藏人論藏：民國時期藏人的西藏觀

Abstract

相對於西方之西藏觀的豐富研究，中國之西藏觀研究則略顯不足。民國時期，知識分子及各種報刊輿論出版了大量包括西藏在內的邊疆及非漢族群問題的著作。這些討論西藏議題的作者，除了漢人之外，當時旅居中國內地的藏人亦參與其間。本文藉由分析由九世班禪所辦的刊物以及藏人的著作裡，為漢人提供了何種關於西藏的觀念。由於反對達賴喇嘛及拉薩政府，在康藏糾紛中，班禪與康區藏人主張西康在政治上並不屬於西藏。但是也唯有此點是旅居中國內地的藏人同意於漢人的一點。另方面，為了對抗西康統治者劉文輝，康人援引漢人的政治術語，打出「康人治康」口號。針對漢人所訴求的「中華民族」與擁有西藏主權的主張，藏人則以「五族共和」及「檀越關係」來回應。儘管接受三民主義的現代化意識型態，但是藏人非常難以同意漢人對西藏文化不文明的攻擊，並對漢人在種族與宗教上的偏見予以回應。雖然當時旅居中國內地的藏人提供過不同於漢人所認知的西藏觀，然而藏人自己的聲音是微弱的。另方面，藏人以英文、中文的自我表述，又在跨語言的翻譯中被稀釋、轉化，從而附屬於中國人與西方人對於西藏的想像。

In comparison with the numerous studies on the Western perception of Tibet in Western academic circles, there are fewer studies to explore the Chinese perception of Tibet. In the Republican Era a great deal of writings about ethnic minorities and borderland, including Tibet, were published. Authors of these works on Tibet issues are not only Han Chinese, but also those Tibetans who at that time lived in China proper. This paper examines what perception of Tibet were presented to Chinese by analysing the contents of periodicals founded by the ninth Panchen Lama and the writings of Tibetans. Due to the resistance to Dalai Lama and Tibetan government, Panchen and Khampas claimed the Khams [Xikang] does not belong to Tibet in Xikang- Tibetan border conflicts, which is the only thing that Tibetans living in China proper agreed with Chinese. On the other side, to stand against the Xikang warlord Liu Wenhui, Khampas referred to the political discourse insisted by Chinese and declared the slogan of Khampa Autonomy [Khams ruled by Khampas]. Chinese appealed to Tibetans’ support of “the Chinese people” [zhonghuaminzu] and claimed to sovereignty over Tibet. In response Tibetans brought forward the “Republic of the Five Races” [Wuzugonghe] and priest and patron relationship. In spite of having been received the ideology of modernization of the “Three Principles of the People” [Sanminzhuyi], Tibetans did not agree with Chinese critique of their being uncivil and reacted against the racial and religious prejudice from Chinese. However, the voices of Tibetans themselves were faint though Tibetans living in China proper have provided different views of Tibet to Chinese. Tibetans’ own expression about Tibet in English and Chinese were diluted in translation, and were subordinated to the Tibet in Chinese and Western imagination.