(en) Margaret Evelyn Miller, « Educational Practices of Tibetan Lama Training »(Archive.org • Wikiwix • Archive.is • Google • Que faire ?), B - Definitions of Terms, p. 189 : « Such areas as Sikkim, Ladak, and Tibetan populated areas of adjoining Chinese provinces provide religious training similar or almost identical with Tibet proper. Including this wider area, which is sometimes called ethnological Tibet, makes possible a more complete discussion of the lama training ».
archive.org
(en) Edmund Candler, The Unveiling of Lhasa, Longmans, Green, & Co, 1905, p. 304 : « The country is governed on the feudal system. The monks are the overlords, the peasantry their serfs ».
(en) Percival Landon, The opening of Tibet; an account of Lhasa and the country and people of central Tibet and of the progress of the mission sent there by the English government in the year 1903-4, New York, Double Day and Co, 1905, p. 437 : « throughout the country there are two classes — the great landowners and the priests — which exercise each in its own dominion a despotic power from which there is no appeal. The peasant on an estate is in almost every sense a serf. He is bound to furnish the greater part of his agricultural produce for the use of his landlord, keeping only enough for the bare support of himself and family. He cannot without his lord's permission leave the soil or the country, and he is compelled to furnish free transport and supplies to all official travelers or visitors — Chinese or Tibetan. But in spite of this state of affairs, it need not be supposed that, administratively, the Tibetan peasant is crushed and ground beneath a tyrannical yoke. »
books.google.com
(en) Melvyn C. Goldstein, A History of Modern Tibet. The Calm Before the Storm: 1951-1955, University of California Press, 2007, pp. 220-221 : « If we put this agreement into practice, Tibet's economy and political system will change little by little but not the position of Dalai Lama. We feudal lords will lose our serfs, but our livelihood will increase, not decrease. »
Heidi Fjeld, Commoners and nobles: hereditary divisions in Tibet, NIAS Press, 2005, (ISBN8791114179 et 9788791114175) p. 26 : « Where as Goldstein translates miser as serfs, both the main Chinese source on Tibet's social history (Xizang Renmin Chubanshe 1987) and the informants I interviewed translate miser as 'commoner' or 'citizen', and we might understand 'commoners' as a translation of miser and see 'serf' as a subdivision of miser. »
(en) Charles Bell, Tibet Past and Present, Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1992, 376 pages, pp. xviii et 78-79 : « Slavery was not unknown in the Chumbi Valley during our occupation, but proximity to British India had greatly lessened the numbers of the slaves, so that only a dozen or two remained. Across the frontier in Bhutan there were a great many. / Slaves were sometimes stolen, when small children, from their parents. Or the father and mother being too poor to support their child, would sell it to a man, who paid them sho-ring, 'price of mother's milk', brought up the child and kept it, or sold it, as a slave. These children come mostly from south-eastern Tibet and the territories of the wild tribes who dwell between Tibet and Assam. / Two slaves whom I saw both appeared to have come from this tribal territory. They had been stolen from their parents when five years old, and sold in Lhasa for about seven pounds each. [...] / Slaves received food and clothing from their masters on the same scale as servants, but no pay. [...] / The slavery in the Chumpi valley was of a very mild type. If a slave was not well treated, it was easy for him to escape into Sikkim and British India. »
(en) Melvyn C. Goldstein, Taxation and the Structure of a Tibetan Village, in Central Asiatic Journal, 15 (1), 1971, pp. 4-5 : « They were characterised by being tied to agricultural land which they held hereditarily. They could not be unilaterally evicted from their land by the lord so long as they fulfilled formalized obligations, but concomitantly, could not unilaterally and permanently leave their land. [...] their tax obligation was the most varied and heaviest and in particular included the difficult corvée carrying tax. In general, tre-ba serfs held relatively large amounts of land but had very large obligations. »
(en) Melvyn C. Goldstein, On the Nature of the Tibetan Peasantry: a Rejoinder, The Tibet Journal, vol. XII, 1987, No ?, pp. 61-65, en part. p. 64 : « While there clearly were rules and norms governing the relationship between a serf and his/her lord, to call these contractual is incorrect. A contractual relationship is one in which both parties freely enter and freely leave. The serf-lord relationship was absolutely not contractual, since it was hereditary and the serf had no legal right to unilaterally leave that relationship, even if he was willing to return the land he controlled to his lord. »
