This certainly isn't unbiased commentary (obvious tells are the way easily-established facts such as the Tibetan government in exile having a democratic constitution are qualified with the 'reportedly' weasel word, whereas the author's assumptions about lamas motivations are to be understood as unvarnished fact, the frequent use of the 'reactionary' label and the way more emphasis is given to the Dalai Lama granting an audience to a Republican senator than the Cultural Revolution!). But I don't think the author is wrong to say 1950s Tibet was an impoverished and unequal feudal society.

I also met quite a few Tibetan exiles in India. Those who had fled by spending their life savings to be guided across the Himalayan border had tales to tell of running out of food on the journey and eating snow, but no specific details of persecutions in China: they came because the Lama was in India. (I also met a Tibetan who arrived via a visa for overseas study who fully intended to return). But the risk of being shot was still a real one.