By Ngawang Namgyal
Unlike in the democratic countries, under the Chinese communist regime, the people do not enjoy the right to adult suffrage, that could well be inferred as one of the many needs of the Chinese people. The communist ideology basically longs for the ultimate goal of statelessness, or of the state of non-existence of the coercive government through revolutionary processes. But studying the nature of such a goal, it will, as in the past, remain unachievable, because the Chinese authorities believe in the fact that through the revolutionary struggle of the working class or proletariat can only the objective be realized while they are, in fact, denied the opportunity to proper growth of their individuality. It is quite unachievable, as mentioned in details, below. I have tried, in this article, to analyse the adverse impacts of the existing communist regime on the people of China, and thereby, indirectly upon the people in Tibet who are suffering due to enforcement of idealistic communist ideologies.
Any opposition to the communist ideology, and the excesses of the Chinese authorities, are dealt with brutal force. And as well-known from the past experiences, the use of force has only backlashed, or harbours deep hurt sentiments in the minds of the people. This can be known from the incidents of Tibetan pro-independence demonstrations, and the campaigns against the denial of human rights in Tibet; and in China, the 1989 pro-democracy movements that was most likely rooted in the brutality unleashed upon the educated elites in the past. Showing mere indifference by the people through simply practising upon them, as mentioned below, appears to be backtracking on the so-called revolutionary processes. Indeed, it is non-contributive towards the realization of the ultimate objective of statelessness, which is espoused according to some conceptions of communism.
Under the communist regime, the well-known wide discrepancy existing among the members and the leaders of the communist party is direct consequence of their distinctively-shaped or inherited individualities, and this has failed them in maintaining the party unity as adequately strong as to achieve their envisioned goal of statelessness. Ironically, the stubborn dedication shown by the party members and the leaders to the party unity and, thereby curbing the growth of their own unique individuality, is what prevents them from achieving that goal, if it is conjectured as achievable. The seemingly good intentions of the party members and the leaders to their people in whatever form they are revealed, I think, are, therefore, misplaced in the real sense, because apart from stopping their own individuality growth, they are putting heavy restrictions on the proper growth of the individuality of the people. Because the lack of proper individuality growth increases the people’s economic dependency on the government, and the government or the state enterprises fail to cope with this major financial problem despite their increasing authority.
The present backtracking of the revolutionary process or such backtracking caused by this, is apparent from the fact that the communist leaders think that they are in the process of leading the people on the right way through the revolutionary processes, but when actually, the ongoing revolutionary process is going in a different direction. And this has led to the mounting of public pressure upon the communist leaders either in the form of public unrest calling for their stepping down, or their seeking opportunity for one’s own individual growth to realize such a goal. The people, not only in China but also in the occupied Tibet, are well aware of this simple fact because they are on through a revolutionary process but they cannot see any bourgeoisie in sight to defeat, as required by an aspect of the ideology of communism.
In light of the above cited reason, the party dedication shown by the common Chinese people, even though many of them forced to do so in actual sense, prevents them from becoming good ordinary citizens or party members and leaders, and consequently, they fail to realize the so-called ultimate goal of statelessness. According to this conception, if such a goal is attained, the people will have no rulers to rule them, and the people will have cultivated undiminishing mutual sense of altruism and unselfishness. In such a society, it is expected that there would be no exploiters, oppressors, landlords, capitalists, imperialists, or fascists.
Can such a goal be attained or achieved? Such a goal of non-existence of coercive government with so independent and well-disciplined a people is unattainable for the reason that, without a ruler, the ordinary people ever cannot live unselfishly, because it is impossible to have the inherent self-discipline cultivated by merely dedicating themselves to their own experiences. Experiences only cannot provide that, because the world existed since a very long time in almost the same fashion as existing under the present communist rule and way of life, and the massive experiences gained by the people and the leaders had never provided them with such a result of statelessness. Instead of that, such form of rules had to yield to the existing different forms of government. Highest level of individuality growth is the answer to the realization of the objective of statelessness, and if it is curbed, no good objective, big or small, can ever be achieved. It requires an indepth study for removing this illusion, and coming to the right understanding.
