SAMDONG RINPOCHE SAYS TIBET ISSUE INTERNAL AFFAIR OF PRC

 

Dharamsala, March 13 (ANI): Prime Minister of the Tibetan government in exile, Samdhong Rinpoche, has welcomed Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s offer of holding more talks with envoys for the Dalai Lama. Earlier Wen Jiabao accused Western countries of exploiting the Dalai Lama, who is described as a political exile rather than a religious figure. Samdhong Rinpoche said the comments were not true.

[on Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s offer of holding more talks] “This is something which we need to welcome, and we are always ready to send His Holiness’ envoys at any time, and we have already given our aspirations sign in writing in the last round of dialogue in November last year. Now, there is a set agenda. So, no problem to discuss with them.”

[on Wen Jiabao accusing Western countries of exploiting the Dalai Lama] “If there is any truth, they should establish with evidences. As far as the Tibet issue is concerned, we have nothing to do with Western countries. We consider this is an internal matter of the People’s Republic of China, and if the People’s Republic of China is willing to deal with us as an internal matter, we are absolutely ready.“

Check out the actual ANI interview on youtube. Rimpoche’s declaration about Tibet issue being PRC internal affairs is towards the end of the video.

Question: If Rimpoche believes the Tibetan issue is the internal affairs of the PRC what is he doing heading a Tibetan government in exile in a foreign country with the aid of Western governments?

Comments

  1. Jeff Bowe | March 14th, 2009 | 4:13 pm

    Is any Tibetan, with the pulse of Rangzen beating in their body at all shocked by Samdhong’s treachery any more?

  2. Choephel | March 14th, 2009 | 5:37 pm

    I think Rinpoche used the phrase loosely. What he probably wants to convey is that Western countries are not involved and bent on opposing China by supporting the Tibetan cause. If he really meant to say that it’s internal matter of China and western nations cannot interfere, then its a matter of concern!

  3. Jeff Bowe | March 14th, 2009 | 6:08 pm

    As Tibet’s Prime Minsiter, surely mind and speech should be in union, particularly when considering:

    a) As a Rinpoche, Samdhong is supposedly an enlightened being.

    b) Samdhong is a Buddhist scholar of some repute, which one would reasonably suppose would require considerable attention to detail.

    c) Samdhong has years of political experience and should by now be fully aware of the responsibility he has towards presenting his thoughts in a careful and considered manner.

    The fact is that Samdhong Rinpoche has a long and ignoble history of issuing treacherous words of surrender, all designed to appease the communist Chinese regime. These latest commentsa are no different, apart from his willingness to acknowledge that the Tibetan issue is by definition a matter of internal Chinese politics.

    Perhaps Rinpoche should consider wearing a Mao Suit?

  4. gyalpot | March 14th, 2009 | 7:16 pm

    Looks like Rimpoche’s next step would be to order us all back to China. I think its time that the middle way movement reevaluates how far they are willing to go to placate China. There has to be a line drawn; we cannot go on striping off everything. Reminds me of some Jewish groups who wanted to go to the gas chambers with prayers rather than fight.

  5. umeylam | March 14th, 2009 | 7:59 pm

    no big deal. rinpoche is trying to creat that trust in the chinese mind by saying its an internal affair of china. without the trust as foundation of our ralationship with china, nothing happens. afterall we are and will continue to be a part of china, enjoying the fruits of autonomy all over traditional tibet eternally. china is rich and samdong rinpoche is brave and clever.

  6. Jeff Bowe | March 14th, 2009 | 8:18 pm

    How clever to beg for slavery!

  7. Barkor Bomo | March 14th, 2009 | 10:07 pm

    Well said, Jeff.

  8. Tsering Choedon Lejotsang | March 14th, 2009 | 11:47 pm

    “Samdong Rinpoche is brave” ===brave in what way? what has he done that can be even remotedly called a brave deed?

    Samdong is clever–again in what way? May be clever in fooling the Tibetan exile mass!!

    TCL

  9. Confused inji | March 15th, 2009 | 3:46 am

    By referring to the Tibetan negotiators merely as His Holiness’ envoys as the Chinese communists insist doing, does Mr Samdong not consider them to represent the elected Tibetan exile government and the Tibetan people?

    During the decades-long Russian occupation of Eastern Europe only unelected pro-Soviet collaborators would try legitimizing the occupation by claiming it was an “internal matter for the Soviets”.

