The Wars That Never Ended: Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan—And China’s 1949 Turn – OpEd
Photo Credit: Unknown author, Wikipedia Commons
January 5, 2026
By Ashu Mann
China’s ruling party calls 1949 the year of liberation. For many people living under Beijing’s rule today, it was the year their freedom ended.
When the Chinese Communist Party took power after the civil war, it promised unity and stability. What it built instead was a rigid one-party state that could not tolerate difference. From the start, the new regime rejected the idea that China could be a shared political space for many identities, beliefs, and systems.The change was not only political. It was philosophical. After 1949, disagreement became disloyalty. Culture became a problem to manage. Religion became a threat. Border regions were no longer places with their own histories, but zones to be secured.
That mindset still shapes Beijing’s actions today. Nowhere is this clearer than in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan.
1949: when control replaced consent
The China that existed before 1949 was deeply flawed. It was poor, divided, and unstable. But it was not uniform. Different regions had different relationships with the state. Local power structures, religions, and languages still mattered.
The CCP ended that space. It did not rebuild the republic imagined in 1912. It replaced it with a system where power flowed only one way. The party decided what unity meant, and anyone who did not fit that definition was treated as a danger.
From the beginning, frontier regions were handled through force, not agreement. Autonomy existed on paper. In practice, loyalty was demanded first, and rights came last.
Tibet: control without acceptance
Tibet felt this change almost immediately. Within a year of taking power, Chinese troops moved into Tibetan areas. By 1950, the People’s Liberation Army had entered Tibet itself.
Beijing says Tibet was peacefully integrated. Tibetans say the agreement that followed was signed under pressure, with no real freedom to refuse. Promises of self-rule and religious freedom were soon broken.
Resistance followed. Fighters in eastern Tibet took up arms. In 1959, a major uprising in Lhasa was crushed. The Dalai Lama fled into exile. After that came tighter control—monasteries placed under state supervision, religious practice restricted, and Tibetan identity treated as a political risk.
Despite decades of pressure, Tibet never fully accepted Chinese rule. Cultural resistance continued through language, faith, and memory. Even today, under constant surveillance, Tibetans try to protect what remains of their religious and cultural life.
In Tibet, control was enforced by force and fear. The goal was not partnership, but submission.
Xinjiang: control upgraded for a new age
In Xinjiang, the same logic has been applied with new tools.
For years, Beijing spoke of development and economic growth. But behind this language was deep mistrust of Uyghur identity and especially that of the religion. Over time, this mistrust turned into a security campaign. Under the banner of fighting extremism, Xinjiang was transformed into one of the most heavily monitored places on earth. Large numbers of Uyghurs and other Muslims were sent to detention camps. Daily life came under digital control—cameras, phone checks, biometric data, and constant monitoring.
Families were broken apart. Religious practice was restricted. Birth rates were pushed down through state policies. All of this was described as education or poverty relief.
The message was clear. Identity itself had become a crime.
This was not a new policy direction. It was an extension of the same thinking born in 1949–difference must be managed, reshaped, or erased to maintain control.
Taiwan: the place that escaped
Taiwan’s story is different because it never came under CCP rule.
After losing the civil war, the Republic of China government retreated to Taiwan. The island lived under authoritarian rule for many years. But over time, that system was dismantled. Taiwan became a democracy, with open elections, a free press, and competing political views.
That transformation is exactly why Taiwan matters so much to Beijing.
Taiwan shows that a Chinese society can govern itself without one-party rule. It challenges the CCP’s claim that its system is the only path for China’s future.
As a result, Beijing has tried to pressure Taiwan through military threats, economic pressure, and political interference. So far, these efforts have not worked. Public support in Taiwan for remaining separate has grown, especially after events in Hong Kong.
One pattern, three places
Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan are often discussed separately. They should not be.
All three reveal the same pattern that began in 1949. A party-state that sees plural identities as dangers, not partners. A system that values control over consent. In Tibet, this means pressure on religion and culture.
In Xinjiang, it means mass surveillance and detention. In Taiwan, it means constant coercion from the outside.
These are not isolated problems. They are unfinished conflicts born from the same moment in history.
The struggles seen today did not begin recently. They began when power was centralised in 1949 and diversity was treated as a threat. What continues now is not rebellion against China, but resistance to a system that has never learned how to live with difference.
Ashu Mann
Ashu Mann is an Associate Fellow at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies. He was awarded the Vice Chief of the Army Staff Commendation card on Army Day 2025. He is pursuing a PhD from Amity University, Noida, in Defence and Strategic Studies. His research focuses include the India-China territorial dispute, great power rivalry, and Chinese foreign policy.
