Consolidation of Han Chinese Identity: Systematic othering of Uyghurs in Communist China
The Structures of modern societies exhibit a composite nature due to increased mobility and wide-reaching communication systems, amongst other reasons. Modern Societies are complex with social, cultural, religious, racial, ethnic, linguistic, and political diversity, which makes it inherent for the state to exercise its authority on resource sharing and control. It’s the moral and legal responsibility of the state to create an equal and fair society for all of its inhabitants. Still, in reality, discrimination is practiced by dominant groups that are powerful due to political, cultural, social, and demographic hegemony. Suchdominant groups pass laws and make policies that are discriminatory and eventually create the narrative of ‘Otherness.’ Othering is practiced at the institutional level as opposed to the individual level in top-down and bottom-up approaches by government, political parties, and media. The mechanics of state-sponsored othering include but are not limited to the elimination of markers of the minority groups, economic disempowerment, demographic dilution, exclusion, dehumanization, violence. The practices of state-sponsored othering might have differed from place to place, but the purpose of the action was the same to create a homogenous state.
Minority groups of the world are often victims of state-sponsored othering in many regions across the world. Uyghurs in the Xinjiang province of China is one such group that is systematically othered by the Communist Party of China (CPC). Since China’s independence, the Chinese state and CPC have used various mechanisms to discriminate Uyghurs in Xinjiang to homogenize its far west region eventually. The introduction of discrimination mechanisms by the Chinese state increased the chances of conflict in Xinjiang province. The Justification that the Chinese state offers is purely based upon differences in language, culture, customs, and lifestyle. These policies and practices have resulted in the creation of secessionist groups who have carried numerous guerrilla attacks on police stations and checkpoints and occasional terrorist attacks like suicide bombings in major cities of Xinjiang. In response to the violence in the province, the Chinese state launched a “Strike Hard campaign against violent terrorism” in 2014. China used this official policy to brand ethnicand separatist unrest as acts of terrorism to legitimize its architecture of otherness. According to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) report, 1–1.5 million Uyghurs and other Muslims are held in detention camps. In this article, I will bring to light and examine the mechanisms used by CCP and the Chinese government for othering and its effect on Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities.
Imagine a place where two separate communities live side-by-side but in parallel universes. One sets its clock to Beijing time and the other to Central Asian, two hours behind. The majority population, i.e., Han Chinese, are neither empathetic nor sympathetic towards their fellow citizens. Uyghurs are people of Turkic origin who mainly practice Islamand have more commonalities with the people of neighbouring five Central Asian Republics(Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan). In contrast, HanChinese are the majority ethnic group in China (1.2 billion people in mainland China ( 92%of the overall population) and are mostly atheists. Although Uyghurs and Han Chinese have long historical connections and communication, they also have striking differences.
Arienne M. Dwyer, in his paper titled “The Xinjiang Conflict: Uyghur Identity, Language Policy, and Political Discourse” quotes Epilogue of later Han Chinese history book:
The Western Hu are far away.
They live in an outer zone.
Their countries’ products are beautiful and precious,
But their character is debauched and frivolous.
They do not follow the rites of China.
Han has the canonical books.
They do not obey the Way of the Gods.
How pitiful!
How obstinate!
– Epilogue to the History of the Later Han dynasty (Hou Han Shu)
The tone used by early Chinese historians in the Epilogue about the far west and its people, gave a glimpse of the gulf between Hans and Uyghurs in medieval society. They say Xinjiang products are beautiful and precious, but not the people, they are corrupt and senseless. It reminds me of the present-day Chinese government attitude of love towards Xinjiang’s natural resources and the hate on Uyghurs.
Uyghurs have traditional religion, where as the Han Chinese have no traditional religion but believe in Confucianism. Han Chinese are from an agrarian background that fosters inter-dependent social behaviour. In contrast, Uyghurs in the far-west live in rougher habitats; they mostly practice cattle herding, which led them into independent social behaviour. Uyghurs are agents of commerce in the trading of goods in ancient silk road, whereas peasantry is higher ranked in Han social hierarchy compared to business.
