Between 1997 and 2001 there was a rapid decline in the number of Tibetans in prison on political charges. The decline was due to a large number of releases and fewer detentions. However, this pattern appears to be changing. While the number of political prisoners is still declining, the trend has slowed significantly. There are several reasons for this. Some prisoners are still serving out long sentences, and some have had their sentences extended. Furthermore, there has been a significant number of new detentions in the Eastern Tibetan region traditionally known as Kham.
TIN’s political prisoner database records about 150 persons as in (or likely to be in) detention or prison – as of February 2003. Although TIN cannot provide a complete account of current Tibetan political imprisonment, it publishes information on cases that are corroborated and sufficiently detailed. There are a further 10 to 20 cases of political detention, about which TIN is still awaiting confirmation. Therefore the total figure is likely to be closer to 170 cases. Out of these, all but 12 are male. Of the females, half are serving their terms at the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) Prison No. 1 (Drapchi Prison). TIN records show that only four of the long-serving Buddhist nuns discussed in TIN’s Rukhag 3: The Nuns of Drapchi Prison (see http://www.tibetinfo.net/publications/bbp/rukhag_3.htm) remain imprisoned.
Between 1997 and 2001 nearly 500 judicial and administrative sentences were scheduled to expire, compared to about 45 in 2002 and fewer than 30 in 2003. One factor slowing down the steep decline in political prisoner numbers is the substantial number of Tibetan political prisoners still serving long sentences. Most of them are in Drapchi Prison, in Lhasa, where about 60 prisoners, 40 percent of the current total, are serving sentences of ten years or more. The real figure is likely to be higher, since TIN has been unable to confirm some reports of lengthy sentences. TIN information now shows fewer than ten Tibetan political prisoners serving sentences of ten years or more at prisons other than Drapchi.
The relatively high number of long-serving prisoners is mainly due to sentence extensions. According to TIN data, 21 current prisoners have had their sentences extended, most as a result of the courtyard protests during flag raising ceremonies at Drapchi in May 1998 (see TIN News Update 14 June 2002 “New reports on Tibetan prisoners following May 1998 Drapchi protest” http://www.tibetinfo.net/news-updates/2002/1406.htm). Of the group with extended sentences, all but one is at Drapchi, and all but four have sentences of ten years or more.
In the past year there have been no confirmed cases of death through maltreatment in prison. In November 2002, Ragya Monastery monk, Lobsang Dargyal, died in a forced labor camp which manufactures hydro-electric equipment near Xining, the capital of Qinghai. TIN has not yet been able to establish the cause of his death. TIN previously reported the death of another prisoner Karma Dawa. This is now known to have been incorrect. One of the men who sparked the May 1998 Drapchi protest, Karma Dawa was punished with a sentence extension instead of execution, and later escaped from hospital and fled into exile. TIN records show a total of 52 deaths since late 1987, of which 40 are believed to have resulted directly from abuse or maltreatment in detention. In addition to these, there have been eight deaths recorded of prisoners who died after their release. Their deaths could have resulted from old age and long-term illness rather than directly from abuse while imprisoned. There are a three further reports of death in detention, the causes of which are still to be confirmed. In another case, death in prison has been reported but not confirmed.
The list below shows that 71 percent of current Tibetan political prisoners are resident in the TAR, and 27 percent are resident outside the TAR (a further list shows the breakdown of political prisoners according to origin rather than residence). This is a slight proportional shift toward the TAR compared to figures provided last year in TIN’s report Hostile Elements III (http://www.tibetinfo.net/publications/bbp/he3.htm). That study showed that for the period 1996-2001, TAR residents accounted for 64 percent of Tibetan political imprisonment, and non-TAR residents for 36 percent. The figures provided in the list below are likely to be incomplete, and unpublished information suggests that additional non-TAR cases will surface soon. If that happens, the proportions are likely to be similar to those reported by TIN in 2002.