(en) Melvyn C. Goldstein, On the Nature of the Tibetan Peasantry: a Rejoinder, The Tibet Journal, vol. XII, 1987, No ?, pp. 61-65, en particulier pp. 64-65 : « the use of the concept "serfdom" for Tibet does not imply that lords tortured and otherwise grossly mistreated their serfs. [...] the serf system in Tibet did not result in serfs being relegated to the level of semi - or real starvation. There is no theoretical reason why serfdom should be inexorably linked to such abuses, since the essence of the system was for a lord to ensure that he had enough serf labourers to farm his part of the estate and continue the flow of food and other products without interruptions, and to do so he needed a viable peasant labor force. It was to the lord's advantage to have serf households which could produce their own subsistence and work his land - a starving serf population would be unable to do this. To say a society was characterized by serfdom, does not mean that the serfs were destitute [...]. »
cass.cn
bic.cass.cn
(en) Liu Zhong, On the K'ralpa Manors of Tibet« Copie archivée » (version du sur Internet Archive), Bureau of International Cooperation, Hongkong Macao and Taiwan Academic Affairs Office, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 23-5-2003 : « Abstract: Feudal manors in Tibet consisted of the manors that employed dudc'un[1], which constituted the majority, and the manors that employed k'ralpa[2], which also made up a considerable proportion of the manors. There was another kind of manor that employed nanggzan[3]; but, these were few in number and did not represent a major form but only the remnants of manors of the older slavery system. These three kinds of manors differed in their objects and froms of exploitation, and cannot be classified in parallel categories. Products of different historical periods, they reflected the various stages and the imbalance of the development of feudal society in Tibet. The nanggzan manors inherited the external forms of the slave manors and their traditional methods of exploitation with the following peculiarities: the manor's land did not divide into the self-managed land and allotted land; the manor provided the slaves with all their food and clothing; exploitation was not through land rent, but through enslavement; some slaves had their families while others did not, all with very weak or even without any private economy; complete personal occupation served as the foundation of exploitation in these manors[4]. On the other hand. the dudc'un manors evolved on the basis of the disintegration of the slavery system and had the following features: the manor's land was divided into self-managed land and inner-service land; exploitation was carried out through pure labor-rent with yearlong service as the major form; the personal economy of the dudc'un was extremely weak; the manor took part of its income to pay the necessary labor of the dudc'un; the dudc'un had strict, medieval style personal dependence on the lord[5]. Three features show that this kind of manor, though still retaining certain traces and influences of the slavery system, had become a typical form of the feudal manor. The k'ralpa manors came into being rather late, taking shape at the advanced stage of the feudal system. This paper will deal with the basic characteristics of the k'ralpa manor and the historical periods of its emergence and development. »
china.com.cn
(en) Jiawei Wang, Nyima Gyaincain, The Historical Status of China's Tibet, Chapter IX - Tibetan People Acquired Ultimate Human Rights Through Quelling of Rebellion and Conducting the Democratic Reform, (2) Democratic Reform : « On March 22, 1959, the Central Government [...] stressed that the system of feudal possession must be abolished, but in different ways. The property of serf owners who participated in the rebellion must be confiscated and distributed to peasants; that of those who did not participate could be redeemed. »
china.org.cn
(en) White Paper, 2009 : « Statistics show that before the democratic reform in 1959 Tibet had 2,676 monasteries and 114,925 monks, including 500 senior and junior Living Buddhas and other upper-ranking lamas, and over 4,000 lamas holding substantial economic resources. About one quarter of Tibetan men were monks. The three major monasteries — Drepung, Sera and Ganden — housed a total of more than 16,000 monks, and possessed 321 manors, 147,000mu (15mu equal one hectare, it is locally called ke in Tibet — ed.) of land, 450 pastures, 110,000 head of livestock, and over 60,000 serfs. »
(en) Tibet sets 'Serfs Emancipation Day' , China.org.cn, 19-01-2009 : « Tibetan legislators endorsed a bill Monday to designate March 28 as an annual Serfs Emancipation Day, to mark the date on which about 1 million serfs in the region were freed 50 years ago. »
chinadaily.com.cn
(en) Hu Yinan et Wu Jiao, Holiday to mark end of Tibet serfdom, China Daily, 16 janvier 2009 : « Although Tibet was peacefully liberated in 1951, the evil Statu(t)e of old Tibet had still been in place as per the 17-Article Agreement between the Central People's Government and the local government of Tibet ».
