A personal view
By Phuntsog Wangyal*
Development of Tibet is a subject much debated among the Tibetans and often this subject is seen primarily in its political context. In the past history of Tibet you can find references to the development of religion, Buddhism or a particular philosophy but hardly any reference to the development of a country, Tibet or its economy. With the Chinese coming into Tibet, development became an important subject, often highlighted to draw attention to the ‘backwardness’ of Tibet and of its economic system.
Broadly speaking the word ‘development’ is accepted to mean an action or activity that causes a situation to change or progress. It is also believed, in the consensus of opinion, that fostering economic development and prosperity is a ‘positive’ action, as almost any leader would take pride when his/her country’s economy is performing strongly.
In the Past
Tibet had a highly developed spiritual tradition. Its civilization, largely spiritual – Buddhist and Bon (Tibet’s native religion) – was well documented. By the beginning of the twentieth century Tibet had one of the largest collections of literature on Buddhism. All those who read about Tibet happily acknowledged the uniqueness and richness of its religious and cultural traditions. Yet there was hardly any substantial writing on social and economic subjects. Many wondered how and why life in Tibet remained unchanged, unaffected by the new social, economic and political ideas that transformed life in many other parts of the world.
Looking back, one could see that Tibetan people always took great pride in being Tibetan. At the same time they were also seen to be open to new ideas. They had no difficulty in adopting Buddhist philosophy from India and many other cultural habits and customs from China and Mongolia. Although the Buddhist religion remained the driving force in their everyday lives, Tibetans were still very creative and progressive in their attitude towards the social and artistic culture of their neighbour in the east, China. Most noticeably, the custom of drinking tea, eating vegetables (many names of vegetables are still in Chinese language), wearing silk, and aspects of astrology, art and musical traditions are some examples of many influences happily borrowed from China.
Tibet on the whole remained highly isolated. The high attitude (averaging over 4,000 metres, or 13,000 feet, above sea level), the low population of just 6 million (in all ethnic Tibetan areas) and its vast size (almost that of Western Europe) contributed much to Tibet’s isolation from the rest of the world. This, in turn, no doubt contributed to the Tibetan people’s ability to maintain the uniqueness of their culture and the diversity of many different dialects and regional characters.
Economically, Tibet was backward. When the West was going through successive explosions of development in science and technology, Tibet was going deeper inwards which they proudly called ‘understanding of the inner world’ of spirituality. It became the dominant philosophical view that life in this world is far shorter than the life in the next world. Pursuing a content life now for the sake of long-lasting happiness in the future was the dominant – and much respected – ideology.
In economic terms, there was hardly any development: no electricity, no motor vehicles, no telephone and no modern machinery of any kind. Yet the Tibetans, having hardly ever seen any other way of life, felt fully content with their life and missed nothing but ‘enlightenment’. It was a common practice that many spent a large part of their time with religious activities such as chanting mantras, circumambulating temples, saying prayers, turning prayer wheels etc. – activities which the Chinese called ‘economically unproductive’. A quarter of the whole population was known to be either monks or nuns. Perhaps, Tibetan people at that time were one of the most ‘religious’ peoples on earth. Religion was their most precious possession and they were happy to practise it. They were living in a different world where “simple living – high thinking” dominated their lives.
Since 1951
That situation changed completely in 1951 when Tibet officially became a part of China, a new reality that the Tibetans had to face with hardships never witnessed by their forefathers. Old Tibet, just like a dream, was transformed into a communist state. The process of this transformation was revolutionary, and in that process the Tibetan people found themselves in a position where they had no – or very little – influence in shaping the future of their country. Every important decision was made in Beijing, not Lhasa. It was no longer religious but political and economic considerations that mattered most.
The right or wrong of this historical transformation is not a subject under discussion in this paper. Today we would rather look at the Tibetan people in this changed situation and whether Tibetans (especially those living under the Chinese rule) wished and deserved economic prosperity.
The New Generation
During the fifty-odd years of Chinese rule, a whole new generation of Tibetans were born. They were brought up under a system of government strictly shaped by communist ideology and mainly administered by the Chinese. These Tibetans never had the opportunity to learn their own philosophy as their forefathers did for generations. On the other hand, they were very much exposed to a new materialistic world with new ideas of science and technology. A few had some education and training to be cadres helping run the administration. Many never had any opportunity to study anything, let alone Buddhist philosophy.
Yet the situation in Tibet went on changing in accordance with the changes that were taking place in China. In the past decade or so, China has been changing even faster. We began to see a government that, for the first time, adopted a somewhat liberal policy towards economic reforms. Ordinary people began to enjoy, comparatively speaking, some freedom of movement within the country, ownership of private property, more access to education and less control over their family life. In short a system primarily based on the market economy is emerging in China.