Residence of Current Tibetan Political Prisoners (based on TIN data current in February 2003):
In the TAR:
Lhasa (Lasa) 65
Chamdo (Qamdo) 21
Lhoka (Shannan) 4
Nagchu (Naqu) 12
Shigatse (Rikaze) 4
Kongpo (Linzhi) 0
Ngari (Ali) 0
TOTAL: 106 (71%)
non-TAR prefectures:
Kardze (Ganzi, Sichuan) 25
Ngaba (Aba, Sichuan) 9
Liangshan, Mili (Muli, Sichuan) 0
Kanlho (Gannan, Gansu) 1
Wuwei, Pari (Tianzhu, Gansu) 1
Tsoshar (Haidong, Qinghai) 2
Tsojang (Haibei, Qinghai) 0
Tsonub (Haixi, Qinghai) 0
Tsolho (Hainan, Qinghai) 1
Malho (Huangnan, Qinghai) 1
Golog (Guoluo, Qinghai) 1
Yushu (Yushu, Qinghai) 0
Siling (Xining, Qinghai) 0
Dechen (Diqing, Yunnan) 0
TOTAL: 40 (27%)
n/a: 3
TOTAL TAR + non-TAR: 149
Origin of Current Tibetan Political Prisoners (based on TIN data current in February 2003):
TAR prefectures:
Lhasa (Lasa) 54
Chamdo (Qamdo) 22
Lhoka (Shannan) 10
Nagchu (Naqu) 12
Shigatse (Rikaze) 7
Kongpo (Linzhi) 0
Ngari (Ali) 0
TOTAL: 105 (70%)
non-TAR prefectures:
Kardze (Ganzi, Sichuan) 25
Ngaba (Aba, Sichuan) 8
Liangshan, Mili (Muli, Sichuan) 0
Kanlho (Gannan, Gansu) 3
Wuwei, Pari (Tianzhu, Gansu) 1
Tsoshar (Haidong, Qinghai) 0
Tsojang (Haibei, Qinghai) 1
Tsonub (Haixi, Qinghai) 0
Tsolho (Hainan, Qinghai) 1
Malho (Huangnan, Qinghai) 1
Golog (Guoluo, Qinghai) 1
Yushu (Yushu, Qinghai) 2
Siling (Xining, Qinghai) 0
Dechen (Diqing, Yunnan) 0
TOTAL: 43 (29%)
n/a: 1
TOTAL TAR + non-TAR: 149
The main centre of Tibetan political imprisonment remains the Lhasa Municipality (Lhasa plus seven counties). Based on TIN records, 36 percent of all those currently imprisoned are originally from the Lhasa Municipality, and 44 percent were resident there when they became political prisoners. However, Kardze (Chin: Ganzi) Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture (TAP) in Sichuan Province continues to rise in prominence as a site of political protest and imprisonment and is now second only to Lhasa Municipality. Within Kardze TAP, Kardze and Nyagchu counties have been the main sites of detention of currently detained political prisoners. Adjoining Kardze TAP, along the TAR border, is Chamdo Prefecture, which ranks third in current political imprisonment.
In contrast to the significant levels of political protest and detention in the Tibetan area traditionally known as Kham (Chamdo and Kardze prefectures, as well as the northern counties of Yunnan and a very small portion of southeastern Qinghai), the Tibetan area known as Amdo (most of Qinghai, and parts of Gansu and Sichuan) has been less politically restive recently. TIN records show that only 15 political prisoners were resident in Amdo, which is less than the total for Kardze prefecture alone, where a total of 25 people had been detained for political offences. Unconfirmed reports suggest that additional political detentions have taken place in Kardze TAP.
Political detentions taking place in 2001-2002
The apparent proportional shift of the numbers of prisoners towards the Lhasa Municipality is reversed when current figures are considered from the perspective of new detentions. Data provided in the following list can be assumed to be a partial portrayal of all political imprisonment. “Confirmed” records are those which TIN considers reliable. “Unconfirmed” indicates records still requiring more details or further confirmation.
Residence prefectures of recent Tibetan political detainees (2001-2002)
Confirmed records:
Lhasa: 7
Nagchu: 1
Kardze: 19
Ngaba: 8
Golog: 2
n/a: 1
TOTAL: 38
Unconfirmed records (excluding border-cross, xPOC)
Lhasa: 2
Shigatse: 3
Kardze: 1
Golog: 8
Xining: 1
Tsolho: 1
TOTAL: 16
Total confirmed / unconfirmed:
Lhasa: 9
Nagchu: 1
Shigatse: 3
Kardze: 20
Ngaba: 8
Golog:10
Xining: 1
Tsolho: 1
n/a: 1
TOTAL: 54
As can be seen from the list, Kardze TAP accounts for half of all confirmed records of detention in 2001-2002. Sichuan province as a whole accounts for nearly three quarters. The TAR accounts for less than a quarter. The recent prominence of political detention in Kardze TAP arises principally from the crack-down in 2002 on the religious associates of Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche (see TIN News Update 27 January 2003 “Death sentences for “sabotaging China’s unity” and “Terrorism”” http://www.tibetinfo.co.uk/news-updates/2003/2701.htm), and from the arrest of Tibetans for performing long-life prayers for the Dalai Lama in Kardze County. In 2001-2002, if confirmed and unconfirmed records are considered together, the TAR accounts for about one quarter of political prisoners, Sichuan for about half, and Qinghai for one quarter.
Whether considering only confirmed records for 2001-2002, or both confirmed and unconfirmed, the TAR is far from dominant. Sichuan, especially Kardze TAP, has carried out the most political detentions. Golog TAP, which borders both Kardze and Ngaba in Sichuan, appears to have been the main site of political detentions in Qinghai. None are recorded for Gansu.
