Popular Tibetan blogger Shokjang asserts his innocence in letter from prison
Popular Tibetan
blogger asserts his innocence in letter from prison
International Campaign For
Tibet ON APRIL 4, 2016
It has now been over
13 months since Shokjang was arbitrarily detained by the Chinese government
simply for blogging about the deployment of Chinese security forces in
Tibet.
When Shokjang was
sentenced on February 17, 2016 to three years in prison, SFT launched a
petition campaign urging world leaders to publicly raise his case with the
Chinese government to ask for his immediate release and to ensure, without
delay, that he has regular and unrestricted access to his family and a lawyer
of his choice. Over 2000 people have
already lent their voices for Shokjang’s freedom. Sign here if you
haven’t already: FreeShokjang.org
Tibetan political
prisoners suffer immense torture and hardship in Chinese prisons and many have
died in custody, or soon after release. Even though the Chinese government has
already passed such an unjust sentence, Shokjang hasn’t lost hope.
The popular Tibetan
blogger and intellectual Druklo, more widely known by his pen name Shokjang,
has written an eloquent and remarkable letter from detention appealing against
his three-year prison sentence. The letter, which is translated in full below
into English after it was circulated on Chinese social media, was handwritten
in Tibetan and addressed to the Qinghai Higher People’s Court.
There was widespread
dismay when Shokjang was detained by security police on March 19, 2015, and
sentenced to three years in prison, with numerous netizens expressing their
sadness, and Shokjang’s innocence. An intellectual, blogger and writer,
Shokjang is known for his reflective and thought-provoking articles on issues
of contemporary concern such as ethnic policy and settlement of nomads.[1]
His letter to the
authorities is dated February 24 (2016), although it has only just reached
Tibetan exiles, including the former Tibetan political prisoner Golog Jigme,
who now lives in Switzerland, and who knew Shokjang in Tibet. According to
sources, Shokjang is still being held in detention in Rebkong (Chinese:
Tongren), Qinghai, where he was first arrested, and has not yet been
transferred to a prison.
The precisely-worded
text of Shokjang’s letter both conveys the absurdity of the charges against him
and reveals a fellow feeling with Chinese and other Tibetans who experience
similar ordeals. He writes: “China is a vast country with 56 different
nationalities, and Tibetans are one of the largest minorities. I am a Chinese
citizen, and as a Tibetan intellectual, I have to be concerned for the precious
lives of my own kin. If doing so is called ‘instigating separatism’, nothing is
more laughable. I might joyfully and voluntarily serve my sentence, but I never
want to be a person without regard for the lives of his brothers and sisters.
Come to that, I would do the same for our Chinese brothers and sisters.”
Shokjang’s open letter
details for the first time the elements of the case against him, which he says
the Malho (Chinese: Huangnan) People’s Court (in Qinghai) describe as ‘inciting
the splitting of the nation’. In his letter Shokjang gives a nuanced and
sophisticated analysis against characterizing his writings as ‘separatist’,
focusing on the use of the word ‘instigating’ or ‘inciting’ ‘separatism’ : “If
one talks about instigating separatism, I have not written even a word of
separatism, much less instigated it. If I write about an incident in which I
suffered harm, and that becomes an unfounded accusation against me, and I write
an appeal to the court about the incident, that does not make me a separatist.
Helplessly subject to a punishment that makes your flesh creep the more you
think about it, I appeal to the Higher People’s Court to look for the objective
truth.”
In his precise and
reasoned argument, Shokjang points out that his right to written expression is
enshrined in, and protected by, the Chinese Constitution, and writes that if he
is a ‘splittist’, then so, potentially, are Chinese and Tibetan tourists who
post observations about their experiences in Tibet on social media: “If such
situations in the cultural sphere turn into serious political issues, issues of
national separatism, does that make visitors from both nationalities who post
photos and other observations on the situation at Kumbum monastery on the
internet into perpetrators of separatism? By this logic, only a minority of the
general public would not be considered as separatists or instigators of
separatism.”
