Editorial: Pema Thinley - A mere question of form (July 1999)

A mere question of form
Editorial by Mr. Pema Thinley (released July 1999)

Even as the exile Tibetan leader, the Dalai Lama, walks hale and hearty at a sprightly 64 years of age and expresses confidence to live well beyond the ripe old age of 80 years—in fact up to 113 years—Beijing has redoubled its efforts to prepare for a communist Chinese reincarnate for him. We are being told that it has set up a special task force "to study the issue and map out a strategy." It has brought over to Tibet its very own nine-year-old so-called Panchen Lama to obviously play a proxy Chinese role in this murky business. Yes, I am talking about the one named Gyaincain Norbu whom China has to use force and intimidation to get the Tibetan people to betray an appearance of acceptance while the real Panchen Lama, the youngest political prisoner in the world and whom the Tibetan people have no problem at all in accepting as their very own, remains incarcerated at an unknown location and under god-knows-what conditions, with his family.

Beijing dictates that the present Dalai Lama’s reincarnate shall not be a foreigner, that he shall be a Tibetan born in Chinese territory, and that he must be patriotic and have no intention to split the country. Similar conditions were spelled out after the 10th Panchen Lama died in 1989. While the requirement that the reincarnate be a Tibetan born in Chinese territory is objective, how does one determine the patriotic credential of an undiscerning toddler? It appears that this requirement is fulfilled vicariously by parental records. We understand that both the parents of Gyaincain Norbu were patriotic China cadres. Perhaps by spelling out such conditions China wants the Dalai Lama to know where he should be born and in what kind of a family. If he chooses to be born a foreigner, "Beijing would have to identify another soul boy just like the way Beijing picked the 11th Panchen Lama," China’s Tibet policy adviser Tao Changsong was quoted as saying in a recent newspaper report. Of course, this sounds very much like an admission that Gyaincain Norbu’s was a deliberate fake "appointment" to punish the Dalai Lama rather than a solemn "recognition" according to strict religious tradition of the real Panchen Lama.

Beijing seems to be at least in part responding to the fact that the Dalai Lama made it clear in May 1997 that so long as the Sino-Tibetan impasse remained, his reincarnate would "definitely" be born outside the Chinese controlled territories.

And why does China create so much fuss about recognising the reincarnation of a person who it says is no longer a religious leader but a splittist, who may not even get a Golden Stupa Tomb at the Potala Palace?

Having the power of the state machinery in its hands, to use it as it pleases, Beijing does not care, of course, that it has got the entire reincarnation issue totally wrong: that a reincarnate is no other person than the one who had preceded him. That means the 15th Dalai Lama would be no other person than the 14th who Beijing say is no longer a religious leader and with whom it does not want to have any dealing. Besides, it is the lama, believed by Tibetan Buddhists to be an enlightened being, not those who seek to locate his reincarnate, who determines whether at all he shall be reborn, and if "yes," where and when. Those entrusted to locate the lama’s reincarnate have to seek divine guidance and interpret religiously auspicious symbols—all anathema, in fact, downright nauseating to the communist Chinese creed — to fulfill their sacred mission. Nothing could be therefore more contemptuous of this solemn Tibetan religious tradition than relegating to alien atheists the final decision on any aspects of this entirely religious matter.

Beijing’s undue preparations for the coming of the 15th Dalai Lama is very disconcerting. In the Tibetan tradition, it is the height of religious discourtesy amounting to blasphemy for anyone to talk about the impending passing away of a living Lama. Besides, what makes Beijing so sure that the time for recognizing the reincarnation of the present Dalai Lama approaches nigh? Do the newspaper reports in recent times about the arrest of alleged Chinese spies said to be found stalking the Dalai Lama’s residence in Dharamsala deserve to be taken much more serious note of than seems to have been the case so far? Has communist China decided that the 14th Dalai Lama’s time is up and that the time for a fake but pliable communist Chinese 15th is due? After all, Tibetans need no lessons about China’s capacity for perfidy.

