王力雄评1951年藏中《十七条协议》（旧文两篇）

图为2009年3月在北京民族文化宫“西藏民主改革50年”展览上，关于1951年5月23日签订“十七条协议”的雕塑。我当时拍的。而此协议签订已六十八周年。

以下两篇文章，选自王力雄文库http://wlx.sowiki.net。

如何看待十七条协议

王力雄

对半个世纪前签订的《十七条协议》，中国政府和西藏流亡者的看法完全不同。中国政府目前正在举行规模宏大的纪念活动，西藏流亡者则普遍认为十七条协议的签订没有合法性。对此应该怎么看？

我认为，虽然十七条协议的确是在军事威胁下签订的，但不能因此断定不合法，因为历史上和国际上很多重要协议同样是战争的结果，都在得到执行。但是十七条协议的合法性还需要从另一个角度考虑──作为一个由双方签订的协议，需要对协议进行完整的实施，而不能只实施部份条款，不实施另外的条款。十七条协议中关于西藏制度不变、达赖地位不变、不强迫西藏改革、维护西藏宗教等条款，从1959年3月的拉萨事件后就不再实施，而这种改变没有得到签署协议的另一方──达赖喇嘛和西藏地方政府的同意。在这种情况下，十七条协议应该被认为已经终止。

然而十七条协议对中国的重要性在于，它是在中国与西藏改变原本以“礼”维系的东方式关系、接受以“法”建构的主权关系之后，西藏方面第一次正式承认西藏属于中国，是唯一的有法律效力的文本。如果十七条协议终止，其中的西藏属于中国的承诺也就随之变为无效。

这一点是“西藏问题”之所以存在的基础，国际社会对流亡西藏的支持，根源也可以追溯到这里。因此，解决西藏问题，最佳途径莫过于中国与西藏重新签订一个确定西藏归属中国的协议。

目前，能够被绝大多数藏人共同听从的唯有达赖喇嘛，除此没有人可以整合已被严重分化的藏民族，国际社会普遍承认达赖喇嘛是藏民族的代表，因此他具有足够的权威性。同时有利的因素在于，达赖喇嘛多次表示西藏可以留在中国。如果能够达成一份达赖喇嘛签署的法律文件，承认中国对西藏的主权，那么无论藏人还是国际社会，从此对西藏属于中国的事实就无从质疑，西藏独立的诉求也就失去根据，占中国四分之一面积的领土从此也将不再有合法性方面的争执。

中国政府应该抓紧十四世达赖喇嘛健在的时候签下这样一个协议，达赖喇嘛一旦去世，机会就可能失不再来。因为在西藏是否归属中国的问题上，除了达赖喇嘛，没有任何人能够说服整个藏民族。

目前中国政府之所以拒绝与达赖喇嘛谈判，原因在于达赖喇嘛不是无条件地同意西藏留在中国。作为交换，他要求中国方面给整个藏区以高度自治。其实，只要西藏主权能够保证，藏区怎样划分只是技术层面的问题，西藏高度自治则可以减轻中央政府的负担。邓小平对解决西藏问题的说法是“除了独立，什么都可以谈”，达赖喇嘛则明确表示了不寻求独立，因此，双方在根本立场上已经是一致的，那么现在该做的就是开始谈判。因为只有谈，分歧才能开始接近，问题才能得到解决。这是符合中国人民和西藏人民的共同利益的。

2001年5月26日
（本文为RFA藏语节目，转载请注明。http://wlx.sowiki.net/?action=show&id=26）

十七条协议是否还有效

王力雄

有人对《我和平汪先生的共同心愿》一文提出质疑，认为1951年的“和平解放西藏十七条协议”已经解决了西藏归属问题，因此中国政府不需要和达赖喇嘛再达成协议。

的确，当年的“十七条协议”有西藏谈判代表签字，也有达赖喇嘛正式批准协议的电报，虽然是在中国军事威胁下签订，但国际上很多重要协议同样是战争结果，都在得到执行。“十七条协议”是否有效，并非从这个角度论。

从法理而言，一个由双方签订的协议，只有在协议得到完整实施时，才能被认为协议成立并且合法。如果实施不完整，只实施协议的部份条款，不实施协议的另外条款，协议便等于是无效的。

把“十七条协议”的每一条用一句话概括，分别如下：
一、西藏属于中国；
二、西藏同意解放军进藏；
三、西藏自治；
四、西藏现行制度、达赖和各级官员的地位不变；
五和六、恢复班禅地位；
七、维护西藏宗教；
八、藏军改编为解放军；
九、发展西藏教育；
十、改善西藏人民生活；
十一、中国不强迫西藏改革；
十二、对西藏官员不究既往；
十三、进藏解放军遵守军纪；
十四、中国掌管西藏外交；
十五、中国在西藏设立军政委员会和军区司令部；
十六、中国担负其在西藏所需的经费；
十七、协议于签字盖章后立即生效。

从1959年3月的拉萨事件之后，以上协议中有关西藏自治、西藏制度不变、维护西藏宗教、不强迫西藏改革、对西藏官员不究既往等条款就停止实施，甚至反其道而行，那种改变却没有得到签署协议的另一方──达赖喇嘛及西藏地方政府的同意，因此从法理角度，“十七条协议”相当于被废止。

“十七条协议”是历史上西藏方面正式承认西藏属于中国的唯一文本。随着“十七条协议”废止，其中西藏属于中国的条款也同时废止，那么在西藏归属中国的问题上，就面临了合法性方面的空白。

“西藏问题”之所以存在，这一点是根源，国际社会对流亡西藏的支持，基础也在这里。因此我才提出，解决西藏问题，最佳途径莫过于中国政府与达赖喇嘛重新签订协议，确定西藏归属中国的法律根据。

那种认为西藏已在中国之手，是否有法律根据并不重要的看法是短视的，因为西藏问题的考验不在平时，而是在历史关头。身为世界两霸之一的前苏联比今天中国更强，却能在一夜间四分五裂。至今没有进行政治改革的中国，未来难以避免转型的震荡，如果那时西藏归属仍然没有法律根据，当年蒙古独立的历史就并非没有可能重演。

2005-5-19
（本文为RFA藏语节目，转载请注明。http://wlx.sowiki.net/?action=show&id=53）

How Should We View Seventeen-Point Agreement

Written by Wang Lixiong

Translated by Ogyen

The Chinese government and Tibetan exiles hold different views on the “Seventeen-Point Agreement” signed half a century ago. The Chinese government is currently holding large-scale celebrations while the Tibetan exiles repudiate the agreement for its being illegitimate. Then how should we view the agreement?

According to me, though the agreement was signed under threat and force, illegitimacy cannot be established just because of this as many international agreements signed and implemented in the history were also consequences of wars. However, legitimacy of the Seventeen-Point Agreement also needs to be looked at from another angle --- being an agreement signed by both the sides, there had to be complete implementation of the entire agreement but not just parts of it. Terms like no change to the earlier Tibetan systems, Dalai Lama retaining his position, no forced reforms in Tibet, protection of Tibet's religion etc, in the agreement were no more implemented since the Lhasa Uprising in March 1959, and these violations did not get consent from the other side of the agreement --- the Dalai Lama and local Tibetan government. Therefore, the Seventeen-Point Agreement should, just because of this, be considered terminated ever since.

The significance of the agreement to China is that the agreement, for the first time, after accepting China’s sovereign relation with Tibet bound by "law" from the earlier eastern type of relation based on “courtesy”, Tibet officially agreed to be a part of China, which became the only document with legal effect. With the termination of the agreement, terms of Tibet belonging to China in the agreement also cease to be valid.