Shokjang also conveys
the peaceful approach of Tibetans to their situation, underlining that the
reason he reproduced a section from a book about the 2008 protests by another
Tibetan writer, Tagyal (pen name: Shokdung), was because: “I do not want to see
any more of such tragic bloodshed. I will never fight to secure my own happiness
through shedding the blood of others.” Tightening oppression
in Tibet and an emphasis on uprooting ‘separatism’ has created a more dangerous
political environment for Tibetans in expressing their views. As a result a new
generation of Tibetans is paying a high price with their lives for peaceful
expression of views in a political climate in which almost any expression of
Tibetan identity or culture not directly sanctioned by the state, no matter how
mild, can be characterized by the authorities as “splittist” and therefore
“criminal.”
A full translation of
Shokjang’s letter into English by ICT follows below.
APPEAL
To the Qinghai
Higher People’s Court
My name is Drukar
Gyal, or Druklo in short, and my pen-name is Shokjang. I come from Khagya
village in Gengya area of Sangchu (Chinese: Xiahe) county, Kanlho [Gannan]
prefecture.[2] On
March 19, 2015, I was detained by Rebkong (Chinese: Tongren)[3] county
Public Security, and held in the detention centre there from the 20th. On May
5, the formal announcement of my arrest came. On July 21, the Malho (Chinese:
Huangnan) Prefecture Intermediate People’s Court convened; I presented the
defence that my actions were not illegal, and the court’s deliberation was
postponed for over seven months, until the second session on February 17 2016,
which announced a sentence of three years imprisonment with two years
suspension of political rights.
As I myself cannot
accept this judgement, I have written this appeal to the provincial Higher
Peoples Court, cherishing the hope of justice being done.
The Malho Peoples
Court has condemned the matters I wrote about as “inciting the splitting of the
nation”. The main points are (i) A composition about the freedom of religious
belief posted on the internet; (ii) A written account of the events of March 16
(2015), when police and soldiers came to search my hotel room at gunpoint;[4] (iii)
Reproducing a short section from the book ‘The Division of Heaven and Earth’ on
the internet;[5] (iv)
Sharing a news report that the Chinese government would hold talks with His
Holiness the Dalai Lama on matters unrelated to Tibetan independence; (v)
Reproducing on the internet an internal video clip of Chinese police beating
ordinary Chinese people in the street; (vi) Having copies of six books,
including ‘Sky Burial’ by Wang Lixiong, on my phone.[6]
Concerning the first
four points, while I presented the case for my defence earlier, the present
sentencing document rules that my arguments citing the constitution and so on
are without foundation.
If even the provisions
of the Chinese constitution are not valid arguments, I find the basis for the
Intermediate People’s Court’s decision hard to understand. With the merest of
hopes, I am restating my case that my actions were not illegal, along with an
unreserved statement of my position, and request that you the provincial Higher
Peoples Court give it full consideration.
1. Freedom of
religious belief is an important right of citizens defined by the constitution.
On the basis of this constitutional right, my composition expressed my view of
the restrictions imposed by armed soldiers on the occasion of the ‘flower
offering’ ceremony at Kumbum monastery,[7] and
addressed my readers on awareness of the right to religious belief. Any citizen
has the right to comment on developments in society according to legally
guaranteed rights, while conveying awareness of the law to others is a
responsibility. I have only exercised my right and responsibility according to
the constitution, and made no mention of separatism etc. as they allege.
With regard to the
overall relationship between religion and politics, I clearly wrote that I was
expressing my opinions on the outcome of politics dictating to religion and the
outcome of religious rights dictating politics; the former [is discussed] in
the present composition, and the latter is still unwritten.
At that time, the
situation at the Kumbum Flower Offering ceremony [Monlam Chenmo, marked by a
massive presence of armed troops] was widely discussed on the internet, with
lots of devotees giving their opinions one after another, as you well know.
After seeing these things, I simply wrote down what I thought, and the photos
inserted in my text were entirely borrowed from others, none of them were taken
by me. As someone staying in Labrang, my camera lens cannot reach Kumbum
monastery, as any ordinary person would understand.
