Editor's Note: Recently, Zhu Weiqun, Chairman of the National Committee for Ethnic and Religious Affairs, and Ngalek, the Chairman of the Sichuan Provincial Writers Association, conducted a dialogue on Ngalek’s historical documentary writing “Chakdu”, and discussed about “Tibet independence” and the trend of Chinese ethnic work.

Ngalek said the so-called “Tibet independence” was in fact not believed in the past. It has only come into being in modern times since the British invasion of Tibet and the decline of the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) when Tibet’s upper class realized that the Qing Dynasty could not again strongly protect Tibet, and had the political appeal for separating from China. This appeal was spread to other Tibetan-inhabited areas through power of religion, especially the expansion of the Gelug sect of Tibetan Buddhism.

This was also an effect of the independence movement in British India before and after World War II. During the period of Republic of China (1912-1949), the ongoing civil war and the Japanese invasion had made it very difficult for the Central Government to restrict the local government of Tibet, but to declare its sovereignty over Tibet internationally, which strengthened the ideas of “Tibet independence”.

Moreover, the modern Western concept of the “One nation, One state” was used for “Tibetan independence”, which was disguised by modern theories.

Ngalek believes that China and the West have very different concepts of the term “nation”. Since ancient times, the nationalities of China have always recognized differences between each other, but have been engaged in a process of constant integration. The differences between different ethnic groups in China, in the historical context, are blurred, which made it possible for their integration. Therefore, the more undue emphasis on national differences, the more difficult it will be to form a national consensus and identity.

Ngalek also noted that the implementation of regional ethnic autonomy and related national policies has been an overall success, and great achievements have been made in this regard since the founding of the People’s Republic of China. But more than half a century has passed, and the domestic and international situation and the ideology of ethnic culture have changed a lot. So the time has now come to reflect upon and improve some parts of the ethnic policy.

In response to Ngalek’s viewpoints, Zhu Weiqun said that it should be acknowledged at first that the multi-ethnic phenomenon did exist in China, and different nationalities of China have been mixing with each other since ancient times. From the perspective of China’s ethnic origins, none of the nations is purely made up of one nationality itself. The development and evolution of every nation has involved ethnic mixing of various forms through intermarriage and migration. And in the process of accommodating other ethnic compositions into their own, they maintain their own characteristics while constantly absorbing new cultures of other nationalities.

Zhu emphasised that the national policy should be directed to promote contacts, exchanges, and integration to enhance the commonality and consistency of the Chinese nation.

As for the Western “nation-state” theory, Zhu Weiqun said that in fact it is not really implemented in Western countries. If the “One nation, one state” theory was really implemented, most of today’s Western countries should have been disintegrated. Therefore, such a theory is mainly aimed at China. Some Western countries take advantage of China’s multi-ethnic situation and start from “China’s ethnic problems” to gain support in “theory” and “justice” for their plot to split China.