The social, cultural, and religious differences between the two groups are so diverse that it has become practically impossible to live together in harmony. In addition to that, theGovernment of China has an official policy of State atheism and not promoting any religion. All these factors have led the Chinese state and CPC to adopt various othering mechanisms as an unofficial state policy to transform these ethnic minorities into secular citizens.
Eyal Weizman, in the documentary Architecture of Violence, says the occupationis conceived as an environment by Israel state to strangulate Palestine Villages, Communities, and Towns to create a climate unliveable for the people. China, through various othering mechanics like demographic dilution, a division between Han and Uyghurs, economic disempowerment, mass surveillance, created an environment inhabitable for Uyghurs. Eventhough the approach of othering used by the Chinese state is different from Israel, both use occupation as a tool to create an uninhabitable environment for the natives (“Rebel Architecture al Jazeera,” 02:27–02:45).
The Architecture of Demographic Dilution –
The Chinese state practices a multi-pronged strategy to dilute the concentration of the Uyghur population in Xinjiang on lines similar to that of the Allon Plan(1967) and Drobles Plan (1978), which were at the heart of the Israel settlement policy in the West Bank. Allon plan talks about planning and building of settlements in the west bank, and Drobles plan was a detailed attempt to execute settlement expansion. In the similar lines of Zionist settlement plans in Israel, CPC used Chinese state institutions to practice Hanification in Xinjiang.
What is Hanification?
Hanification refers to the systematic settlement policies and activities by the Chinese Communist Party authorities to settle Han-Chinese from Han-Chinese dominated provinces of China to the Xinjiang region.
Hanification is achieved by practising different architectures of othering on Uyghurs by the Chinese state and CPC. These architectures have a hierarchy, and I have classified them into versions based on the timeline of their implementation starting from 1949. Version 1.0 and 2.0 of Hanification are primarily attempts of CPC and the Chinese state to dilute the concentration of Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
Hanification 1.0: State incentivized settlement policy to change the demography of the Xinjiang region. This strategy of CPC and the Chinese state changed the demographic dynamics of Xinjiang. The Han population increased from nearly 300,000 in 1953 to almost 9 million in 2010. As per the 2010 census, Han Chinese accounts for 41% of the populationof Xinjiang compared to meagre 5% in 1949. Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a quasi-military force aimed at economic expansion in Xinjiang, is an important institution for the colonization of the far west. It has de facto control over the entire Xinjiang administration. Now, 86% of 2.6 million corps in the force are Han Chinese. This astronomical rise in the population of Hans in Xinjiang was due to state-sponsored population transfers fromother parts of China.
Hanification 2.0: In 1999, the Chinese government launched “Great Leap West,” an economic initiative primarily aimed to develop China’s western frontier. The declared strategy of the initiative was to use the increased wealth generated through economic activity to subside historical, ethnic tensions. From the perspective of the Chinese state, this program was a phenomenal success. Still, in reality, intended beneficiaries have not benefited much, as the money moved into pockets of newly arrived Han migrants. The average income for a Han was 1,141 RMB per month in 2011, while the average Uighur earned 892 RMB per month. The comparison of average income speaks about ethnic profiling in hiring practices. This practice of continuing colonialism by china over the years through policies like Great Leap West in its Muslim borderland worked towards a systematic demographic dilution of Xinjiang.
Hanification attempts of Xinjiang by CPC to systematically other Uyghurs with an architecture to position minorities as foreigners in their own country and compelling them to integrate with majoritarian ideology.
The Architecture of Monoculturalism –
Mao Zedong’s cultural revolution (1966–1976), which aimed at imposing Maoism as a dominant ideology by eradicating traditional elements of Chinese society, was a massive failure in Xinjiang along with other parts of China. The Failure of cultural revolution softened Hanification attempts; for the first time since 1949 Chinese state practiced liberal and secular policies by giving freedom of religion to Uyghurs. This relaxation didn’t yield better results as there was a spike in secessionist movements in Xinjiang with quick inspiration from the formation of 5 Islamic republics in the neighbourhood after disintegration from USSR in 1991. The Failure of the policy of cultural liberalisation in Xinjiang has made the Chinese state to re-think its far west strategy.
