Paris — The Sikyong, leader of the Central Tibetan Administration, expressed deep concern and disappointment in a letter condemning two Paris museums for adopting Chinese government terminology in their catalogs of Tibetan artifacts. The letter, sent on Sept. 14 through the Tibetan Bureau in Belgium, criticized the Musée du quai Branly and the Musée Guimet for replacing the term “Tibet” with “Xizang” and “Himalayan World” in their exhibits.
Addressed to French cultural and political leaders, including the ministers of culture and foreign affairs, as well as the mayors of Paris, the letter condemned what it described as pandering to China’s disinformation campaign aimed at erasing Tibet’s identity. The Sikyong said this shift in terminology was initiated by China’s United Front Work Department in 2023.
The Sikyong criticized the move as a distortion of Tibetan history and identity.
“The assertion that ‘Tibet’ should not refer to all areas inhabited by Tibetans is unfounded rhetoric,” Sikyong wrote, emphasizing the historical use of “Tibet” to describe regions traditionally inhabited by Tibetan people. He argued that adopting “Xizang,” the term preferred by Beijing, undermines Tibet’s status as an independent cultural entity.
“It is particularly disheartening that cultural institutions in France — a nation that cherishes liberty, equality, and fraternity — are acting in complicity with the PRC government in its design to erase the identity of Tibet,” the letter continued, urging the museums to reconsider their position in alignment with historical facts and international norms.
The letter also noted inconsistencies in China’s official naming conventions, stating that Beijing uses “Tibetan” in English while employing the term “Zangzu” in Chinese when referring to Tibetans.
The Sikyong’s letter comes amid growing international scrutiny of China’s policies in Tibet, which human rights organizations have widely condemned. An annex to the letter provided a detailed history of Tibetan terminology and Chinese government policies aimed at Sinicizing Tibet, including forced relocations and educational assimilation.
In July 2024, the U.S. government enacted the Sino-Tibetan Dispute Act, rejecting China’s historical claims over Tibet and reaffirming the cultural and territorial boundaries of the Tibetan people.
An annexure providing a concise historical overview was also included with the letter, as below.
*The Tibetan people refer to their land as “Bod” (བོད་) and call themselves “Bodpa” (བོད་པ) or “Bodmi” (བོད་མི). This term has evolved across various languages and cultures. The name Tibet originated from “Bhota” in Sanskrit and “Bhotta” in Pali in ancient India and later called “Tubbat” in Arabic; “Tibat” in Persian; and “Tabhod” (大蕃) or “Tufan” (吐蕃) in Chinese during the Tang dynasty. Marco Polo referred to it as “Tebet” in the 13th century, and by the 17th century, “Tibet” became widely used in English.
“Xizang” and “Wusizang” appeared in Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) documents and maps, initially referring to Tibetan areas and areas west of Dartsedo (Kangding). Scholars say that, as was the custom of naming dynasties in China, the term “Xizang” (西藏) was used in reference to the area ruled by the Tsangpa kings who controlled most of Tibet at that time. Thus, “Xi” means west, indicating the direction from the Ming Empire, and “Zang” refers to the Tsangpa kings. Even in the Manchu Qing era (1644-1911), Tibet was initially called “Tanggute” and “Tubaite”, derived from “Bod”. However, after the Seventh Dalai Lama (1708-1757), as the Manchu and Kuomintang governments exercised some level of control over Kham and Amdo, they created different terms for these occupied areas. The term “Xizang” (西藏) then came to denote only the regions ruled by the Gaden Phodrang government, (run by successive Dalai Lamas) with its territorial scope fluctuating over time.
Beginning 1949 and ultimate forceful occupation of Tibet by Chinese communist forces in October 1950, Tibet-inhabited regions were divided among four Chinese provinces before the establishment of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) in 1965. Unlike Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Guangxi, and other autonomous regions where the name of the main ethnic group is included in the region’s title, Tibet was not called the “Xizang Tibetan Autonomous Region”.
Inconsistencies persist in the PRC government’s nomenclature, as it continues to use “Zangren” (藏人) and “Zangzu” (藏族) in Chinese and “Tibetan” in English when referring to Tibetan people. This inconsistency is evident in naming ten Tibetan autonomous prefectures and two Tibetan autonomous counties in Tibetan areas outside the TAR, the PRC government still use “Tibetan” rather than “Zangzu” in their official English titles.
Under the PRC government’s overarching strategy of “forging a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation”, over a million Tibetan children are forced into state-run colonial boarding schools, Sinicisation of Tibetan Buddhism through control over monastery administration and religious education, and forced relocation of Tibetan nomads and confiscation of their land under the guise of creating nature reserves and public parks.
These actions have consistently drawn grave concern from the US State Department, the European Union, United Nations human rights bodies, independent research institutes, and numerous human rights organisations.
On July 12, 2024, the US government enacted the Sino-Tibetan Dispute Act. This legislation explicitly states that China’s claim of Tibet being an integral part of China since ancient times is historically inaccurate. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/138/text). It clarifies that Tibet refers not only to the TAR but includes all three traditional provinces (Cholkha Sum). Moreover, it clearly pointed out that the Chinese government’s systematic suppression of Tibetans’ ability to preserve their religion, culture, language, history, way of life, and environment.