Further,
straightforwardly writing down my view of the situation at that time is my
right to written expression, a right enshrined in and protected by the
constitution. If such situations in the cultural sphere turn into serious
political issues, issues of national separatism, does that make visitors from
both nationalities who post photos and other observations on the situation at
Kumbum monastery on the internet into perpetrators of separatism? By this
logic, only a minority of the general public would not be considered as
separatists or instigators of separatism. Won’t such extreme suspicion make for
an authoritarian stranglehold? Doesn’t it contradict the core socialist values
of “freedom, democracy, equality, transparency, upholding law…” etc. being
propagated by President Xi Jinping and others? Won’t this apparent deliberate
dereliction of the decisions of the top leadership be ridiculed by nations from
the four corners of the world? Won’t future generations be ashamed? I request
the Higher Peoples Court to review this carefully.
2. On the evening of
March 16 (2015) I was in a hotel in Rebkong [Tongren]. Late at night, two
people wearing police uniform and army uniform and carrying guns came inside
saying they needed to search the place. When I asked them to show some
documentary proof, they pointed their guns at me and loudly intimidated me.
That was the first time I have experienced the terror of facing the barrel of a
gun pointed at me. Such unspeakable, unimaginable intimidation embittered me
towards the Rebkong security [forces]. Confronted with those, whether policemen
or gangsters I knew not, I wrote that [account of events] in the hope of
getting the protection of the security authorities and the public.
In case those
searching me at gunpoint that night really were police and army personnel, is
it not illegal to conduct a search without a warrant? The injured party here is
myself, and the proper object of the court’s protection is me. In case they
were gangsters, I am even more so the injured party, and the one due to be
protected by the court. However, quite unbelievably, the court instead accused
me not only of inciting separatism, but of fabrication, saying “Results of
police investigation confirm the use of fabrication and incitement to cause
unrest” [quoted in Chinese]. As to whether my account is fabricated, take another
look at the CCTV footage from that day, and it can be clearly seen.
The term ‘instigatory’
is a mystery. If one talks about instigating separatism, I have not written
even a word of separatism, much less instigated it. If I write about an
incident in which I suffered harm, and that becomes an unfounded accusation
against me, and I write an appeal to the court about the incident, that does
not make me a separatist. Helplessly subject to a punishment that makes your
flesh creep the more you think about it, I appeal to the Higher People’s Court
to look for the objective truth.
3. The short extract
from ‘The Division of Heaven and Earth’ [a major contemporary work by the
Tibetan author Shokdung] was copied by someone else and posted on the internet.
In the course of my involvement with it, I wrote: “Look at this again and
again, and think about it again and again” there. The reason for that is that I
do not want to see any more of such tragic bloodshed. I will never fight to
secure my own happiness through shedding the blood of others. China is a vast
country with 56 different nationalities, and Tibetans are one of the largest
minorities. I am a Chinese citizen, and as a Tibetan intellectual, I have to be
concerned for the precious lives of my own kin. If doing so is called
“instigating separatism”, nothing is more laughable. I might joyfully and
voluntarily serve my sentence, but I never want to be a person without regard
for the lives of his brothers and sisters. Come to that, I would do the same
for our Chinese brothers and sisters.
4. The news about the
Chinese government talking with the Dalai Lama was an internal thing. I shared
it from my friend’s Weibo [Chinese social media] page. It is extraordinary that
even sharing a piece of internal news can be illegal. Such negotiations have
taken place in the past, and a few years ago some representatives of the
Tibetan government [in exile][8] came
to China to hold discussions. But the Malho Prefecture Peoples Court does not
seem to understand that this has nothing to do with state secrets and suchlike.
Otherwise, there is no basis for such a decision. According to the Malho
Prefecture Peoples Court’s way of making judgements, not just I but the Chinese
government has committed a serious crime, and internal news channels should
just be closed. I appeal to the Higher Peoples Court to show some
understanding.
5. The video clip is
of a real life incident somewhere in the mainland. It got a very high number of
hits. I also shared it from a Chinese friend’s Weibo. The oppressed Chinese
public sympathised with the suffering of the victims. As I said earlier, “I
would do the same for our Chinese brothers and sisters”. This has nothing
whatever to do with so-called separatism, neither can it be construed as
illegal. Without even looking into the content of this video clip, the Malho
Prefecture Intermediate Peoples Court declared it to be Tibet-related, and landed
the weighty accusation of instigating separatism on my little head, a weight I
can hardly bear. I await exoneration by the Provincial Higher Peoples Court.
