Black Americans and Tibetans - Bhuchung K. Tsering (July 1999)

Black Americans and Tibetans
Article by Bhuchung K. Tsering (issue July 1999) 

If you look at the Tibet movement in the United States, or, for that matter, throughout the world, one of the glaring points is the absence of a major support base among the Black community. President Nelson Mandela of South Africa is the only African political leader showing an interest in Tibet. Among spiritual leaders we again have to turn to Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa.

Within the United States, almost all Tibet support groups are composed of non-black Americans. The only black American actively involved in Tibetan affairs could be the monk who studied in Sera Monastery in South India. He is now ensconced somewhere in New England and seem to have been so Tibetanised that the last time His Holiness the Dalai Lama visited Boston in 1998, I saw this monk being included in the "Tibetans only" audience.

Why has the Tibet movement failed to attract the Black community and how can we change the situation? The Tibetan Government in Dharamsala has been studying this issue and has even started an office in South Africa. We Tibetans need to ponder more on this issue at our individual level and even have a public debate.

It is not that Black Americans totally ignore Tibet. This was brought clear to me during the ceremony to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the Tiananmen Movement held in Harvard University on June 2, 1999. Mrs Coretta Scott King, widow of American civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr, was the main speaker. In her speech to the predominantly Chinese audience that evening, Mrs King dwelt at length on the vision of His Holiness the Dalai Lama for the future of Tibet. She even went to the extent of appealing to the Chinese community to support His Holiness on his endeavour.

I am interested in ideas that our readers may have on how we can maximise our support among the Black community. 

Bhuchung K. Tsering is a commentator based in Washinton, DC. He currently works with the International Campaign for Tibet.

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. 

Bhuchung K. Tsering: Promoting healthy competition among Tibetans (July 1999)

Promoting healthy competition among Tibetans
Article by Bhuchung K. Tsering (issue July 1999)

Between July and September (I think) Dharamsala will be announcing the best civil servant of the year. This award was instituted some years back. Also, those who graduated from Central Schools for Tibetans since the late seventies would remember that the Tibetan Department of Education also presents the Bum-kyon-sum-del ("Vase Devoid of Three Defects") award to the best student in each school every year. I am sure the awards are still being presented today. These, as also other awards like the Tibetan Youth Congress' Rangzen Award (for social works, etc), I believe, are well intentioned to generate a healthy competition among the Tibetan people. Competition of the right kind, as we know, is an incentive to do better. The awards, thus, were established to recognise the achievement of certain individuals and thereby be an incentive for others to follow that path.

So how have these awards fared? Let us take the case of the Bum-kyon-sum-del laureates, if you will. Except for the 15 minutes of fame the students may have received on the day of the announcement of the awards, they seem to be non-entities thereafter. The medal that symbolises their award does not seem to have any value once the students leave the schools. In fact, my educated guess would be that very few among the officials in Gangchen Kyishong, leave alone the average Tibetan refugee, would be able to identify some of these Bum-kyon-sum-del laureates. There is thus no recognition of the individual within the community, which in turn is not any encouragement for others to aspire to reach that position.

As for the best civil servant award, it has been mired in unwanted controversy from the very beginning, thus negating the very purpose of its institution. Although it has been some years since its inception, this award has failed to find a place for itself in the psyche of the civil servants. One reason for this is that except for the monetary reward (5,000 Indian rupees to be exact), the award recipients do not have any other practical gain.

How about changing the system and making these awards fulfil the objectives for which they were established? In order to achieve this, we Tibetans need to learn the art of effective management: You should not only perform an action well, but should be seen doing so. In other words, presentation is important (I am not advocating here symbolism without substance). To give a culinary example, we Tibetans do prepare delicious dishes, but do we present them well? We know the answer.

Give these awards a little bit of high profile. Currently, the best civil servant award is announced in conjunction with some other ceremony. Oftentimes, it may be that the award recipient himself or herself is stationed outside of Dharamsala and so is not present when he or she is being honoured. Why not make the award ceremony an important annual event in itself and arrange it so that the recipient is present. Make the recipient share his/her experience to the rest of the civil servants. Project the awardees in the publications so that others get to know about them. Consider the award as a positive factor for promoting the recipient to the next grade. Similarly, currently, the best student medal is just that, just a medal. It does not seem to have any further significance. How about taking into consideration the medals when providing scholarships or jobs, or even promotions. In short, do whatever it takes to make people want these awards.