This is the basis of the existing “Tibet Issue” and where international support for the exile Tibet can be traced to. So the best way to resolve the Tibet issue is to sign a new agreement with Tibet that confirms Tibet belonging to China.

So far, Dalai Lama is the only person majority of Tibetans can comply with and nobody can integrate the seriously divided Tibetan people apart from him. International community generally recognizes the Dalai Lama as the representative of the Tibetan people and so he has sufficient authority. Meanwhile, the beneficial factor is that the Dalai Lama expressed many times his willingness to be a part of China. If a legal document accepting China’s sovereignty over Tibet can be signed with the Dalai Lama, since then there would be no doubt over Tibet belonging to China by the Tibetans and the international community and thus there would be no ground for the pursuit of Tibetan independence that would finally end the legal dispute over one-fourth of China’s territory.

The Chinese government should embrace this golden opportunity to sign such an agreement while the Dalai Lama is still alive, such opportunities will be lost forever after the Dalai Lama since only he can convince the entire Tibetan people over the issue of whether Tibet belonging to China or not.

China’s rejecting negotiations with the Dalai Lama is because the Dalai Lama does not agree Tibet to stay under China without conditions but demands genuine autonomy for the entire Tibetan regions in exchange. Actually when China's sovereignty over Tibet is guaranteed, how to divide Tibet would just be a technical issue and this genuine autonomy would reduce administrative burdens of the central government. Deng Xiaoping said of the Tibetan issue, "Anything can be discussed except independence", and the Dalai Lama clearly said that he would not pursue independence, thus the fundamental positions of both the sides are already consistent and so what should be done now is to start sincere negotiations. Because only through dialogues, differences can be minimized and problems can be resolved. 

On May 23, 2011

王力雄《纪念嘉日·洛珠坚赞》英译版：Gyari Lodi

Gyari Lodi (taken from the unfinished book “Dharamsala Stories”)

Wang Lixiong

October 31, 2018

Translated by ICT

Gyari Lodi has played a very important role in exiled Tibet.  In his identity as the Dalai Lama’s special envoy, he has two key areas of responsibility:  one is the relationship with the United States, the other is contact with China.  To some extent their relationship with the United States can be seen as the lifeblood of exiled Tibet, and this relationship rests almost entirely in the hands of Gyari Lodi.  He has lived in the United States for decades and worked for years, creating countless relationships among the upper echelon in America, from the White House to Congress to celebrities; he can handle them all with ease.  In this regard, there’s no one in exiled Tibet who could take his place.  His achievements are known and recognized by all.

Contact with China is exiled Tibet’s future, and Gyari Lodi’s trajectory in that respect has been a fluctuating line. From the beginning the exiled Tibetans were full of hope, but after a series of fruitless meetings he was subjected to increasing criticism.  Some people on the internet have even accused him of “seeking profit, like a typical Western politician,” saying he “accepts Chinese hospitality, tours around like a tourist, and then says China has good intentions,” and there are Tibetans who told the Dalai Lama that he “chose the wrong person and sent him to negotiate, pointlessly, which will never achieve any results.”

Woeser wrote an article about this, entitled “Talk talk, watching the Special Envoy’s hair turn gray, I feel sad.”  The article says:  “From 2002 to 2008 we could all see it, talks occurring every year, every year has long days and short days, and the representatives of the Dalai Lama and officials from the Chinese Communist Party United Front Work Department meet up; what they talk about isn’t very clear to the outside world, but what their talks won’t do is very clear to the outside world…  There’s never a miracle, all we have is the cold truth becoming increasingly clear, that during the talks which take place far from Tibet and out of sight of the people of the Land of Snows, the representatives of the Dalai Lama turned into China’s alleged Tibetan compatriots returning to visit China.  During the recently-concluded seventh meeting, the Chinese official media referred to “repeated requests from the Dalai’s side, reporting that even the Chinese side can’t stand it, saying that these aren’t negotiations or talks, they should be called reprimands.”  Woeser’s article concludes: “All of this media attention means we’ve seen the Special Envoy’s image many times.  Taken six years apart, his exhaustion and aging is surprising and sad - is his white hair from age, or has it been accelerated by the talks?  So then, how many more times do you want to talk?  Can’t the two sides end this game of cat and mouse that has no end in sight?

This time in the United States I met with Gyari Lodi when he sent someone to drive me to his home.  I’ve been to his home on the outskirts of Washington before, and from the outside it looks humble, but it’s said that the area is good, a place where the rich convene.  Gyari Lodi is wearing a red Tibetan shirt, and he hugs me like an old friend.  We haven’t seen each other in seven years, and in the meantime we’ve both experienced many things.  As we chatted, I said that he looks good, and he smiled and said that he got a special haircut yesterday and put on some red clothes today so that I would see that he has a good complexion, and that he’s not as tired and old as the Woeser article said.  He hopes that I’ll tell Woeser about his appearance!  (Later I told Woeser about his complexion online, and Woeser said ‘nying je,’ a Tibetan interjection with no exact equivalent in Chinese, with multiple meanings such as ‘it’s a pity’ and ‘heartache’ and more.)

I told Gyari Lodi:  It certainly isn’t his responsibility that the talks haven’t borne fruit.  This kind of negotiation won’t get results no matter who tries to lead it.  Although I’ve been watching it from the start, I didn’t think it would work (that was the difference between Gyari Lodi and I in the beginning):  First, history is developing, and the current government cannot rule China forever.  Right now the talks are going nowhere, but that doesn’t mean they’ll go nowhere in the future.  From this perspective the current talks can prepare us for the future; another important thing is that the lack of results shows people that there is no hope of settling the Tibet issue with an authoritarian China.  It’s always right to go on the road of negotiation, and if the weaker side doesn’t try all kinds of paths to reach reconciliation, it will always regret missed opportunities for reconciliation.  Seven years of fruitless negotiations makes people realize that actually there is no such opportunity, dispelling unrealistic fantasies.  You’ve made all this effort yourself, and you’re no longer expecting the other side to give you a gift.  I said, you’ve done this because of your humility and perseverance.  This is part of the Bodhisattva spirit of saving all living things - “I won’t go to Nirvana until everyone can go to Nirvana.”

These words aren’t a compliment, they’re my sincere thoughts, and it’s basically the same as an article I wrote entitled “The Talks Without Results have an Impact.”  From his demeanor, Gyari Lodi seemed quite perceptive as I spoke.  However, I later learned that he had seen my article earlier, because his people translate Chinese articles about him into Tibetan, and it’s said that he takes those articles very seriously.

When I first visited America in 2000 he asked me to meet, as he was quite appreciative of an article I had published a few months earlier entitled “The Dalai Lama is the Key to the Tibet Issue,” and said that he could recommend it to be published in The Diplomat, America’s most important magazine.  Unfortunately, I had already sent it out in Chinese, and The Diplomat will not use articles that have already been published.  In my nearly 17,000 Chinese character article, my main argument concluded:

“For China’s long-term interests, Beijing’s wisest approach isn’t the current strategy of delay, nor is it to pin their hopes on the death of the current Dalai Lama.  This is deeply unwise.  They should instead seize the opportunity of the Dalai Lama being alive and healthy, and when addressing the Tibet issue they should try reach a permanent solution as quickly as possible.  The passage of time is not only unfavorable to the Dalai [Lama], it’s equally bad for China and even more disadvantageous.  The Dalai Lama shouldn’t be put forward as an obstacle and enemy to the resolution of the Tibet issue, because he’s more like the key that completely solves the Tibet issue.  Of course, if handled poorly the same key that opens the door can also be the key that locks it shut.”

