homes. They were expelled to their native
villages without compensation. After the houses were
demolished apartment buildings for Chinese officials and
settlers were constructed on the site.
A young woman from Lhasa
arrived in exile in January 2000. She reports that
often authorities order Tibetan families to leave their
houses because of planned construction. They are given
smaller apartments or a little compensation. Some are even
required to pay for the new housing they are allocated after
their forced eviction.
Even though we have detected a sharp divide in the housing
and provision of basic infrastructure between urban and rural
areas, the situation in Lhasa and other cities is far from adequate.
Housing conditions in urban areas are of serious concern and the
demolition of Tibet's urban cultural heritage continues apace. Leckie
concludes: "Tibetans face systematic discrimination in the housing
sphere, possess no rights to participate in or control the housing or
planning process, confront significant barriers to accessing housing
resources, have little real housing security and, in many cases, are forced
to reside in living conditions inferior to those enjoyed by
Chinese migrants to Tibet."
119
In 1980, Hu Yaobang, then Secretary-General of the
Chinese Communist Party (CCP), in a speech to "TAR" cadres
admitted what has rarely been spoken of by Chinese officialdom. He
said, "There has been no great improvement in the lives of the people
of Tibet, and there are some places where there has even been a bit
of a decline."
120
It is a very difficult thing to gauge something as
broad as the concept of "standard of living", although there are
many indicators in the factors emerging in this report so far of what
might be perceived as the constitutive elements of a Tibetan conception
of standard of living. In its interviews TCHRD has attempted to
give recently arrived refugees the opportunity to talk about a range
of matters relating to "Family and Life". These questions focused
on areas that have already been covered such as housing, family
size, facilities, living expenses, and health care. And also on food
and clothing which have not so far been discussed except in the
context of Food Security. We also asked a broader question, "has
your standard of living changed over the years?"
There are two broader aims in our looking at standard of
living in Tibet. Firstly, by including this section we hope to continue
the theme of shifting the focus from income to consumption in
discussion of the standard of living and level of poverty in
Tibet. Income can be highly misleading, while consumption
is difficult to ascertain and can only be explored by asking
people of their actual day-to-day lives, a process which we
have begun but which needs to be continued and expanded
upon.
Secondly, TCHRD hopes to begin the process of letting
Tibetan voices challenge Chinese and Western definitions of
what might constitute "standard of living". In a number
of areas interviewees have taken our initial questions and
gone on to talk more broadly about how they perceive life in
present day Tibet, the boxed sections throughout the text
aim to give a sense of these life stories, where elsewhere
for structural purposes, the testimony of interviewees has
been broken up into the various categories of discussion.
There is also support within mainstream economic analysis
for a broadening out of established categories. Amartya Sen
confronts these questions by arguing the following:
"the freedom-centered perspective [on development] has a
generic similarity to the common concern with 'quality of
life,' which too concentrates on the way human life goes
(perhaps even the choices one has) and not just on the
resources or income that a person commands. The focusing on
the quality of life and on substantive freedoms, rather than
just on income or wealth, may look like something of a
departure from the established traditions of economics, and
in a sense it is ... But in fact these broader approaches are
in tune with lines of analysis that have been part of
professional economics right from the beginning."
121
The following testimonies reveal a similar focus on freedoms
and quality of life. Indeed, increasingly in human rights
law development is being seen in terms of human development.
As the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson,
recently commented, "There is an understanding that
strategies and policies which target GNP growth and
financial and economic indicators alone, without taking full
account of human and social factors, are not a sound
approach to development."
122
Many interviewees talked of
religious repression when asked about economic and social
conditions in Tibet, such as an anonymous follower of Geshe
Sonam Phuntsok who came to Dharamsala on 2 February 2000,
following the arrest and imprisonment of his
lama.
123
Dawa, a young farmer from Shigatse Prefecture, who arrived in Dharamsala on 25
January 2000, concluded his interview by talking broadly of the lack
of freedom and participation in the political sphere. He said due to
the restrictions on information, "In Tibet, Tibetans are like a frog in
a well, they do not know of the situation other countries, and it
is difficult even to talk of the situation within Tibet itself."
Others, like Nyima, a young nomad who arrived in Dharamsala on
11 February 2000, talked of restrictions regarding the Dalai Lama.
He said "In Tibet, Tibetans cannot display photos of His Holiness
the Dalai Lama. The Chinese say His Holiness is a splittist. Now I
am happy to be here in India." Nyima also talked of birth control
policies and forced sterilisation.
Tamding, a 19 year-old farmer from Haiyen County,
Qinghai Province (Amdo), arrived in Dharamsala on 15 December 1999.
He saw his family's living conditions as linked to heavy
taxation policies. "My family's living conditions have worsened over
the years. We pay about half of our income as tax, whereas earlier
we could keep this money. This new taxation policy was introduced
in 1997, but now our tax bill has increased to 4000 yuan per annum.
Given these financial pressures, my family often cannot pay
for adequate health care and we struggle to pay our tax at times."
Many of the interviewees from rural areas talked mainly
in terms of food and clothing when asked about consumption,
reflecting the subsistence issues which can dominate daily life for many.
Yeshi, a 20 year-old nomad from Nyagchuka County, Sichuan
Province (Kham), arrived in Dharamsala on 30 January 2000. There are
6 members in Yeshi's family. The youngest is 13 and is in a
monastery, an older brother who is 28 is also in the monastery, all others in
the family work. They do not pay rent. They spend any money
which they can earn from collecting yartsa
gumbu on food. Their diet consists of
tsampa, flour, rice, meat, butter and cheese. "We
have to buy everything except for cheese, meat and butter. We have
to buy these food supplies from Chinese government shops in
the County centre. We are not allowed to buy food anymore in
private hops, and this policy has been enforced since 1999.
