  |
 |
Tibetan culture and background
 |
 |
|
What is a Tanka? A tanka (than-ka) is a portable religious painting on cloth. It is, in western Tibet, usually painted on coarse cotton weave which has been sized with a mixture of animal glue, chalk, and water. In paintings wider than eighteen inches, there is quite often a verticle seam joining two pieces of cloth because the local looms did not produce wider pieces. Pigments are either mineral or organic, producing rich colors compared to the garish modern chemical paints used in present day tanka painting. The painting is set in cloth boarders which are supplied with rods at the top and bottom so that the painting may be hung or rolled up for storage or transport. The western Tibetan paintings in the Koelz collection quite often have only a plain dark blue cloth at the top and bottom of the painting. Since tankas are portable, there is no guarantee that any tanka was actually painted at the monastery where it was acquired. There are several aids to stylistic analysis available to the art historian: comparison with dated tankas; original wall paintings in situ in dated buildings; identifiable historical subjects within the paintings; types of materials used for both paintings and boarders; and literary references. The styles of painting in Ladakh seem to have been largely influenced by the different religious movements which came into the country over the centuries. Although Tibetan art cannot be understood without knowledge of the doctrines of Mahayana Buddhism a superficial guide to tanka iconography and the styles of tanka painting will be helpfull for those touring the exhibit Some of the tankas were not originally from western Tibet. Many of these have borders, often of brocade, on all four sides. The borders on central Tibetan paintings have an iconography of their own which surrounds the subject of the painting. In essence the painting along with its borders encompasses the entire universe; the painting rises from its source as if on a lotus pedestal and is symbolically surrounded by the earth below, the sky above, and the Buddhist teachings on either side. |
| Human Rights and Universal Responsibility Non-Governmental Organizations The United Nations World Conference on Human Rights Vienna, Austria 15 June, 1993 Our world is becoming smaller and ever more interdependent with the rapid growth in population and increasing contact between people and governments. In this light, it is important to reassess the rights and responsibilities of individuals, peoples and nations in relation to each other and to the planet as a whole. This World Conference of organizations and governments concerned about the rights and freedoms of people throughout the world reflects the appreciation of our interdependence. No matter what country or continent we come from we are all basically the same human beings. We have the common human needs and concerns. We all seek happiness and try to avoid suffering regardless of our race, religion, sex or political status. Human beings, indeed all sentient beings, have the right to pursue happiness and live in peace and in freedom. As free human beings we can use our unique intelligence to try to understand ourselves and our world. But if we are prevented from using our creative potential, we are deprived of one of the basic characteristics of a human being. It is very often the most gifted, dedicated and creative members of our society who become victims of human rights abuses. Thus the political, social, cultural and economic developments of a society are obstructed by the violations of human rights. Therefore, the protection of these rights and freedoms are of immense importance both for the individuals affected and for the development of the society as a whole. It is my belief that the lack of understanding of the true cause of happiness is the principal reason why people inflict suffering on others. Some people think that causing pain to others may lead to their own happiness or that their own happiness is of such importance that the pain of others is of no significance. But this is clearly shortsighted. No one truly benefits from causing harm to another being. Whatever immediate advantage is gained at the expense of someone else is short-lived. In the long run causing others misery and infringing upon their peace and happiness creates anxiety, fear and suspicion for oneself. The key to creating a better and more peaceful world is the development of love and compassion for others. This naturally means we must develop concern for our brothers and sisters who are less fortunate than we are. In this respect, the non-governmental organizations have a key role to play. You not only create awareness for the need to respect the rights of all human beings, but also give the victims of human rights violations hope for a better future. When I travelled to Europe for the first time in 1973, I talked about the increasing interdependence of the world and the need to develop a sense of universal responsibility. We need to think in global terms because the effects of one nation's actions are felt far beyond its borders. The acceptance of universally binding standards of Human Rights as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants of Human Rights is essential in today's shrinking world. Respect for fundamental human rights should not remain an ideal to be achieved but a requisite foundation for every