As for the “locked door,’ I wrote:  “Whichever way the Tibet issue develops, his [the Dalai Lama’s] attitude is very important, as the people of Tibet follow him in their hearts and follow his will, the monks would go through hell or high water for him, the exile government would do anything for him, and the international community respects his opinion and gives him the utmost support.  If he’s pushed into a hostile position, with no dialogue and no way for cooperation, harboring grievances, then once the shockwave of social transformation arrives there’s no guaranteeing that he won’t be tempted to follow the tide and turn towards the position of Tibetan independence.  At that time, the various factors that have promoted Tibetan independence would integrate and join forces under his banner, and the chances of Tibet separating from China would be greatly increased.  In this regard he plays a greater role than 100,000 troops, and his old lama’s body could mobilize the endless wealth of the West.  Anyone who looks down on him is making a great mistake, and will pay a heavy price.”

The impact of my saying this, as Chinese person, wasn’t the same as when Tibetans say it.  Tibetans generally appreciated my article, including the Communist Party’s aging Tibetan high official Phuntsok Wangyal, who included it in a letter to General Party Secretary Hu Jintao on how to resolve the Tibet issue.  This put my conclusion in an important position.  Tibetans regard the Dalai Lama as the key to the Tibet issue, both out of great trust in and reliance on the Dalai Lama, but also because of the great difference in strength, as Tibet has almost no capital with which to compete with China.  He undoubtedly greatly increases Tibet’s weight and bargaining power, and can also inspire confidence among the Tibetans.

Later some people looked at the dates; my article was published in 2000, the Chinese government began contacting the Dalai Lama in 2001, and in 2002 they began talks with the Dalai Lama’s representatives.  Could there be a connection?  Although the purpose of my article was to encourage Beijing to be wise, I had no expectation that they would really put these solutions into practice.  Even if they hear about some thinking from outside the system, this small and unseen abacus can’t change the underlying strategy, and no one is being responsible for the nation’s long-term interests.  I later met Professor Elliot Sperling of America’s Indiana University in Dharamsala.  He believed that the only purpose of the talks between Beijing and the Dalai Lama is to get the Dalai Lama to repeatedly declare to the world that Tibet belongs to China and that Tibet does not pursue independence, depriving appeals for independence inside Tibet of their legitimacy.

Beijing has largely achieved this goal.  On October 29, 2008, British Foreign Secretary Miliband said, in a statement on the British Foreign Ministry website, that the British government explicitly recognizes Tibet as a part of China and that China has sovereignty over Tibet.  This is the first time in history that Britain formally recognized China’s sovereignty over Tibet.  Although everyone on Earth knows that Britain is doing this as a transaction to get China’s help during the financial crisis, when Woeser and I met the Counsellor of the British Embassy during a party in Beijing and asked him about it, he responded that even the Dalai Lama has acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, and that we can’t refrain from acknowledging it if he doesn’t.

Back then, I looked at one the proposals in my article: “Early on he (the Dalai Lama) expressed his acceptance of ‘Tibet staying in China,’ if said in a legal statement, could completely legitimize China’s sovereignty over Tibet, immediately resolving the long-standing Tibet issue.  One of the reasons for the dispute over Tibetan sovereignty is the lack of such a legal statement in line with international norms.  The Dalai Lama is an internationally-accepted representative of the Tibetan people, and if he were to sign such a statement it could be regarded as the Tibetan people’s choice, and would be the best guarantee for putting an end to Tibetan independence.  There would be no need to mention Tibetan independence ever again in Tibetan or Western society, and the tangled history would be limited to academic debate, with politics written off.  Such a legal statement could only be recognized by the world if it was written by the Dalai Lama, and only the Dalai Lama could get the majority of Tibetans to agree.”  If Beijing was really inspired by these words, then what I advocated – resolving the Tibet issue through dialogue with the Dalai Lama – was cast aside, and the negotiations were only used as bait, inducing hope in the Dalai Lama to get him to repeatedly declare to the world that Tibet is not independent, achieving the effect Sperling spoke about.  This certainly wasn’t my intent, and the idea pains and torments me, but some Tibetans still think I gave the Chinese government this idea.

When I met with Gyari Lodi again in the United States, eight or nine years had passed.  Time is the greatest teacher, and we all come to understand some issues.  I told Gyari Lodi that when I wrote: “The Dalai Lama is the Key to the Tibet Issue,” the main objective in my heart was Communist Party decision-makers, and that I wanted them to read it, and to affect them so they understood that settling the Tibet issue with the Dalai Lama through a win-win situation is the best way.  But the Dalai Lama’s role as the key may or may not be played, depending on whether or not the Communist Party chooses to use him as a key; if not, then he loses his role as the key.  From the experience of these years we can already see very clearly that the Communist Party can’t be counted on to solve the Tibet issue, you can only count on yourself.  The key has changed, and for this reason I would take “The Dalai Lama is the Key to the Tibet Issue” and change it to “Democracy is the Key to Resolving the Tibet Issue.”

In addition to replacing “Dalai Lama” with “Democracy,” I also added the word “resolving.”  At the time there were many people who put the title of my article as “The Dalai Lama is the Key to Resolving the Tibet Issue,” and I always wanted to correct them by pointing out that the word “resolving” isn’t there because, as the article says, “if handled poorly the same key that opens the door can also be the key that locks it shut.”  I think it’s very important to highlight this point for China, because where China is concerned an independent Tibet certainly isn’t the solution to the Tibet issue.  But if we see democracy as the key, then the resolution of the Tibet issue has been put into the hands of the Tibetans themselves, and now independence is fine, and staying within China is fine too, they’re both resolutions.  Moving the issue from China’s hands to Tibet’s hands is a natural change.  And I haven’t changed my position because I’ve changed, but rather because those who decide China’s position haven’t changed, forcing me to make a change.

There’s another reason for this.  When people are young, they think they have more time.  Back in 2000 I felt like 2020 was very far away, so I wrote in the article that “the Dalai lama is 65 years old, and with today’s standards of human health it’s no challenge to live for another 20 years.  China’s political transformation will almost certainly arrive within the next 20 years.  With these time constraints, the Dalai Lama’s role is very important.”  After another decade the Dalai Lama is almost 75, and the Communist Party believes it has entered “the best period,” and now at this age I know that another decade will pass by very quickly, and the Dalai Lama will be 85, and I dare not conclude that China’s political transformation will certainly arrive.  So, I need to take into account a scenario where the Dalai Lama passes away while the Communist Party still holds power, and the Tibet issue still hasn’t been resolved.  Without the Dalai Lama, what could be the key?  In my view there is nothing other than democracy.

Tibetans don’t necessarily like the idea of changing the key to the Tibet issue.  “The Dalai Lama is the Key to the Tibet Issue” has become a common saying, and many people know the title of my article.  If I change it, would that be misunderstood as me losing confidence in the Dalai Lama?  Would it bring other reactions?  Gyari Lodi’s assistant, Bhuchung, tactfully told me not to put it that way in public.

Bhuchung is the Vice President of the International Campaign for Tibet, which has tens of thousands of members and is one of the most powerful Western organizations working to aid Tibet.  He’s also a member of the Tibetan negotiating delegation, so it’s reasonable to say he doesn’t have a lowly position, but the impression that he gave me was that he’s mainly an assistant to Gyari Lodi.  Many of Gyari Lodi’s affairs are handled by Bhuchung, and he arranged my first meeting with Gyari Lodi in 2000.  With other people Bhuchung is often cracking jokes, whereas in front of Gyari Lodi he always maintains a respectful and subordinate posture, like a secretary always ready to take notes.  He was there every time I meet with Gyari Lodi, but he almost never made any statements.  Suggesting that I not publicly change the key was the first time he ever expressed his own opinion to me, and I could see that he either strongly disagreed with the idea himself, or knew clearly that Gyari Lodi would agree.