    The peoples of these once-occupied Eastern European nations are now among the strongest supporters of moral and ethical values in Europe, and staunch opponents of totalitarian colonialism like the racist kind China practises.

    What should the supporters of Tibetans’ struggle for freedom and self-determination think about this?

    Just as the Chinese regime has been desperately trying to bully members of European Parliament against officially recognizing the CTA as legitimate representatives of Tibetan people, Mr Samdong comes out by saying that the Tibetan elected body he is representing is in fact unofficial and the Tibetan struggle is an internal affair of the Chinese regime.

    It will be interesting to see how the Chinese propaganda machine will characterize Tibetan prime minister’s submission since obviously they can not refer to an elected government of Tibetans. “High-ranking monk organizer of Dalai’s splittist activities against the motherland has admitted that the full sovereignty…”?

  10. Jeff Bowe | March 15th, 2009 | 5:11 am

    Agree.

    The first condition that the TGIE should have insisted upon, prior to any negotiations, should have been that China accepts the delegation as representing the Tibetan Government in Exile, rather than as informal envoys, in what is essentially a private capacity.

  11. Sangay | March 15th, 2009 | 7:19 am

    Umeylam, His Holiness the Dalai lama on his recent March 10 address said China converted Tibet into HELL ON EARTH, TREATS TIBETANS LIKE CRIMINALS DESERVING OF DEATH SENTENCE. You are full of praises for China. What do u think, was His Holiness the Dalai lama, the back bone of Umeylam, right when he said that, or he was lying, china could’t do that? sala gyami gyuk-khi.

  12. Tsering Choedon Lejotsang | March 15th, 2009 | 7:57 am

    Umeylam is not someone who deserves a decent answer. He is not even worth spitting on.
    He sure is a pango, gyaro ass licker. If he is a Tibetan, then he is a disgrace to the whole race. But I bet he is the bastard of a Chinese soldier with a whore!

    Now the case about Samdong.
    The longer he remains in office, the worse it is for Tibet.
    He makes really strange comments.
    How can he say that Tibet is the internal problem of China, when the world over, Tibetans and supporters are trying to garner support for recognizing TGIE as the legitimate government of the Tibetan people.
    I wonder if he has some form of dementia. If he has, he should be relieved of his responsibilities immediately. If he hasn’t, then he is plain incompetent. Or worse, pro-Chinese.
    Which ever he is, I think he doesn’t deserve to be the Prime Minister of the TGIE.

    TCL

  13. Sera Jampa | March 15th, 2009 | 10:07 am

    One problem we face obviously is that no country is supporting for us openly on National status, like Free Tibet. Of course,they support us through the cover of Religious freedom, Human Right or Press Freedom. Thats all, No more than that. But all these countries saying with like condition apply, that they all accept Tibet as a part of China. US, UK, INDIA etc etc. Every country believes China as a one country. This is what China is needed from the world. I usually believes that Umeylam ideology adds more spicy on it and make it more delicious for China. Although I didnot see Samdong Rinpoche’s words on Youtube, but I think even he has said it so, he said upto world standard.

  14. Jamyang Norbu | March 15th, 2009 | 11:35 am

    I have a strong feeling that Umeylam is just a Chinese 忿青 fen qing – “angry youth” – the term given to Chinese Netizens of a self-righteous and aggressively nationalist tendency. He is pretending to be a Tibetan in order to sabotage our discussion but I don’t think that any Tibetan could be so craven.

    We have had a few such problems earlier with fenqing pretending to be injis, in one instance even an Irishman McMurphy, if I remember right and insulting Tibetans.

    My webmaster and I will try and weed these guys out more effectively. In the meantime pay no attention to theses shits. If they had any guts they would come out straight and use their real names.

    Jmyang

  15. tibetan_bhu | March 15th, 2009 | 2:18 pm

    I am really baffled by the statement Samdong Rinpoche gave saying that the Tibet issue is an internal matter of the PRC which we can see on YouTube. I am sure he understands the gravity of his remark; by now the awesome power of internet must have carried that video to every nook and corner of the globe. The Chinese will feed on that. Am sure he knows how powerful the internet is right now.