(en) A stagnant society on the edge of collapse, in Illustrated White Paper: Fifty Years of Democratic reform in Tibet, Beijing : « Plenty of evidence demonstrated that by the middle of the 20th century the feudal serfdom of theocracy was beset with numerous contradictions and plagued by crises. Serfs petitioned their masters for relief from their burdens, fled their lands, resisted paying rent and corvee labor, and even waged armed struggle »
(en) Bill Williams, A Timely Profile Of An Icon, Hartford Courant, 20 avril 2008 : « "The Open Road" reflects Iyer's 30 years of keen observation and extensive reporting about the Tibetan leader. ».
Thomas Laird, The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama, Grove Press, 2007, 496 p., p. 97 : « "Now with the reincarnation system, one aspect is negative," he continued. "Wealth was being passed down in the name of the institution, and this included serfs who were held by the monastery, so there was a lot of suffering there. There is no doubt about this. »
(en) Warren W. Smith Jr., China's Tibet?: Autonomy Or Assimilation, AltaMira Press, U.S, 2008, (ISBN074253989X), p. 144 : « there can be only black and white in China’s portrayal of Tibet (…) any ambiguity about the nature of Tibet’s former social system might allow political issues to emerge ».
Propos recueillis en 1992 et publiés dans (en) Melvyn C. Goldstein, A History of Modern Tibet: The Calm Before the Storm: 1951-1955, vol. 2, University of California Press, 2009, (ISBN0520259955 et 9780520259959), 639 pages, pp. 191-192 : « I was influenced by Gendün Chompel. He gave us advice. At that time, we were saying that the way the Tibetan government was ruling should be reformed. Gendün Chompel especially was saying that the system of people owning other people (tib. dagpo gyab) should be reformed. / Q. What do you mean "people owning people"? / I mean the aristocrats had serfs (tb. miser) and estates, and they owned the people. For example, the serfs of the Tsarong family had to seek permission when they wanted to leave, right ? ... And they did not own the land. So we were saying that the feudal system should be reformed... Gendün Chompel was a monk who had left the monastery, and he was saying monasteries didn't need to have their manorial estates at all. »
(en) Alex C. McKay, "Truth", Perception, and Politics. The British Construction of an Image of Tibet, in Thierry Dodin et Heinz Räther, Imagining Tibet. Perceptions, Projections and Fantasies, Wisdom Publications, 2001, 465 p., p. 74 (ISBN0861711912) et (ISBN9780861711918) :« One (trade agent) recalls "the dominance and brutality of the lamas and officials towards the serf population" ».
(en) Robert W. Ford, Wind between the Worlds, David McKay Company, Inc., New York, 1957, p. 337 : « Already the oppressive system of requisitioning transport has been abolished and no doubt serfdom will go too. But they are all serfs now » (Tibet Rouge. Capturé par l’armée chinoise au Kham, pp. 287-288).