human society. When we demand the rights and freedoms we so cherish we should also be aware of our responsibilities. If we accept that others have an equal right to peace and happiness as ourselves do we not have a responsibility to help those in need? Respect for fundamental human rights is as important to the people of Africa and Asia as it is to those in Europe or the Americas. All human beings, whatever their cultural or historical background, suffer when they are intimidated, imprisoned or tortured. The question of human rights is so fundamentally important that there should be no difference of views on this. We must therefore insist on a global consensus not only on the need to respect human rights world wide but more importantly on the definition of these rights. Recently some Asian governments have contended that the standards of human rights laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are those advocated by the West and cannot be applied to Asia and others parts of the Third World because of differences in culture and differences in social and economic development. I do not share this view and I am convinced that the majority of Asian people do not support this view either, for it is the inherent nature of all human beings to yearn for freedom, equality and dignity, and they have an equal to achieve that. I do not see any contradiction between the need for economic development and the need for respect of human rights. The rich diversity of cultures and religions should help to strengthen the fundamental human rights in all communities. Because underlying this diversity are fundamental principles that bind us all as members of the same human family. Diversity and traditions can never justify the violations of human rights. Thus discrimination of persons from a different race, of women, and of weaker sections of society may be traditional in some regions, but if they are inconsistent with universally recognized human rights, these forms of behavior must change. The universal principles of equality of all human beings must take precedence. It is mainly the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes who are opposed to the universality of human rights. It would be absolutely wrong to concede to this view. On the contrary, such regimes must be made to respect and conform to the universally accepted principles in the larger and long term interests of their own peoples. The dramatic changes in the past few years clearly indicate that the triumph of human rights is inevitable. There is a growing awareness of peoples' responsibilities to each other and to the planet we share. This is encouraging even though so much suffering continues to be inflicted based on chauvinism, race, religion, ideology and history. A new hope is emerging for the downtrodden, and people everywhere are displaying a willingness to champion and defend the rights and freedoms of their fellow human beings. Brute force, no matter how strongly applied, can never subdue the basic human desire for freedom and dignity. It is not enough, as communist systems have assumed, merely to provide people with food, shelter and clothing. The deeper human nature needs to breathe the precious air of liberty. However, some governments still consider the fundamental human rights of its citizens an internal matter of the state. They do not accept that the fate of a people in any country is the legitimate concern of the entire human family and that claims to sovereignty are not a license to mistreat one's citizens. It is not only our right as members of the global human family to protest when our brothers and sisters are being treated brutally, but it is also our duty to do whatever we can to help them. Artificial barriers that have divided nations and peoples have fallen in recent times. With the dismantling of Berlin wall the East - West division which has polarized the whole world for decades has now come to an end. We are experiencing a time filled with hope and expectations. Yet there still remains a major gulf at the heart of the human family. By this I am referring to the North-South divide. If we are serious in our commitment to the fundamental principles of equality, principles which, I believe, lie at the heart of the concept of human rights, today's economic disparity can no longer be ignored. It is not enough to merely state that all human beings must enjoy equal dignity. This must be translated into action. We have a responsibility to find ways to achieve a more equitable distribution of world's resources. We are witnessing a tremendous popular movement for the advancement of human rights and democratic freedom in the world. This movement must become an even more powerful moral force, so that even the most obstructive governments and armies are incapable of suppressing it. This conference is an occasion for all of us to reaffirm our commitment to this goal. It is natural and just for nations, peoples and individuals to demand respect for their rights and freedoms and to struggle to end repression, racism, economic exploitation, military occupation, and various forms of colonialism and alien domination. Governments should actively support such demands instead of only paying lip service to them. As we approach the end of the Twentieth Century, we find that the world is becoming one community. We are being drawn together by the grave problems of over population, dwindling natural resources, and