According to latest reports, the Chinese security forces continue to makehouse-to-house searches in Lhasa for suspected participants in the violentuprising of March 14, 2008. The total number of arrests made so far is estimatedat about 500.In addition to people without proper documents, the Chinese troopshave also been rounding up those with photographs of the Dalai Lama in theirhouses, those unable to explain satisfactorily where they were on March 14 andthose with bodily injuries.
Vehicles of the People's Armed Police have been moving round Lhasa withloudspeakers through which the people are reminded that it is a crime to keepphotographs of the Dalai Lama and asking those having his photographs tovoluntarily surrender them. Those not surrendering the photos are warned ofsevere penal action against them.
With heavy troop deployments and a large number of arrests, the Chinese have thesituation in Lhasa and other parts of Tibet fairly under control since themorning of March 15, 2008. No major incident of violence has been reported fromTibet after March 15, 2008. However, foreign tourists and journalists continueto be barred from Tibet and the trains to Lhasa are running practically empty.The only passengers are troop reinforcements being moved to Tibet.
Widespread and serious disturbances broke out in different towns and even invillages of Sichuan, Gansu and Qinghai on March 16 and they continuedsporadically till the evening of March 18. As in Tibet, in these three provincestoo which have large Tibetan population, the monks took the lead in protestingand were subsequently joined by students and other sections of the generalpopulation. There were, however, some qualitative differences between thedisturbances of March 14 in Tibet and the subsequent disturbances in Sichuan,Gansu and Qinghai.
Firstly, the disturbances in Tibet were largely confined to Lhasa, the capital.The rural areas were not much affected except for peaceful demonstrations bysmall groups of monks. In Sichuan, Gansu and Qinghai, the disturbances werewidespread and affected urban as well as rural areas. Secondly, there were alarge number of anti-Han and anti-Hui attacks in Lhasa. In Sichuan, Gansu andQinghai, the anti-Han attacks were much smaller in number. Local officials andmembers of the security forces were the main targets of attacks at these threeplaces and not Hans. There were raids by large groups of Tibetans, includingmany nomads on horse-back, on isolated and meagrely-staffed posts of the Armyand the Police in these three places, the like of which one had not seen inTibet.
There was also a difference in the slogans used by the demonstrators in Tibetand in the other three areas. In all the four places, one of the slogans praisedthe Dalai Lama and wished him a long life. Whereas in Tibet, another slogancalled for independence for Tibet, one did not come across many slogans forindependence in Sichuan, Gansu and Qinghai. There were many slogans calling fordemocracy. The slogans used in these three provinces outside the so-called TibetAutonomous Region also condemned the brutal suppression of the people of Tibetby the security forces after the uprising of March 14 in Lhasa.
On the basis of available evidence, it is possible to assess with a reasonablemeasure of conviction that whereas the uprising in Lhasa on March 14 had beenpre-planned and well-orchestrated, the uprisings in Sichuan, Gansu and Qinghaiwere spontaneous outbursts of anger among the local Tibetans when news of thebrutal suppression by the Chinese Army in Lhasa after March 14 reached thesethree provinces. One could also see that whereas the Tibetan Youth Congress,which calls for independence, had a greater influence on the minds of theTibetan people in Tibet, particularly Lhasa, it does not have the same influenceon the minds of the Tibetans in Sichuan, Gansu and Qinghai.
These three provinces have also been quiet since the evening of March 18, withno major violent incidents reported since then. There are heavy troopdeployments in all these three provinces and many arrests of suspectedparticipants in the violent incidents.
Advertisement
B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. ofIndia, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies,Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies.