Claire Marquis-Oggier, Jacques Darbellay, Courir pour Dieu. Le bienheureux Maurice Tornay 1910-1949. Martyr au Tibet, Éditions du Grand-Saint-Bernard, 1999, pp. 62 : « Dans la théocratie qu'ils ont instaurée, ils possèdent l'autorité temporelle et spirituelle ; de vastes terrains leur appartiennent ; de plus, ils imposent un régime féodal qui réduit le peuple au servage et même à l'esclavage. »
Claire Marquis-Oggier, Jacques Darbellay, Courir pour Dieu. Le bienheureux Maurice Tornay 1910-1949. Martyr au Tibet, Éditions du Grand-Saint-Bernard, 1999, pp. 88 et 93 : « En remontant assez haut la vallée de Kionglong, on aperçoit la lamaserie de Karmda [...] - leur chef ou Bouddha-Vivant Gun-Akio. [...] - « les tributaires veulent reprendre gratuitement ce que leurs prédécesseurs ont vendu très cher » [...] en récupérant les terres, il [Gun-Akio] espère asservir à nouveau leurs occupants et ainsi repousser la menace sociale que l'Église lui inflige en luttant précisément contre le servage. La possession ou non des terres représente pour l'habitant un statut très différent. Comme elles appartiennent presque toutes aux lamaseries, donc aux chefs religieux et politiques et à de rares privilégiés, il était important pour l'ancienne mission d'acquérir des champs qui devenaient sa propriété et sur lesquels elle pouvait établir ses fermiers chrétiens, les délivrant des redevances féodales aux lamaseries. »
(en) Warren W. Smith Jr., China's Tibet: Autonomy Or Assimilation?, AltaMira Press, U.S, 2008, (ISBN074253989X), p. 14 : « The Chinese communists defined Tibet as a serf society, which is accurate, but their depiction of the nature of this society was darkened by the need to justify the legitimacy of Chinese rule over Tibet. »
(en) Melvyn Goldstein, A History of Modern Tibet: The Calm Before the Storm: 1951-1955, Volume 2, University of California Press, 2009, 639 p., pp. 11-12[1] l'introduction : « Lords could also physically move their peasants to other locations in accordance with their own labor requirements. / An example of this occurred in the late 1940s on one of Drepung monastery's estates. Drepung required large quantities of firewood for the daily "mangja" tea it served its ten thousand monks and decided to use its corvée peasant labor force to provide this at no cost to the monastery. It did so by moving twelve young unmarried men from one of the monastery's estates to a noncontiguous mountain area, where they lived in tents and were responsible for cutting and transporting firewood for a ten-year period. These youths were drafted on the basis of their families' obligation to provide corvée labor to the lord, so they received no salary or food during the ten years the monastery kept them there, although their families did receive credit for providing one corvée laborer per day to the estate. The peasant households, of course, did not have the option to refuse to send their son for this task. »
(en) Melvyn C. Goldstein et Cynthia M. Beall, Nomads of Western Tibet: the survival of a way of life, University of California Press, 1990, (ISBN0520072111 et 9780520072114), 191 p., p. 54 : « The nomads of Pala, therefore, were the subjects of a religious lord, the Panchen Lama, to whom they paid taxes and provided corvee labor services [...]. To be a subject ("serf"), moreover, did not imply poverty. Many of the Panchen lama's subjects in Lagyab Lhojang were wealthy, some owning very large herds of several thousand sheeps and goats and many hundred yaks. »
(en) Melvyn C. Goldstein, Matthew T. Kapstein, The Revival of Monastic Life in Drepung Monastery, University of California Press, 1998, 207 p., p. 15 : « The arrival of the Chinese communists in Tibet, therefore, did not change monastic life or the monastery's ownership of estates and peasants/serfs during the initial period. The abortive uprising in 1959 ended Beijing's gradualist policy in Tibet, changing overnight all facets of monastic life in Drepung. Beijing now moved to destroy the political, economic and ideological dominance of the estate-holding elite, including the monasteries. »
(en) Toni Huber, The Cult of Pure Crystal Mountain: Popular Pilgrimage and Visionary Landscape in Southeast Tibet, Oxford University Press, 1999, 320 p., p. 217 : « The other compensatory measure, this time a less frequent and informal one, was the keeping of domestic slaves as an additional source of household labor. The local term for "slave" was nyomi, literally "human commodity," although often persons who had been purchased by a household were referred to euphemistically as "servants" (yogpo). All known slaves at Tsari were Subansiri tribal peoples and were kept mainly in Lo Mikyimdün and Chikchar. The Tibetan practice of keeping neighboring tribal peoples in slavery was common in the first half of this century throughout the southern and eastern borderlands, from Dzayül to Sikkim.13 [...] Both young tribal girls and boys were available as slaves, and the only record of the exact prices charged by tribal dealers at Tsari comes from earlier this century; "At Migyitün they also sell slaves to the Tibetans who cost 45 sangs (about Rs. 75).16 In the 1940s and 1950s, the local acquisition of tribal slave labor was sometimes done in barter deals for the Tibetan ritual instruments so highly valued by the Subansiri tribes. A young tribal boy could be traded for a Tibetan bell of fine quality with ritual formulae into it.17 Young tribal children were preferable to adolescents and adults, being less likely to try and escape, as they often did at Tsari.38 Once a slave had been completely purchased, he or she received no wages for any work they did but lived as "servants" as part of the extended family in the household. Tribal children could, if they did not run away, eventually becomme fully Tibetanized as a result. »
Qabai Cedain Puncog, Aperçu des droits humains au Tibet d'hier et d'aujourd'hui, in Reportage de témoins de l'histoire du Tibet, publié par « China Intercontinental Press », 五洲传播出版社, 2005, 196 p., pp. 60-64, en particulier p. 62.
