publications

<<previous  | index  |  next>>

VI. Decline of Religious Activities and Social Institutions after Tenzin Delek’s Arrest

With Tenzin Delek imprisoned and his followers silenced, the independent religious community he had revitalized in the Lithang/Nyagchu area declined significantly, and the remaining monks and nuns came under additional pressure to conform to Chinese policies regulating religious institutions and activities.85 Those policies are not in compliance with the right to freedom of religion and belief encoded in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which China signed in 1998 but has yet to ratify.86 Tenzin Delek’s followers cannot freely practice their beliefs, they cannot freely choose their leaders or those with whom they wish to worship, and they cannot, without courting severe imprisonment, impart their beliefs to others.

It is instructive to examine how the monasteries and social institutions established by Tenzin Delek declined after his arrest. (See Table 2, “Tenzin Delek Monasteries” and Table 3, “Tenzin Delek Projects.”) Two years before his arrest officials made clear their intentions. In 2000, they took over Geshe Lungpa, the school with the most progressive curriculum, on the grounds that Tenzin Delek had visited a “foreign country” and had established the school without the requisite permission.87 In the absence of leadership and funds for its upkeep,88 the school quickly failed. By December 2003, its windows and doors were broken and everyone had left.89 It is unclear why authorities took over this school but not others run by Tenzin Delek.

For similar reasons, other institutions began to decline almost immediately after Tenzin Delek’s arrest. One school’s enrollment declined from 160 pupils to thirty. Two homes for the elderly closed due to lack of funds. A health clinic and its satellite also shut down, leaving the area with minimal medical facilities.

Monasteries were also severely affected. At this writing, more than twenty-one months since Tenzin Delek was arrested, two of Orthok monastery’s branches remain closed. There are far fewer monks and nuns in residence at almost all of those that are open (there has also been a decrease at another monastery that had been left in Tenzin Delek’s care prior to his arrest). Festivals and ceremonies do not attract the usual numbers of participants. It is unclear whether the reduction in the number of monks and nuns resulted from official directives or whether they left of their own volition.

The present situation at the monasteries varies considerably. Orthok monastery, technically under Lithang Gonchen monastery, is in a state of flux with no definitive word available on its status or on plans for its future. There have been unconfirmed reports that officials have ordered Orthok demolished because the structure is not sound.90 Local residents dispute the official version. They say the main building is strong and secure, but with so many monks away and Tenzin Delek not there to oversee the property or contribute the funds necessary for upkeep,91 the surrounding housing has been neglected.

The monastic population at Orthok is considerably smaller than in 1987-2000, when Tenzin Delek was in residence. Only 290 monks remained at Orthok in 2003. At its peak, its population exceeded 700. Of those, Tenzin Delek sent some 170 to monasteries in Lhasa for general study. Another 10 were sent out from Orthok to study Tibetan medicine.92 The reduction is in line with official plans, put in place for Tibetan areas after the 1994 Third Forum, to reduce the total number of Tibetan monks and to limit the number at each monastery.93

One monk explained the current departures: “Everyone feels that staying at the monastery is like being in jail, so many of the monks have left. Some have gone back to their families, some have joined another monastery, and some have gone on pilgrimage.”94 According to an eyewitness who had last visited the monastery earlier, roughly a year after Tenzin Delek’s arrest, “Orthok is not shut down but it is not open either.”95 At that time, religious officials were closely monitoring the facility and the lay community, in part through random surprise visits. Surveillance methods included checking to see if people were saying prayers for Tenzin Delek or for the Dalai Lama. As the situation slowly stabilized, the spot-check monitoring lessened.

Another surveillance method involved checking for Tenzin Delek photos. If one was found, either in the monastery or in a home or shop, the owner was questioned as to why he or she was not heeding public announcements about the prohibition, and then warned to stop. As this report was being finalized, word came of renewed enforcement in Lithang county of the long-standing ban on possession of Dalai Lama portraits, books, video tapes, and similar materials. According to one report, officials making the rounds of villages and townships told residents they had one month to hand over Dalai Lama pictures or face confiscation of their land.96 According to another report, government officials found in possession of any such materials would be subject to a fine of 4,000 renminbi (U.S.$500).97 In addition, officials were charged with putting an end to an upsurge in pro-independence activities, such as wall postering, leaflet distribution, and hoisting of the banned Tibetan flag.98

Before Tenzin Delek’s arrest, festivals at Orthok were well attended. As one source told Human Rights Watch, a year later no substantial activity was taking place: “All the public is in a mourning period.”99

At meetings called at Orthok, Chinese officials “advised” that if the monks did not resume coordinating the local public ceremonies and festivals, the monastery would be fined.100 However, the monks refused to accept responsibility for imposing the discipline necessary to maintain order at large gatherings, fearing that participants would not grant them the same authority Tenzin Delek enjoyed.101 Orthok monks say that closing the monastery is not an option. One monk told Human Rights Watch, “That would be a big loss——we’ve already lost so many monks.”102

Jamyang Choekhorling, where Tenzin Delek was seized, is also in a state of flux. At the time of the raid, religious authorities had limited the number of monks to twenty-five. More often than not, however, at least forty were in residence.