    I don’t know but it looks like we are now trying to placate the Chinese government rather than exerting more pressure. I am sure he knows that Beijing will not budge and will continue on its mission to snub out the Tibetan race itself. I do feel sometimes that desperate time calls for desperate measures. Beijing relents on its egregious manners. Doesn’t have an iota of remorse for what it has done so far. Post Lhasa unrest the iron fist is clenched more tightly. The internet domain is infested with Chinese lambasting the Tibetan cause on blogs, comments on articles and distorting the Tibetan history. I have to touch on this matter about the Tibetan history. I know it’s a energy to waste responding to these miscreants but then what they are saying surely does register in people’s minds; The power of internet should be considered and that’s why Jamyang Norbula came up with this blog. Kudos to you. It is history for all purposes and not science. It can always be disputed.

    Desperate times call for desperate measures. But are we ready for an insurrection at a huge scale? Guess not.

  16. Walse | March 15th, 2009 | 3:41 pm

    I agree that our PM – Samdhong Rinpoche as a respected scholar of Tibetan Buddhism and an ardent follower of Gandhian philosphy. However, he lacks basic political skills required for international diplomacy.

    I absolutely abhore and disagree with his comments about Tibet being an “internal matter of PRC” and about “His Holiness’ envoys” readiness for talk with China. Is our PM working against Tibet’s sovereignty & independence? Does he not recognise his own Admninistration or TGIE by calling “HH’s envoy .. ??

  17. newgenerationtb | March 15th, 2009 | 3:43 pm

    I agreed with JN. Just keep an eye on the IP and trace it to the land of cockroaches!

  18. sharmapatel | March 15th, 2009 | 11:47 pm

    Umelam
    – – –

    Let’s not ban these Chinese miscreants. Let’s have some fun with them. Well, what would really be fun would be to corner their youthful, thin Han frames in a dark alley and teach them a lesson or two in etiquette. But it’s hard to do over the internet. Therefore, let us take advantage of their faulty logic, lack of creativity and choppy English to expose them as the dolldrums which they are.

    I got a really good laugh out of this one from Umelam:

    “without the trust as foundation of our ralationship with china, nothing happens.”

    Well, first off, this is how you spell “relationship” you Han nitwit! Go back to your college and read some Shakespeare instead of the old Mao book, you zany young Commie!

    Now, clearly with a name like Prescott, I’m not a Tibetan, nor do I pretend to be. But let’s say I was. I’m thinking that you killed a number of my relatives in heinous ways, raped a couple nuns I know until they passed out, tortured and lynched my grandfather’s Rinpoche and turned our family temple into rubble. Now, you want to talk about “trust” as the cornerstone of a healthy relationship.

    I am willing to trust you as far as I can throw you (preferably off a very high cliff). When you hit bottom, you’ll have won my trust.

    You’re probably fishing for responses to see where people on the net stand; I understand its your job as a Commie internet spy. Be glad you can hide behind a computer. For now. It’s a luxury you may not always have.

    -Prescott

  19. Tenpa | March 16th, 2009 | 3:31 am

    what is next on the agenda? Is he going to agree that we were slaves under the Dalai Lama and the Chinese did us a great favor by ‘liberating’ us? I mean that is the last admission he has left in his ever thinning wallet of self-effacement. Oh, I forgot about the admission that we are ungrateful people who revolted against the motherland. He could use that next as his next ‘negotiating’ tecnhique. Sadly, we all know the response from the chinese side is going to be same as it has been for the last 50 years. Madness is doing the same exact thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I don’t know if Rinpoche has realized emptiness or Tibet is certainly get nothingness from his approach.

    It is high time we separate monks from politics. I don’t think it is even fair for a monk to run in a political capacity since the robe itself is a huge advantage to begin with and what of the choice of being in a monk in the first place and then straddling both domains. Kundun is excluded since he didn’t have a choice. He was born into the role and no sane person will sought to discredit his accomplishment for our cause. I support his call to let the common people lead themselves. If the rest of the world can lead themselves, however ineptly, I think Tibetans can lead themselves too. Unless, of course there are Tibetan people out there who thinks we are genetically inferior and totally incapable of self goverance. And no, I am not interested in your opinion, UmeKup.

