Expert: Alex Wilding - 2/27/2011

Question
Is it true that in the 1950's and prior there was a large part of the Tibetan population that were slaves used by the wealthy land owners and monastery's?I read that it was about 700,000+?With a total population of 1.5-2million?I always wondered when I saw 95% of the pictures of Tibet were rocky desert how a monastery could host 20-30,000 monks for teachings.Thanks,Tom

Answer
Hi Tom,
Two sides to the answer, I think. On the one hand "slave" is a flexible term, and not all "slaves" are treated as badly as, say, the slaves traded by the British and other colonial powers between Africa and America. To really understand the situation you need to look at the details - I'd suggest A Cultural History of Tibet (Snellgrove and Richardson) as a good start. It's also worth pointing out that whereas there were a (very) few *huge* monasteries with several thousand monks, most of these were supported by their own families, not out of monastery funds. The same would have applied to the very rare assemblies you mention, though I suspect your figure is rather inflated - where did you get it from? The monastery would probably have supplied a bit of soup/tea, but those attending would have had to support themselves to a significant extent.
On the other hand it has to be admitted that old Tibetan society was very rigigly stratified; land reform was needed, and change was overdue. The Dalai Lama himself has stressed this, and does not pretend for a minute that the social order in old Tibet could be given a clean bill of health. It is clear that, had it not been for the occupation, there were many reforms he would have liked to introduce. How far he would have got can only be a matter for speculation - needless to say, there were powerful people with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, as is so often the case.