Over the top

photo credit: SFTHQ

“For more than a year and a half”, Himal noted in September 2009, the Tibetan filmmaker Dhondup Wangchen “has languished in prison … awaiting trial on charges of ‘inciting separatism’.” Now, that wrong has been ‘righted’.

Wangchen fell afoul of the Chinese authorities in March 2008. He had shot some 35 hours of frank interviews with ethnic Tibetans across the high plateau, in which they discussed their feelings regarding the continued Chinese presence in Tibet and well as the then-upcoming Beijing Olympic Games, slated for the following August. Although Wangchen and his collaborator, Jigme Gyatso, were subsequently arrested, the tapes themselves were shipped out to Wangchen’s cousin, who was living in exile in Switzerland; the material was eventually made into a 25-minute film, Jigdrel (Leaving Fear Behind). It is unclear whether the subsequent international acclaim that the film received – having been filmed in more than 30 countries over the past two years, including at a secret showing in Beijing during the Olympics – helped or hindered Wangchen’s subsequent fate. Either way, in late December, the Chinese authorities put an end to their dithering over how to deal with the 36-year-old filmmaker, and sentenced him to six years of imprisonment for ‘subversion’. (Jigme Gyatso, meanwhile, was released after being held for seven months, during which time he was allegedly tortured.)

It is also unclear whether the international outcry that had continued to rise in recent months over Wangchen’s imprisonment helped or hurt that court ruling. While six years is clearly an unacceptable prison sentence for having been involved in producing what is by any standard a laudably even-handed, un-sensationalistic bit of filmmaking (particularly for such a notoriously explosive subject), it is also clear that far more draconian means were available to the Chinese authorities, should they have wished to use them. Wangchen’s chosen court representation was officially disallowed from involvement, after all, and observers had long been clear that there was no reason to assume that the eventual court action would be either transparent or fair. In the event, Wangchen’s family – including those in Xining, Qinghai, where the case was heard – were not even alerted to the fact that the hearing was finally going forward.

In this context, a six-year sentence might strike some as better than many of the alternatives. Almost simultaneous with Wangchen’s ruling, after all, the Chinese authorities sentenced five more ethnic Uyghurs to death for their involvement in the July 2009 demonstrations in Urumqi, in Xinjiang; that brought the total number of death sentences for the Xinjiang violence to 22 since September alone, while at least a dozen more have been given life sentences for their participation in the separatism-inspired violence. Yet given the continued rumours of Wangchen’s ill health – he is reported to have contracted Hepatitis B while in prison, and not to be receiving adequate medical care – it is possible to read the ruling as a relatively ‘lenient’ reaction arrived at in response to the international spotlight that has been shone on the case – but one that will nonetheless put Wangchen permanently out of commission.

The work, meanwhile, remains for all to see. “It is those who agreed to speak boldly on camera who have left their fear behind,” Himal wrote in September. “As can be seen from the aftermath, it is perhaps the Chinese authorities who have not.” Unfortunately, this most recent action again underscores the fact that fear-based reactions are oftentimes the most dangerous of all. Yet at this point, it is important to recall that Wangchen, despite his relative inexperience as a filmmaker, did not stumble blindly into his current situation. Prior to beginning his interviewing, he moved his wife and children out of Tibet, to India, where they remain today. Indeed, that type of courage is imbued in each of the more than 100 Tibetans who agreed to speak with Wangchen (around 20 are featured), particularly those whose faces remained notably uncovered. “They were willing to be filmed,” Wangchen explains in the film. “I also asked clearly about filming and explained that they didn’t have to show their faces. Some said that we absolutely had to show their faces, otherwise it wasn’t worth speaking to them.” Read a full transcript of what they had to say here. For more info http://www.leavingfearbehind.com/

– Carey L Biron

Stills from 'Jigdrel, Leaving Fear Behind'