FEUDAL SERF SYSTEM IN TIBET

Tibetan feudalism is much similar in land ownership and government organization to European feudalism, characterized by the same labor leasing system, obtaining land by hard work and the close relationship of land ownership with the political position. IN Tibet and Europe, there are few differences in the unit of production and the style of labor. In European feudalism society, the king, nobles and the upper classes of the Christian church were the feudal lords. While in Tibet, the three major lords, or the dominant class, were government officials, nobles and upper-class Lamas. The European Christian church obtained manors and land by presentation and bestowal, the same way the Tibetan monasteries acquired them. With the establishment of European feudalism, people lost their land and freedom gradually and were downgraded to serfs while farmers living on manors became serfs forbidden to leave the manors. In Tibet, serfs are an appendage to the land of their masters, having no personal freedom at all. On the basis of the same characteristics of old Tibet and European feudal society, including land ownership and obtaining income labor, their nature is clearly seen. Under the system farmers became serfs appended to land and their masters.
1. Land and Manor

In old Tibet, the basic economic unit of land occupation, distribution and operation was the manor, while that of the pastoral area was the tribe, in charge of grassland, livestock, herdsmen and other means of production. The manors belonging to different owners were divided into three categories: Zhungxi or government manor, Gexi or noble manor, and Chosxi or monastery manor. The basic administrative unit in Tibet, the Dzong, comprised several manors. The owners of each manor within the Dzong had staff who administered and supervised the work of serfs, collected rent and taxes and organized labor. Serfs and slaves only knew which manor they belonged to, who they paid taxes and rent, and to which master they owed service. In 1959, Tibet had 3.36-million ke in cultivated land and over 38 percent was directly handled by the government. Nobles occupied 24 percent and 36 percent was under the monasteries. Serfs had no land - the land-holding peasants less. The three major monasteries in 1959 had 321 manors, 147,000 ke land, 26 pastures, 110,000 livestocks, and over 40,000 serfs. The operating styles were different. With selfmanaged land, the owner had his own people managing the operation. while the serfs, mainly Dudchhongs, provided labor, The whole yield would belong to the owners while the serfs could only get a little bit of land as payment. The government rented out land to Thralpas, who cultivated it, remitted grain to the government, and provided labor. Thralpas were persons doing unpaid labor. The land rented to Thralpas, called Thralkang land, was generally left alone by the government. But if a Thralpa could not afford the labor or had no successor, the government would distribute the land to other serfs. Thralpas only had the right of use, but not ownership. The position of Thralpas was higher than the Dudchhongs. In order to guarantee the distribution of required labor and the expected rent and taxes, land owners demanded that four to five members of a Thralpa family be at its land everyday and they could not leave the manor freely. Dudchhong is Tibetan for small household. Dudchhongs were bankrupt Thralpas, or the people from other areas. Dudchhongs were the necessary labor force in the manors. They were given some land from the manor, and provided free labor for the landowner. some Dudchhongs rented land from big Thralpas, provided rent in kind, paid a poll tax and had no personal freedom. Some Dudchhongs were carpenters, blacksmiths, or repaired farming tools and made furniture for their manors. If a Dudchhong wanted to seek a livelihood beyond his manor he had to pay a poll tax to his master. The social position of craftsmen was low, especially blacksmiths, and was looked down on by others. Nangzans, who had no capital goods and human rights, were considered merely as animals with voices by their master. Nangzans mainly provided services within the houses of the manor, and sometimes had to do any other work. Some of the Nangzans were of pure descent, some were bankrupt Dudchhongs, poor serfs or tramps. Nangzans were the private property of masters, they were completely controlled and could be transferred, mortgaged or sold off freely. Nangzans were house slaves with no freedom in their lives.
2 Ulag (Corvee Labor)

Ulag, a joint name of taxes, corvee and land rent, means forced labor given gratis. It includes various items, corvees, taxes and levies, rents, etc. Although required corvee were stipulated, serfs and slaves should still go to their servitude for the needs of the serf-owners whenever necessary. People divided Ulag into two parts. One was Rkangdro. Literarily it means corvee finished with feet, including the servitudes of men, cattle, horses and donkeys. The other was Lagdon. Word for word, it refers taxes handed over with hands, including goods and money. Land rent would be paid with a fixed volume of grain, such as Da set down by Thralpas to contribute grains every year according to the area of rented land; there were also some special taxes, such as fagot and money contributions to religious activities, grain contributions for the Resident Commissioners in Tibet; some special corvees, such as service to government-owned lands; others involved business taxes, etc. Major items of Ulag to local government were forced labor completed by both men and animal, including transports of personnel and goods with the governmental Ulag labels, receptions and accommodations to the travelling officials and passing-by Tibetan forces, and levies of goods, such as grain, butter, beef and button. All of those mentioned above were outdoor servitude. Not any a person could tell the figure of such corvees. According to an incomplete statistics of Kashag government only there were 1,892 kinds of Ulag. Indoor servitude referred to goods and labor provided by serfs and slaves owned by nobles and temples. Indoor servitude was unpaid. the more self-managed lands the nobles and temples controlled, the more indoor servitude would be required and the heavier exploitation the serfs would suffer. Daubo Xika of the Gundeling Monastery in Maizhokunggar County had 300 ke self-managed lands and only 165 ke lands as lotment cultivated by serfs as their payment. So the serfs in this manor would bear a rather heavy burden of corvee. A surprising corvee specifications and exploitation rate could be showed from the next example. People could make it clear of indoor levies of Dudchhongs. Migmar, a Dudchhong in Lhunbo Xika Manor managed by Kashag Government directly, was obliged for planting 15 ke land for the land owner. This family was levied a year-long corvee of one man, to shear wool for a day by one person, to repair irrigation project for a day of one person, to grease oil for a day by one person, to plough land for four days by one person and with two farm cattle, to transport fertilizer in autumn for five days by one person and two oxen, to watch plants for 60 days by one person, to thresh grain for two days by one person, to grind high land barley for four days by one person, to gather crops for 15 days by one person, to repair houses for ten days by one person, to whitewash for two days by one person, to transport grain for two days by one person. Besides, there also need one person on Taba lagvkhyer (people had ropes) for a day, one person on Tibo lagvkhyer (people had thumbs) for a day, one person for Zorra Lagvkhyer (people had sickles), one person on Zaschen Zaschung (reaping) for two days, one person to cut straw for a day, one person to transport firewood for four days and with one cattle, one person responsible for sending letters for a day. All the corvees and taxes added together was 20 items, which would be accomplished by one person with 477 days, a farm cattle for 8 days and an ox for 14 days. All those figured out above did not involve in the items from religious field. Every Dalai Lama had a special organ to administrate his own wealth, named Tsecha Lekhung. They then practiced usury by lending money to Tibetan people, from which they got extra interests. According to incomplete data of counting books of Tsecha Lekhung of 1950, the then the Dalai Lama lent Tibetan silver coin higher to 3,038,581 liang, with which he could get 303,858 liang as interest a year. Kashag Government, local administrative departments, such as Chikyaps and Dzongs and nobles, as well as regional temples, no matter big or small, turned to be loan sharks. Reaping colossal interests from usury became their major income. About 10 percent of the annual income of Kashag Government was from usurious loan. IN fact, temple was the biggest usurer. The three major monasteries not only imposed usury among serfs on their land, but also practiced within the manors of other feudal lords. They spread their hands onto the whole of Tibet. And interests from usury amounted to 25 to 30 percent of the total income of the three major monasteries. Ordinarily, nobles only practiced