But Gyari Lodi himself didn’t echo Bhuchung’s statement; he told me a story:  He had recently met an old lama who had come out of Tibet in Nepal.  The old lama was very troubled by the impasse in the Sino-Tibetan dialogue- with the Dalai Lama’s age increasing, once he was gone what could Tibet do in the future, who could they rely on?  The old lama hoped Gyari Lodi could give him an answer.  Gyari Lodi told him not to worry, because the Dalai Lama already has a madey trulku.

Madey trulku refers to a Tibetan Buddhist rinpoche (called ‘Living Buddha’ by the Chinese) who personally selects their reincarnation while still alive and instructs and nurtures the reincarnation before they die.  This way the reincarnation can take over immediately after the previous one passes away, thus avoiding the interval between two incarnations of a rinpoche.  The old Tibetan lama was very surprised when he heard Gyari Lodi’s words, and asked, “Where is this madey trulku?”  Gyari Lodi replied, you ought to see it!  Madey trulku is by the Dalai Lama’s side every day, and is carefully nurtured by the Dalai Lama, and has already begun to shoulder the heavy task of leading the Tibetan people.  The old lama asked, even more urgently, who is this madey tulku?  This time Gyari Lodi smiled and told him- it’s democracy!

This is a truly moving story, like one of the classics.  But the simple word ‘democracy’ can be a blurry concept, because nowadays which country on Earth doesn’t strike up the banner of ‘democracy?’  Even the Communist Party flaps its mouth about ‘democracy.’  This gives ‘democracy’ an almost absurd nature.  If we want it to be the Dalai Lama’s madey trulku, we need to look at the specific contents of democracy.  This kind of democracy must be able to unite Tibetans behind the Dalai Lama, and lead to wisdom and reason.  Exiled Tibet has always been very proud of its democratic achievements, and Gyari Lodi’s remarks at a seminar in America are representative.  He said: “Today we have a fully-functional democracy, so if at last we return to Tibet, I tell my friends, we won’t have returned empty-handed.  We will bring a precious gift – a gift called democracy – back to our home in Tibet, and perhaps this gift could enrich China.”

I’m doubtful about this kind of argument.  I’ve analyzed the exiled Tibetan democratic system, and if this system were implemented in Tibet in the future it’s very likely that there would be a trend towards the pursuit of Tibetan independence, defeating the Dalai Lama’s promise of “remaining in China.”  Then Chinese ethnic sentiment would also use the banner of “democracy” to defend the country, inciting large-scale Chinese support.  The result of democracy would be war between Chinese and Tibetans (including other minorities who seek independence), which would bring disaster to both peoples.  In this the Tibetan people would have more to lose, while fascism would return to China.

I see it like that because the transition from authoritarianism to representative democracy is often accompanied by a serious “public square effect,” in which the elite, the public, and the media have extreme interactions.  The elites fight over popular votes, the public grows more intense because of elite incitement, and the media links the entire society together, like a group of people in a public square becoming more excited, cheering, or creating a disturbance.  Especially during early democratic transitions, political parties and the media suddenly have free space, but a system of checks and balances has yet to be formed.  The goal is to stake claims, and all parties fight for the upper hand, to see who can get the most votes and popular support.  On any topic – for Tibet, it would be independent statehood – there’s extreme speculation, so that social sentiment increasingly runs in just one direction.  Modern media and communication technologies can greatly magnify this “square,” expanding it rapidly, so that rulers and power blocs can only give up on rationality and join the “square.”  The “public square effect” is an important part of why modern democratic transitions and ethnic conflict go hand in hand.  If Tibet doesn’t want to fall victim to Bosnian War-style bloodletting, it must seek to avoid the “public square effect” democratic model, instead of just unthinkingly taking the concept of democracy to be a politically-correct concept.

Although there are successful democratic models in the world, that doesn’t mean that societies with different base conditions can adopt the same model.  Copied carelessly, democracy very rarely produces pleasant fruit.  It’s easy to see that in reality, some countries that copy the same democratic model get real democracy, others get the mere form of democracy, and others remain essentially authoritarian.  This is enough to explain the problem with copying democracy.  When people do small projects there are normally several options to compare and choose; how can there be just one model for implementing social changes?

In the end, what kind of democracy does exiled Tibet have?  The institutional design on paper is another copy of the Western representative framework.  If we can say it has a difference, it’s in the combination of politics and religion.  Is that a step forward, or backward?  This is debated within the exile community.  However, after a system is implemented it creates “inertia,” just as “path dependence” makes raw rice into cooked rice.  Vested interest groups form within the system, which use the rules to hinder any changes to the system.  They’re strong inside the system, and the rules are in their favor (which benefits them, and makes them strong), and want to use the rules themselves make it almost impossible to change the rules- and this is why social change sometimes requires revolution.  In a so-called revolution the old rules are essentially unable to make change, and so the original rules are abolished and a new set of rules are created to make change.

There are two types of revolution: bottom-up and top-down.  The former requires the transfer of power and the overthrow of the old authorities, and the implementation of new rules by new authorities, which often leads to significant unrest during the process of taking power, and comes at a significant price.  In the latter, the original power-holders consciously carry out what is referred to as reform or change, but in fact this is also a revolution in which the old rules are abolished and new rules are created.  It costs much less, as long as personal interests are put aside, and with far-sightedness, wisdom, and skillful operation, the resistance of vested interests of the high-ranking authorities can be overcome.  Someone who can play this role only comes by once in a hundred years, or perhaps a thousand.

I regard the Dalai Lama as someone who could play such a role.  The reason I wanted to go to exiled Tibet to investigate the progress towards democracy is because the Dalai Lama is there.  Whether or not their experiment will succeed, without the authority of the Dalai Lama it could not have been done at all.  So I said the following to Gyari Lodi:

“Although I no longer describe the Dalai Lama as the key to the Tibet issue, and instead say that democracy is the key to resolving the Tibet issue, I think that having the sort of democracy that can resolve the Tibet issue depends on the Dalai Lama.  This sort of democracy isn’t just democracy for exiled Tibet, it’s also democracy for inside Tibet, and for Chinese society, and it could even make a contribution to world democracy.  From this point of view, the Dalai Lama is the key to Tibetan democracy, and we can therefore say that the Dalai Lama is the key to the key to resolving the Tibet issue.”

Saying it like this seemed to be more acceptable, and everyone seemed satisfied.  While I waited in America to head to India I repeatedly contacted Gyari Lodi, and met with him in his home a good number of times, eating meals prepared by his wife.  He often received important people, I forget their names; not American senior figures or State Department officials, but Indian defense ministers and their like.  I used each of our contacts to speak about topics related to democracy by stages, and although it wasn’t clear what he could do to help, he had a high position and having his support would always have some benefit.

