Two Tibetan writers, Jangtse Donkho (pen name: Nyen/”The Wrathful”) and Buddha, who were accused of publishing reactionary and separatist writings on the experience of being Tibetan under Chinese rule, were released on 20 June 2014 after serving four years in Mianyang Prison in Sichuan Province.
Below is an article published by The Tibet Post:
According to The Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, Jangtse Donkho was arrested on 21 June 2011 from his home in Ngaba (Ch: Aba) County and accused of writing a “reactionary” essay entitled ‘What Human Rights Do We Have Over Our Bodies?’ which commented on the Chinese government’s bloody suppression of the 2008 Uprising.
The essay was published in the Shar Dungri (Eastern Snow Mountain) literary journal, which was later banned. Jangtse Donkho was 33 at the time of his arrest. Before his arrest, he was working as a researcher at Kyungchu (Ch: Qiongxi) town, Ngaba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan Province.
Dhonkho wrote the book Rolang (Eng: ‘Zombie’) and along with Buddha, edited a few more journals including Du Rab Kyi Nga (Eng: ‘Consciousness of the Century’). Buddha is a writer, poet, and medical doctor whose work is regarded as influential in Tibetan society. He was detained on 26 June 2011 at the hospital where he worked in Ngaba County town. He was 34 at the time. His essay ‘Hindsight and reflection’ published in Shar Dungri uncovered the Chinese government’s propagandistic version of the 2008 Tibetan uprising: “On TV and in the newspapers they say the demonstrations were intended to obstruct and oppose China’s emergence as a great power and the improvement of the living standards of the Tibetan nationality. Supposing that such things were true, some questions must be asked. If the living standards of Tibetans had really improved so much, why would they feel so unhappy as to try to stop this? If Tibetan living standards are so developed, and the demonstrations were exclusively Tibetan, why should their not enjoying a ‘decent standard of living’ be greeted with such dismay?”
Both writers were accused of inciting separatism through their writings. Chinese authorities have consistently used Articles 103 and 105 of the Criminal Code as a tool to silence criticism and dissent from inside Tibetan areas as being “reactionary” or “splittist.” Both articles are linked with China’s “State Security Law,” which proscribes “any act endangering the security, honor, and interests of the State.” In application, Chinese courts “make no attempt to assess whether the speech in question posed an actual threat to national security.”