Geographically, China is a huge country with a very uneven distribution of population and wealth. In all Tibetan areas, the density of population is low and the level of poverty is extremely high; the level of education is low and the death rate is comparatively high; and above all, the basic infrastructure is extremely poor. There is hardly any manufacturing industry in Tibet. Local economics are almost completely based on agriculture and animal husbandry. The tools and methods used are still very old fashioned. In short, Tibetan areas today are some of the least developed and most backward even from the Chinese government’s point of view.
It is fair to say that governments at every level are making efforts to improve the situation in Tibet by investing both money and human resources from China. They believe that the key to their success lies on their strategy to develop Tibet’s economy. Unfortunately, not many Tibetans in Tibet are able to get involved in the process of development. This is by no means either due to their inability or their lack of interest. It is primarily due to a lack of education and/or required skills amongst the Tibetans. In sharp contrast, the Tibetans in exile, with better capital resources and adequate training and education, could make a big difference in advancing their standard of living.
Economic Prosperity
Religious aspiration may still be high on the agenda, yet the general attitude, rightly or wrongly, seems to be changing. Young Tibetans have strong feelings for their religion, more in terms of their identity rather than as their philosophy. No one could or should ignore the fact that they too have desires for a better living standard and economic prosperity. Living in yak hair tents at subzero temperatures and burning cow dung as their fuel may look romantic, but those who live their lives in such poor conditions may have a different view. They are not to be blamed.
The urge for economic prosperity is in fact more noticeable among those Tibetans who live a comparatively better life in India and Nepal. Many young Tibetans, including many monks and nuns, are leaving or trying to leave their homes and monasteries in India for the West and ‘a better life’. The scale of the migration was such that the senior Tibetan Kalon, Samdhong Rinpoche has seen this as a major problem and announced publicly that Tibetans should refrain from leaving their settlements in India. The Central Tibetan Administration has since developed a number of schemes to improve the economy with the hope that Tibetans will stay in their settlements where they have a better chance of sustaining their culture.
The Chinese and the Tibetans both agree that the situation in Tibet needs to improve. But they greatly disagree about what needs to change first: the political or economic conditions. The changing political situation in Tibet requires more than just goodwill or sympathy. A major political change in China is necessary. At the moment, such a political change is most unlikely as the Chinese leadership is fully engaged and occupied with major strategies to advance the economy of the country, and safeguard the unity of their ‘motherland’.
This shift of policy towards economic development may not be the favourite option for the Tibetans but this itself presents an opportunity for them to develop their education, healthcare and economy. Although very few in number, some Tibetans are already making great progress. You might be surprised to see some of them engaged in large business ventures, even building three-star hotels, supporting educational and healthcare facilities and managing handicraft and business centres for the rural economy. With the right approach they are now able to do many positive things that they could not have dreamt of in the past.
Role of NGOs
This new situation provides Tibetans in Tibet with some opportunities to take control of their lives, if in very small ways. It provides those of us in the West with opportunities to support them in their efforts to achieve some progress.
In the past, there was no meaningful role for a voluntary or non-governmental organisation (NGO) in China. It was the state that initiated new ideas, managed organisations and controlled economic processes. We can see this slowly changing as more national NGOs are being formed and more international NGOs are involved in development works in China. A Chinese scholar stated, “The role of NGOs in the 21st century will be as significant as the role of the nation state in the 20th century”. Having said this, we must note that the Chinese government, at every level controlled by the communist party, is still too strong compared to a ‘civil society’ that is yet to mature and to NGOs that are still in their infancy.
Another factor worth taking into account is that the Chinese government is placing a strong emphasis on ‘democracy’ and the role of ‘democracy’ in development, although many may argue about the substance of their emphasis and their meaning of the word ‘democracy’. The Chinese government lacks trust in Western democracies and they are sceptical of donors’ motivations.
Chinese Strategy
Regarding the Chinese Strategy, the aims of the Chinese development policies are unmistakably to bring about greater geographical and economic integration of the country as a whole, including areas such as Tibet. The motivation may not necessarily be the destruction of the local economy or local culture as is often alleged. However, the outcome of these development schemes is bound to have an impact on delicate local issues. If they are inadequately managed, development will cause irreparable damage to irreplaceable Tibetan assets such as its culture and environment.
The government’s economic policy is directed to enhancing development through massive infrastructure investment such as communications and school buildings, and providing incentives to local businesses, job creation initiatives and tourism. We could see some degree of consistency in their push in this direction. There is no sign of a major change in current Chinese policies. It is true that many in the West would like to see major changes towards more democracy and more participation by the general public in matters affecting their lives. Although this is not happening fast enough, there is every indication that China seems to be heading in that direction.
In relative terms, the current liberal policies are providing new opportunities for those of us trying to help Tibetans in their areas in China. We are all very aware of the fact that many government agencies and national and international NGOs are already working in many Tibetan areas. Financial support given by the Tibetans and their supporters in the West is estimated at around 10 million Yuan per year only (approx less than £700,000). Their contribution goes largely towards rebuilding and renovating religious sites, and small education and healthcare projects.
