This post is part of an ongoing series exploring the complexities of The Panchen Lama Controversy.
“… a poisoned arrow shot at the Party by reactionary feudal overloads.” – Mao Zedong’s reported comment on the Petition
The 10th Panchen Lama’s most notable legacy is the 70,000 Character Petition [B4], a courageous and comprehensive document denouncing the brutal suppression of the Tibetan people during and after the 1950 Chinese invasion. It is widely regarded as “the most detailed and informed attack on China’s policies in Tibet that would ever be written” [B1]. For many years, both the petition’s contents and its significance were the subject of speculation, as the original document remained concealed from the outside world [M12].
At just 24 years old, the Panchen Lama took the extraordinary step of opposing the Chinese Communist Party. His aides urged him to soften his tone, but he stood firm, declaring that he spoke on behalf of the Tibetan people and that Chinese leaders deserved a forceful and honest critique.
In 1962, he sent a letter to Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai, condemning the repressive policies of the People’s Republic of China in Tibet. He criticized the disastrous effects of the Great Leap Forward and denounced a litany of “inept orders” issued by Party officials, which had led to chronic food shortages and immense suffering.
The petition became known as the 70,000 Character Petition because, although originally composed in Tibetan, its Chinese translation spanned approximately that length [M12].
On May 18, 1962, the Panchen Lama met with Zhou Enlai to discuss the report. Initially, Zhou responded positively and even summoned Tibetan officials to Beijing. They pledged to correct what was described as “a leftist detour,” and Zhou acknowledged mistakes in Tibet. However, he stopped short of endorsing open criticism of Party authorities. After Mao Zedong reviewed the petition, Zhou distanced himself from the Panchen Lama.
Mao famously denounced the report as “… a poisoned arrow shot at the Party by reactionary feudal overlords.” The Panchen Lama, Choekyi Gyaltsen, was publicly humiliated at Politburo meetings, stripped of all official positions, labeled “an enemy of the Tibetan people,” and imprisoned. He remained incarcerated for 13 years before being released in 1977, only to be placed under house arrest in Beijing until 1982. He was eventually politically rehabilitated and restored to high-ranking positions [W44].
For decades, the petition remained hidden from all but the highest echelons of the Chinese government. That changed in 1996, when the Tibet Information Network (TIN) obtained a copy. According to the book A Poisoned Arrow: The Secret Report of the 10th Panchen Lama [B4], “…the 70,000 Character Petition finally emerged, in [an] envelope delivered in October 1996 to our [the TIN’s] office in London. It was a Chinese text, printed in large, even characters over 123 numbered pages. The last line noted that the original and authentic text had been in Tibetan: we have found no trace of that original, although we know that the Tibetan manuscript, perhaps the only copy, confiscated some 25 years later, was returned by the Party to the Lama two weeks before his death. … We know that an internal [Chinese] edition was printed for the top leadership in July 1962, and it is possible, even likely, that our text is taken from one of these. In any event, it can be assumed that no one outside the highest level of the elite in China had ever seen it before.”
In January 1998, to mark the 60th anniversary of the Panchen Lama’s birth, Tibet expert Robert Barnett published an English translation of the petition under the title A Poisoned Arrow: The Secret Report of the 10th Panchen Lama, through the Tibet Information Network.
Initially known by its formal title, Report on the Sufferings of the Masses in Tibet and Other Tibetan Regions and Suggestions for Future Work to the Central Authorities through the Respected Premier Zhou Enlai, the document quickly came to be referred to by its Chinese character count. When the petition was made public, its authenticity could not be independently verified, and Chinese officials refused to comment. However, several months later, Ngabo Ngawang Jigme—a retired senior official who had served in Tibet from 1964 to 1993—publicly criticized the petition. Notably, he did not dispute its authenticity or condemn its publication.
The essay covers three main themes – religion, cruelty, and famine – in eight parts:
- The struggle to crush rebellions;
- Democratic reforms;
- Livestock, agricultural production, and the life of the masses;
- The work of the United Front;
- Democratic centralism;
- The dictatorship of the Proletariat;
- Religious questions;
- Work for ethnic nationalities.
In his conclusion, the Panchen Lama denounced the majority leftist tendencies in Tibet.
The Panchen Lama on nationality
“Although Tibet has been under the jurisdiction of the motherland for several hundred years, because methods of rule and ways of managing its internal affairs are different from those of other minorities within the motherland, most of the people in every strata strongly perceive themselves as Tibetan, and only have a weak perception of the motherland…” [B4 – page 63]
…on religion
“Before democratic reform, there were more than 2,500 large, medium and small monasteries in Tibet. After democratic reform, only 70-odd monasteries were kep[t in existence by the government. … In the whole of Tibet there was a total of about 110,000 monks and nuns. Of those, possibly 10,000 fled abroad, leaving about 100,000. After democratic reform was concluded, the number of monks living in the monasteries was about 7,000 people…” [B4 – page 52]
…on famine
“… there has been an evident and severe reduction in the present-day Tibetan population. Needless to say this was not only harmful to the flourishing of the Tibetan nationality, but it was also a great threat to the continued existence of the Tibetan nationality, which was sinking into a state close to death.” [B4 – page 103]
…on the petition itself
“… the aristocrats were accused of being the leaders of the rebellions and persecuted. This, I think, was an absolutely wrong thing to do. I had clearly recorded these facts in my petition. Of course, I was criticised and punished for this. But truth is timeless. It always remains the same. Undoubtedly, there were mistakes in my petition. But I have never been wrong in speaking up. The mistakes in the content of my petition are mistakes, both today and in the past. But there should be a clear dividing line spelling out where I went wrong and where I was right…” – From the Panchen Lama’s speech to the TAR Standing Committee Meeting of the National People’s Congress held in Beijing on March 28, 1987.
The full text of the 10th Panchen Lama’s 70,000 Character Petition is available online. This historic document, originally written in Tibetan and translated into Chinese, was first published in English in 1998 by the Tibet Information Network under the title A Poisoned Arrow: The Secret Report of the 10th Panchen Lama. The English translation, along with supporting historical documents, can be accessed here.
The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama
Tensions surrounding the “Tibet Question”―the political status of Tibet―are escalating daily. The Dalai Lama has gained widespread international sympathy for his appeals for autonomy from China, yet the Chinese government maintains a hard-line stance against it. What is the history of this conflict? Is it possible for the two sides to reach an acceptable compromise? In this insightful analysis, distinguished professor and longtime Tibet expert Melvyn C. Goldstein provides a balanced and accessible perspective on the conflict along with a proposal for the future.
Drawing on his extensive knowledge of Tibetan culture and its people, Goldstein guides us through the history of Tibet, focusing on the political and cultural negotiations regarding Tibet’s status from the turn of the century to today. He outlines Tibet’s role in Chinese politics, the weak and inconsistent responses from foreign governments, the overtures and rejections from both sides, and the nationalistic sentiments intricately woven into the political discourse. More Information…