  20. tenpa tsering | March 16th, 2009 | 8:08 am

    I always knew Samdhong was the wrong man for the job the mpment he entered office.Some hints to his way of thinking and working i got from people who know him or are students from Benares .He is reputed to have said while addresing a group of students-on how to give a speech’imagine you are speaking to a group of sheep-and your confidence will be unlimited.’ Well unfortumately we are not SHEEP! Years ago A colleague of mine and i were discussing the first prime ministerial elections-he was excited about Samdhong .I advised caution saying someone no matter how knowledgeble who was contemptful of others would never make a good leader. We agreed however that there was little other good alternative candidates. Sadly even today most tibetans never seem to awake from the samdhong stupor. The saddest part is however is that he is the scapegoat for the Umelam. It wasnt his idea. It was HH,s. If HH changed his policy samdhong would go in that direction. At least he has one really admirable quality -absolute loyalty. Wheteher thats good for the cause is anyones guess.

  21. tenpa tsering | March 16th, 2009 | 8:22 am

    Also samdong stopped an immigration plan to australia some years ago citing saying that who would stay in the settlements? (Meaning the highly centralised TGIE would have less people with whom they can carry out their burocratic activities!).He went on further to wax eloquent on organic farming in south indian settlements. It seemed he had been bitten by the organic bug. Of course the tibetans were venerably bemused.His holier than thou attitude just makes me laugh! Somewhere in all of this we lost sight of the fact why we were in India in the first place. Get my take? I say the next prime minister should NOT be a monk. In fact that should be a criteria. Anyway I think samdong bent back so much this time to the chinese he probably broke his back.On a positive not however I hope not.

  22. lodoe | March 16th, 2009 | 10:42 am

    It is really sad to hear all those strong words from the so called our prime minister(Samdong Rinpoche). Why can^t we replace our PM, Our Chitue(MP) have to raise their voice on this particular issue in the parliment. God save Tibet from Samdong rinpoche first.

  23. sharmapatel | March 16th, 2009 | 7:41 pm

    Bound by the Robes

    If we can accept a very basic and obvious fact (that conflict and violence is an inevitable part of every political landscape) then it does seem preposterous to have a monk as a prime minister. His vows prevent him from engaging in the necessary activities. Even a peaceful man like Obama is prepared to go to war when necessary. Is Samdhong Rinpoche?

    Kundun, is of course, an exception. Buddha is a different case, and we all know how the 13th Dalai Lama advocated wrathful means where peaceful means would be insufficient to safeguard the nation. The Dalai Lamas are capable to lead a nation and have their own wisdom. His Holiness has always said that the future of Tibet will be determined by the Tibetan people, and I take his word as his honest words of truth.

    I think Samdhong Rinpoche is a wonderful monk — maybe even saintly. But he may not belong in politics. I sometimes think that he would rather see thousands of his own people die a hideous death than resort to violence. That’s a beautiful philosophical ideal for ONE MAN to choose for himself. But NO MAN has the right to impose his philosophical ideals to the detriment of the people’s struggle — for survival, for dignity and indeed for life.

    Violence aside, even a nonviolent activist must be disgusted when TGIE affirms a Chinese lie, like saying Tibet is an internal matter. That’s an excuse for the world not to “interfere” in holocaustical (my word) atrocity.

    If “internal matters” can’t be addressed by third parties and world bodies, then Rwanda, Darfur, and the Congo are also all internal matters, and the world shouldn’t do anything about women in the Congo who are getting gang raped to death, right?

    Samdhong Rinpoche is a great devotee of Kundun, and one of the most eminent Buddhist scholars. I am sure he is a man of admirable convictions, morals and, in his own way, dedication. However, if he fails to grasp the biting political realities of the Commmunist regime, his moral sanctity does not offer tangible benefit to a brutalized, oppressed and occupied people.

    If the prime minister must be some kind of Rinpoche, how about some kind of wrathful yogi at the least? The next time Hu Jintao goes to peep through the peephole in his door, let’s hope Drukpa Kunley is waiting with a present! (winking)

    Seriously though, a stronger approach is needed, and affirming the legitimacy of Chinese claims on Tibet (“it’s an internal matter”) is dangerous, counterproductive and insidious, whether the goal is “genuine autonomy” or the birthright, Rangzen. TGIE has been begging for quite a few years. Is there anything in the Tibetan bowl?

    -Prescott and Patel

  24. Billk | March 16th, 2009 | 10:38 pm

    If I have my Indian history right, Gandhi always spoke straight to the British about the great wrong of their occupation of India. Samdhong Rinpoche seems to have taken the desire to let the Chinese save face to the point of being unable to confront them directly at all. When HH the Dalai Lama said last week that the Chinese had made Tibet a hell on earth, he obviously saw that, at this point in time, the need to speak truth to power was more important than the need to be diplomatic with the Chinese. Perhaps Samdhong Rinpoche might eventually learn to take a leaf out of his book.