an environmental crisis that threaten the very foundation of our existence on this planet. Human rights, environmental protection and great social and economic equality, are all interrelated. I believe that to meet the challenges of our times, human beings will have to develop a greater sense of universal responsibility. Each of us must learn to work not just for one self, one's own family or one's nation, but for the benefit of all humankind. Universal responsibility is the is the best foundation for world peace. This need for co-operation can only strengthen humankind, because it helps us to recognize that the most secure foundation for a new world order is not simply broader political and economic alliances, but each individual's genuine practice of love and compassion. These qualities are the ultimate source of human happiness, and our need for them lies at the very core of our being. The practice of compassion is not idealistic, but the most effective way to pursue the best interests of others as well as our own. The more we become interdependent the more it is in our own interest to ensure the well-being of others. I believe that one of the principal factors that hinder us from fully appreciating our interdependence is our undue emphasis on material development. We have become so engrossed in its pursuit that, unknowingly, we have neglected the most basic qualities of compassion, caring and cooperation. When we do not know someone or do not feel connected to an individual or group, we tend to overlook their needs. Yet, the development of human society requires that people help each other. I, for one, strongly believe that individuals can make a difference in society. Every individual has a responsibility to help more our global family in the right direction and we must each assume that responsibility. As a Buddhist monk, I try to develop compassion within myself, not simply as a religious practice, but on a human level as well. To encourage myself in this altruistic attitude, I sometimes find it helpful to imagine myself standing as a single individual on one side, facing a huge gathering of all other human beings on the other side. Then I ask myself, 'Whose interests are more important?' To me it is quite clear that however important I may feel I am, I am just one individual while others are infinite in number and importance. Thank you.
|
| Development and Cultural Destruction in Tibet by Anders Hoejmark Andersen (The Tibet Support Committee, Denmark) at the "Social Development: A Tibetan Experience" conference in Copenhagen on 9 March 1995. One of the three main themes for the World Summit is Social integration. The report prepared for the Summit by the People's Republic of China takes up this issue with a readiness which shows its inherent dangers. The United Nations is comprised of nation-states, and nation-states naturally favour social and cultural coherence within themselves. To a large extent, the call for social integration will also lead to cultural unification if measures to avoid this are not spelled out clearly. In the case of the Chinese occupation of Tibet, such measures are not taken: the Tibetan people neither have human rights nor self-determination. The so-called unity of nationalities is a key element in China's policies towards Tibetans. After the occupation of Tibet in 1949 - 51, this policy meant the introduction of collectivisation under Chinese rule. These social changes brought about complete disruption of traditional Tibetan ways of life and of their social institutions. Systematic destruction of the more than 6,000 monasteries began, and monks and nuns were killed or forced to give up their vows. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of Tibetans were killed in warfare and by starvation, or they were executed because they resisted the policies being forced upon them. In the 1960s, the policy of unity of nationalities amounted to a declared policy of sinicisation. During the Cultural Revolution from 1966 - 76, a campaign was launched to eradicate the socalled four olds: old thoughts, old culture and old customs and traditions. People were forced to attend meetings where their ideology was being criticised, often with the use of violence. China skillfully used existing cleavages in Tibetan society to create distrust and conflict among Tibetans and to consolidate its own power in the country. People were sent for special education in China, and then brought back to Tibet, where they would take up positions in the Chinese administration as cultural and political brokers. All of this had the effect that it became impossible for most Tibetans to trust each other. Everyone had to keep silent and pretend to be pro-Chinese by hiding their real views. When I might seem to spend a long time explaining the history of Chinese rule in Tibet, it is because the fear and distrust among Tibetans in Tibet is still there today, despite the economic liberalisation in the 1980s, and because it greatly affects the survival of Tibetan culture. The policy of unity of nationalities remains the first priority in China's policies towards Tibet. Recently, a campaign against Tibetan Buddhism was launched. Since the early 1980s, Tibetans have been rebuilding and re-populating their monasteries at a speed which China apparently perceives as a threat to its rule, because now all further reconstruction has been banned and an absolute limit has been placed on