January 5, 2026
By Ashu Mann
China’s ruling party calls 1949 the year of liberation. For many people living under Beijing’s rule today, it was the year their freedom ended.
When the Chinese Communist Party took power after the civil war, it promised unity and stability. What it built instead was a rigid one-party state that could not tolerate difference. From the start, the new regime rejected the idea that China could be a shared political space for many identities, beliefs, and systems.The change was not only political. It was philosophical. After 1949, disagreement became disloyalty. Culture became a problem to manage. Religion became a threat. Border regions were no longer places with their own histories, but zones to be secured.
That mindset still shapes Beijing’s actions today. Nowhere is this clearer than in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan.
1949: when control replaced consent
The China that existed before 1949 was deeply flawed. It was poor, divided, and unstable. But it was not uniform. Different regions had different relationships with the state. Local power structures, religions, and languages still mattered.
The CCP ended that space. It did not rebuild the republic imagined in 1912. It replaced it with a system where power flowed only one way. The party decided what unity meant, and anyone who did not fit that definition was treated as a danger.
From the beginning, frontier regions were handled through force, not agreement. Autonomy existed on paper. In practice, loyalty was demanded first, and rights came last.
Tibet: control without acceptance
Tibet felt this change almost immediately. Within a year of taking power, Chinese troops moved into Tibetan areas. By 1950, the People’s Liberation Army had entered Tibet itself.
Beijing says Tibet was peacefully integrated. Tibetans say the agreement that followed was signed under pressure, with no real freedom to refuse. Promises of self-rule and religious freedom were soon broken.
Resistance followed. Fighters in eastern Tibet took up arms. In 1959, a major uprising in Lhasa was crushed. The Dalai Lama fled into exile. After that came tighter control—monasteries placed under state supervision, religious practice restricted, and Tibetan identity treated as a political risk.
Despite decades of pressure, Tibet never fully accepted Chinese rule. Cultural resistance continued through language, faith, and memory. Even today, under constant surveillance, Tibetans try to protect what remains of their religious and cultural life.
In Tibet, control was enforced by force and fear. The goal was not partnership, but submission.
Xinjiang: control upgraded for a new age
In Xinjiang, the same logic has been applied with new tools.
For years, Beijing spoke of development and economic growth. But behind this language was deep mistrust of Uyghur identity and especially that of the religion. Over time, this mistrust turned into a security campaign. Under the banner of fighting extremism, Xinjiang was transformed into one of the most heavily monitored places on earth. Large numbers of Uyghurs and other Muslims were sent to detention camps. Daily life came under digital control—cameras, phone checks, biometric data, and constant monitoring.
Families were broken apart. Religious practice was restricted. Birth rates were pushed down through state policies. All of this was described as education or poverty relief.
The message was clear. Identity itself had become a crime.
This was not a new policy direction. It was an extension of the same thinking born in 1949–difference must be managed, reshaped, or erased to maintain control.
Taiwan: the place that escaped
Taiwan’s story is different because it never came under CCP rule.
After losing the civil war, the Republic of China government retreated to Taiwan. The island lived under authoritarian rule for many years. But over time, that system was dismantled. Taiwan became a democracy, with open elections, a free press, and competing political views.
That transformation is exactly why Taiwan matters so much to Beijing.
Taiwan shows that a Chinese society can govern itself without one-party rule. It challenges the CCP’s claim that its system is the only path for China’s future.
As a result, Beijing has tried to pressure Taiwan through military threats, economic pressure, and political interference. So far, these efforts have not worked. Public support in Taiwan for remaining separate has grown, especially after events in Hong Kong.
One pattern, three places
Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan are often discussed separately. They should not be.
All three reveal the same pattern that began in 1949. A party-state that sees plural identities as dangers, not partners. A system that values control over consent. In Tibet, this means pressure on religion and culture.
In Xinjiang, it means mass surveillance and detention. In Taiwan, it means constant coercion from the outside.
These are not isolated problems. They are unfinished conflicts born from the same moment in history.
The struggles seen today did not begin recently. They began when power was centralised in 1949 and diversity was treated as a threat. What continues now is not rebellion against China, but resistance to a system that has never learned how to live with difference.
Ashu Mann
Ashu Mann is an Associate Fellow at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies. He was awarded the Vice Chief of the Army Staff Commendation card on Army Day 2025. He is pursuing a PhD from Amity University, Noida, in Defence and Strategic Studies. His research focuses include the India-China territorial dispute, great power rivalry, and Chinese foreign policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment