CHINA, TIBET AND RELIGION

The current bloody clash in Tibet open the eyes of the world to the stark reality of China, namely religion. Since the start of the communist regime in China in 1949, China has taken a tough stand against religions. The government only acknowledges five religions: Daoism, Buddhism, Islam, Protestant Churc hes, and Catholic Church. By formally acknowledging these five religions, the state also has the right to intervene in the religions by forming “association” or “organizations.” The situation is very similar to Indonesia during the “New Order” when the state acknowledged five religions and created organizations for each religion. It is, therefore, very difficult for China and Indonesia during “New Order” to accommodate religions outside the “five formal religions,” and easily suppresses them for reason of breaching the regulations.

Of course, it is the right of a regime that claims to be holding the ideology of communism. Religion, in Marx’s words, is opium to people as it makes them to forget the oppression by the capitalists. But, religion will fade away as science and scientific method take hold among the people. To combat religions, accordingly, is one of the main tasks of the state to protect the people. First, the state should carry out a policy that limit the operation of religion (as it has to limit the spread of drugs and narcotics); secondly, the state should also develop science and scientific outlook. The Chinese state is tirelessly campaigning that religion is “not scientific” and that it is the remnant of “feudal superstition.”

During Mao’s time, basically, the activities of the religions were put to a halt. Although the state guaranteed the freedom of religion, it also promoted the freedom of “not believing in religion.” This latter clause became the foundation of the state policies to forbid the activities of religions to develop their followers (“proselytization”). At the height of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1969), all religious buildings and religious symbols were attacked and destroyed by the Red Guards, an act of vandalism that caused grave damages to churches, temples, and mosques, many of them were of historical and cultural values. Religions were nearly erased from China, only in clandestine did they survive.

Along with the advent of “Reform and Openness” in 1978, China also liberalizes its policies towards religions. People go the worship places again, and the number of the religious followers also increased significantly . The Chinese government goes even further as far as providing funds to rebuild the damaged churches, temples and mosques, even places for educating their ministers. There is indeed a breath of freedom in the air.

Nevertheless, China still keeps the law that acknowledges only five religions, including the government-sponsored organizations of religions. The suspicion against religions are still firmly in place. Going beyond the deep hatred to religions, however, they are now holding a milder attitude, arguing that religion is only a temporary phenomenon that will fade away as material progress and science are taking root in China’s soil. Perhaps, they argue that at the “early stage of socialism,” as capitalism is allowed to survive, the typical capitalist character of capitalist society (religion as opium) is also given room.

The clash in Tibet cannot be fully understood without referring to the Chinese attitude to religion. Unlike the other five official religions, Tibet Buddhism occupies a territory, and that it has its own leader both in religious and political matters. The Tibet people, being a faithful and loyal follower of their religion, is more readily to show their allegiance to Dalai Lama, more so than to the Chinese president. It is indeed a unique situation in China. In the eyes of the Chinese leaders, Tibet is not an ordinary religion (like the other five religions), but one that could pose threat both to the credibility of Marxist ideology and to China’s political unity.

The Chinese government simply could not swallow a situation where there is a territory in Chinese soil under the rule of a religious leader that has the desire to exert its autonomy in China. China does give autonomy to “minority groups”, but they do not have “religious leaders.” The invasion of China into Tibet (1959) can be interpreted to make Tibet like other “autonomous regions.” But China could not achieve this end, even after it could force the Dalai Lama flee Tibet. Dalai Lama is still regarded as leader and continues to be the symbol of unity of the Tibet Buddhism and Tibet people.

True to its believe in Marxism, China has made a series of efforts to introduce modernity to Tibet, especially by bringing in modern economy. Two years ago the Chinese government has connected Tibet to Beijing and other parts of China by building a railway, a technology feat that drew praise from around the world. Tibet, in Chinese parlance, is to be led along the path of science and scientific outlook, with a hope that it will eventually mitigate the power of religion and delegitimize the Dalai Lama. The current protest by Tibet people is a testimony of a failed policy.

Evidently, China is still struggling to cope with a traditional but always modern phenomenon, namely religion. Not only did China find difficulty to manage Tibet, it also has to find sophisticated ways how to face the other religions such as Islam, Catholic Church and Protestant Churches. Islam in Xinjiang still needs a special attention, and Protestant churches across China also need a degree of accommodation. There is a progress with regard to Beijing’s approach to Vatican recently, but China is still suspicious of the Vatican. All of these only emphasize the fact China is still stuck to an old paradigmatic view on religion.

I.Wibowo, Head of the Centre for Chinese Studies, FIB, University of Indonesia.