  25. tibetan_bhu | March 17th, 2009 | 2:52 am

    I am in my mid twenties and the reason why I am stating it is because I know our future as a nation rests on us, and tomorrow we will have to take the initiatives in the struggle for freedom. I am aware of the rift between the proponents of middle path mostly the older generation and those mostly the younger generations who think it’s getting us nowhere and if need be we should take up arms and not compromise with the Beijing government in any way. So after our PM’s comments, I see that rift widening and fracturing of the Tibetan society inevitable which is something we don’t want to see. I just don’t want things to be blown out of proportion to such a degree where we act out of desperation which is when common sense deserts us. The Tibetan youth is bursting with emotions evident from those who take to the streets, and on a serious note lets not flare it so much that we have our own intefadah which will be cataclysmic. In that regard, Samdong Rinpoche should be very responsible.

    The other day I was talking to a friend of mine and she told me it must have been a diplomatic ploy (I told her it was appeasing the Chinese gangsters, giving them their hafta). She has rights to her opinion. She is well-educated, believes in the middle approach and thinks it’s our best and only chance. That doesn’t make her a Chinese or a pro-Chinese. So with internet we all have access to information, we can all form our own opinions and then discuss them with each other to come up with the best approach to a problem.

    I know saying that Tibet issues is PRC’s internal affairs is playing into China’s hands, but let us not just harp on this.

  26. tibetan_bhu | March 17th, 2009 | 2:55 am

    I had the wrong link on the above post. This is my blog.

    http://authenticatetibet.blogspot.com

  27. Jeff Bowe | March 17th, 2009 | 6:14 am

    If democracy has truly been established within the exiled Tibetan community then dare we hope that Samdhong’s latest appeasement of communist China will be forcefully challenged by the ATPD? One wonders for example what Sonam Frasi , the European representative will say???

  28. Dolma Tsering | March 17th, 2009 | 11:05 am

    I say this to everybody I meet and I belief it is so true to my bones. We should never have monks or people who wear red robes in our political system. Not even His Holiness or Samdong or the likes! No matter how much knowledge they have, they are only good in the spiritual world where they vowed to benefit other sentient being in the first place for their enlightenment(if they are who they are). They are no good in the political world. Let’s have a reality check here. They can’t hurt, they can’t have any enemies, they can’t annoy people, they can’t ….can’t …. They can never become politicians who can confront those lying Chinese bastards.
    Let us wake up and think! Poor Samdong la is just trying to keep his monkhood vows intact and not the promise he made when he took the Office, to work for our independence.

  29. tenpa tsering | March 17th, 2009 | 11:43 am

    samdong rinpoche is a product of our failings.A failing to speak ones mind, learn from history, make independent judgement, and not be crowding in with the herd. He is definitely an honest and upright man but that is not enough qualification to lead a people who are obviosly struggling for their very existence. Middle way itself is not a bad thing and we can describe all the terminologie about the choices before us .Thats not the point. This is a game the ploy pusged on us by the chinese since some time now. Since they are quite determined not to give leeway on any issue whatsoever samdong went for the ultimate ‘Internal matter’ statement. However our hopes lie not in concessions rather sticking steadfast and continuing the struggle.Who cares what we call our method .!!Least of all the chinese.Will we hear anthing conciliatory from them tomorrow.You bet but only to stall for time-speak hold talks.They are the negotiators.They give nothing away.History is a witness. There is a silent revolution in the hearts and minds of people in Tibet(Kham and Amdo included). It is this consciousness and hope coupled with chinese state instability(it will happen sooner or later)
    Our job in exile is keep the voices being heard.I do not think violence will bring much because of the total disparity in nos and strength and an opponent who wont play by the rules.They will seal off the tibetan areas and kill off as many people as they want.

  30. Jeff Bowe | March 17th, 2009 | 6:01 pm

    The nature and course of the Tibetan struggle belongs not to Buddhist or pacifist ideology, but to the will and aspirations of Tibetans inside Tibet.

  31. mangtso | March 17th, 2009 | 7:23 pm

    jamyang norbu and others,
    i do not understand why people with different views are not accepted or respected here. is this democracy? where is the freedom of expression? is this chinkland?
    how onesided it is with everyone here going “rangzen” and “rangzen”! this discussion board lacks stimulation for growth of the tibetan brain. it cares only about talking about rangzen but nobody is talking about walking the talking about rangzen leave alone walking the talking about rangzen in action!
    east or west samdong rinpoche is the bravest khampa! and jamyang norbu–the fake coward khampa! what chushi gangdruk would call “khamzun” meaning khampas who are timid/weaklings. khampas who are cowards are called fake khampas. khampa “thapchak”!

  32. songtsen | March 17th, 2009 | 7:50 pm

    I have the utmost respect for Samdhong Rinpoche, but, as a red blooded Tibetan, his statement is hard to swallow. Is it a mis-statement? Are we missing something here? Is it taken out of “context”? What’s next? Should we just pack our bags and return to the Motherland? Should we dismantle our local Tibetan Association and join the Chinese Association? Might as well just give up. Let my kids grow up American; enjoy my weekends instead of endless “Tsokpa” meetings, planning the next protest, or fundraising event.

  33. sharmapatel | March 17th, 2009 | 8:14 pm

    “The nature and course of the Tibetan struggle belongs not to Buddhist or pacifist ideology, but to the will and aspirations of Tibetans inside Tibet.”

    I completely agree and I bet you 10 to 1 that if Tibetans inside Tibet became convinced that violence would liberate their nation, they (unlike Inji supporters) would enthusiastically embrace violence as a way to liberate their country and end the suffering of the occupation.

    But I think Lhasang Tsering’s notion of sabotage across all of China, especially in economically strategic centers, would bear greater fruit than just blowing up a few empty police stations.

    Violence inside Tibet would only be effective if it could so destabilize the region that the Han fled in droves, China couldn’t afford the cost of the occupation, and the economy were shattered. That could be hard to do.

    But your point is well taken: whatever the method is, it is the decision of the people who comprise the Tibetan nation. It shouldn’t be up to some red robed Rinpoche or some kind of bureaucrats, much less a bunch of western would-be lamas chanting the mani mantra! It’s up to the people who are bearing the violence now, and who may have to initiate violence in defence of their homeland later.

    At this point I would like to say that if the conflict turns violent, even very violent, I would still heartily support the Tibetan struggle and when His Holiness resigns due to his inability to support violence (as a monk) I would continue to love and revere him as much as I love and revere the Tibetan nation.

    I have my doubts about the depth of understanding of western Buddhists who counsel peace in the face of cold-blooded killers, torturers and rapists. Non violence is a strategy designed to get a result and when it ain’t gonna work, even Gandhi wouldn’t try it out of “principle.” So the million dollar question remains: do Tibetans have a comprehensive nonviolent strategy that can WORK? Because if you don’t, you might as well take out as many Chinese soldiers as you can on your way to the grave. Or go into retreat and pray a lot, I guess.

    The problem with this whole violence question is that it seems everyone is refraining from violence due to some strange fascination with pacifism and the fear of “hurting” sentient beings. Well, doing nothing effective to end the occupation is also HURTING sentient beings.

    The nonviolence debate needs to shift from ideology to efficacy in order to be relevant.

    -Prescott

  34. Tenpa | March 17th, 2009 | 9:06 pm

    I have been thinking about this and about the comments made by some of the other participants and one point kept coming consistently to the forefront; that he is an honest man. The statement that ‘Tibet is an internal matter of China’ is a bold face lie and no Tibetan in his/her sane mind will ever agree to that. So, in effect, he LIED. Now, whether he did for the sake of tibetan nation, by his reasoning I mean, or simply trying to dance down a muddy sloppy hill is not up for discussion. Misquote is perhaps possible but these days it seems like everyone claims to be misquoted when truth comes to bear on them and just have become a big joke. Secondly, if we admit that he deliberately lied to the whole world, then it brings disrepute to the robe that he is wearing and thus undermines the sanctity of the monastic oath. Another reason monks and politics don’t belong together no matter how sincere the motive and how conscientious the approach. Maybe, people need to read up on Western europe’s tangle with Church and they might get an idea of what is at stake.