6. It is true that I
have read books like Wang Lixiong’s ‘Sky Burial’, but I have not quoted a word
from such books, and certainly not passed them on to others. If ‘Sky Burial’ is
a book that should not even be read, it is excellent that its author has been
shown such leniency by the law. Such application of the law has all my respect.
Writers like him should be cherished by the nation and the people. And yet,
showing leniency to an author and then punishing his readers – under which
point of law this is sanctioned, I really do not know. If my grasp of the law
is too poor, I do apologise, but otherwise, I appeal to the Higher Peoples
Court to clearly distinguish such “One Country, Two Systems” practices.
There are further
implications: for my friends even to say that they had seen the previous three
posts on my Weibo page is counted as prime evidence of law-breaking. If even
setting eyes on these things is going to be considered illegal, then not only
all my writings, but everything down to the birds and the bees could be too.
Which intelligent person can accept charges based on evidence ‘ridiculed by people
but tolerated by dogs’?
Another thing I don’t
understand is that they took away my iPhone5S, because they retrieved those
posts through the phone. But if they had found those writings in my house,
would they also confiscate the house and its contents?
They may be like ‘an
old mouth used to eating, and an old hand used to taking’,[9] but
I don’t have that many benefactors, and trust that you, the Provincial Court,
will not ‘blow an ill wind into a poor man’s tsampa bag’.[10]
Finally, I am a
citizen of the People’s Republic of China, my right to free expression and
right to compose writings about my experiences are provided for by the
constitution, but on account of my lack of familiarity with the law, I
apologise if I have not expressed myself well, verbally and in written. Most of
all, with my old mother and siblings looking at me with constant tears in their
eyes, and my wife and children waiting for me every second, I await a proper
decision as swiftly as possible from the Higher Court.
Druklo, also known as
Shokjang
February 24, 2016
February 24, 2016
Click for more posts on Tibet
Footnotes:
[1] ICT report, ‘Popular, courageous Tibetan blogger sentenced to three years in prison’ February 19, 2016, http://www.savetibet.org/popular-courageous-tibetan-blogger-sentenced-to-three-years-in-prison/
Footnotes:
[1] ICT report, ‘Popular, courageous Tibetan blogger sentenced to three years in prison’ February 19, 2016, http://www.savetibet.org/popular-courageous-tibetan-blogger-sentenced-to-three-years-in-prison/
[4] On 16 March 2015, Druklo had written an
article on his blog about the 56th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising against
Chinese rule in 1959, describing the increased police patrols on the streets of
Tongren County (Rebkong).
[5] ‘The Division of Heaven and Earth’ is a
book written by Tibetan writer Tagyal (penname: Shokdung) about the protests in
2008. It was an underground bestseller and the author was imprisoned for six
months. It is to be published this year in English translation by the UK-based
publisher Hurst (see p 6 of the publishers’ catalogue: https://issuu.com/hurstpublishers/docs/nbc_summer-autumn_2016/1?e=3050992/34585984)
[6] A prominent Chinese writer who lives in
Beijing with his wife Tsering Woeser. Sky Burial: The Destiny of Tibet (天葬:西藏的命运),
was published in 1998 by Mirror Books Publishing.
[7] A reference to the Monlam Chenmo, an
auspicious and significant festival, marked every year by ‘flower offerings’
and images of deities made with butter in different colors. Traditionally held
each year at around the time of the closing days of Tibetan New Year (Losar), a
feature of recent years has been the convergence of massed ranks of armed
troops as thousands of Tibetan devotees seek to mark the festival. This has
been particularly noticeable at Kumbum monastery in Qinghai. Images and report,
see ICT report, ‘Thousands of Tibetan pilgrims face troops at religious
ceremonies in eastern Tibet’, https://www.savetibet.org/thousands-of-tibetan-pilgrims-face-troops-at-religious-ceremonies-in-eastern-tibet/
[9] With this colloquial phrase, Shokjang is
appealing to the higher authorities by implying that the local authorities have
done in this case what they have always done without thinking about the
implications of the case.
[10] This metaphor conveys an impression of
the author as vulnerable to the ‘ill wind’ of the Chinese state; ‘tsampa’ is a
traditional Tibetan food, roasted barley, which often symbolizes Tibetan
identity, and its grains can be easily scattered and removed by strong winds.
Source:
