SYNOPSIS:
China’s claim of development in Tibet masks a more sinister agenda: privileging the Han Chinese majority at the expense of Tibetans. The 1950 invasion of Tibet precipitated a decline in Tibetan culture and perpetuated economic underdevelopment. Recent economic initiatives, centred on infrastructure and tourism, conceal a demographic shift by encouraging Han Chinese settlers. Mandarin’s imposition in Tibetan schools erodes Tibetan culture, favouring Han Chinese students in education and employment while disadvantaging Tibetans. Imposing Han Chinese socio-cultural norms further erodes Tibetan identity through coercion. Tibet’s resource wealth predominantly benefits the Han Chinese majority. Ambitious projects, like the world’s largest dam, serve strategic aims. Rural revitalization introduces prosperous Han Chinese villages, endangering Tibetan cultural identity. This agenda imposes Han Chinese norms on Tibetan Buddhists, extracting Tibet’s resources for China’s gain. In essence, China’s actions prioritize the Han Chinese populace, concealing ulterior motives behind Tibet’s development facade.
China established its sovereignty over Tibet after invading the Tibetan territory beginning October 7, 1950. The brute invasion of Tibet by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) led to a tremendous adverse effect on the social, cultural, religious, economic, political, and all other aspects of the life of the Tibetan local population. Not only the cultural identity of Tibetan Buddhists have undergone significant erosion, but Tibet also remained an underdeveloped region economically with very few avenues for employment and industrial development.
In recent times, the Chinese government has shifted its focus towards Tibet’s economic development, particularly in infrastructure and tourism sectors. However, it’s increasingly evident that economic development serves as a pretext for settling a Han Chinese majority in the Tibet Autonomous Region, with the underlying goal of effecting a demographic change that bolsters China’s claim to Tibet’s legitimacy.
China has been trying to impose the socio-cultural practices of the Han Chinese people over the Tibetan Buddhists so that a degree of homogenization could be achieved through forced acculturation measures. Beijing has consistently combined the strategy of relocating Han people in Tibet with the elements of suppression and coercion.
Tibet is a region rich in several resources including in hydropower, precious metals like gold and critical mineral resources like uranium, lithium, graphite, etc. Additionally, Tibet harbours globally significant reserves of rare earth minerals such as vanadium and titanium which are critical for China’s semiconductor and hi-tech industries. China, thus, tries to extract rich mineral and energy resources to boost its own industries and manufacturing hubs that will fuel its economic growth. Tibet was also incorporated into the Western Development Policy of China that came up in the 20th century to promote socio-economic integration in China. As part of this policy, China sought to relocate over 58,000 Han Chinese farmers into Tibet under the Western Poverty Reduction Project.
Needless to say, the infrastructure and tourism development claims in the Tibet Autonomous Region benefit only Han Chinese and are not intended for regional development or for the welfare of the local populace. While presented as measures to improve the living conditions of the local Tibetan population, these projects aim to primarily serve the interests of the Han Chinese majority.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been undertaking massive infrastructure projects in Tibet. For example, the world’s biggest dam is coming up in Tibet. In fact, the CPC has been investing heavily not only in conventional infrastructure development projects like roads, railways, and airports but also in border defence villages and internet connectivity projects. Thus, the CPC’s agenda involves developing dual-use infrastructure as its broader developmental strategy.
It is important to note that the establishment of well-off villages in border areas is part of China’s rural revitalization programme. These villages are populated with Han Chinese settlers, what could be termed a “strategic hamlet programme” by the Chinese, leading to demographic changes in the region such as the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) where the original inhabitants now face the influx of Han Chinese leading to the threat of their marginalization and dilution of distinct cultural identity.
In a similar vein, tourism is another sector where China has been making significant investments in Tibet. China seeks to serve multiple purposes by promoting tourism in Tibet. It not only furthers the image of Tibet being an integral part of China as well as bringing in significant revenues to the government but is also facilitating the influx of Han Chinese as tourists and settlers. Notably, the kind of tourism development propagated by the CPC is failing to benefit the local Tibetan population. Most jobs created because of tourism in the region go to Han Chinese migrants, while local Tibetan youth are limited to low-paying jobs. Often the local population faces displacement from their native villages altogether.
The original Tibetan villages are being bulldozed and replaced by what is called “Lulang Folk Village”, a Disneyland version and postcard replica of ancient settlements in the high forested regions of Tibet. Grand and ornate buildings, brand-new luxury hotels, etc. are being built by Chinese real estate companies benefitting them and the personnel they bring from China mainland while the local Tibetan populace remains a mute spectator. This promotion of a sanitized version of Tibetan culture for tourist consumption is furthering the erosion of Tibetan identity leading to cultural commodification of the holy land. Also, clearly conspicuous is the Chinese grand strategy of decimating Tibetan identity at the expense of favouring Han Chinese majority.
In conclusion, China’s purported development initiatives in Tibet obscure a hidden agenda: prioritizing the Han Chinese majority at the expense of the Tibetan indigenous population. The 1950 invasion marked the beginning of Tibetan culture’s erosion and economic stagnation. Recent efforts, seemingly centred on infrastructure and tourism, disguise a deeper goal of preferential treatment to Han Chinese settlers. The imposition of Mandarin in Tibetan schools undermines Tibetan culture, benefiting Han Chinese students while disadvantaging Tibetans. Tibet’s resource wealth primarily enriches the Han Chinese and indirectly fuelling China’s economic growth. Expansive infrastructure projects and Han Chinese-dominated border villages further this agenda. Tourism developments largely favour Han Chinese and exacerbating the erosion of Tibetan identity. China’s actions prioritize Han Chinese interests, concealing ulterior motives behind Tibet’s development facade and casting a shadow over Tibet’s future.