There are many people who extend sympathy to Xizang. But they sympathize with the minority, not the majority. Out of one hundred people, they sympathize with a few, that is, those rebel elements, and not with the more than ninety percent. In foreign countries, there are some people who, regarding the people of Xizang, only sympathize with ten or twenty thousand, at most thirty or forty thousand. Xizang (including the three regions of Changdu, Qianzang, and Houzang) has a population of about 1.2 million. From 1.2 million, if you use subtraction to remove a few tens of thousands, there are still over 1.1 million, and many people in the world do not sympathize with them. Our sympathy is the opposite; we sympathize with the over 1.1 million, and not with that minority.

What kind of people are that minority? That minority are the exploiting and oppressing elements. Speaking of aristocrats, XX and Apei are also considered aristocrats. But there are two kinds of aristocrats: one is the progressive aristocrats, the other is the reactionary aristocrats. The progressive elements advocate reform; the old system is not wanted, just cast it aside. The old system is not good, it is not beneficial to the people of Xizang; first, the population does not flourish, and second, wealth does not prosper. The land of Xizang is vast, but the population is too small; it must be developed. On this matter, I have spoken with the Dalai. I said, you must develop the population. I also said, your Buddhism, that is, Lamaism, I do not believe in it, but I approve of you believing in it. However, can some rules be slightly changed? Among your 1.2 million people, there are eighty thousand lamas. These eighty thousand lamas do not produce; first, they do not produce material goods, and second, they do not produce population. You see, Christianity allows marriage, Islam allows marriage, Catholicism mostly allows marriage, with only a few who do not marry. (Zhou Enlai: Hinduism also allows marriage, and in Japanese Buddhism, except for a few, they also marry.) It is only the Buddhism of Xizang that does not allow marriage, does not give birth to people, does not produce descendants. Can this be changed, to have a modernization? At the same time, the followers (lamas) should engage in production, in agriculture, in industry, so that it can be sustained for a long time. Don't you want it to last forever, to believe in Buddhism forever? I do not approve of believing in Buddha and religion forever. But if you want to, what can be done? We can do nothing at all; the matter of believing in religion or not can only be decided by each individual. These words, I have spoken with the Dalai alone. I said, for your long-term plan, is it possible to carry out reforms.

As for the aristocrats, for those revolutionary aristocrats who stand on the side of progress and advocate reform, as well as the middle-of-the-roaders who are not yet so revolutionary, who waver, and do not stand on the side of counter-revolution, what attitude do we adopt? My personal opinion: regarding their land, their manors, can we use the method we used for the national bourgeoisie: implement a policy of redemption, so that they do not suffer a loss. For example, our Central People's Government can cover their living expenses. You get only so much from exploiting the serfs anyway, and the Central Government will also give you some; why must you exploit serfs to be comfortable?

I see that Xizang has a system of serfdom, which is the manorial system of our Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. The slaves are not slaves, the free peasants are not free peasants; it is a kind of serfdom in between the two. Sitting on the volcano of the serf system is not stable; every day one feels the earth is about to quake. Why not just cast it aside, not want that serf system, not want that manorial system, and give that bit of land to the peasants. But what will they eat? I think, for the revolutionary aristocrats, the revolutionary manor lords, and the middle-of-the-road aristocrats, as long as they do not stand on the side of counter-revolution, we can use a policy of redemption. I will discuss this with everyone, to see if it is possible. Right now is the suppression of the rebellion, there is no time for reform. In the future, when reform comes, for all revolutionary aristocrats, as well as the middle-of-the-roaders, the waverers, in short, as long as they do not stand on the side of counter-revolution, we will not let them suffer a loss, just like our current method of dealing with the capitalists. Furthermore, we will provide for them for their entire lives. The capitalists are also provided for for their entire lives. After a few years of fixed interest, you must continue to provide for them, you must give them work, you must give them a salary, you must give them employment, provide for them for their entire lives. This is beneficial. In this way, the peasants will not hate these aristocrats, and the enmity will be resolved. And the peasants (over ninety-five percent of the population) will get land.

There is a Japanese newspaper, wawa ma, that published an article saying that the Communist Party has suffered a great defeat on the Xizang issue, that the whole world opposes the Communist Party. If it is said that we have suffered a great defeat, then who has won a great victory? There must be someone who has won a great victory. If someone has suffered a great defeat, but no one has won a great victory, how can that be? Since we have suffered a great defeat, then there must be someone who has won a great victory. You tell me, what is the outcome of victory and defeat? Supposing we Chinese have suffered a great defeat on the Xizang issue, then who has won a great victory? Can it be said that the Indian interventionists have won a great victory? I think that is also hard to say. If you have won a great victory, why are you weeping so bitterly, as if you have lost your parents? Do you see if there is some reason in what I say?