usurious loans within their own manor. Interest from loans usually made up 15 to 20 percent of their family income. The Dalai Lama was the biggest manor owner, and the largest loan shark, who could get 25 percent family income from practicing usury. The three major lords practiced different loan interests, 10 percent, 80 percent and 120 percent. It had been universally seen that serfs had to borrow debts. Some borrowed new to return for the old, some paying for tax and corvee, some to satisfy with eating and seeds. There were some usuries imposed by the three major lords. For example, Palha Tudain Oindain, a noble of Gyangze, forced every household in Bongtod Xika to borrow 75 ping (1=50 liang) Tibetan silver coin. some serfs had their debts piling up for several generations. They could not remind themselves of the debt they borrowed at the first time and what they had returned. The only standard was receipts for loans. They could not pay off their debts for several generations. People described these outstanding debts as "debts of descendants." According to the local law, the coming generations were responsible for repay debts left by their forefathers. Cering Goinbo's grandfather had borrowed 50 ke (1= 14kg) grain from the Sera Monastery, and consequently repaid it for dozens of years. And this debt was handed down to his son for 40 years and to his grandson for 18 years. Then Cering Goinbo was told they only paid 4000 ke grain and was still indebted to the creditor 10,000 ke grain. There still had another debt named "chaining guarantee system." When one household was in debt, there should be other household to be its guarantors; when they all got into debt, they should be guarantors of each other; when all the villagers went into debt, they were all responsible for repaying the debt. When one escaped from or was unable to pay off the debt, or died in debt, others should repay instead. A substitute was also responsible for returning back the loans of the escaped or died debtors. Gaisang, a serf in Maizhokunggar County, lived in a manor with other nine serfdom household. When eight of them fled for their life, the lord imposed all the debts onto him and the other serf. As a serf only renting 22 ke land, he should repay debts higher to over 400,000 ke. It was in common being in debts. Local lords could wantonly loot grain, animals and farm tools of the serfs or even their children as mortgage. When the lord found nothing valuable to extort, he would take back the rented land. Grassland and animals were also owned to the three major lords. Serfs here also should bear the burden of Ulag of pasture. Herding rent was stipulated by the way of animal tending of the herdsmen. One was Chiyod skyeyod, meaning some born while some died. It referred to fixed number of rented animals. Herdsmen were asked to tend the rented animals and hand butters by the rented dams. All the newly breed animals belonged to the herd owners. One female ox was asked to give 2 to 3 ke (1= 3kg) as tax, accounting for 55 percent of the total produced butter. The other was called Chimed skyemed, meaning no born and no died. It referred to that rented animals were fixed. New breedings belonged to the renter while, if some died, the herdsmen should repay for them. It was a long-term fixed tax, with one female cattle contributing 2 ke butter. Chimed skyemed, which is apparently a contract method with fixed tax, is in fact a forcible economic exploitation. Although herdsmen were unwilling to sign this kind of contract, the herd owners imposed apportions arbitrarily on them. The herdsmen could not defy on this obligation. Those having accepted the herding lease would not cancel this tenancy. Even if all the leased animals died, the descendants of the herding serfs would hand in the scheduled taxes, which became a real "posterity debt." Once all the family members died, the relatives and neighbors of this lessee were unfortunately become the successors of this lease. Those without animals and tents who lived on labor provision called herding helper. They were hired permanently by herd owners, engaging on herding, milking and making butter. Although the helpers had no fixed employment links with herd owner, they still should hand in labor tax to the former owner when they changed another job, showing the personal subordination. Cewang Doje, a herdsman in Damxung County, leased a cattle by the way of Chimed skyemed with the marketing price of 30 liang Tibetan silver coin. During the following 12 years, he handed in 24 ke butter. With the taxes of these 12 years counting together, he totally cave the owner 8,295 liang Tibetan silver coin, with the exploitation ratio higher to 275 times.
