“The erasure of Tibetan culture has accelerated”

Researcher Katia Buffetrille is behind the collective opinion piece published in The World dated Sunday 1st-Monday 2nd September (1). She is a Tibetologist and ethnologist, member of the École pratique des hautes études and the Centre for Research on East Asian Civilizations (CRCAO).

You are the author of the article published in “Le Monde”. What was the trigger?

While I was consulting the notices of Tibetan objects on the website of the Musée du quai Branly, I noticed that all the objects consulted were listed as coming from the “Xizang Autonomous Region” (Chinese name for what was the “Tibet Autonomous Region”). I sent an email at the end of March protesting the disappearance of the term “Tibet” in favor of this name. Because the Tibetan objects at the Quai Branly date from before Chinese colonization (1959) so there is no reason to use “Xizang”. A law passed in 2023 attempts to impose “Xizang” to designate Tibet, on the pretext that the use of “Tibet” would be a colonial residue of the British Empire. The replacement of the term “Tibet” by “Xizang” has no other purpose than to erase the very existence of Tibet, not only in China but abroad since this injunction concerns publications in Western languages ​​emanating from the People’s Republic of China and relating to Tibet. It seems that the word “Xizang” has been used in notices for several years, before the 2023 law.

Did you get a response from the museum?

Yes, the museum’s response in April was short and mentioned a technical problem with referencing. It also pointed out that the labels and notices do indeed use the term “Tibetan”. But what bothers China is not this adjective, it is the word “Tibet” because it refers to a nation and a country. However, when “Tibet” is used in the labels in the exhibition room, it appears in parentheses after “China” and “Xizang Autonomous Region”. The object presented is therefore designated as an object coming from China, which is totally false.

And what about the Guimet Museum?

This is different, it is about replacing the name of the “Tibet-Nepal” room with that of “Himalayan World” when it reopens after work in early 2024. The Himalayan world does indeed exist, but it does not include Tibet, which is 2.5 million km2 and extends to the Kunlun massif (northern Tibet). No researcher considers Tibet to be part of the Himalayan world. In a right of reply published in the press, the museum says that this is a classification by cultural areas. In the room of the Guimet Museum dedicated to the Alexandra David-Neel collection, the Lhasa region is designated by “Ü” (which is the Tibetan word), and central Tibet by the Tibetan name “Ü and Tsang”, these Tibetan names are correct but once again avoid the term “Tibet”. Finally, in the 2014 and 2015 catalogues, we find the word “Tibet” and not “Himalayan world”: there has therefore been a change recently.

Are you still in contact with both museums?

No, since the publication of our column in the Worldthe only response we have had from the museums is the right of reply published in the press. None of us expected this platform to be taken up so often in the media. Published a few years ago, it certainly would not have had such an impact.

To your knowledge, how does the Chinese regime exert pressure on universities and museums in the West?

China has long wanted to eliminate the existence of Tibet as a country. The research laboratory I belong to changed its name several years ago to remove “Tibet” from its original title (“China-Tibet-Japan”). So this is not new, but since the election of Xi Jinping (as President of the People’s Republic of China), it has taken on a new dimension. Another law passed in 2023 now requires that Chinese Mongolia (Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region) be called: “Northern Border Culture”. And we can cite the controversy over the exhibition “Genghis Khan: How the Mongols Changed the World”, where the team at the Nantes History Museum resisted Chinese pressure (the exhibition was held at the end of 2023 after being cancelled in 2020 for diplomatic reasons).

What is the situation in other European countries regarding Tibet and Chinese pressure?

As our column has been widely circulated and has been translated into English, I am starting to hear from other countries. In Germany, researchers are also considering writing a text, because the Chinese pressure is the same. France is not the only one to be subjected to this pressure, but we can see that specialists and researchers are more or less giving in to China. We can at the very least question the position of these major French museums, particularly Guimet, which houses the largest collection of Tibetan objects in France, including some remarkable pieces.

Has the 2023 law accelerated the sinicization of Tibet, particularly of its heritage?

It so happens that I am returning from Tibet, and I was able to see in Kham (central-eastern Tibet) signs where the word “Xizang” appears for example. The sinicization of place names is therefore very real and is part of colonization processes. Concerning heritage, we note that China has the largest number of sites listed as world heritage in general, it is very active at UNESCO (Tibet has three sites listed as world heritage). Because despite the inscription of the site of the great temple of Lhasa (Jokhang), the Chinese built a Chinese-style pavilion around three engraved steles, one dated 821-822, one from the 18th century and one from the Ming period. Elsewhere in Tibet, sinicization has accelerated, especially since the Covid-19 crisis: we regularly see Chinese people on Tibetan sites who dress up in traditional Tibetan costume and let themselves be photographed (see illustration).

Tibetan heritage is therefore erased or folklorized…

These disguises are indeed part of a folklorization of Tibetan cultures, which is also manifested through the use of religious symbols such as stupas used to mark roundabouts, or cameras in the shape of Tibetan prayer wheels. But the sinicization of minorities is theorized by Xi Jinping: it is necessary to create a large Han nation (the majority ethnic group in China) in which ethnic identities disappear in favor of national identity. And in the official narrative, Tibet has been part of China since very ancient times, even if the time of this belonging varies.

A look back at the major stages of Tibetan history

History. Today an “autonomous region” attached to China, Tibet is made up of several regions that were, from the 7th century, a regional empire that extended as far as China. The spread of Buddhism led to mass conversions and the construction of large temples including the Jokhang in Lhasa, the first Buddhist temple in Tibet (639). At the end of the 8th century, Tibet adopted Buddhism as its official religion, and the empire extended until the temporary occupation of the Chinese capital Xi’an (763). After a political decline, the Tibetan empire was reconstituted in the 10th century, and began a long period of complex relations with the Chinese empire: between the 13th and 17th centuries, Tibet went from being an autonomous region to a vassal of the Chinese dynasties. The 17th century marked the foundation of the theocratic system that granted primacy to the clergy, with the Dalai Lama as its political and religious leader (1643). Foreign incursions into Tibet culminated in the British occupation of 1904, which opened a period of political unrest. Exile of the Dalai Lama, entry of Chinese troops, return of the Dalai Lama, departure of the British and then the Chinese: in 1913 Tibet declared itself independent but did not obtain recognition from the international community. From 1950, communist China launched the occupation of Tibet under the pretext of “peaceful liberation”, while suppressing the revolts. The Lhasa uprising in 1959 and its repression forced the Dalai Lama to flee to India, and the Cultural Revolution of 1966-1969 completed the destruction of Tibetan cultures. The 2000s saw a strengthening of the sinicization of Tibet and a wave of public self-immolations of Tibetan nuns and monks.