  35. Sera Jampa | March 18th, 2009 | 2:25 am

    I find from the very beginning itself that this chatting forum is occupied by some extremist and self ideolist who call themselves Rangzen followers, but just barking. . . . . talking. . . . Even Jamyang La himself became the leader of such chunk group. I could easily understand that mosts of the writers are against Monks leading political administration, but they couldnot lead it if asked to do so. I hope you know that almost 80% of Chushi Gangduk members are monks and they leave great inspiring examplery imprints in Tibetan history. Perhaps these lay guys envy for such progressive job.

    I request for entire Tibetans to investigate carefully for these people movements and actions in America and Europe. They criticise Tibetan exile govt and Dalai Lama by taking the name of Chushi Gangduk but dragging it down in reality. We have to check out whether they participated in protest when Dalai Lama visited in US. I heard that there are number of Chushi Gangduk members in it. It is common to all. Even Shugden group boastfully saying that Dalai Lama betrays for his own protectors( Chushi Gangduk armies)whose number are mostly in that cult group. May be, You might name me pro-Chinese or Chinese spy or whatever. But I am saying the truth only. Truth is hard to believe and accept.

  36. Tashi | March 18th, 2009 | 2:33 am

    As a prime minister of Tibet, a nation, Rinpoche need to watch what he says. To say that Western nation has nothing to do with our cause is very immature and irresponsible thing to say. We survived all these years because of the care and support of western nation( and not to mention our host and second home India). Where does His Honiness travel and welcomed,loved and supported,these days. it is the western nation. Internal matter is rotten. We should realize that.

    As a commen Tibetan, even I can understand who is friends and enimy. But, Rinpoche really still believe that the blood stained chinese will take us back as a family member. I don’t think so and meanwhile discrediting western nation is very dangerious thing to say.

    I hope PM will do better next time.

  37. rig pa | March 18th, 2009 | 4:27 am

    At least Kalon Tripa deserves some respect for all the years that he has worked for the Tibetan community. We may not agree with his policies, but we should be courteous while voicing our criticisms. Some of the words used here “traitor, whore, pango” shows how intolerant you all are of other people’s opinions. I would be really scared to live in a country ruled by such people…

    Please have some patience, all the best for your Rangzen works…

  38. rig pa | March 18th, 2009 | 4:30 am

    Our focus should be on how to UNITE TIBETANS AND LEAD THEM TO FREEDOM,not internal bickering.

  39. Christophe | March 18th, 2009 | 5:23 am

    rig pa,

    Did you ever heard about Marshall Pétain, the French PM at the time of German invasion during WWII?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A9tain

    As Jamyang Norbu wrote in 1980, Pétain was a real hero prior to his treason. Yet, history and French people only remember him as a traitor…

    “But in our situation the tragic case of Marshall Pétain is a better example. The hero of Verdun — ‘Ils ne passeront pas’ — though in no way responsible for the defeat of France in World war II, succumbed to Hitler’s persuasions to head the Vichy government. Pétain sincerely felt that co-operation with Germany was the only possible way to save a fallen France. Unfortunately, the rest of France did not agree with him after the war. His greatness, his fame, his heroism and his record of service, everything was forgotten except that he had collaborated with the Germans. He died a traitor.” (Tibetan Review, February-March 1980)

  40. rig pa | March 18th, 2009 | 5:45 am

    Christophe,

    thanks for the information. what i meant is that we must be courteous while voicing our criticisms. history will judge if the present administration led by Samdhong Rinpoche is a traitor or not. Its too early to say right now…
    ask yourself why Jamyang Norbu la’s agendas has not succeeded so far, despite these being very helpful to our advancement of Tibetan cause. We need to chalk out a sound strategy so that we get a chance to implement all this visions. In the meantime, we must not forget to be respectful of those whose opinions we disapprove of…
    after all our vision is to create a democratic and pluralistic Tibetan society, ruled by law, rather than by a few plutocrats…