There is also an American, named Alsop, who writes a column. He is so far away. He seriously wrote an article saying that the place of Xizang cannot be pacified without two hundred thousand troops; and these two hundred thousand troops would require ten thousand tons of supplies every day, and it is impossible to transport so much. The mountains in Xizang are incredibly high, and it is difficult for the Communist Party's army to go there. Therefore, he concluded that the rebel elements cannot be eliminated. Can the rebel elements be eliminated or not? I think everyone has this question. Because whether they can be eliminated or not, those who have not been there in person, who have not fought a guerrilla war, do not know. This is a question for everyone. I will answer here: two hundred thousand troops are not needed, only XX troops are needed, only one-Xth of two hundred thousand. Before 1956, there were XX (including cadres). In 1956, we withdrew more than XX, leaving more than XX. At that time, we were indeed serious about this, announcing that there would be no reform for six years, and after six years, if you still did not agree, we could postpone it further. This is what was said. You know, the entire Tibetan nationality is not 1.2 million, but three million. The Xizang proper just mentioned (Changdu, Qianzang, Houzang) is 1.2 million; where are the others? Mainly in western Sichuan, which is the original Xikang region and northwestern Sichuan, places like Mao'ergai, Songfan, and Asai. This area has the most. The second is Qinghai, with five hundred thousand. The third is southern Gansu. The fourth is northwestern Yunnan. These four regions total 1.8 million. When the Sichuan Provincial People's Congress met, they discussed with them about carrying out some democratic reforms. Hearing some rumors, it immediately spread to the original Xikang region, and they launched a rebellion, an armed struggle. Now in Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan, reforms have been carried out, and the people have been armed. The Tibetans have taken up guns, organized self-defense militias, and are very brave. If these four regions can wipe out the rebellion, why can't Xizang wipe it out? You say it is complex; the Xikang region is very complex. Why are there now many so-called Khampa people who have gone to Xizang? It is because the rebel elements in Xikang were defeated and fled there. When they got there, they raped and plundered, looting everything in a complete mess. They needed to eat, so they had to rob. Thus, a contradiction arose between the Khampas and the Tibetans. More than ten thousand people fled from Xikang and Qinghai. Do these more than ten thousand people need to eat? Where does it come from? They eat from among these 1.2 million people. Counting from last July, they have been eating for almost a year. This time we have struck down the rebel elements and confiscated those guns. For example, in Rikaze, the guns of the local government's troops were confiscated; in Jiangzi, they were also confiscated; in Yadong, they were also confiscated. In the places where the guns were confiscated, the masses were very happy. The common people are afraid of three things from them: first is fear of their seal, that is, fear of that official stamp; second is fear of that gun; third, there is also a legal whip, which the common people are very afraid of. Once these three things were taken away, the masses were all overjoyed, very happy, and helped us move the guns and ammunition. The common people of Xizang suffer terribly. The serf owners there really gouge out people's eyes, really pull out their tendons, and even use the leg bones of sixteen-year-old girls to make musical instruments. They also use human skulls as drinking vessels, to drink wine. Such utterly savage rebel elements can be completely eliminated. It does not require two hundred thousand troops, only XX troops are needed, and they can be eliminated completely and cleanly. Does eliminating them mean killing them all? No. The so-called elimination is not to kill them, but to capture them for education and reform, including the reactionaries, people like Suokang. For people like this, if they return and repent, we will not kill them.

Let's talk about a Chinese person's argument. This person is in Taiwan, named Hu Shi. He said that, in his view, this "revolutionary army" (that is, the traitorous elements) cannot be eliminated. He said he is from Huizhou. When the Japanese invaded China, they occupied Anhui, but they did not go to Huizhou. What was the reason? Huizhou has too many mountains, the terrain is complex, the Japanese did not even dare to go to the mountains of Huizhou, so would the Communist Party dare to go to the mountains of Xizang? I say, this methodology of Hu Shi is wrong; his "bold hypothesis" is dangerous. He makes a bold hypothesis, he reasons, he says the mountains of Huizhou are small, yet the Japanese did not dare to go, so the mountains of Xizang are much larger, much higher, would the Communist Party dare to go? Therefore, the conclusion: the Communist Party will certainly not dare to go, the Communist Party cannot eliminate the rebellious armed forces in that place. Now we must criticize this methodology of Hu Shi. I think he is going to lose; he does not "seek evidence with caution." He only has a "bold hypothesis."

Some people, like the Indian bourgeoisie, people like Prime Minister Nehru, are a bit different. They have a dual nature: on the one hand, they are very unhappy, very much against this policy of ours, very much against our resolute suppression of the rebellion that began after March 20th.