There is another aspect to this issue that Tibetans need to take note of. All questions about the likelihood of a Sino-Tibetan negotiation taking place under the communist Chinese dispensation appears to be totally ruled out. Short of an explicit statement from Beijing, there cannot be a more conclusive evidence of this than the Chinese government’s Cultural Revolution-style repression in Tibet and the use of abusive languages to denigrate the Dalai Lama, on top of talking about preparations being underway for the appointment of an impending Chinese reincarnation of him. It does not yet seem to have occurred to China to appoint a Dalai Lama of its own even as the one in exile still lives. But by declaring the present Dalai Lama to be no longer a religious leader but a "splittist", Beijing has come pretty close to doing just that. Only problem is there is no known method or tradition for going beyond that, for after all Beijing is still concerned with maintaining a "form" of respecting Tibetan religious tradition, though tragically not the profound spiritual "substance" underlying it. 

Editorial: Politics of rights - Pema Thinley (released June 1999)

Politics of rights
Editorial by Mr. Pema Thinley (released June 1999)


The profound Tibetan belief, the raison d'être of our professedly non-violent struggle, that truth and justice will ultimately prevail represents only half the truth about survival in this world. A more wholesome truth seems to be that unless backed or complemented by appropriately potent coercive elements, not necessarily violent, a cause, no matter how noble and sacred, cannot move beyond being a mere intention. All the public relations exercises that predominantly and necessarily determine the mode of carrying out a non-violent struggle remain by themselves mere manners of expressing noble aspirations and sentiments, depending on whether you are an embodiment or a supporter of such a cause. 

A noble cause waged by non-violent means in the name of the truth depends for success upon its capacity to stir the conscience of those whose minds are sought to be subdued or won over. Unfortunately the truth about human rights and violations thereof in today’s world of international diplomacy and complex layers and circuits of parochial national interests is highly subjective. No one brought home the truth about this truth with more telling effect than South Africa’s President Nelson Mandela during his recent visit to communist China. 

During his quarter century of incarceration in apartheid South Africa on an alleged murder charge, the whole free world stood behind him. He became the most famous political prisoner in the world and the inspiration for all other subjugated peoples. It was realistic therefore to expect that upon his release from jail and the dismantling of apartheid in South Africa, Mandela would be the last person to compromise on any people’s rights. Unfortunately this was not to be the case. Mandela the President of South Africa rode the rough shod over Mandela the archetypal symbol of crusade for the rights of the oppressed. 

The economic and political interests of South Africa in having cordial relations with a powerful communist China, the worst and certainly the most pervasive violators of human rights in the world even to this day, was to him much, much more important than the human rights and democratic aspirations of peoples in such strange, distant lands as Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, China, etc. That is why his expressions of admiration for the communist regime was so explicitly forthright, without an iota of qualification or stammer of hesitation. ‘I am happy to have chosen to end my political career by visiting China,’ the official China Daily newspaper on 8 May quoted him as saying. Mr. Mandela is to retire as the President of South Africa in early June this year. 

The South African President played music to the communist Chinese ears, saying he had no advice for mainland dissidents and no criticism of Beijing’s rights record. According to news reports on 8 May, Mr Mandela repeatedly declined to criticise Beijing for jailing dissidents and other abuses, saying instead that he was not prepared to interfere in China’s domestic affairs. Whither the universality of human rights. And he called his trip ‘success,’ though no trade deals or accords had been signed. 

No one can, of course, condemn or praise Mandela without making some value judgement that would pit the basically economic and to some extent politico-diplomatic interests of one’s own country against the human rights, no matter how fundamental, of peoples in other, alien lands. Leaders of almost all the countries of the world are not doing it any much differently. Only they pay lip service to human rights in varying degrees of criticism of the communist regime’s record and attitude.