Working in Tibet is not impossible but still difficult and sometimes frustrating. Often those who work in Tibet face many obstacles and progress is slow and gradual. In spite of these obstacles, working with whatever facilities are available is a better option and is perhaps the best and most practical approach, which one could take in the current situation. Thus it is sensible to encourage NGOs’ efforts in ensuring that their assistance reaches the most needy local Tibetans and empowers them to help themselves.
Obstacles
It is equally important to understand the nature of the obstacles many NGOs face in carrying out their work. I would like to present a few factors that may be contributing to international NGOs a) not receiving adequate funds and b) the poorest people and most remote areas of Tibet not benefiting from potential international aid:
First, although many international NGOs are well aware of the importance of getting local people involved in all aspects of local projects, the authorities seldom involve or meaningfully consult local Tibetans in projects, especially big projects, which have the potential to greatly impact their lives. This is not necessarily by the design of the Chinese authorities, though it is often alleged to be so. Primarily it is due to a lack of adequate knowledge and expertise on the part of the local people. In most cases decisions are taken by authorities who are likely to be Chinese, especially at higher levels, who have no special concern for, nor understanding of, the local culture or environment.
Second, donors, especially government and corporate funding bodies, often require projects which return demonstrable results in a short timeframe. The deep-rooted needs of Tibet, coupled with the low population density, short summer months, and low levels of physical, social and intellectual infrastructure, make proving tangible results in the timeframe sought by these donors extremely difficult. In some cases, particularly those where long-term or small-scale projects are appropriate, providing evidence of these results can be more demanding than actually achieving the results themselves. This makes centralised large-scale projects appear more successful in getting funds than smaller or more highly devolved projects, and in some instances larger scale intervention becomes the only eligible recipient of support.
Third, governmental and large multinational agencies generally prefer to deal directly with central or provincial governments in China. At this level, ethnic Tibetans are unlikely to be the decision-makers. The more you are able to work with local people in Tibet, the closer you will get to understanding what they actually need. The smaller the scale of your work in a smaller area, the more benefit you are likely to deliver to the people.
Fourth, although the works of international NGOs are becoming increasingly more acceptable in China, the authorities still see them as foreign agencies trying to import “western values” – generally believed to be anti-communist, and thus anti-China. President Bush’s efforts to establish “the principle of pre-emptive military intervention to protect American interest” and the criticism of Chinese Western Development Programme as “a deliberate design to destroy Tibetan culture” have not been entirely conducive to fostering the trust which is so desperately lacking.
Thus, the challenge that Tibetans face is enormous. The world in which they live is no longer isolated. The society in which they work is more multi-racial and highly competitive. There is a great demand on limited resources, and competition with an incoming population, often better educated and better informed, is an almost impossible challenge to the Tibetans.
Investment for Development
Tibet needs development: a development of its economy to enable Tibetans to survive in a fast-growing competitive world. Development needs investment: an investment in promoting education, improving healthcare facilities and raising living standards. Tibet needs support that is sustainable and that helps Tibetans to be self-reliant. Many Tibetans show concern about the suitability of large-scale national projects where there is little or no input from the local people. This must not be confused with regional projects close to local people and local areas. Projects with investment in local areas and with input from local people are proving to be more sustainable and a real help to the people.
Investment in small projects is not an attractive venture to private investors as there is no real financial incentive nor does it bring immediate results for NGOs who may need to satisfy their donors. But such investment in small projects close to the local community will be an invaluable benefit to the Tibetan people in the long run. This is a time when the Tibetans have to be innovative, creative, progressive and open to ideas. And this is the time that their supporters must realise that the Tibetans are real people and that they have to live not in isolation but in a most competitive and challenging world.
A Tibetan saying goes, “getting simple things done now is far better than thinking of doing many great things in the future”. This couldn’t be truer today. It is my belief that Tibetans are doing what they can in their own small ways under a very difficult situation in Tibet. They are proud of their integrity: of being honest, ethical and trustworthy.
The need for support from all available sources is real. The success of such support to the Tibetans depends on a broad understanding of their needs in Tibet, the driving force behind economic development and what matters most to the Tibetans in their daily lives in their unique situation. Politicising all issues related to Tibet may not necessarily produce right or expected results. The government’s trust in NGOs’ commitment and the NGOs’ reassurance of the non-political nature of their activities are crucial, and their importance must not be underestimated.
This leads me to say that there is a greater need of strong partnership between local communities that invite investment, NGOs that provide funds, and governments that supervise their management. To achieve such a partnership may not be easy, but it is an effort worth making. Supporting small projects close to the community may not be most attractive, but such projects are the most valuable to the people in Tibet.
*Above is the summary of a talk given in London (on 30th October 2003) by Phuntsog Wangyal. Phuntsog is a member of the Board of Trustees of Tibet Foundation. He was a former London representative of His Holiness the Dalai Lama at the Office of Tibet, member of the Tibetan Assembly and director of Tibet Foundation.