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. 

China and its public image - Bhuchung K. Tsering (June 1999)

China and its public image
Article by Bhuchung K. Tsering (issue June 1999) 

At the end of April I was in Geneva in connection with a rally held on the birthday of the Panchen Lama, the hunger strike by the Tibetan Youth Congress and the session of the Comission on Human Rights. I arrived there the day after China was once again able to block a resolution condemning its human rights practices in China and Tibet.

Enter the meeting room of the Comission - I had last stepped into it six years ago - I experienced once again the harsh reality concerning the UN and issues like ours. In that room, the suffering of opressed people is a product, with the NGOs primarily playing the role of sales agents. The product's value is not based on its own merit but on how countries feel it has use for them. Since the mid-eighties Tibetan officials and NGOs have been adapting themselves to this situation and lounching a vigorous campaign at the Commission to sell the Tibetan product. Occasionally they have been successful - sometimes they have faced setbacks. Nevertheless, today the Tibetan brand name enjoys very favourable recognition within the Commission and is used as a model for success by other human rights advocates. But then, it is a crazy market out there.

A case in point is the China resolution proposed by the United States during this session of the Commission. Even the European Union failed to co-sponsor it. Eventually, only Poland became a co-sponsor. China, however, had to seek recourse to its usual procedural tactic to prevent this resolution from being discussed. While China may think it won this round, observers in Geneva feel otherwise. There were more countries, significantly from Afrika, abstaining this time. This is a clear writing on the wall. 

Today, China is desperate to do anything to prevent countries from reminding it about Tibet. The undiplomatic outburst of President Jiang Zemin during his visit to the Swiss Capital, Bern, in late March is an indication of how far the Chinese are willing to go on this. President Jiang literally scolded the Swiss leadership for permitting Tibetans and Tibet-supporters in Switzerland to exercise their democratic right to freedom of speech during his visit to the Swiss Parliament.

I took a short trip to Bern from Geneva and specifically went to the square before the Swiss Parliament House. Loten Namling, who was my host, showed me the location where the demonstrators stationed themselves. Is this the building that made President Jiang launch his thousand tirades? I wondered. As I stood in the square I tried to visualise the development that day. While the demonstrators may certainly have embarrassed President Jiang, there was no justifiable reason for his extreme outburst. This led me to wonder whether there were other reasons for his attitude. Could it be that he has been facing the heat from others in the Chinese leadership concerning Tibet since his non-negative statements during the press conference with President Clinton in June of 1998? Would this mean that President Jiang has really not been able to consolidate power and authority? 

Bhuchung K. Tsering is a commentator based in Washinton, DC. He currently works with the International Campaign for Tibet.

And Nangma for you - Bhuchung K. Tsering (June 1999)

And Nangma for you

Article by Bhuchung K. Tsering (issue June 1999) 

I have always felt that some Tibetan artistes do not recognise their own value. At worst they not only underestimate themselves, but also the art. One former TIPA artiste when asked to do a performance is said to have remarked, ‘I have had enough to do with monkeyacting.’

On the other side there are Tibetans, not professional artistes, who take up Tibetan music for their sheer love of it. The members of the Nangma group in Switzerland falls into this category. Nangma initially began as a section of the Tibetan Youth Association in Europe, but today has an identity of its own. Its members work in banks and airlines during the weekday. They spend their leisure hours immersed in Tibetan music. I have had the occasion to see some of their performances in the early Nineties.

Nangma has come out with a new CD titled ‘Sonam Yangchen’, a conglomeration of classical and popular numbers. Among these are Sonam Yangchen (Nangma), Acho Sotop (Toeshey), Tse Potala (an Amdo number popularised by TIPA), a Namthar and a Chang song titled ‘Arokla Nachung’. My favourite is the collage of instrumental music, which begins the album. Performers play the Flute, Dramnyen, Gyumang, and Piwang, which compose Tibetan music, one after another thus giving us a taste of their individuality.