Version 3.0 of Hanification is an attempt of cultural colonialism by CPC to suppress the secessionist movements of Uyghurs by practising Monoculturalism on Uyghurs.
Hanification 3.0: China, in recent years, has moved rapidly to implement a new policy of Mono Culturalism aimed at Han favouritism and Cultural Assimilation of Uyghurs andother Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang. Monoculturalism is practiced by the Chinese state througha series of practices and policies like Indoctrination camps, Minority-language policy, large- scale Mosque razing, ban on Beards and Veils, etc.
Indoctrination camps famously called as Re-education camps by CPC and Chinese state are established primarily for vocational training. The aim of these camps is different; it is outright Sinicization of ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. Sinicization refers to the process of getting non-Chinese cultures and societies under the influence of Han Chinese by forcingthem to adopt Chinese culture and language. These Indoctrination camps are designedtostripthe religious and ethnic identity of minorities and replace them with absolute loyalty tothestate. As per the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) report, approximately 1 million Uyghur Muslims got detained and systematically getting sinificated in the camps.
Eyal Weizman, in the documentary Architecture of Violence, pointing to military watch towers and checkpoints, calls them “Apartheid in action.” The watch towers of re- education camps and checkpoints in Uyghur dominated areas resemble Israel’s otherness practices on Palestinians. This Chinese Apartheid on ethnic minorities reached the next level, Uyghurs need to go through extended checking and screening across the city. In contrast, green channels for Han Chinese for the swift passing of checkpoints. I can see similarities with Israel’s checkpoints for Palestinians (“Rebel Architecture al Jazeera,” 11:41–11:43).
Hanification 3.0’s architecture has another tool for Monoculturalism, i.e., erosion of Turkic languages by Mandarisation. The Minority-Language policy of China, which aimed at protecting Turkic languages, started getting diluted after CCP’s aggressive push of “bilingual”education for ethnic minority students. The name of this policy looks promising as it suggests the addition of a new language. Still, in reality, it is merely an attempt to enforce Mandarin in the school curriculum by slowly eroding Turkic language as a medium of instruction. The Chinese government aims to implement this policy in 90% of ethnic minority schools in Xinjiang by 2020. Expansion of Mandarin happened in Xinjiang media, also where Uyghurs are compelled to learn Mandarin. Uyghurs see all these attempts as a direct assault on Uyghur language. Still, China says these policy measures are necessary to ensure political stabilityforthe continued economic development of the region.
Large scale Mosque razing was also part of version 3.0. The authorities have bulldozed thousands of mosques in Xinjiang, including most sacred shrines and landmarks of Uyghurs History. Rahile Dawut, a prominent Uighur academic in an interview with TheGuardian in 2012, said, “If one were to remove these shrines, the Uighur people would lose contact with the earth. They would no longer have a personal, cultural, and spiritual history. After a few years, we would not have a memory of why we live here or where we belong”.
This Cultural Genocide on Uyghurs by China is not only destroying the heritage but also erasing the traces of their origin, making Xinjiang foreign land for future generations.
The Architecture of Division –
CPC devised divide and conquer policy to systematically other Uyghurs in Xinjiang by granting autonomy to other minorities. It is merely an attempt to dilute the constitutionally guaranteed autonomy of Uyghurs in the province as the name Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). But by setting a minority against a minority, China is trying to weaken the autonomy. China didn’t stop after intra-division among Turkic minorities; they pursued inter-division between majority and minority to achieve Sinicization.
China incentivized Han’s settlement in Xinjiang by giving control of the economy to Han people. This strategy worked well as most of the sectors of the economy and companies in Xinjiang are now controlled and owned by Han Chinese Individuals. By using the classic political strategy of “Divide & Rule,” the Chinese state strategically placed non-Uyghur minorities in an autonomous position to ensure that Uyghurs lose in this artificially createdpolitical and economic battle to Han Chinese. The architecture of Division is a formof statepractised preferential treatment.
