国产AV一区二区三区,国产精品一区二区黄色片,久久高潮少妇视频免费,香港特级三A毛片免费观看,久久精品国产一区二区三

Article disproves Dalai Lama's historical views

(Xinhua)
Updated: 2009-04-08 09:45

BEIJING -- An article published Tuesday under the byline of Yi Duo disproved the 14th Dalai Lama's views about Tibet's past, especially the 1959 rebellion and two conventions between Tibetan local government and British India.

The 14th Dalai Lama talked about a "peaceful uprising" in 1959 again in his speech on March 31 but lots of witness accounts, written and video documents had proved the "violent nature" of the rebellion, the writer said in the article.

The Dalai Lama did not deny the violence in the 1959 rebellion in his memoir and speeches between the 1950s and 1970s. It was until the 1980s, especially after he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, that he began to deny the violence in "Tibet independence" movements, the article wrote.

"Because he knew that his political capital and his non-violence principles would lose the foundation if he was involved in any violence," the article wrote.

"It was right for him to stay away from violence but to cover up the violence that already happened will not help but just a proof of hypocrisy."

The writer pointed out the self-contradiction when the Dalai Lama talked about the casualty of the Tibetans in the 1959 rebellion.

In the March 31 speech, he said "more than 20,000 innocent people" were killed "within just two days" during the rebellion. However, merely half a month before, he had said "up to 10,000" were killed within "the following several months" in his March 10 speech.

Nevertheless, the article added, during the Dalai Lama's previous March 10 speeches since 1960, the casualties had always been put at "several thousand".

What's more shocking was the tale of "87,000 Tibetans" being killed "from March 1959 to September 1960 in Lhasa", as he told a Polish reporter on April 4, 2007.

The article said the Dalai Lama attributed that figure to a "Chinese officer", but failed to identify who the officer was. Besides, the figure was unreasonably high as the Lhasa population was only 37,000 in the 1950s according to the Dalai Lama group's own official website. Even if the about 10,000 Tibetan army and rebellious forces were added, the combined number was still far below the "87,000 killed" as he claimed.

The writer also disagreed with the Dalai Lama about two conventions signed between Tibetan local government and British India, the "Lhasa Convention" and "Simla Convention."

The Dalai Lama cited the two conventions as examples of close political connections between Tibet and India in his March 31 speech.

But the treaties were evidences of Britain's attempts to aggress Tibet that was part of China, the article wrote.

The "Lhasa Convention" was reached after a British-commanded army invaded Tibet in late 1903, occupied Lhasa in August 1904 and forced the 13th Dalai Lama to flee.

Tibetan representatives were compelled to sign the treaty but the then resident minister to Tibet, appointed by the central government in Beijing to supervise Tibetan affairs, refused to sign it, which made it ineffectual.

Similar things happened at the meeting at Simla (Now Shimla) in then British India between 1913 and 1914.

At the meeting, British officials reached a deal with Tibet's local government representatives: the British side would force China's central government to agree Tibet's "independence" and give about 1 million square kilometers of land in neighboring provinces to Tibet. In return, Tibet would give 90,000 square kilometers of border land to British India, based on the McMahon Line that was drawn by the British side at the meeting.

The deal failed because the central government representative refused to sign the agreement at the meeting.

On several recent occasions, the 14th Dalai Lama openly said the McMahon Line was legal, the article said, adding that these moves can be considered as attempts to seek legitimacy for his argument that Tibet was a sovereign country when the Simla meeting was held.

"During the talks with the central government, his private representatives asked to shelve the question whether Tibet was part of China in the history. I think there is a trick here," the writer said in the article. "If the central government agreed with them, it would mean that Tibet signed the 'Simla Convention' as a sovereign country and the McMahon Line was legal. That's why we should never compromise on this question at any time and on any occasions."