The revolutionary processes, as engendered by the communist rule, are, in fact, hindered due to the suppression of the individuality growth of the struggling proletariats. After all, from amongst ordinary Chinese people, the party members have and would emerge, and from amongst good or intelligent people, can emerge really good party members and leaders. The people, forced to strictly study and practise the communist ideology, are left with no opportunity for their individual growth, as noted above. The communist leaders hold the view that going by the concrete realities of the Chinese people, they could attain many good results for the country. But when the concrete realities themselves are not changed but simply let to take their own course, how can any good results be achieved? The lack of necessary individuality growth among the people has perpetuated these concrete realities of the present China, pushing the Chinese government to pursue the so-called socialist reforms that significantly has minimal concern for the political realities of the present China.
Good people working for the community, whether the ultimate goal of statelessness is achievable or not, as per other communist conceptions, is another perspective we have to mull over. The good people in the communist ideology, are the party members and the leaders because they could decide at their own volition, whom they should be ruled by, or how they should rule their subjects. The common or general people are not the good people going by the same logic, because they are considered undeserving of the right to adult suffrage or franchise which is the first important step towards proper independent individuality growth. The significance of this fact is very clear because how they should be ruled, and by whom they should be ruled make a big difference in their life affairs, and through it, to the real interest of the country. Where as in the communist ideology, the prosperity of people and the country are what they actually aim for, and the resulting difference made through such consideration is what the supposedly achievable goal of statelessness, at least, partly reflects. Mere granting of the rights to the people to express their opinions and criticisms for and against the party unity and upgradation of its ideology, as happens under the regime, and the later’s enjoyment of the same, is not sufficient for achieving real prosperity to the people and country. Due to the obvious lack of its effectiveness, the expected goal of statelessness, if at all achievable, is only made unachievable in the process.
The teachings on spiritualism have a big role to play in the realization of a goal somewhat close to the communist goal of statelessness. The Chinese allegation that religion provides a method for the oppression of the exploits and the suppression of the backward people is just one bad way of looking at it by them. If such a goal of statelessness is at all achievable, it can be only through people learning and cultivating the good conducts revealed in these teachings, or in the laws that could provide for the attainment of these good conducts both in the ruler and the ruled. Unselfish nature of people, the core objective of this goal, is achievable only through the growth of the individuality of people, as mentioned earlier. If it is discouraged as being done by the Chinese party leaders primarily by having the people at their mercy, nobody can cultivate unselfishness, leave alone the Chinese people themselves in China. The religious teachings have a contributive outcome towards this purpose, because they teach from mere social etiquettes to the way to attain the highest level of spiritualistic goals.
Another way to realize such a goal, if not the highly idealistic goal of communism, is that the party members and leaders attention should be given to the people, rather than, towards mere economic prosperity, and their efforts to realize the so-called party unity and others. The individuality growth of each party member can thus be enhanced to a stage when a similar goal could be attained for the welfare of all. Under the present circumstances, it seems that the individuality growth of the people or working class is so much discouraged, and thereby, maimed that the bourgeoisie, their counterparts, become invisible and, therefore, could not be eliminated. The party leaders say that any independent individuality growth will lead to chaos, and that there should be state interferences against it. But I think, it only is an ideological assertion by the party leaders to maintain the unity of the party they are part of. Otherwise, can’t a proper civil code of law control the chaos resulting from it? The communist leaders effort to encourage class struggles between the working class and the bourgeoisie, without any rights to independent individuality growth provided, divulges a major wrong in their intention, as the ultimate objective of statelessness can be proved to be unattainable through the ongoing revolutionary processes, and controlling of individuality growth among the struggling class is not helpful for their struggles.
The practice on any theory can bring positive results only when the theory is farsighted or strong enough for the practice to take place to eventually achieve its intended result. If it is weak, practising it will fail to provide the results you wanted from it. The theory of communist ideology, applied under whatever a condition, is, as mentioned above, not that strong, to realize its targeted goal, and so there are clearly no results in sight. Only result that could be seen from the application of the theory is the constant threat to its own survival, and the major discontentment of the people inspite of the economic reforms in China that lack consideration of the existing political realities.
