My Spiritual Journey by Dalai Lama (good books for 8th graders txt) 📕

has given China direct access to the Indian subcontinent. Chinese authorities have tried to downplay the problem by stating that Tibet has always been a part of China. This is not true. Tibet was a fully independent state when it was invaded by the People’s Liberation Army in 1950.

Ever since the Tibetan emperors unified Tibet over a thousand years ago, our country has been able to defend its independence, until the middle of the twentieth century. Tibet in the past extended its influence over neighboring countries and peoples, and in later times it came under the domination of powerful foreign rulers: the Khans of Mongolia, the Gurkhas of Nepal, the Manchu emperors, and the British present in India.

Of course, it is not rare for states to undergo foreign influence or interference. So-called satellite relations are perhaps the most convincing example of this—great nations exercising their influence over less powerful allies or neighbors. As studies carried out by the highest legal authorities have shown, in the case of Tibet the occasional submission of our country to foreign influences has never implied a loss of its independence. And it is incontestable that at the time of the invasion of the Communist armies of Beijing, Tibet was from every standpoint an independent state.

Chinese aggression, condemned by almost all nations of the free world, constituted a flagrant violation of international law. As the military occupation of Tibet continues, the world should remember that, even if the Tibetans have lost their freedom, according to international law, the Tibet of today is still an independent state occupied illegally.

I am not trying to get involved in a political or legal argument over the status of Tibet. My wish is merely to emphasize the obvious and indisputable fact that as Tibetans, we are a distinct people with our own culture, language, religion, and history. Without Chinese occupation, Tibet would keep its role as a buffer state, thus protecting and guaranteeing the promotion of peace in Asia.

Despite the holocaust inflicted on our people through the past decades of Chinese occupation, I have always tried to reach a solution through direct, frank discussions with the Chinese. In 1982, following the change in the Chinese leadership, and thanks to direct contacts with the Beijing government, I sent my representatives to initiate talks on the future of my country and my people.

We began the dialogue with an open, positive attitude, eager to take into consideration the legitimate needs of the People’s Republic of China. I hoped that this attitude would be reciprocal and that a solution would eventually be found to satisfy and preserve the aspirations and interests of both parties. Unfortunately, China continued to respond to our efforts in a defensive way, taking our detailed report of the very real difficulties in Tibet merely as criticisms of its regime.

But there is worse yet. In our opinion, the Chinese government has allowed the chance for real dialogue to pass by. Instead of dealing with the real problems of six million Tibetans, it has tried to reduce the whole Tibetan question to my own personal status.

It is my most sincere wish, and that of the Tibetan people, to restore to Tibet its invaluable historic role by once again converting the entire country, including the three provinces of U-Tsang, Kham, and Amdo, into a zone of stability, peace, and harmony. In the purest Buddhist tradition, Tibet would thereby offer its services and hospitality to all those who defend world peace, the good of humanity, and concern for the natural environment we all share.23

It was in 1987 that the Dalai Lama gave this speech to the Human Rights Commission of the U.S. Congress. After Mao’s death, Deng Xiaoping had enacted a policy of generally easing restrictions in Tibet, beginning in 1979. The Chinese Communist Party called together a first Work Symposium on Tibet in the spring of 1980 and sent Hu Yaobang, general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, to evaluate the situation in Tibet. Shocked by the great poverty of Tibetan society, when he returned he suggested the radical reforms of decollectivizing property, granting greater autonomy, and decreasing taxes. It was decided that the number of Chinese administrators would be reduced by two-thirds, leaving the country’s management to the Tibetans themselves, who would be charged with reviving their culture. Political prisoners, imprisoned since 1959, were released, and the Chinese Communist Party invited exiles, notably the Dalai Lama, to return to the country to “take part in the socialist reconstruction.”

The Tibetan government in exile sent three investigative missions to Tibet in 1979 and 1980. Their visit aroused popular jubilation that surpassed in fervor anything the Chinese could have imagined. The Dalai Lama’s brothers and sisters were present, and their compatriots rushed at them to touch them and tear off pieces of their clothing, which were carried as relics. These pieces of cloth were precious, for they came from people who were close to their exiled spiritual leader, for whom their veneration had not flagged. Twenty years of indoctrination and brutal repression had not shaken their faith, much to the chagrin of the Communist forces. The second visit was cut short because the crowd in Lhasa became uncontrollable.

In September 1980, the Dalai Lama offered to send fifty teachers from the community in exile to teach in Tibet. He offered to open a liaison office in Beijing to reestablish confidence, but China equivocated.

In March 1981, the Dalai Lama took note of this in a letter to Deng Xiaoping, while still insisting that teachers be swiftly authorized to lead their educative mission in Tibet. A few months later, in July, Hu Yaobang replied, asking the Dalai Lama to return to Lhasa, where he could enjoy the same political status and the same conditions of life as before 1959.

It was to this new context that the Dalai Lama alluded when he mentioned the representatives sent by his government in 1982 and 1984 to Beijing. But disappointment lay in store for them, since the Chinese uncompromisingly declared that