3. Economic Exploitation and Personal Subordination of the Serfs

There were many common grounds between the manor economy in Tibet and the feudal manor in Europe in the Middle Age. Both of them were developed on the base of possession of land. Lords divided their manors into Self-managed land and lotments. The main labor force was corvee that serfs provided onto planting those self-managed land; extra-economic exploitation was the major means of keeping manor production and its operation, which, in different extent, posses the person of serfs. Owners of manors sent his representatives or set up management agencies to organize production and supervise the serfs. They could punish, interrogate and even sentence the serfs to death at their will. Of course, differences still existed. Tibetan manor economy was left more slavery traces. All the uncultivated land and pastures belonged to the lords, let alone farm land. They did not allow free cultivation. Serfs should herd their animals by the division of the land owners. Over 95 percent of Dudchhongs did not have either their own land or personal freedom. Besides, they should also work for the manor owner without any difference from slaves. Nangzans were thrown into a more serious and miserable position in terms of their personal subordination comparing with Thralpas and Dudchhongs. The Tibetan word miza means the origin of men, indicating personal subordination of serfs in Tibet. These special words in Tibet were just the proof of the serious deprivation of human rights by Tibetan feudal serfdom. The superior feudal lord of Tibet invested the people living on the enfeoffment to small lords, who tightly grasped the rights of life, death and marriage of the serfs and gave no basic protection on their human rights. Over 90 percent of the serfs had neither land nor completely personal freedom. They were forced onto work and exploited by the three major lords. In Tibet, serfs had no right of free movement without the permission of the local lord. Those with allowances of making life outside their manor should also pay labor taxes. No matter where you were, labor taxes made you feel in yoke, even if you were a vagrant or a beggar. Serfs would be deprived with their own personal self-decision rights at any time. They might be acted as dowry to another lord, or the rents, gifts and mortgage of gambling, debt and selling. In 1943, Chengmoin Norbu Wanggyai, a big noble, sold 100 serfs to Lobsang Cuchim, a Lama official in Brigung-gaezhug Kangxag, with 30 liang Tibetan silver coin per serf. In addition, he also presented 400 serfs to Gundeling Monastery as mortgage of his debts. Marriage rights of the serfs were also restrained. Serf owners only allow the serfs to intermarry within its manor. If a marriage was related to another manor, the serf would ask the permission of the lords and pay some money to redeem themselves. However, they could not change their subordination. To the children they born, the son belonged to the owner of the husband, and the daughter to the wife's. Under the feudal serfdom, Tibetan serfs suffered extra-economic oppression which caused by a slavery-liked personal subordination. The following two examples reflected the substantial facts of exploitation and miserable conditions of the serfs. Geding Xika under Palkhor Monastery in Gyangze County owned 197.13 ke land. The manor owner divided 40 ke to be planted by four Dudchhongs as lotment, and 157.13 ke managed by himself. According to the production state at that time, there should be one-third of the self-managed land being fallow land. So the land planted then was only 105 ke. The output at that time might be two times higher. So the net output was 420 ke, not counting the seeds to be left. However, the 40 ke lotment planted by Dudchhong was only laid one-fourth as fallow. If the output was higher to five times, the net output should be 120 ke not counting the sees. About 70 percent of the income from land was deprived by the serf owner. Segxing Xika formerly owned by a small noble in Lhasa Segxing Ba and finally confiscated by Kashag Government. In 1940, Lhamo Toinzhub, a son of a farmer's family in Dangcai Village of Huangzhong County, Qinghai Province, was affirmed as the reincarnated soul boy of the 13th Dalai Lama. Suddenly this family, namely Yaoxi Ladawgs turned to be the greatest noble of Tibet just because his son, the lucky boy, was selected as the 14th Dalai Lama. By the customs, the Dalai Family got many conferred manors, pastures and serfs and slaves who lived there. Segxing was one of them, where there were 18 household (later, increased to 20) of serfs turned to be subordinate person, not mentioning if they were willing or not. The Dalai Family paid great emphasis on Segxing Xika, posting special representatives to manage manor affairs. In the past, every serf should offer a gratutous Ulag ordinarily and increased to two in spring and autumn. But the Dalai Family regulated that serfs should give two Ulag ordinarily and added one in spring and autumn seasons, with 66.6 percent exploitation rate higher. There were about 133 serfs in this manor, with 79 labors from 16 to 60. Every day, there were 50 serfs worked on Ulag for the Dalai Family in this manor without any rewards and payments. Those left were old, poor, ill and disabled persons, who had to pay off numerous corvees and taxes that imposed by the government while planting their own lotments. With diligent work toil and moil, there were only four families maintaining grains to the year end, and three families to a half year. In the other 13 families, grains were accustomed to be eaten just after having finished threshing. Representative of the Dalai Family also beat up serfs and slaves without any mercy. He usually said, "No cattle will plough land without yoke; no serf will work hard without beating sticks." With the incomplete statistics, there were 11 people beaten to disabled and five persons injured to death during 10 years, accounting 8.3 percent of the total slaves.

站长评论:

• 重在参与吧!...