Unfortunately Gyari Lodi and I could only communicate through interpreters, which is a considerable obstacle.  Generally communicating through interpreters isn’t an issue, but during in-depth conversations the quality of interpreting becomes crucial.  In 2002, during a four-week visit to the United States, a professional interpreter from the State Department who accompanied me and who was, in my opinion, quite capable, told me at the end of the trip that he had only been able to translate 85% of my ideas.  At the time I thought, oh god, the essence of my words must be among the 15% which wasn’t translated!  When Gyari Lodi and I spoke we used two interpreters, so they could rotate in and out or complement each other, and one of them had previously been a scholar at the Central Nationalities University in Beijing.  Neither of them were good at expressing themselves, or at least the Chinese I heard had many problems.  What I said to Gyari Lodi about democracy by stages would be even more indecipherable if the interpreting was incomprehensible.  Gyari Lodi was confused about democracy by stages until right before I went to India, but what he said on that day was interpreted very well, like poetry.  He said:

“I believe you’re very clear about democracy by stages, but, like in tantric study, will the disciple be able to learn?  Looking at opportunities and blessings, I still don’t have this good fortune, but I’ve certainly taken advantage of your time here to take the opportunity to thoroughly understand it.  Or so I’d say!  Our Tibetan Buddhism has terma and to retrieve them you need a dakini [a female being who acts as a muse for spiritual practice], which you already have, but you also need Dharma Protectors, and I can be one.  Today is the first day of Saga Dawa, indicating good fortune in the future.

“Saga Dawa” is the month-long festival for Tibetan Buddhists commemorating Sakyamuni’s birth, enlightenment, and death.

Terma is a word referring to hidden treasure, a means of passing on the Dharma in Tibetan tantric Buddhism.  The last hopes of Tibetan tantric Buddhism may be pinned on terma, because terma can never be destroyed!  Terma materials can repair the Dharma, and they can take the form of Buddhist statues, heavenly nectar, and more, but the most important ones are Buddhist scriptures, which must be recovered at a specific time by a treasure-revealer.  When Gyari Lodi said these words he put a metaphor into my heart, of a treasure-revealer uncovering the Dharma, and the Dakini refers to Woeser. The treasure-revealer will get married, and his wife is a Dakini who can help him reveal treasures.  I wrote down Gyari Lodi’s poem and sent it to Woeser, making her very happy.  And, I think I have a truly powerful Dharma Protector…

       (Note:  This unfinished section ends here.  If not for the death of Mr. Gyari Lodi, it would still just be on my computer.   I hope to finish “Dharamsala Stories” one day, with my observations on exiled Tibet and my reflections on Tibet’s future from the three months I lived in Dharamsala.   This section was written before I went to Dharamsala, and later I replied to a suggestion from Gyari Lodi, who invited me to help write a book –  “Reflections from a distance” and “The wisdom of writing a great history.”)

延伸阅读：

王力雄：纪念嘉日·洛珠坚赞 http://woeser.middle-way.net/2018/10/blog-post_31.html

王力雄：纪念嘉日·洛珠坚赞

纪念嘉日·洛珠坚赞

王力雄

我没有想到嘉日·洛珠坚赞先生会这么早去世，他比我大不了几岁，照理说应该还有时间。我们之间的最后联系在2015年，他来信告诉我将要写一本书，邀请我参与其中的一章。我与他做了讨论，本打算去他退休后常住的泰国清迈见面，但我从中国出境受阻，最后彻底禁止出境，合作未能进行。不知道他的书现在是否已经写完？何时可以出版？西藏、中国和世界都需要他的这份遗产。我为此生能结识他感到荣幸。如果说有什么遗憾，就是没能满足他向我提出的最后愿望。

下面文字是2009年我去达兰萨拉后写的《达兰萨拉的故事》中的一节，题目即是人们通常对他所称的“嘉日洛珠”。全书没有写完，这一节也没写完，便因为其他事情放下了。今日听到嘉日洛珠先生去世的消息，重新翻出做为回顾，同时附上我们的最后通信以表纪念。

嘉日洛珠（摘选于未完成著作《达兰萨拉的故事》）

嘉日洛珠在流亡西藏扮演的角色十分重要。他的身份是达赖喇嘛特使，所负责的两个方面都是关键：一是和美国的关系，一是和中国的接触。和美国的关系一定程度上可被看做流亡西藏的命脉，这种关系几乎完全掌握在嘉日洛珠手中。他在美国住了几十年，长年经营，交结了无数美国上层社会的关系，从白宫到国会到社会名流，都能周旋得游刃有余。这方面，流亡西藏无人可以替代他。他做出的成就有目共睹，大家都承认。

和中国接触是流亡西藏的未来所系，嘉日洛珠在这方面的轨迹却是一个起伏的曲线，从最初流亡藏人的充满希望，到一次次会谈毫无成果，受到批评越来越多。网上甚至有藏人指责他“唯利是图，像个典型的西方政客”；说他“接受中国的招待，四处参观、旅游，然后说中国有善意”；还有藏人对达赖喇嘛表示：“你选错人了，派他们去谈判，没有意义，永远不会有结果。”

唯色对此也写了一篇文章，标题是“谈啊谈，白了特使头，空悲切”。文章里这样写：“从2002年至2008年，所有人都看见了，每年都在谈，每年都有或长或短的日子，达赖喇嘛的代表们与中共统战部的官员们碰在一起；他们谈了什么，外界不太清楚，但他们谈不成什么，外界很清楚……自始至终没有奇迹，有的只是冷酷的真相日益清晰，在远离藏地、在再也看不见雪域乡亲的会谈中，达赖喇嘛的代表们不得不变成了中方声称的归国旅游的藏胞。而最近刚结束的第七次会谈，被中国官媒说成是‘应达赖方面多次请求’，其报道连中国人自己都看不下去，说这不叫谈判或者会谈，这叫做训话。”唯色在文章最后这样写：“媒体的关注使得我们多次从影像上见到特使先生，相隔六年，他的疲惫和衰老令人惊讶、伤感，他的一头华发是岁月催白，还是会谈催白？那么，还要谈多少次，双方才会结束这一场似乎看不到尽头的猫抓老鼠的游戏？”

这次来美国，我和嘉日洛珠的第一次见面是他派人开车把我接到他家。我以前也曾去过他家，那是华盛顿郊区一栋房屋，外表不起眼，但据说所在的区很好，富人云集。嘉日洛珠身穿绛红色藏式衬衫，老友般和我拥抱。一晃已经七年未见，这中间我们每人都经历了不少事。欲说还休，我寒暄他气色看上去不错。他笑着说，为了见我昨天特地理了发，今天穿上红衣服，为的就是让我看到他有好气色，而非唯色文章里写的那么疲惫和衰老。他希望我把他的好气色告诉唯色。（后来我在网上把嘉日洛珠为好气色做的努力告诉了唯色，唯色说“宁结”——那是藏人的一个感叹词，汉语中找不到对应，有悲悯、心疼等多重意思。）

我对嘉日洛珠说：会谈没结果当然不是他的责任。无论什么人来做这种谈判都不会得到结果。虽然我从开始就这样看（这是我和嘉日洛珠当初的分歧），却不认为没作用：一是历史在发展，目前的政府不会永远统治中国，现在谈不通，不等于未来谈不通。从这个角度，现在的谈可以当做为将来的准备；另一重作用是，正因为没有结果，才能让人认识到没有希望与专制中国达成西藏问题的解决。谈判过程总是要走的，弱势一方不把各种和解之路都尝试遍，总是会后悔错过了和解机会。而长达七年的无果谈判，正让人认识到实际上不存在这种机会，才会丢掉不切实际的幻想，由自己来承担全部努力，不再期盼对方的恩赐。我说，做到这些，正是由于你们的忍辱负重和百折不挠，这是拯救众生的佛菩萨精神——“我不下地狱谁下地狱”。