(en) Wang Jiawei, Nyima Gyaincain, The Historical Status of China's Tibet, 2e édition, 1977, pp. 260-261 : « In old Tibet, serfs, no longer able to bear the exploitation and oppression, had spontaneously risen to oppose Tibetan government officials and serf owners many times. »
(en) Sam van Schaik, Tibet. A History, Yale University Press, 2013, p. 242 : « The most obvious and alarming development was the sudden collapse of the monasteries. The monastic estates were the biggest landowners in Tibet, and it was through the taxation of the local community that they were able to support such vast numbers of monks. Since the land reforms stripped Tibet's monks and nuns of the mens to support themselves, almost all of Tibet's monasteries were now forced to close. In the space of a few years, the Party effectively ended the dominance of monks and monasteries in Tibet. »
googleusercontent.com
webcache.googleusercontent.com
(en) Margaret Evelyn Miller, « Educational Practices of Tibetan Lama Training »(Archive.org • Wikiwix • Archive.is • Google • Que faire ?), B - Definitions of Terms, p. 189 : « Such areas as Sikkim, Ladak, and Tibetan populated areas of adjoining Chinese provinces provide religious training similar or almost identical with Tibet proper. Including this wider area, which is sometimes called ethnological Tibet, makes possible a more complete discussion of the lama training ».
(en) Johann Hari, « Dalai Lama interview », The Independent, (lire en ligne) : « In the brief years he was in charge of Tibet, in uneasy alliance with the Chinese, the Dalai Lama instituted major reforms of his own. He established an independent judiciary and abolished inheritable debt, which was, he explains, "the scourge of the peasant and rural community", trapping them in servitude to the aristocracy ».
lemonde.fr
Katia Buffetrille, Chine et Tibet, une si longue histoire, Le Monde, 23 mars 2008 : « Le mot "esclave" est parfaitement impropre. Très schématiquement, on peut dire que le Tibet était une société à strates, très hiérarchisée, dans laquelle existait une séparation nette entre religieux et laïcs. Les laïcs étaient divisés en trois strates : la noblesse, le peuple, la strate inférieure (bouchers, pêcheurs...). Trois groupes seulement pouvaient être propriétaires : l'Etat, le clergé et les nobles. Le terme de "serfs", appliqué aux paysans, est contesté par certains tibétologues, qui préfèrent celui de "gens du commun" ou "sujets". En fait, les paysans, la grande majorité du peuple, étaient héréditairement liés à la terre et devaient des taxes qui étaient versées en argent, en nature, mais la plupart étaient sous forme de travail, essentiellement le travail de la terre. En dépit de cette structure qui peut paraître rigide, il y avait en fait une grande flexibilité. [...] Les seigneurs n'avaient aucunement pouvoir de vie et de mort sur eux. Il ne s'agissait pas du tout d'un système idéal, mais il n'avait rien à voir avec de l'esclavage. »
Bruno Philip, « Au Tibet, c'est le paradis ! »Le Monde, 3 avril 2009 « Le terme de serf lui-même - qui se dit miser en tibétain - est controversé dans sa traduction, certains spécialistes estimant qu'il faut y voir avant tout la notion de "sujet" lié aux seigneurs féodaux ou aux monastères, même si une partie d'entre eux étaient soumis à l'impôt ou à la corvée. »
liberation.fr
Pascale Nivelle, « L’émancipation des serfs tibétains » fêtée, Libération, 22 janvier 2009 : « Pour le gouvernement tibétain en exil à Dharamsala, le 28 mars est l’anniversaire d’une tragédie. Entre mars et octobre 1959, la répression chinoise avait fait, selon lui, quelque 87 000 morts. Lundi, Sonam Dagpo, secrétaire aux Relations internationales du gouvernement en exil, a protesté à l’annonce de la nouvelle journée d’« émancipation des serfs » : « Si les Tibétains étaient vraiment des esclaves, pourquoi leurs descendants se battent-ils pour la liberté aujourd’hui ? » »
marxists.org