The dispatch of the communist Chinese PLA in Tibet in 1949, and the subsequent occupation of Tibet in the name of liberation of Tibet has failed strictly, though not in the sense of their keeping a continued grip on Tibet, but in their efforts to continue to sustain the then newly emerged communist regime on its path. If the Chinese invasion of Tibet after the communists coming into power is merely aimed at accruing economic benefits as seems now, if not for the promotion of communist ideology, however, the damage it has caused is very obvious. The relentless efforts at the destruction of Tibetan religion in Tibet, the transfer of a large number of Han immigrants into Tibet, and the launching of re-education campaigns have but only worked against the Chinese people themselves. Viewed from this broader perspective, we can see the folly of the Chinese invasion of Tibet in the first place, and the subsequent efforts at the destruction of Tibetan religion and culture from Tibet.
To corrobate the above fact, I think, it can well be pointed out here that there have been two opposing forces working antagonistically within the Chinese mind all the way since the Chinese invasion of Tibet. These forces pull one against another in the opposite direction. They are the forceful need to met out rampant destructions in Tibet of what could, they think, aid to realize the communist ultimate objective of statelessness, and their inherent deep expectation of the realization of communist goal of statelessness how long so ever it may take. It has caused a confusion in the form of people wanting the right method for the realization of their goal but not getting any such methods from their revolutionary experiences during all these years. Thus, it has caused the consequent disillusionment, and the virtual shift of the leaders focus on the ensuing economic reforms. A hint of it could be gleaned from their willingness to make renovations and re-institution of Tibetan monasteries and its system in Tibet in the last two decades. Undoutedly, during this intervening period of Chinese communist rule in Tibet, there is the direct overlooking of the fact by the Chinese authorities that Tibet is not an integral part of China, as is clearly discernable from our past history. It is clearly notable from our history that no political charisma of China had drawn Tibet any closer to China, but it was only the deep spiritual affinity that existed between Tibet and China, when, in India, beginning from the 13th century, the spiritual buddhist teachings had gradually shown a sign of decline.
If the ultimate objective of the Chinese communist government to realize the statelessness, is not achievable, then the mere providing of equal opportunity of jobs and benefits to the people under its rule or occupation, will not be successful for long, because since the party’s ultimate goal is unacceptable as a goal, the people will eventually find out that they are being deceived. As a popular saying goes like this, “You can fool all the people one time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
In the light of these undeniable facts, it is understandable of the relevance of the fact that Tibet should be provided complete independence, instead of imposing more and more difficult conditions like Taiwan, in addition to Tibet itself, be accepted as part of China. It is understandable that when the Chinese authorities can not recognize as correct or legitimate of anything done by the exile government, or the Tibetan representatives, on the sheer force of its false claim that Tibet is part of China, what real legitimacy it will hold by having it accept that Taiwan is also an integral part of China. If it is merely as a pre-condition for the forthcoming talk with the Tibetan representatives, it is clearly to deceive the Tibetans. It is also clear from the fact when the Tibetans cannot accept Tibet as part of China, how can it accept Taiwan as also a part of China. What results the talk will bring is, therefore, I think, quite clear. Nothing but only a new political gimmick for the Chinese to play when the success of it is totally never predictable.
Further reflecting upon the communist ideology, it can also be known that the equal sharing of work, according to ability, and all benefits, according to need, is possible only in a government set-up when the entire population of people are provided with their equal due rights, including the right to independent individuality growth. The people, at different levels of society, will have independent individuality growth for the building of their abilities, and the community will keep making room for the flourishing, or for the proper utilization of their abilities. The providing of benefits to the people, when their needs, after having adequate money or not, arise is also not impossible in the set-up, because with the increase in their overall abilities, they could earn more wealth and property, and thus have all their needs fulfilled by accrueing the benefits. It is fortunate that there is, on this ordinary level, a limited scope for negative individuality growth whether inside one’s own country, or outsideone’s country because of the existence of strict law enforcement policies on both the national and international level.