这话不是恭维，是我的真心想法，和我写的一篇名为“没有结果的会谈有作用”的文章大意相同。从他的神态反映看，嘉日洛珠对我的话颇感知音。不过我后来知道，我的文章他早看过，他的手下会把跟他有关的中文文章都翻译成藏文给他，据说他看那些文章很认真。

二〇〇〇年我第一次来美国时他约我见面，对我几个月前发表的一篇文章——《达赖喇嘛是西藏问题的钥匙》相当赞赏，表示他本可以推荐给美国最重要的《外交》杂志发表，遗憾的是我已经先用中文发了，而《外交》杂志不会用发过的文章。我那篇将近一万七千字的文章中，主要论证了这样的结论：

“从中国的久远利益着想，北京明智的做法不是目前这种拖延，更不是把希望寄托于这一世达赖喇嘛的死亡，那恰恰是一种失策，而是应该抓紧十四世达赖喇嘛在世并且健康的时机，对西藏问题着手解决，尽早争取得到一个一劳永逸的结果。时间的拖延不仅对达赖是不利的，对中国也一样不利，甚至更不利。不应该把达赖喇嘛仅当作解决西藏问题的障碍与敌人，他更是一把使西藏问题彻底解决的钥匙。当然，搞不好，这把可以打开大门的钥匙，也一样可以锁住大门。”

对于“锁住大门”，我这样写：“西藏问题向什么方向发展，他（达赖喇嘛）的态度举足轻重，西藏的人心随他而走，人民遵奉他的意志，僧侣为他赴汤蹈火，流亡政府对他言听计从，国际社也会尊重他的意见，给他最大支持。如果把他推到敌对位置，使他对话无门，合作无路，心怀委屈，一旦社会转型的冲击波不期而至，就无法保证他不在时机诱惑和潮流裹挟下转向西藏独立的立场。那时各种促使西藏独立的因素就会在他的旗下最大程度地实现整合，形成合力，西藏脱离中国的可能性会因此大大增加。在这方面，他一个人的作用超过千百军队，他的老喇嘛之身有可能调动西方世界的无尽财富，任何对他的小觑都将是极大错误，并且将付出重大代价。”

我作为汉人这样的说法，跟藏人自己说效果是不一样的。藏人对我的文章普遍赞赏，包括老资格的中共藏人高官平措汪杰就解决西藏问题写给中共总书记胡锦涛的信，也把我这个结论放在重要位置。对藏人而言，一方面是出于对达赖喇嘛的崇敬和依赖，另一方面也是因为实力相差悬殊，西藏几乎没有跟中国抗衡的资本，把达赖喇嘛视为西藏问题的钥匙，无疑大大加强了西藏的分量，增加了谈判的筹码，也能鼓舞藏人的信心。

后来有人做了这样时间排列，我的文章二〇〇〇年发表，中国政府二〇〇一年开始和达赖喇嘛方面接触，二〇〇二年开始和达赖喇嘛的代表会谈，考虑这中间有没有联系？虽然我写文章的目的是希望促使北京明智，但我对他们采取真正解决问题的做法并无指望。他们即使能汲取一些体制外思想，也是出于眼前得利的小算盘，不会改变根本战略，也没人对国家长远利益负责。我后来在达兰萨拉遇到美国印第安那大学的史柏林教授，他认为北京和达赖喇嘛方面的会谈，目的只在于逼迫达赖喇嘛反复对世界宣称西藏属于中国和西藏不追求独立，以此剥夺西藏内部的独立诉求合法性。

北京在很大程度上真达到了目的。二〇〇八年十月二十九日，英国外交大臣米利班德在英国外交部网站发表声明称，英国政府明确承认西藏是中华人民共和国一部分，中国对西藏拥有主权。这是英国有史以来首次正式承认中国对西藏的主权。虽然地球人都知道英国那样做是金融危机下有求于中国的一种交易，但是当我和唯色在北京一个派对上遇到英国驻中国使馆的参赞，向他问起这个问题时，他的回答是连达赖喇嘛都承认了西藏的主权属于中国，我们再坚持不承认就不应该了。

那时，回头看我的文章中提出的“及早就他（达赖喇嘛）表态接受的‘西藏留在中国’之说形成法律文本，则可以使中国对西藏的主权彻底合法化，一举解决长期困扰的西藏问题。西藏主权存在争执的原因之一，就在于缺少这样一个符合国际准则的法律文本。达赖喇嘛是国际公认的藏民族代表，由他签署这样的文本，会被视为藏民族自己的选择，可以成为杜绝西藏独立的最好保证；无论是藏人还是西方社会，从此没有理由再提西藏独立；历史上纠缠不清的争辩也只限于学术，政治上一笔勾销。而这样一个法律文本，惟有由十四世达赖喇嘛签署才能被世界认可，也惟有十四世达赖喇嘛才能让多数藏人同意接受”，如果这对北京真有启发的话，我主张的——通过与达赖喇嘛解决西藏问题而得到相应文本——其实是被抛在一边，只把谈判作为诱饵，诱使盼望谈判得到结果的达赖喇嘛反复宣称西藏不独立，达到史柏林所说的效果。这当然不是我的本意，我对此也痛深恶绝，但有些藏人还是因此认为我是给中国政府出主意。

当我和嘉日洛珠在美国再次见面，距离当初见面已过了八、九年。时间是比什么都好的老师，我们应该都看明白了一些问题。我对嘉日洛珠说，当年我写《达赖喇嘛是西藏问题的钥匙》，心中主要对象还是中共决策者，希望他们看到，能影响他们，明白通过达赖喇嘛解决西藏问题是实现双赢的最佳途径。然而达赖喇嘛的钥匙作用能不能发挥，取决于中共是否把达赖喇嘛当作钥匙用，如果中共就是不用，达赖喇嘛也就失去钥匙的作用。这些年的经历已经看得很清楚，解决西藏问题完全无法指望中共，只有立足自己。这时以什么为钥匙就需要变化，出于这种考虑，我现在要把“达赖喇嘛是西藏问题的钥匙”改成“民主是解决西藏问题的钥匙”。

这种改动除了把“达赖喇嘛”换成“民主”，还多了“解决”二字。当年常有人把我的文章标题说成《达赖喇嘛是解决西藏问题的钥匙》，我总是要纠正没有“解决”二字，因为正如文章所说，“搞不好，这把可以打开大门的钥匙，也一样可以锁住大门”。 对于中国而言，我认为突出这一点很重要，因为西藏独立对中国肯定不算西藏问题的解决。但是若把民主看做钥匙，西藏问题的解决转移到藏人自己手中，那就独立也好，留在中国也好，都是一种解决。从中国立场转移到西藏立场，这种变化是自然的。而我的变化不是因为立场发生了变化，是因为决定中国立场的当权者不变，逼着我做出变化。

除此还有一个原因，人年轻时会把时间看得比较长。我在二〇〇〇年时，觉得二〇二〇年很遥远，因此那时在文章里写“达赖喇嘛今年六十五岁，在当今人类寿命标准和保健条件下，再活二十年不是难事。而二十年的时间，中国的政治转型几乎一定要来。考虑到这种时间关系，达赖喇嘛的作用就显得非常重要……”，一晃十年过去，达赖喇嘛已经七十五，中共却被认为进入了“最好时期”；而人到这个岁数，便知道下个十年也会一晃而过，那时达赖喇嘛八十五岁，却不敢断定中国的政治转型一定要来。因此需要考虑到达赖喇嘛去世时中共仍然在位、西藏问题仍未解决。当达赖喇嘛不在，还有什么能是钥匙呢——在我看，除了民主，再无其他。