The government shops are more expensive and furthermore the
food is often of a poor quality with worms and weevils in
the rice and so on. All of the private shops have been
closed down specifically so that the County government shops
will have a monopoly." In terms of income, his family is
able to earn 2000 to 3000 yuan by collecting and selling
yartsa gumbu, which they can gather in May and April.
Village people are able to make some money from this and the
Chinese use the plant for medicine. There are no government
restrictions on this activity. "We do not buy new clothes
every year, but if we have money from yartsa gumbu they buy
clothes. We wear chupas over pants." According to Yeshi
his family does not buy other goods. When asked
specifically about standard of living, Yeshi commented,
"Whatever my family earns we spend on food. The rest we
simply cannot afford. We cannot buy good things for our
home. Our standard of living has been this way for years."
Yeshi hopes to go to Tibetan school in India and will not
return to Tibet until Tibetans get their country back.
"Then I will return to help my village people."
Tamding, a young nomad from Gannan TAP, Gansu Province, came
to Dharamsala on 25 January 2000. His family's expenses
for food come to around 1500-2000 yuan per year. Their
estimated annual income is 4000 yuan for the whole family.
Their diet is based around tsampa, rice, sometimes tingmo
124
and only occasionally butter and meat. They buy rice, flour
and tsampa. The villagers wear sheep skins, Chinese pants
and paktsas (fur-lined chubas), and his family spend around
700-800 yuan per year on clothes. They have no other
expenses. Often they cannot afford new clothes and shoes,
prices have really risen in the past few years while the
quality has gone down.
A husband and wife from a nomad area in Derge County, Kandze
TAP, Sichuan Province (Kham), arrived in Dharamsala on 31
January 2000. They earn about 700-800 yuan per year from
yartsa gumbu which they use to pay the government as tax.
They also sell yak meat, butter, wool and cheese (but are
not sure how much exactly they earn from this). Generally
the couple are unable to save anything, but whatever they
have is usually enough to
run the family. They had the following to say to TCHRD. "In our
area, there are no roads and there is no school, it is very remote.
We never eat vegetables. Our diet consists mainly of
tsampa, butter, meat, bread, rice and flour. We also eat
droma [potentilla sp.] which we can find in summer. Our diet has remained pretty much
the same. We buy rice, thukpa (noodle) and flour and our food
expenses per year come to approximately 2000 yuan depending upon
what we are able to earn. For clothing we wear
paktsas. These are made by Chinese and we have to buy them. There are different kinds
but we buy the lowest quality and cheapest
paktsa which costs 125 yuan per piece. We buy a new
paktsa once every 3 years. For footwear we wear soldier's canvas shoes which cost 10 yuan per pair."
They do not have the money to afford any other goods after buying
clothes and food. Basically the couple spend everything they have on
food and clothing. They don't really have anything spare after this.
There is a lot of clothing which they cannot afford to buy, especially
good quality clothes. They cannot afford jewellery and they cannot
afford to eat the same standard and quality of food which they used to eat.
Kelsang, a young businessman in Lhasa had some
different picture of what was possible. He came to Dharamsala on 6
January 2000. While he commented that the prices for goods in Lhasa
were increasing every year. He had enough to eat and enough income
to buy fashionable clothes. From his perspective his standard of
living was reasonable but he argued that in general the Chinese had
made the Tibetan people poor. By hard work and by moving to Lhasa
he felt that he had been able to achieve a level of comfort, though as
he pointed out this was still relative comfort.
"I have 10 members in my family. We need to buy flour,
rice and barley, and our food expenses come to maybe 2000 yuan
per year. For clothing sometimes we wear Chinese clothes;
sometimes paktsa," reported
Dawa, a young nomad from Golog TAP, Qinghai Province (Amdo), who arrived in exile in Dharamsala on 3
January 2000. "The prices for consumer items and food and clothes
are increasing. Our standard of living is getting worse. After going
to school here in India I will return to Tibet. But I will not find
any jobs and so I will look after my family's animals."
"I have 9 family members. My family's standard of living
has fallen. There are no rich and no destitute families in
our village, we all must help each other to survive"
reported an anonymous nomad from Ngaba TAP, Sichuan Province
(Kham), who reached Dharamsala on 24 January 2000.
Conceptualising the standard of living and consumption rates
in Tibet is a complex and fraught process, but we begin to
see the patterns of over and under-development, the levels
of existence, the divides. We can also see the ways in
which Tibetans have adapted to a variety of circumstances,
though for many issues such as whether they will have enough
food and clothing dominate. But as the preceding testimony
illustrates, even these subsistence issues are also seen in
the context of political and religious freedoms, and
overwhelmingly through the prism of the potential freedom to
live as a Tibetan with cultural, social, economic and
political autonomy.
Dhondup, a young student from a farming family in Kandze
Dzong, Kandze County, Sichuan Province (Kham), arrived in
Dharamsala on 2 April 2000. He expresses this last point
powerfully and clearly. "My maternal grandmother told me
that during her time when the Chinese first invaded Tibet,
they confiscated all the land and wealth. That was a
terrible time. Then came the commune system, which was also
awful. Then came the redistribution of land, after which
time, life got a little better for Tibetans in Kandze. In
terms of food, clothing and housing, life is not as bad as
it was during the cultural revolution."
However, Dhondup feels that freedom is more important than
food, clothing and shelter. "Freedom of expression,
democracy and a civil society will lead to great
improvements in the standard of living, even in terms of
food, clothes and jobs. The only way to deal with economic
and social hardship is to have political freedom and
democracy, whereby you can elect your own leaders and
participate in the processes which impact on your life."
[ Next:
IV. The Tibetan People and the Right to Development
[ Contents ]
|