Antiguan novelist Jamaica Kincaid in her essay A Small Place, refers to preferential treatment of European and American tourists in Antigua airport and says, “you move through customs easily; you move through customs with ease. While your bags are not searched”. Han Chinese enjoys the same preferential treatment as Europeans and Americans in Urumqi (the capital city of Xinjiang) airport. They swiftly pass through check points and board on flights to travel to tour Dubai via Kazakhstan. In contrast, Uyghurs even deprived of their passports. They will not even dare to utter the word Dubai. If, by any chance, somehow any of the Uyghurs talks about their relatives or friends in Dubai, next minute, the SWAT teams of Xinjiang police will knock the door to detain them.
The Architecture of the Division practiced by the Chinese state and CCP over theyears permanently closed even remotest chances to bridge the divide between Uyghurs and Han Chinese communities in Xinjiang.
The Architecture of Surveillance –
Eyal Weizman points to the draconian measures of the Israeli state to control the Palestinians as cruel and degrading as they reduced Palestinians to nothing more than bodies(“Rebel Architecture al Jazeera,” 10:11–10:16). Version 4.0 of Hanification is all about atechnology-driven mass surveillance system where Uyghurs are reduced to nothing more than bodies.
Hanification 4.0: The Chinese state and CCP have decided to use technology as a tool to build virtual architecture for Surveillance to subdue Uyghurs in Xinjiang. I can see striking resembles between Chinese mass surveillance and Israel’s Surveillance on Palestinians. This attempt of the Chinese state resembled Israel’s Surveillance, where both the targeted groups reduced to mere bodies due to extreme and intrusive mass surveillance systems.
China is using futuristic Spy technologies for Surveillance; Xinjiang cities and towns have become laboratories for this experiment. In Xinjiang, the web of Surveillance reaches from cameras on buildings, to the chips inside mobile devices, to Uighurs’ very physiognomy to track their movements almost every where. From toll check points at the entrance of the cities to mini checkpoints at Banks, ATM’s, Hospitals, Shopping malls, everyone needs to go through robust face scanners and biometric checkpoints. CCTV’s equipped with facial recognition are every where and brought every individual under the scanner. SWAT teams and other police forces at various check points in Xinjiang regularly check personal mobiles of Uyghurs to keep track of their movements on the device will be monitored.
The information of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims collected from different sources is stored in the central command control system, i.e., Integrated Joint Operations Platform (IJOP) (China’s Mass Surveillance Phone App). IJOP has 69 million records, whereas the FBI system, which is one of the largest and most comprehensive, has 19 million records collected in its lifetime from across the USA. The system taps into networks of neighbourhood informants track individuals and analyses their behaviour; tries to anticipate potential crime, protest, or violence; and then recommends which security forces to deploy. This mass surveillance system has turned the whole of Xinjiang into a cage, which is both virtually and physically controlled by the Chinese state. Josh Chin referring to mass surveillance in Xinjiang said reporting in Xinjiang, China’s far north-west feels like traveling in a war zone (“Life Inside China’s Total Surveillance State,” 03:15–05:21).
China is using this mass surveillance system as a tool to practice othering by following the segregated approach in Surveillance to precisely monitor ethnic minorities ignoring Han Chinese. They make up 41% of Xinjiang’s population. China is using 21st- century technologies like Artificial Intelligence, Deep Learning, and Computer Visionfor grave human rights violations like ethnic profiling. Chinese Tech companies are teaching human biases to technology to discriminate people on ethnicity and dressing. The Data collection in Xinjiang went to the next level, where even extreme private informationof ethnic minorities like DNA, Voice recordings, and personal mobile data through surveillance apps. Every bits and byte of data Uyghurs are producing is getting stored in databases of these tech companies. It is vanishing all personal and public contours of data collection, making it the world’s most extensive surveillance system.
In the case of Uyghurs in Xinjiang limits got vanished, boundaries of public and private data are eroded in data collection. Eyal Weizman refers to a similar attempt in the documentary Architecture of Violence. Israel’s combat plan of targeting private spaces of Palestinians by drilling holes into their houses to misguide rebels waiting for the Israeli armyin the streets. He calls this action as the vanishing of public and private limits. I can see striking similarities in the authoritarian attempts of both the states (“Rebel Architecture al Jazeera,” 16:23–16:55).
