China's education policies in Tibet have become a flashpoint over identity, cultural memory, and historical preservation, according to a detailed report by Eurasia Review. The report, titled 'Tibet Is Not Han China: Reject The Rewriting Of A Living Civilisation', argues that reforms implemented under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are fundamentally altering how Tibetan children understand their own heritage — and that the consequences extend far beyond the classroom.

What the Curriculum Is Teaching

According to the report, Tibetan students are increasingly being instructed through narratives that present Tibet as an inseparable part of China, while marginalising or omitting the region's distinct political, religious, and cultural history. School curricula reportedly emphasise the role of successive Chinese dynasties in Tibet, while downplaying periods of Tibetan self-rule and the broader historical influence of Tibetan civilisation across Central Asia and the Himalayan region.

Educational content, the report notes, increasingly positions the CCP as the primary driver of Tibet's development — reducing centuries of Tibetan history to a prelude to what Beijing describes as the region's 'liberation' in the 1950s. Tibetan Buddhism, literature, folklore, oral traditions, and indigenous knowledge systems are reportedly declining in educational materials.

Language Policies Under Scrutiny

The report draws particular attention to language. Citing research by human rights organisations, it claims that nearly one million Tibetan children have been placed in state-run boarding schools that primarily operate in Mandarin. Revisions to China's National Common Language Law in December 2025 made Mandarin the principal language of instruction across schools, replacing earlier provisions that had allowed minority languages to serve as teaching mediums.

The report warns that these developments risk producing generations of Tibetans increasingly disconnected from their linguistic and cultural roots — a concern echoed by international human rights observers.

Historical Comparisons and Global Context

The Eurasia Review report draws a pointed comparison between China's current policies and historical assimilation programmes in Canada, Australia, and the United States, where indigenous children were placed in residential schools designed to suppress native languages and traditions. Critics argue the parallel is instructive: in each case, the educational system was deployed as an instrument of cultural erasure rather than development.

'Protecting Tibetan heritage requires more than preserving monuments or religious sites. A civilisation survives when its history, values, and language are passed from one generation to the next. Schools play a decisive role in that process. When educational materials fail to reflect Tibetan perspectives, students lose access to the intellectual and cultural foundations of their own society,' the report stated.

Beijing's Position and the Disputed Record

Beijing maintains that Tibet has been an inseparable part of China since ancient times and frames its educational policies as instruments of development and national integration. However, the report cites scholars and Tibetan leaders who dispute that position, pointing to historical research and primary-source documents that describe Tibet as having functioned as an independent political entity for significant periods of its history.

The report concludes with a call for greater international attention to Tibetan educational and cultural heritage, describing Tibet as 'a living civilisation with its own language, history, religious traditions, and cultural memory.' It argues that 'rejecting the rewriting of Tibetan history is therefore not only a defence of the past — it is an investment in the future of one of humanity's most distinctive cultural legacies.'

This comes amid sustained global scrutiny of China's policies in Tibet and Xinjiang, with rights groups and several Western governments raising concerns about what they describe as systematic cultural assimilation. How the international community responds — diplomatically and institutionally — will shape whether these warnings translate into meaningful pressure on Beijing.