改变西藏问题钥匙的说法，藏人不见得喜欢。“达赖喇嘛是西藏问题的钥匙”已成通行说法，很多人都知道我那篇以此为题目的文章，如果我改变，会不会让人误解是对达赖喇嘛失去信心？是否会带来其他反应？嘉日洛珠的助手布琼向我委婉地表示，对外还是不要这样说。

布琼是“国际援助西藏组织”的副主席。那组织有数万成员，是西方最有实力的援助西藏组织之一。除此布琼也是与中国谈判的藏方代表团成员，照理说职位不低，但他给我的印象主要还是嘉日洛珠的助手。嘉日洛珠很多事情都由布琼经办，我和嘉日洛珠在二〇〇〇年的第一次见面也是他安排。跟其他人经常开玩笑的布琼，在嘉日洛珠面前总是保持恭敬的下属姿态，秘书般随时做记录。每次我和嘉日洛珠见面他都在场，但几乎从不表态。建议我不要对外改变钥匙的说法，是他第一次向我表达态度，可见或是他本人对此非常不同意，或是他清楚嘉日洛珠也是同样想法。

不过嘉日洛珠本人倒没有呼应布琼，他给我讲了一个故事：不久前他在尼泊尔遇见一个从西藏境内出来的老喇嘛。老喇嘛对西藏与中国的谈判陷入僵局非常忧愁——达赖喇嘛的年龄日益增加，一旦达赖喇嘛不在了，未来西藏该怎么办，还能指靠谁？老喇嘛希望嘉日洛珠能给他解答。嘉日洛珠安慰他不要担心，因为达赖喇嘛已经有了“玛度朱古”。“玛度朱古”是指藏传佛教中的仁波切（即汉人所称的活佛）在世时亲自选定的转世，在圆寂前对其进行指点和培育，在圆寂后使其立刻就能接班，从而避免两代仁波切之间的空当。那位西藏老喇嘛听到嘉日洛珠这样讲，非常惊讶，忙问“玛度朱古”在哪里？嘉日洛珠回答，你该看得到啊，“玛度朱古”每天陪伴在达赖喇嘛身边，受到达赖喇嘛精心培育，已经开始承担起领导西藏人民的重任。老喇嘛更迫切地追问“玛度朱古”到底是谁，嘉日洛珠这时笑着告诉他——那就是民主啊。

这个故事的确很动人，甚至可以成为经典，不过简单的“民主”二字只是模糊的概念，当今世界哪个国家不打“民主”旗号？甚至中共也张口闭口谈“民主”。这使“民主”几乎有了近似荒诞的性质。要想成为达赖喇嘛的“玛度朱古”，首先要看民主的具体内容。那种民主必须能够在达赖喇嘛身后继续凝聚藏人，能够形成智慧和理性。流亡西藏一直为自己的民主成就表示自豪，嘉日洛珠在美国的一个研讨会上发表的言论是有代表性的，他说：“如今我们有完全正常运作的民主政治，所以如果我们最终回到西藏，我告诉我的朋友们，我们并不是空手回去。我们带着宝贵的礼物——这个名为 ‘民主’的礼物——回到我们西藏的家，也许这个礼物可以让中国更为充实。”

但是我对这种说法却是怀疑的。我曾对流亡西藏现行的民主制度做过分析，如果西藏境内将来实行同样制度，很可能使追求西藏独立成为潮流，使达赖喇嘛的“留在中国”的许诺落空。那时汉人的民族主义势力会在同样“民主”中打起保卫国家的旗号，照样煽动起汉人的大规模支持。那种民主的结果将是汉民族与藏民族（包括其他寻求独立的少数民族）的战争，带给双方人民灾难，其中藏族人民的牺牲更大，同时使法西斯主义在中国卷土重来。

我这样看，是因为从专制向代议制民主转型伴随严重的“广场效应”——即在精英、大众和媒体之间产生趋于极端的互动。精英为获得大众选票不断拔高；大众则因为有精英煽动更为激烈；媒体则把整个社会连结在一起，如同挤在一个广场上一样共同激动、欢呼或起哄。尤其是民主转型初期，政党和媒体骤然得到自由空间，制衡格局远未形成，目标都在跑马圈地，很容易出现各方争抢同一制高点，什么能赢得最多民意和选票，就把什么话题——对西藏而言就是独立建国——炒作到极致，从而使社会情绪越来越趋于同一方向。今日媒体和通讯技术可以将这种“广场”无限放大，迅速扩展，受选票制约的执政者和权力集团，只能放弃理智卷入“广场”。之所以近代民主转型和民族冲突总是如影相随，“广场效应”是重要原因。未来西藏如果不想陷入波黑战争那种仇杀，就要寻找能够避免“广场效应”的民主模式，而不是仅仅把民主概念当作一种不假思索的政治正确。

虽然世界有成功的民主社会，并不等于基础和条件不同的社会可以采用同样模式。照搬的民主很少会结出甜美果实。现实中不难看到，实行同样民主模式的国家，有些有真正的民主，有些只有民主形式，有些甚至仍是实质上的专制，足以说明照搬的问题。人们做一个小小工程都会有几个方案进行对比选择，实施社会制度的变革，怎能只有一种模式？

流亡西藏的民主到底怎么样？文字上看到的制度设计，还是照搬了西方通行的代议制框架。如果说有不同，主要在其政教结合的部分，那到底是进步还是退步，流亡社会内部是有争论的。然而一种制度一旦进入实施就会形成“惯性”，也就是生米煮成熟饭的“路径依赖”；在制度中形成的既得利益集团，也会利用制度本身的规则阻碍制度的改变。他们是制度内的强者，规则对他们有利（因此才得到利益、成为强者），想利用规则本身去改变规则几乎不可能——这也就是社会变化有时需要革命的原因。所谓革命，其实质就是不再指望利用原有规则实现变化，而是干脆废除原有规则，重建一套新规则实现变化。

革命分两种，自下而上的革命和自上而下的革命。前者先要实现权力转移，打到旧的当权者，由新的当权者实行新规则，往往会在夺权过程中造成社会动荡，付出重大代价；后者则是由原有权力集团的高层利用权力自觉进行，一般被称为改革或变革，其实也是一种废除原有规则和创建新规则的革命。代价小得多，前提是得有不计个人利益、高瞻远瞩，有智慧、善操作，又能克服既得利益集团阻力的高层当权者。恰恰是这种角色百年甚至千年都难遇到。

我正是把达赖喇嘛视为这种角色。我之所以要去流亡西藏做递进民主的实验，正是因为那里有达赖喇嘛。先不说实验能否成功，如果没有达赖喇嘛的权威支持，实验根本不能进行。所以我对嘉日洛珠又说了下面一段话：

“虽然我不再把达赖喇嘛说成西藏问题的钥匙，而是把民主当成解决西藏问题的钥匙，但我认为得到能解决西藏问题的民主模式却要靠达赖喇嘛。这种民主不但会是流亡西藏的民主，也会是未来西藏境内的民主和中国社会的民主，甚至对世界民主也会做出贡献。从这个角度达赖喇嘛便是西藏民主的钥匙。因此可以说，达赖喇嘛是解决西藏问题的钥匙的钥匙。”

这样说似乎比较圆满，大家也都能满意。我在美国等待去印度的那段时间，和嘉日洛珠接触多次，好几次是在他家里，吃过他妻子做的饭。他以这种规格接待的往往是些重要人物，我记不住他介绍的那些名字，反正不是美国的资深议员、国务院高官，就是印度国防部长之类。我利用每个跟他接触的机会讲与递进民主制有关的话题。虽然不明确他能帮上什么忙，但是他的地位重要，有他支持总会有好处。