the number of monks and nuns. This is a severe attack on Tibetan identity and culture, because the re- introduction of Buddhist institutions in Tibet has precisely been an opportunity for young Tibetans to confirm their national and cultural identity and learn about Tibetan history. In the 1960s and 1970s, schools often did not teach Tibetan to the children. Now Tibetan is widely used and taught in primary schools in Central Tibet but along the Tibetan border to China, in Amdo and Kham, the medium of instruction is often Chinese, and Tibetan might not be taught at all. The consequence of this is that the Tibetan language is dying out in these areas. After school, Tibetan students can often only get jobs if they speak Chinese. This is also true of Central Tibet, where large-scale immigration of better educated Chinese offer unfair competition to local Tibetans. Despite fine-sounding promises, the Chinese government gives a very low priority to education. According to official Chinese figures, the illiteracy rate among Tibetans is as high as 70%. Among women it is 83%, and from 1982 to 1990 it rose by 20 percent. Tibetans are reluctant to send their children to school because they dislike Chinese indoctrination and because many are too poor to be able to forego the work that their children can do. Instead, Chinese student come to Tibet to occupy places in schools. In 1993, 55% of the students enrolled in Tibet University were Chinese. Every year, more than one thousand Tibetan middle school students are sent to schools in China, where they acquire Chinese habits and culture. Some reject Tibetan culture altogether when they return to Tibet and try to dress, speak and behave like Chinese. This last category is still only a small minority but they are important because they show the direction of development that Chinese policies in Tibet are encouraging. The declaration of Lhasa as a special economic zone in 1992 brought a new wave of Chinese settlers into Tibet and a new wave of modern technology and communication. With its new, state-capitalist economy, Chinese rule in Tibet is actually itself responsible for the marginalisation of Tibetans. Investments in infrastructure and production benefits the Chinese immigrants first of all. It is the Chinese settlers who are at the forefront of the economic development and who trade in the new, modern goods. Chinese culture is portrayed as a civilising force in the state-controlled mass media, and when Tibetan culture is mentioned, it is praised for its fine old traditions. In other words, everything Tibetan is portrayed as something belonging to the past, while Chinese civilisation is said to be benevolent and modernising, helping Tibet to find the right course towards development. The Chinese media often also speak of the low cultural quality of Tibetans and of Tibet's "backwardness" as a country. Chinese colonial attitudes in Tibet, and the lack of possibilities for Tibetans to organise themselves independently, leave many Tibetans with a deeply ingrained feeling of inferiority. Even Tibetans who say they are proud to be Tibetan tend to view the Chinese as a more able people. This is how many explain the Chinese domination in economy and technology. To some extent, Tibetans have been reduced to passive onlookers to the destruction of their culture and national identity. This situation is guaranteed by a violent clampdown on voices that go against Chinese policies and by a pervasive surveillance and control that creates Tibetan fear and distrust towards other Tibetans. But many people continue to protest openly despite the threat of immediate imprisonment and interrogation under torture. They try to encourage other Tibetans to act according to what they believe. And they appeal to the international community for political support. However, the UN and the world community bear part of the responsibility for the continued destruction of Tibetan culture. First of all, political support to Tibetans, other than well-meant expressions of sympathy, has been virtually non-existent. The perceived dependency of the international community on China for international decision-making procedures has left Tibet isolated as some sort of forgotten, romanticised Shangri-la, famed for its rich civilisation but politically insignificant. Secondly, the large-scale development projects that western countries are supporting in Tibet have been designed in cooperation with the Chinese government and therefore suffer from the same shortcomings as general Chinese development strategies. Tibetans are not being heard and are not involved in the planning of the projects. This further supports top-down decision-making are thereby strengthens Chinese influence and domination. The lesson to be learnt from the Tibetan case must be that the theme of social integration and poverty alleviation should not have priority over human rights and the respect for people's right to self-determination. The latter provide the necessary foundation for just and democratic procedures of deciding the direction for social development. |
copyright statement;
Tibet Online - Copyright Notice
All content is copyright 1996-2004, Tibet Online, all rights reserved, and may be redistributed provided that it remains intact with this copyright message clearly
visible. This material may not under any circumstances be resold or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from Tibet Online.