By April 2003, three monks, including a tea-maker and a caretaker, took up residency in Jamyang Choekhorling, with the monks meeting in the kitchen to perform their religious rituals. During that entire period, however, it was impossible to do so properly and “ordinary people” could not enter the monastery.103 Several other monks, including the three released from reeducation through labor sentences, also stayed at the monastery——some for only a few weeks­——some for more than a year.104 All this time, until mid-June 2003 at the latest, the main hall of the monastery was locked.105 By that time, members of the local community had opened it without official permission.106 Even after this reopening, more symbolic than real, the monastery was still off limits to most of the population.107

Soon after the opening, some monks from Orthok joined the three already in residence at Jamyang Choekhorling in order to hold a traditional annual ceremony. However, Nyagchukha authorities showed up and questioned those in attendance about the monastery’s being open. They also questioned members of a local community who “belonged” to the monastery, that is, who helped out with offerings of food and with services such as cleaning, repairs, and snow shoveling.108 By early August, despite pleas from the populace to keep Jamyang Choekhorling open, security had closed it down again.109

By early September, negotiations were underway for a genuine reopening of Jamyang Choekhorling, but under the control of a monastery other than Orthok. Some local villagers, as well as monks from Orthok, have made it clear that they strongly prefer that if Orthok monks are not permitted to take up residence at Jamyang Choekhorling, it should remain closed. The plan as of October 2003 seemed to have been for five additional elderly Orthok monks to move there. Those chosen would be known for their adherence to government religious policy.110

Sungchoera monastery, also known as Kechukha monastery, was closed almost immediately after Tenzin Delek’s arrest. The public was permitted to enter to pray, but no rituals were performed in the monastery and no monks or nuns of the original forty were in residence.111

Losses at Tsochu Ganden Choeling and Golog Thegchen Namdrol-ling are notable. The former once housed thirty monks; only three are left. Despite its reputation for outstanding education, the latter was reduced in size from forty to eight monks. Another monastery, Golog Tashikyil, once housed forty people, including orphaned or destitute children, teachers, and monks in retreat; only three monks are left: one is the caretaker and the other two are in retreat. Kham Choede Chenmo Jangsen Phengyal-ling (also called Detsa monastery) now houses some sixty monks, a loss of one hundred.

The losses at Tsun-gon Dechen Choeling, a nunnery, have been smaller. Of the sixty nuns in residence during Tenzin Delek’s time, fifty remain. Tshe-gon Shedrub Dargyeling, the monastery that had been left in Tenzin Delek’s care by its former head, lost forty of its original 330.112



85 Human Rights Watch, “Excerpts from Questions and Answers on the Patriotic Education Program in Monasteries” in China: State Control of Religion (New York: Human Rights Watch, 1997), pp. 100-103.

86 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), art. 18, opened for signature December 16, 1966, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), entered into force March 23, 1976, signed by China in October 1998, not yet ratified.

87 Human Rights Watch interview with EJ, June 27, 2003.

88 Tenzin Delek contributed his earnings from reciting prayers for local residents and for presiding at life cycle events. However, Chinese officials were concerned that he had been receiving money from the Tibetan government-in-exile. Human Rights Watch takes no position on the legitimacy of the Tibetan government-in exile. See also Appendix I, “Interview with Kardze Court Judge.”

89 Human Rights Watch interview with NZ, December 15, 2003.

90 Human Rights Watch interview with PA, August 4, 2003.

91 Ibid.

92 Human Rights Watch interview with EJ, September 3, 2003.

93 No definitive regulation is available, but many statements allude to the sufficiency of monasteries and monks. See for example, “Document No. 5 of the State Enlarged Plenary Session of the Standing Committee [of the Fourth Congress] of the Tibet Autonomous Regional Branch of the Chinese Communist Party.” The version which circulated internally within the higher echelons of the Tibet Autonomous Regional Branch of the Chinese Communist Party contained the following: “This wind of building monasteries and of recruiting new monks and nuns just as they wish should be stopped entirely…Those monasteries where the number of monks have already been set still need to be limited as much as possible, and are not allowed to go beyond that limit. The excess monks should be expelled, and those monasteries which have not set a stipulated number of monks and nuns should set a number as soon as possible.” For a fuller excerpted version, see Tibet Information Network and Human Rights Watch, Cutting Off the Serpent’s Head…, pp. 150-168. See also “1997 Plan for TAR: Agriculture, Industry and Re-education,” TIN News Update, July 18, 1997.

94 Human Rights Watch interview with EJ, September 3, 2003.

95 Human Rights Watch interviews with AQ and EJ, May 20, 2003.

96 “Anti-Dalai Lama Campaign intensifies in Kardze and Lithang County,” Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy, November 14, 2003.

97 “Tibetan Resistance to Repressive Measures Continues in Kandze,” International Campaign for Tibet press release, November 14, 2003, http://www.savetibet.org/News/News.cfm?ID=2124&c=7 (retrieved December1, 2003).

98 Ibid.

99 Human Rights Watch interview with GK, April 23, 2003.

100 Human Rights Watch interview with EJ, September 3, 2003.

101 Ibid.

102 Human Rights Watch interview with EJ, September 3, 2003.

103 Human Rights Watch interview with AQ, April 17, 2003.

104 Human Rights Watch interviews with GK, April 23, 2003; with AQ, July 4, 2003; and with EJ September 24, 2003.

105 Human Rights Watch interview with AQ, July 3, 2003.

106 Human Rights Watch interview with NZ, December 15, 2003.

107 Human Rights Watch interview with AQ, July 3, 2003.

108 Human Rights Watch interview with NZ, December 15, 2003.

109 Human Rights Watch interview with EJ, September 3, 2003.

110 Human Rights Watch interview with MR, September 10, 2003.

111 Human Rights Watch interview with GK, April 23, 2003.

112 Human Rights Watch interview with EJ, September 3, 2003.


<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

February 2004