Kathmandu: Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province have long resisted the authority of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), despite repressive actions, reflecting deep-rooted tensions over identity, control, and security, a report said on Wednesday.
It added that Beijing has also promoted soft narratives to reinforce its authority, recasting sites such as Jiaohe, an ancient City in Xinjiang–as shared heritage of the Chinese nation, while Chinese politicians frequently cite the ancient structure as part of the ancient Silk Road.
“The Chinese Communist Party (CCP)–run government has tried to reframe the histories of heritage and cultural sites in Tibet and Xinjiang, which is widely perceived as propaganda aimed at reshaping the past to serve contemporary political goals and assert control over these restive regions. These attempts try to link the construction of these historic sites with the rulers from ancient and medieval China, and thus legitimise the CCP rule in Tibet and Xinjiang,” a report in ‘Nepal Aaja’ detailed
“Facts, however, revealed that Chinese emperors neither built these sites nor exercised any direct control over these regions in the past. Jokhang Temple, Potala Palace, Kizil Caves, Bezeklik Caves, Karakhoja (Gaochang) Ruins, Jiaohe Ancient City, are among these sites that have been targeted by the state-sanctioned narrative of cultural assimilation and continuity with mainland China,” it added.
According to the report, the Beijing government recently constructed two Chinese architectural style pavilions in the Jokhang temple to assert national assimilation, a move Tibetans described as incompatible with traditional Tibetan architecture.
“International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) alleged that one of the pavilions was built over the stone pillar on which was inscribed the imperial Sino-Tibetan Treaty of the ninth century, which clearly showed the frontiers of the Tibetan Empire and Tang Dynasty China,” it stated.
Citing a two-decade-old White Paper, Beijing claims military and administrative authority over Xinjiang, tracing its origin to the Han dynasty’s establishment of a command in the region in 60 BC.
Calling such an assertion “unworthy”, Barry Sautman, an expert on China’s ethnic politics at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, said, “What was a state then is not what is a state now – the criteria have been shifted. All those claims that our ownership goes back thousands of years won’t be accepted by serious historians.”
(IANS)
