艾略特·史伯岭：请不要忘记扎白！

这篇文章来自http://www.rangzen.net/2012/01/09/remembering-tapey/，发表于2012年1月9日。

请不要忘记扎白！

作者：艾略特·史伯岭（Elliot Sperling）[1]
译者：John Lee

我在让赞联盟（Rangzen Alliance）网站的上一篇文章中参考了唯色最近的一篇文字。她的意见让我感到如果我对她近来频频撰写文章和在博客上谈论的一个话题，不说说我的看法便是做了对她而言不公正的事情。这个话题便是：当洛桑森格在提到图伯特境内博巴[2]自焚者的名字或数字时，以及出现在流亡媒体上的讨论自焚事件的若干文章中，为何一而再地将扎白排除在外？

唯色一直在她的脸书、推特和博客上万分迫切地针对这一问题撰写文章。从很多方面来讲，她是在单枪匹马地争取让人们了解自焚事件更大的重要性。有一位中国朋友对她发表自己的意见说，“藏人自焚相当不明智……当局对其呼声根本不在乎，痛惜逝去的每一个生命，”她立即回答，“没有人比藏人更痛惜自焚中逝去的生命，”同时还对对方言语中内在的高高在上的优越感表达了强烈反感。和她谈话的人很快加了一句“唯色拉内心柔软慈悲，”但是唯色拒绝转移话题：

“我的内心如何，不在这个讨论之内。你这段留言说得貌似有理。而我反感的是上一个留言中，所流露的某种自以为是的优越感……如何认为自焚藏人就无智慧、不明智呢？我从那个留言，惊讶地看到的是与当局的某种相似……不了解藏地的实情，还是勿要站在某个制高点上评价为谢。”

任何读过她的有关文章的人都可以很明显地看出，刺伤唯色的是洛桑森格和流亡媒体机构故意将扎白从自焚者的名单和数字中排除在外，而她认为这是一个最基本层面上的错误。这样的遗漏出现在洛桑森格接受挪威西藏之声、自由亚洲电台的采访和其他一些场合，同时也出现在故乡网（Phayul）关于自焚事件的最近报道中。

最让人震惊的是，在菩提迦耶的时轮金刚灌顶法会上，洛桑森格站在达赖喇嘛面前念出图伯特境内自焚者的名字时竟然对扎白只字不提，名单上只有2011年的自焚者。这一点让人难以接受：

但在这个相当重要的场合，噶伦赤巴仍然不提2009年发生在境内藏地的第一起自焚事件，在他念诵的名单中，也没有第一个自焚的境内藏人──扎白。

对此，我要问我们的噶伦赤巴：这到底是为什么？

是噶伦赤巴不知道吗？他去年11月底在欧洲访问、报告藏地情势时，把境内自焚者的数字少说了一个，当时我在博客和脸书上就提醒，第一起境内藏地自焚事件发生于2009年2月27日，第一位自焚的境内藏人是安多阿坝格尔登寺20岁僧人扎白。请不要忽略他所付出的牺牲，他自焚时被中共军警枪击致残，至今下落不明，生死不明，请不要忘记扎白！

对扎白在自焚者名单上的位置的不同理解，是否应该部分地归咎于境内外博巴之间的差异隔膜？很多流亡博巴肯定会说不存在这样的差异隔膜，而他们的领袖或许语气更加坚定。但是长久以来，境内外博巴之间的差异就是博巴或非博巴之间讨论和交谈的一个话题。刚从境内跑出来的博巴甚至抱怨那些生活有着落的流亡博巴对待他们的方式。

在这种情形下，只要读到唯色有关这个话题的文字，人们一定能感觉到唯色，无疑还有很多其他博巴（有很多人在唯色的推特上清楚表明了自己的感受）对于漫不经心地将扎白排除在自焚者名单之外是多么难过。对于他们而言，实在找不出任何理由将扎白排除在外——肯定不会因为只有符合2011年3月那么一个随意定下的“开始日期”，才能有资格得到流亡政府的承认。当洛桑森格在达赖喇嘛面前念出自焚者的名字却将扎白排除在外时，这似乎就远远不是所谓的“粗心大意”了。事实上，无论这一疏忽的实际原因是什么，这种疏忽本身都让人觉得是一种伤害。每当提及自焚者的名字时，唯色都有迫在眉睫的理由坚持不要忘记扎白。这不仅仅是因为他是图伯特境内的第一位自焚者，更是由于上文所引述的唯色关于扎白说过的话：“至今下落不明，生死不明，请不要忘记扎白！”

唯色并非纠缠于一个数字的精确性。某种意义上说，她是在为一个生命辩护。被枪击、被打伤、被带走、然后下落不明……唯色请求记住扎白无异于在呼喊：“不，我们没有，也不会丢下我们受伤的弟兄！”在流亡社区，有很多博巴没有在图伯特生活的直接经验，对这些可能感到不可思议。是否由于这个原因，使得流亡的博巴与境内的博巴对“团结一致”的理解产生了分歧？

【译注】

[1]艾略特·史伯岭（Elliot Sperling），美国印第安纳大学亚欧腹地研究系（the Department of Central of Eurasian Studies）图伯特研究项目教授。撰写了大量关于图伯特历史以及中国与图伯特关系的文章和著作。

[2]博巴：藏语，藏人。


Remembering Tapey

By Elliot Sperling
Monday, Jan 9, 2012No Comment

In the last item I posted on the Rangzen Alliance site I referred to a recent piece by Woeser. Having drawn on her comments for that post I think I would be doing her something of an injustice if I did not also bring up a subject that she’s been intensely writing and blogging about for some time now: the exclusion of any mention of Tapey, time and again, when the names (or numbers) of Tibetans who have committed self-immolations inside Tibet are brought up by Lobsang Sangay or discussed in several stories on the subject appearing in the exile media.