(en) Anna Louise Strong, When serfs stood up in Tibet, chap. VII, Village East of Lhasa : « The Kumtan manor in which we stood, and the lands and serfs around it, had belonged to Khemey, one of the bigger nobles of Tibet whose family had been in government for generations, and who owned many manors and serfs. (...) Khemey had owned 303 souls in this manor, counting the children. He had twenty-two tsaiba families, forty-five duichun families and eighteen nantsam families. Every year they sowed 2,500 kes (420 acres) of land. Of these about 96 acres were managed by Khemey's steward directly, with the nantsams doing the labor; twenty-two acres were allotted to twenty-two tsaiba families in return for labor, and the remaining three hundred and more acres were rented out to tsaiba and duichuns and paid for by a part of the crop. The official terms for these rentals did not sound onerous, being around one fourth of the crop, but when the serfs finally paid what they owned on seed loans, implements and cattle loans and food loans, all at exorbitant interest, about seventy percent of what they took in went to Khemey, either as rent for land and house, or in payments on debts. All three types of serfs were subject to the lord's orders, to forced labor of various kinds, to flogging for whatever the lord considered misconduct. All had to get permission to marry or to leave the manor for even a short absence. If a lord had a serf tortured or even killed, the lord would not be punished ». »
(en) Strong, Anna Louise, When Serfs Stood Up in Tibet, Pékin, New World Press, (lire en ligne), « VIII Lhalu's serfs accuse » : « All "feudal debts" had been outlawed by the resolution passed July 17 by the Preparatory Committee for the Tibet Autonomous Region ».
meridianes.org
Alice Travers, La structure sociale et foncière du Tibet des dalaï-lama [sic] (1642-1959)« Les domaines consistaient donc en terre arable et en pâturages, auxquels un certain nombre de paysans et d’éleveurs étaient liés de façon héréditaire par document écrit. Il existait des différences importantes de statut à l’intérieur de ces populations. Deux catégories principales se dégagent : – Les « payeurs de taxes » (khral pa). – Les « petits locataires » ou « petites maisonnées » (dud chung, littéralement « petite fumée »). Les premiers étaient supérieurs aux seconds en prestige, droits, ressources économiques et souvent en richesse. Les « payeurs de taxes » recevaient en bail de façon héréditaire une quantité de terres cultivables, en échange de quoi ils devaient s’acquitter de divers impôts, le plus souvent en nature et en corvées (comme le transport par exemple), destinés à la fois à leur seigneur et au gouvernement. »
nanzan-u.ac.jp
(en) Margaret Evelyn Miller, « Educational Practices of Tibetan Lama Training »(Archive.org • Wikiwix • Archive.is • Google • Que faire ?), B - Definitions of Terms, p. 189 : « Such areas as Sikkim, Ladak, and Tibetan populated areas of adjoining Chinese provinces provide religious training similar or almost identical with Tibet proper. Including this wider area, which is sometimes called ethnological Tibet, makes possible a more complete discussion of the lama training ».
nzchinasociety.org.nz
(en) Foster Stockwell, Tibet - Myth and Reality, in China Today, April 1998, vol. 47, issue 4 : « As late as 1943, a high-ranking aristocrat named Tsemon Norbu Wangyal sold 100 serfs to a monk in the Drigung area for only four silver dollars per serf. »
(en) Tibet won't forget gift of freedom, The People's Daily, December 22, 2003 : « Redi, [...] was a servant to tribal chiefs and living Buddha when he was a little child ».
(en) Warren W. Smith Jr., “Serf Emancipation Day” and China’s New Offensive on Tibet, The Rangzen Alliance, Blogs, 13 mars 2009 : « The class theme of China’s justifications for its rule over Tibet has become the most fundamental of its arguments. »
Françoise Aubin rapporte l'analyse de l'universitaire Christopher I. BeckwithÉcrits récents sur le Tibet et les Tibétains (1993) page 16/34. « dépendance trop large de récits oraux d’une fiabilité incertaine ; adoption subreptice de points de vue proches de ceux de Pékin, ce qui jette un certain doute sur l’impartialité finale de l’auteur, ainsi le recours à des termes très contestés en Occident, tels que ”serf”, ”servage”, ou encore ”Etat lamaïste” ; et quelques autres critiques factuelles ou théoriques »
senat.fr
Cf. Quelle solution politique pour le Tibet?, rapport présenté par M. Louis de Broissia, sénateur, série Relations interparlementaires France-Tibet, 2006, p. 17 : « Le territoire revendiqué par le gouvernement tibétain en exil depuis 1959 correspond au Pö Chölka Sum, c’est-à-dire au « Tibet des trois provinces » : Ü-Tsang, Kham et Amdo. Ce Grand Tibet a une superficie d’environ 3,8 millions de km2, soit sept fois la France. Il représente donc près de 40 % de la superficie de la Chine dans ses frontières actuelles (9,6 millions de km2) ».