遗憾的是我和嘉日洛珠的交流只能靠翻译，障碍颇大。一般交流通过翻译没问题，但是深入的话题，翻译好坏成了关键。我二〇〇二年在美国做了为期四周的国际访问者，陪同我的是一位美国国务院派的专业翻译，照我看水平已经很高，他在访问结束时却告诉我，我的话他只能译出百分之八十五的意思。我当时暗想，天哪，我的精华肯定都在没翻译出来的百分之十五呢！嘉日洛珠跟我谈话同时用两个翻译，两人可以轮换或是互相补充。其中一位是学者，当年在北京的中央民族大学做过教师。两人的表达能力都不好，至少我听的汉语中问题多多。我给嘉日洛珠讲递进民主，如果翻译自己不能理解，译出内容就更无法被理解。直到我快去印度前，嘉日洛珠对递进民主制仍是一头雾水。不过那天他说的一番话却被翻译得很好，如同诗歌一样。他这样说：

“相信你对递进民主非常清楚，但如同密宗的心术，是否能被弟子学到，要看机缘和福报，我现在还没有这个福报，但一定趁你这次在的机会把它搞明白。或者这么说吧。我们藏人宗教里有伏藏，要取出伏藏首先要有空行母，这个你现在已经有了，但还需要几个护法，我会做护法之一。今天是萨嘎达瓦的第一天，预示着前景的吉祥。”

“萨嘎达瓦”是藏传佛教纪念释迦牟尼诞辰、成道及圆寂的为期一个月的节日。“伏藏”的字意是埋伏的宝藏，是藏传佛教密宗的一种佛法传承方式，甚至被认为藏密的最后希望就寄托于伏藏，因为伏藏永远不可能被彻底毁灭！伏藏品有修法，也有佛像、甘露等，最重要的是佛经，必须在特定时间由专门的伏藏师取出。表面看，伏藏师每次或是在湖泊中，或是在岩石下、神山里取出伏藏，但取出的只是伏藏的一种索引，真正的伏藏是藏在伏藏师心里。嘉日洛珠说这些话，是把我比喻成内心藏着佛法的伏藏师，他说的“空行母”则是指唯色。伏藏师是要结婚的，与其结婚的女人是能帮助他取伏藏的空行母。我把嘉日洛珠这段如诗的话记下来转给唯色，让她非常开心。而我也认为真会就此有了一个强大的护法……

（注：这一节到此为止，尚未写完。如果不是嘉日洛珠先生去世，可能还会放在电脑中。希望有一天我能完成《达兰萨拉的故事》，那是我在达兰萨拉生活三个月对流亡西藏的观察以及对西藏未来的思考，此节写的还是去达兰萨拉前，后面才开始涉及我回复嘉日洛珠合作写书邀请时提出的建议——“拉开距离后的反思”和“书写大历史的智慧”）

通信（2015年2月）

王力雄友：

如你所知，我作为达赖喇嘛尊者的特使已退休三年了。目前，我也已从国际声援西藏运动退休。当然，我对尊者的信仰一如既往，而且我作为藏人的身份也不变。

过去几年里，许多朋友和熟人一直鼓励我写一本关于我自己人生经历的书，因为他们认为这将对了解西藏问题作出积极的贡献。

我并不急于写我自己的人生故事，我也没有把它看成是那么重要。但是我认为和大家分享我的一些经验，尤其是我对一些重要问题的想法：比如，藏汉两个民族的关系、尊者达赖喇嘛的中间路线、佛教对建立一个和谐的中国所起的作用等等，可能会有些用处。

因此，我计划用一年的时间来写这本书，其中一章的标题暂定为《前进的道路——实事求是》，内容是探讨西藏问题的未来，其内容概要如下:

达赖喇嘛尊者听到中国领导人邓小平号召大家讲"实事求是"时，就与之产生了共鸣。当时，达赖喇嘛尊者觉得邓小平所释放的信号表示他有意愿基于现实情况， 解决一些历史遗留下来的问题，而不是通过政治教条主义来解决问题。达赖喇嘛尊者认为，按"实事求是"办事的原则，也为寻求一条解决西藏问题途径提供了一个机会。该章将探讨为什么邓小平和继任几代的中国领导人未能结合西藏的实际情况，以"实事求是"的态度来对待西藏问题。 由于中国领导层没有做到"实事求是"，导致了对西藏政策的屡次失败和失误。针对西藏问题，如果西藏和中国双方领导人都以"实事求是"为基点，仍然能找到一个永久的解决之道。

在此，我想征求您的想法，如果有可能，您可否与我一起来撰写这一章的内容？这样，我们可以从藏汉两个角度来表述各自对这一问题所持的观点。此外，我可以根据从国际上了解到的情况，来对这个问题发表更多的看法;同样，你可以通过对境内的情况来对此发表更多的看法。最重要的是，针对藏汉双方在"实事求是"的原则上寻求解决问题的办法，该章也将尝试提出一些相关的建议，这些建议将会具有高度的参考价值，因为我们是两个对这一问题很了解的一名汉人和一名藏人。为了共同的利益，对于未来的任何解决方案必须要通过双方的共同努力才能达到。我本也想征求唯色啦能否参与我的写作，但想到她的观点也是藏人的观点，所以没问。

由于我们一起就这一问题写出的篇章，可能会引起一些国际和境内的高度关注，并将对中国的未来和解决西藏问题做出一定的贡献，因此请对我的请求给予认真考虑！

谢谢！祝好！

洛珠

************************

洛珠先生

多年未见，虽未联络，一直关注您的动向。得知您准备写书，认为非常重要，无论是您的传记，还是您对西藏问题的思考，都被世人期待。希望能早日问世，让世人得到启迪。

您邀请我参加其中一章写作，我相信您有深入的考虑。目前对我而言，一是在于我正在进行的写作，使我难以分心进入别的写作。二是我对中国当局及领导人在西藏问题上的态度和作为，缺少关注和认真研究。我一直认为他们个人的态度即使存在差异，根基却是共同。思想模式、制度框架和党机器的约束，注定了他们没有也不可能有真正的突破。迄今事实证明，不能抱任何幻想。西藏的未来，只能寄托于西藏自己的努力，准备好把握历史的时机，以及与汉人民间力量进行沟通协作。

当然，以西藏与中国力量的悬殊，决定了自己做是十分困难的。正因为如此，思考才需要被放在第一位。西藏需要产生书写大历史的智慧。您若愿意从这个角度进行思考和表达，我相信一定会有更大的影响，起到更大作用。可以说，很多人最期待您的，并非是回顾历史，而是展望未来；并非是重复人们耳熟能详的观点，而是拉开距离后的反思。

您若愿意对此尝试，需要我的配合，我愿意和您见面，以对话方式开展思想碰撞和头脑风暴——这种方式方便、灵活、激发灵感，又能深入触底，且时间精力耗费不多，只要有一个好翻译，两三天时间足够。事后将对话录音翻译整理，由对话双方审核编辑，结果或形成一篇长文，或做成一本小书，或作为您的书中一部分，相机处置；三种语言，纸书、刊物、网络同时推广；会议、座谈、演讲，开拓对西藏问题的新思路……总之，您会再给世界一次振聋发聩。

祝成功！

王力雄

（本文转自：自由亚洲广播电台雪域漫谈https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/zhuanlan/xueyumantan/wlx-10302018205044.html?fbclid=IwAR2JF4T96N6nWtifqVygw7H0lEFwWjxsqZCvhsI7q_C0NfaZmGOyRCxZFCg）