The positioning of Uyghurs as mere machines of data collection reminds me of Debra Lupton’s words about positing of the body as a “smart machine” inter-linked to other “smart machines”. In Xinjiang, Uyghurs are made smart machines by China to generatevaluable data continuously, that can be turned into potential insights. China crossed all thelimits in this data collection process in Xinjiang; ethnic minorities are made lab rats, andXinjiang is made laboratory to develop state of the art surveillance system. Uyghurs purpose of life reduced to mere machines generating data. Controlling the Uighurs in Xinjiang has also become a test case for marketing Chinese technological prowess to other countries around the world, and China became successful in selling its surveillance systemto manycountries of the world.
China used every opportunity to practice “othering” on Uyghurs from decades and used every form of “othering” from Demographic Dilution to Data Colonialism. From 1949 to 2020, every effort of the Chinese state and CPC was towards terrorizing minorities and posing an existential question. Hanification is used as a tool to achieve complete Sinicization in Xinjiang. Hanification 4.0 is the pinnacle stage of “othering,” China reached an all-time low by practising Socio-Cultural-Economic Genocide on Uyghurs, making them foreigners in their ancestral land. The ultimate dream of Sinicization is to achieve the long-time dream of the restoration of Silk road through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) by making Xinjiang indestructible and inalienable part of China.
References:
Dwyer, Arienne, and East-West Center Washington. The Xinjiang Conflict: Uyghur Identity, Language, and Political Discourse. East-West Center Washington, 2005.
Liu, Amy H., and Kevin Peters. “The Hanification of Xinjiang, China: The Economic Effects of theGreat Leap West.” Wiley Online Library, 2017, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/sena.12233.
Kumar, Priya. “Beyond Tolerance and Hospitality: Muslims as Strangers and Minor Subjects inHinduNationalist and Indian Nationalist Discourse,” Living Together: Jacques Derrida’s Communities of Violence and Peace, edited by Elisabeth Weber (New York: Fordham University Press, Fall 2012).
Kincaid, Jamaica. A Small Place. 1st ed., Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000.
Lupton, Deborah. “Understanding the Human Machine.” IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 2013, pp. 25–30.
“Rebel Architecture al Jazeera.” YouTube, uploaded by Al Jazeera English, 2 Sept. 2014, www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rebel+architecture+al+jazeera.
Ingram, Ruth. “The Uyghurs and the Han: 1 World, 2 Universes.” The Diplomat, 16 Oct. 2018, thediplomat.com/2018/10/the-uyghurs-and-the-han-1-world-2-universes.
Buckley, Chris, and Mozur, Paul. “How China Uses High-Tech Surveillance to Subdue Minorities.” Https://Www.Nytimes.Com/#publisher, The New York Times, 22 May 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/china-surveillance-xinjiang.html.
Byler, Darren. “China’s Hi-Tech War on Its Muslim Minority.” The Guardian, 22 Apr. 2019, www.theguardian.com/news/2019/apr/11/china-hi-tech-war-on-muslim-minority-xinjiang-uighurs- surveillance-face-recognition.
Kuo, Lily. “Revealed: New Evidence of China’s Mission to Raze the Mosques of Xinjiang.” The Guardian, 24 July 2019, www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/07/revealed-new-evidence-of- chinas-mission-to-raze-the-mosques-of-xinjiang.
Shepherd, Christian. “Fear and Oppression in Xinjiang: China’s War on Uighur Culture.” Financial Times, 12 Sept. 2019, www.ft.com/content/48508182-d426-11e9-8367-807ebd53ab77.
“China’s Mass Surveillance Phone App.” YouTube, uploaded by Human Rights Watch, 2 May 2019, www.youtube.com/results?search_query=china%27s+mass+surveillance+phone+app+.
“Life Inside China’s Total Surveillance State.” YouTube, uploaded by Wall Street Journal, 20 Dec. 2017, www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Life+Inside+China%27s+Total+Surveillance+State.
Shir, Rustem. “The Human Costs of Controlling Xinjiang.” The Diplomat, 10 Oct. 2017, thediplomat.com/2017/10/the-human-costs-of-controlling-xinjiang.