Politicking with human rights does not end with the question whether gross and systematic rights violations are being condemned in concrete, coercive terms or acquiesced to in a conspiracy of silence. The states most responsible for perpetrating rights violations are the ones most combative in seeking positions on the various UN rights monitoring bodies. States whose leaders knew nothing about UN human rights system overnight become members of UN rights bodies upon learning that their records had been subjects of discussion at these fora. Mention any UN rights monitoring body today and you will almost certainly find the very odd presence of a Chinese delegation there—China bulls in UN rights shops! I have personally witnessed a UN working group meeting in Geneva where the Chinese delegation led the violators’ cohort in opposing, diluting, negating, qualifying, etc, each and every draft provision to ensure that a UN declaration on the rights of human rights defenders was delayed and diluted or neutralised as much as possible. Even on such bodies as the Sub-Commission on Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, or the various treaty bodies, such as the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Committee Against Torture, Committee on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, etc, etc, the supposedly independent human rights experts from China are seen blatantly defensive of the indefensible: their government’s reprehensible human rights record in a manifestly partisan manner.

Thus, with or without Mandela, attitude towards human rights will always be subjective and political. Likewise, human rights violations by the Chinese government will continue whether or not it is condemned by individual countries and intergovernmental bodies, such as the UN Commission on Human Rights. After all, the violations are only symptoms of a government whose authority is threatened at home but whose power and influence is feared abroad. 

Editorial: Pema Thinley - Getting our priorities right (November 1997)

Editorial by Mr. Pema Thinley - Democratise Or Be Damned (August 1997)

Democratise Or Be Damned
Editorial by Mr. Pema Thinley (released August 1997)

In April the Tibetans in exile will be going to the polls to elect the 12th Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies. This will be an excellent opportunity for them to improve the quality of people deciding their affairs at the national level. Since the outgoing ATDP took office five years ago, the Tibetan parliament has assumed far-reaching powers. Its members not only represent the people, they get to elect the ministers in the cabinet too. This effectively means that if the people don’t make their choices wisely they’ll end up getting the kind of government they deserve.

Last month we reported that only about half the adult population in exile have registered themselves with the Election Commissions. But we’ll still be lucky if only half of that number actually exercises their franchise. Very lucky, indeed, judging from what has been happening so far. The place where Tibetan Review is located is a hostel for about 200 college-going Tibetan students. But I’ve never heard of any of them going to the Tibetan camp to cast their ballots. Perhaps a few of them go on their own initiatives, but there never has been an organized voting day, anticipated and talked about in advance. For that matter, I also don’t remember people who work in the Central Tibetan Administration in Dharamsala ever casting their ballots. There is no reason for believing that other places are any different.

So which Tibetan elect the memebers of their parliament? One can’t be certain, of course, but the pressure groups indulging in odious regionalism and sectarianism would be a safe bet. Plus those who go to the polls simply because they’ve heard the Dalai Lama say everybody should vote and hence the action has taken on an almost religious connotation. But once they get to the polling booth they have no idea who they should vote for. They would seek the help of someone there to guide them, which means that that someone can put the stamp on the name of anyone he chooses. The candidates have symbols but those symbols are not printed on the ballot papers, only their names; so Tibetans who can’t read are totally in the hands of others.

It is no secret that Tibetans in general, at least those in Dharamsala, think that except for the chairman, Samdhong Rinpoche, nobody in the 11th ATPD is worth getting excited about. Tibetans in Dharamsala, and in all other places, should do something about it if they don’t want to see the same, or similar, faces in the 12th ATPD. They should excercise their democratic right, a right many other people risk death to acquire. Perhaps the problem with Tibetan exiles is that they’ve had it too easy in this respect. They didn’t have to fight or undergo any suffering to get democracy: it was given to them - almost forced on them - by their leader. Of course it is not yet a democracy in the full sense of the word, but it is a beginning. The spirit is there. Instead of wasting this spirit, instead of misusing or not using this spirit, they should go out there and cast their votes.

They should try to elect people who will be good for the future of Tibet, which means good for themselves and all other Tibetans. They should try to elect people who have proven track records of commendable deeds. If they don’t know any such person, they should ask around. They should avoid being taken in by fiery orators who have no matching actions to their credit to support their words. Word is no substitute for deed; often it is an excuse for the lack of deed. And they should stay clear of anyone who is known to promote regionalism and sectarianism. Our society has enough problems as it is, thank you very much.