Woeser has been writing with great urgency about the issue on Facebook, on Twitter, and on her blog. In many ways she has been single-handedly fighting to have people understand the larger significance of the self-immolations. When one Chinese friend opined to her that “Tibetans who commit self-immolation are fairly lacking in sense… the authorities couldn’t care less about their cries [so] every life lost is to be deplored,” she immediately wrote “No one regrets the loss of life in self-immolation more than Tibetans,” but expressed strong resentment of the judgmental sense of superiority inherent in what she was being told. Her interlocutor was quick to add that “Woeser’s heart is gentle and merciful,” but Woeser insisted on sticking to the subject:

Whatever my heart is like, that’s not at issue… Your comments here are seemingly reasonable. What I resent is [the] feeling of some sort of superiority and infallibility… How can you know that Tibetans who commit self-immolation have no wisdom, no sense? [This is] something similar to what one gets from the authorities… I’ll thank you not to stand on some high stage and evaluate things without understanding the situation in Tibetan areas.

It is obvious to anyone following her writings that the studied refusal to name or count Tapey, whether by Lobsang Sangay or exile media organs has struck Woeser as wrong on the most basic level. This omission has surfaced in interviews with Lobsang Sangay on the Voice of Tibet and Radio Free Asia, and elsewhere, as in the most recent report on self-immolations carried on Phayul.

Most stunningly, reading the names of those inside Tibet who committed self-immolation Lobsang Sangay left Tapey unmentioned as he stood before the Dalai Lama at the Kalacakra Empowerment in Bodh Gaya, listing only those who had sacrificed themselves in 2011. This was difficult to take:

At this relatively important gathering, the Kalon Tripa again did not mention the first instance of self-immolation in 2009; the list he read did not include the first Tibetan inside Tibet to commit self-immolation: Tapey. I need to ask our Kalon Tripa: at bottom, what is this all about?

Is it that the Kalon Tripa doesn’t know? Last November, reporting on the situation inside Tibet during an official tour of Europe, he was short by one person in his figures for the number of Tibetans inside Tibet who committed self-immolation. At the time I called attention to this on my blog and on Facebook: The first incident of self-immolation inside Tibet took place on February 27, 2009; and the first Tibetan inside Tibet to commit self-immolation was the 20-year-old monk Tapey, from Kirti Monastery in Amdo Ngaba. Please! Don’t treat the sacrifice he made so neglectfully! When he committed self-immolation he was viciously shot by Communist soldiers and police. Up to now his whereabouts are unknown; whether he’s alive or dead is unknown. Please! Don’t forget Tapey!

Is the cleavage between Tibetans in exile and those inside Tibet partly to blame for the different perceptions of Tapey’s place in lists of those who have committed self-immolation ? Many exiles will certainly say there is no cleavage; their leadership may perhaps say so more adamantly. But the differences between exile society and that of communities inside Tibet have long been a subject of discussion and conversation on the part of Tibetans and non-Tibetans. New arrivals from Tibet have even voiced complaints about the way they tend to be regarded by more established exiles.

In this instance, just reading Woeser’s writings on the subject, one can’t help but sense how viscerally the cavalier exclusion of Tapey from the lists of those who have sacrificed themselves is felt by her and, no doubt, by many other Tibetans (a number of whom have made this clear on her Twitter page). For them there is no earthly reason for excluding Tapey—certainly not an insistence on a “start date” of March 2011, in order to be eligible for acknowledgement by the exile authorities. When Lobsang Sangay excluded Tapey from the list of those whose names were read before the Dalai Lama it seemed like more than negligence. Indeed, whatever the actual reason for the omission, it was felt as an insult. There are very urgent reasons for Woeser’s insistence on remembering Tapey whenever those who committed self-immolation are mentioned. It’s not simply that he was the first Tibetan inside Tibet to commit self-immolation, it’s what Woeser said about him, quoted above: “Up to now his whereabouts are unknown; whether he’s alive or dead is unknown. Please! Don’t forget Tapey!”

Woeser is not insisting on simple numerical accuracy. She is, in a sense, pleading for a life. Shot, wounded, carried away, whereabouts unknown… Woeser’s pleas for Tapey’s memory seem like nothing so much as a way of crying out “No, we do not—and will not—leave wounded comrades behind.” Is it because the sense of solidarity among Tibetans inside the PRC differs so drastically from that in exile society, where so many Tibetans now have no direct experience of Tibet, that Woeser’s sentiments seem to make no dent among exile authorities?