According to Karl Marx, the cofounder with Friedrich Engels of Communism, the freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. From this perspective, we can see that if communism can survive, it can happen within the demarcated border of one country itself, say here, the China itself, because it is an issue of two opposite factors coming to a compromise and surviving together, or disappearing with mutual elimination, for the realization of the goal of statelessness through the necessary revolutionary process, or just for the promotion of the party unity. But, as mentioned above, in a country where there are no such opposite factors, as presently publicly thought of in China, it could lead to public enthusiasm either to an awakening to the fact that they are the oppressed ones, as they are, by and large, denied their due human rights, and the party leaders are the oppressors; or just a blind search for the so-called ultimate objective of statelessness through the ongoing revolutionary processes. The trend of succession arrangement by the top communist leaders, also reflects the fact that party leaders even at the apex, have inherent insurmountable differences of individuality, that they think without such an arrangement, it could pose threats to the survival of existing communist regime. Yet, they are blind to the fact that this could also generate vicious public grievances. The history of communism is replete with clear examples of mistrust among the party leaders, and their relentless power struggles. The problem stems from the fact that, as also mentioned earlier, the existing ideological base of communism, is too idealistic and postulatory to rely upon. The political turmoils, with anti-communist texture, mostly requiring to be calmed down through economic reforms or military force simply goes to prove this fact. If any remedy exists, it will be either to grant the people and the leaders the rights to their individuality growth, or to bring about positive changes in the existing communist ideology.
Mere economic prosperity of the people in China, achieved by way of economic liberalization or reform efforts cannot guarantee the expected degree of public discipline, because the ultimate ambition of the much awaited statelessness is unachievable, and the rule by the party and the ongoing revolutionary process is going in the wrong direction for the reasons mentioned above. There is another factor which the communist people has to think over. Under the existing situation, the real economic prosperity of the people may not become a reality as enjoyed in the non-communist countries. The main cause being the lack of opportunity for individuality growth both to the people and their rulers, as mentioned above. The rulers or the communist leaders are only left to rule in the name of community welfare, while the real community welfare long cherished after, remains a distant dream. It seems the existing efforts for the achievement of community welfare is only a pretext of the Chinese leaders to survive as rulers, and they are actually playing the role of the real oppressor in disguise. With the existing strong military back up and the authority for command to crackdown on any individual or groups opposing, the reality of their being the oppressors is cleanly veiled. All along, however, the failure of the leaders to lead the people along the path of real economic prosperity will be a bane on these leaders, as it emerges as another source of public pressure on them while the communist ideology stands in contrast to these reforms in reality. On the other hand, we learn a lot about the political corruption cases, as a result of these reforms related fundamentally to private business enterprises. Application of capitalism or its logic of individual people seeking ever greater profit, I think, therefore, may not be a direct answer to this problem either.
The China’s privatization efforts in the rural areas especially in the agriculture sector, are geared up to boost the country’s economy. Similarly, granted the fact that the supplies are provided by the state, the emerging privatization efforts in the industrial and commercial sectors in the cities, are done with intention to assure further the survival and promotion of communism in China. It appears to be just a clever strategy. It is what is known as socialist market economy of China which started and flourished in the 1980s, and which also continues in the present day. Because it has only brought and may bring political corruptions, anti-ideological reforms, and frankly, it went against the overall Chinese national interest, the existing economic reforms in China and Tibet, has not been really appreciable politically, while at the same time, returning to the old political system with the purely strict socialist economy has no real goal in sight.
The communist political theory, by way of its own characteristics mentioned above, if carefully analysed, in turn, hinders the path of the ongoing economic growth of the country. The newly rich people, by grace of the economic reforms, cannot be said to be enjoying the newly obtained wealth, because, as a matter of fact, it goes against the spirit of communism, and they are, at the mercy of the concerned party leaders or bureaucrats, for their economic survival. It seems that the bureaucrats, working at the centre, down to province, prefecture, county and township levels are also under the strict authority of the party leaders, as they have to follow the policies formulated and imposed by the party leaders, who lead them in both the central committees and the territorial committees. Like the newly rich people, they are also obviously denied the other rights that could provide them with the independent growth of their individuality which could gradually steer them and the people in the right direction. Any display of mercy by the communist leaders upon chiefly the state-owned workers, and the people, with the procurement of facilities like free housing and others, require well-placed judgement, if the overall interests of China is to be taken into proper consideration.
For any comments, please contact, if directly to the author, at address “Tphc@hotmail.com , or Ngawangnamgyal@rediffmail.com
Ngawang Namgyal is presently working as the settlement officer of Tashi Palkheil camp in Nepal. He did his schooling in Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies in Varanasi, and majored in Buddhist philosophy and political science. After that, he joinedthe Central Tibetan Administration service and worked as a CTA official since 1996.