(en) Melvyn C. Goldstein, Case Western Reserve University, Goldstein’s Response to M. Akester’s “Review of A History of Modern Tibet, Volume 2: The Calm before the Storm, 1951-55, by Melvyn C. Goldstein”, Journal of the International Association of Tibetan Studies (JIATS), no. 5 (December 2009), 12 p. : « Finally, the fact that virtually the entire peasantry was hereditarily bound to an estate and lord did not mean that the peasantry was homegeneous in terms of standard of living and status. [...] Second, significant differences existed within the general category of serf, which included (1) the subcategory “taxpayers”, who held land from their estate and had [page 7] heavy obligations, (2) the subcategory called düjung, who were tied to estates but did not possess taxable arable land and therefore had fewer obligations to the estate, and (3) the subcategory of hereditary servants of the lord, called nangsen. »
(en) Margaret Evelyn Miller, « Educational Practices of Tibetan Lama Training »(Archive.org • Wikiwix • Archive.is • Google • Que faire ?), B - Definitions of Terms, p. 189 : « Such areas as Sikkim, Ladak, and Tibetan populated areas of adjoining Chinese provinces provide religious training similar or almost identical with Tibet proper. Including this wider area, which is sometimes called ethnological Tibet, makes possible a more complete discussion of the lama training ».
(en) Liu Zhong, On the K'ralpa Manors of Tibet« Copie archivée » (version du sur Internet Archive), Bureau of International Cooperation, Hongkong Macao and Taiwan Academic Affairs Office, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 23-5-2003 : « Abstract: Feudal manors in Tibet consisted of the manors that employed dudc'un[1], which constituted the majority, and the manors that employed k'ralpa[2], which also made up a considerable proportion of the manors. There was another kind of manor that employed nanggzan[3]; but, these were few in number and did not represent a major form but only the remnants of manors of the older slavery system. These three kinds of manors differed in their objects and froms of exploitation, and cannot be classified in parallel categories. Products of different historical periods, they reflected the various stages and the imbalance of the development of feudal society in Tibet. The nanggzan manors inherited the external forms of the slave manors and their traditional methods of exploitation with the following peculiarities: the manor's land did not divide into the self-managed land and allotted land; the manor provided the slaves with all their food and clothing; exploitation was not through land rent, but through enslavement; some slaves had their families while others did not, all with very weak or even without any private economy; complete personal occupation served as the foundation of exploitation in these manors[4]. On the other hand. the dudc'un manors evolved on the basis of the disintegration of the slavery system and had the following features: the manor's land was divided into self-managed land and inner-service land; exploitation was carried out through pure labor-rent with yearlong service as the major form; the personal economy of the dudc'un was extremely weak; the manor took part of its income to pay the necessary labor of the dudc'un; the dudc'un had strict, medieval style personal dependence on the lord[5]. Three features show that this kind of manor, though still retaining certain traces and influences of the slavery system, had become a typical form of the feudal manor. The k'ralpa manors came into being rather late, taking shape at the advanced stage of the feudal system. This paper will deal with the basic characteristics of the k'ralpa manor and the historical periods of its emergence and development. »
wikiwix.com
archive.wikiwix.com
(en) Margaret Evelyn Miller, « Educational Practices of Tibetan Lama Training »(Archive.org • Wikiwix • Archive.is • Google • Que faire ?), B - Definitions of Terms, p. 189 : « Such areas as Sikkim, Ladak, and Tibetan populated areas of adjoining Chinese provinces provide religious training similar or almost identical with Tibet proper. Including this wider area, which is sometimes called ethnological Tibet, makes possible a more complete discussion of the lama training ».