While I certainly welcome Sonam Yangchen as one more choice of Tibetan music on CD, I wish Tibetan artistes would start coming out with specialised albums, whether on Nangma, Toeshey, Changshey, Gorshey, Namthar, etc. instead of mixing them together. There is a good market, commercially speaking, for such albums if they get the right promotion. Unfortunately, Nangma (the group) has not done much to promote this CD. Unless one accidentally comes across it (as I did) one may not even be aware of its existence. I went to a music store the other day. There were over a dozen Tibetan CDs, mostly religious chants, on the Tibet section in the world music department. Sonam Yangchen (the CD) was nowhere in sight although TIPA’s ‘Dhama Suna’ was there. In this regard artistes like Nawang Khechog and Yungchen Lhamo have learnt the tricks of the trade.

Leave alone promoting the CD; Nangma artistes have not even promoted themselves in the CD. No names are given of the performers of the individual numbers. Since I knew some of the performers like Tsering Topgyal Nelung (‘Acho Tom’) and Tsering Tethong, I could identify their voices. Nangma’s album, ‘Trunglha Yarsoel’, released in 1996, lists its artistes as follows: Lobsang Gangshontsang, Kalsang Dhidugong, Norbu Lhakhang, Kunga Tethong, Tsering Topgyal Nelung and Lhakpa Tsering. The listener is left wondering who among them played some of the instruments.

Anyway, for anyone wishing to get a copy of this CD try contacting Kalsang Dhidugong, Zugerstrasse 24, 8810 Horgen, Switzerland (this address is given on the CD). 

Bhuchung K. Tsering is a commentator based in Washinton, DC. He currently works with the International Campaign for Tibet.

Studying 'Tibetans' or 'Tibetan' studies? - Bhuchung K. Tsering (September 1998)

Studying 'Tibetans' or 'Tibetan' studies?
Article by Bhuchung K. Tsering (issue September 1998)


The 8^th ‘Seminar of the Intenational Association for Tibetan Studies’ took place between July 25 and 31, 1998 in Bloomingto, Indiana, in the United States. Thirty-six years ago, a ‘Conference on Tibet’ took place in the Italian town of Bellagio. That conference, held from July 2 to 8, 1962, was attended by 15 Western and Japanese Tibetologists. A comparative study of the two meetings reveals the extent of development in the field of Tibetan studies.

Compared to the 15 attendees in the 1962 meeting, the Indiana meeting attracted nearly 200 scholars. In 1962 Tibetans scholars (the current president of the Association of Tibetan Studies, Samten Karmay, being one of them) were regarded more as raw materials rather than finished products and merely served as sources of information which were then packaged by Western and other scholars. In the Indiana conference, 33 participants were Tibetan (17 of them in fact came from Tibet).

The ‘general opinion’ of the 1962 conference, reported by Turell V Wylie, was that ‘Tibetan culture has no chance of survival in Tibet proper where change is being made by force, and it will not long survive the acculturation process in other countries.’. the latter, I assume, is a nice way of saying that Tibetans in exile will not be able to preserve our culture. Indiana has proved Bellagio wrong on both counts. While Tibetans inside Tibet have shown tremendous resilience in the face of challenge, those in exile have shown the world that Tibetan culture, altough aged, is living and well, thank you.

However, Indiana revealed a few other challenges. First, although there was increased recognition of ‘Tibetan’ scholars, the assumption appears to be that you have to be involved with ‘modern’ academic institutions to be considered a scholar. There was hardly a participant from the traditional Tibetan monastic institutions. Were invitations issued to them?

Secondly, the seminar was not open to the Voice of America and Radio Free Asia. I would have thought that the Association would have gladly seized the opportunity to relay to the Tibetan people issues which concern them. After all, Tibetan studies is about a still living people.

There is an interesting footnote to this. In the light of the media ban, it appears that one of the radio stations asked some poeple to observe (most likely so that they can broaden their horizon and be able to provide better service to the Tibetan listeners). The response was negative: only scholars who present papers were being invited as delegates and no one else. I do not know whether the response given by this member of the organising committee was a collective decision or his own personal action.

I later learn that there indeed were observers, even if they were not called as such. Out of the nearly 200 participants only 150 or so presented papers. Also, among the delegates was an official from Chinese United Front Works Department whose sole qualification appears to be his ability to monitor the delegation from Tibet rather than displaying any scholarship.

Who said the academic world is free from biased actions?

Bhuchung K. Tsering is a commentator based in Washington, DC. He currently works with the International Campaign for Tibet.