  41. Christophe | March 18th, 2009 | 5:50 am

    rig pa,

    If you need “a sound strategy”, please refer to the Rangzen Charter:

    http://www.rangzen.net/rangzen-charter/

    But may be, for you, it looks to much like being another of Jamyang’s agenda…

  42. tenpa tsering | March 18th, 2009 | 5:52 am

    samdong is not a corrupt man like most of our prvious leaders. However politically he makes very bold decisions that are going too far(Ume lam is not conceding all!!! ist it?) I do not want to bring in Chushi Gangdrug or even Shugden here. Thats another topic. What i am saying is that what we can and have achieved is far more than what we would have achieved with violence. I am talking about the present era. In the early 40’s and 50^s with good weapons and support it could have been a better story although history wasnt on our side but there was a glimmer of chance. Today its suicide. Why ? Look at Sinkiang. They have tried everything for the last 60 years but ask a neighbour or friend do you know where it is and you have your answer. On the other hand ask any body do you know tibet and again you have your answer. Given the circumstances and a colossal opponent we have to keep chipping away at the great wall but not give them a reason to massacre us. Its easy for us to sit behind a computer scream for violence. However executing it in a country like china is extremely difficult. Moreover china is not hemmed in by morales like the USA and the CCP will do everything to hang on to Tibet.Everything!! So do we have no options? Lets refer back to what I was saying. To win over even a single chinese is a huge step. Some may argue that may take decades or centuries and it would be too late. Let me remind you we are in the infromation age and thaeres something called the snowball effect. We cannot afford to scream expletives at the chinese on the internet(I dont blame anyone if they do!) instead educate them . First of course educate yourselves because if you give facts and figures which are totally false no one will be inclined to believe you. that doenst help the cause only hinders it.

  43. Jamyang Norbu | March 18th, 2009 | 6:55 am

    I agree with Rigpa that we should not use harsh and abusive terms when describing Samdong Rinpoche. As the Prime Minister of our government he deserves our respect.

    Furthermore I think we have started a really constructive discussion on our PM that is probably unprecedented in the Tibetan media. so let us do a thorough job bringing as many people’s views on Rinpoche’s policies and ideas into the open.

    Please, no more insults bad language. Thanks

  44. Confused inji | March 18th, 2009 | 7:22 am

    Everyone in the Tibetan camp agrees that Tibetan Buddhism has been a source of great cultural and philosophical achievements.

    What is not yet clear to everybody is that by drastically emphasizing religion over other aspects of Tibetan culture and nationhood, the dominant monastic classes (often high-ranking Lamas influencing HHDL) have also contributed towards the current political impotence and surrender.

    How long can a living Tibetan Buddhist culture and living Tibetan language survive in an “internal Chinese region” dominated and increasingly migrated to by nationalistic Hans?

    What Mr Samdong has expressed constitutes a dramatic erosion of the last political tool Tibetans and their exiled brothers and sisters have had left: Truth.

    The truth that Tibetan people constitute a distinct and unique civilization separate from the invading Hans in every meaningful way and that the Tibetan people therefore deserve the same rights of self-determination that even all the young and not so unique peoples have been afforded since imperialism was ended in other parts of the world.

    Chinese Communist Party themselves recognize all kinds of post-colonial and “splittist” nations on all continents when it suits their political objectives, for instance in isolating and encircling democratic India with their political vassals. They even acknowledge the sovereign independence of their past imperial vassals in East-Asia and South-East Asia, including the northern half of (Republic of) Mongolia, despite claiming that the Mongol people are supposedly a Chinese sub-race.

    The only factual thing preventing Tibetans from being recognized as nation among other nations is the brutal military machine of the CCP. Without the Chinese military imposing CCP’s imperial rule over Tibet there would never had been any “17-point agreement” or 1959 Uprising to begin with.

    Western democracies, notably R. Nixon and B. Clinton really screwed up royally, the latter taking full advantage of the newly introduced and naive Umey-lam experiment, by not making PRC’s foreign trade and investment priviledges dependent on concrete progress in democratic and human rights developments in China and Tibet.

    The legacy of Clinton’s ethics-free policy can now be measured with America’s massive trade inbalance and debt to the CCP regime and the volume of nationalistic Han-Chinese supremacism created by their propaganda!

    Yet at this point when the CCP desperately needs foreign markets to support its export-driven economy there should be scope for the West to at least reconsider adopting trade policies that promote global democratic development over the failed current policy that keeps driving free nations further into debt while building up CCP’s global neo-imperial efforts.

  45. Jeff Bowe | March 18th, 2009 | 9:44 am

    The focus is upon Samdhong’s actions and his record in terms of his constant appeasement of comunist China, often expressed with an arrogant indifference towards the political objectives and struggle being waged inside Tibet. Within that context, leaving aside personality, on examining these, and other remarks he has made, it is difficult not to conclude that he is at best poltically inept, or worse, guilty of a treacherous betrayal of Tibet’s rightful struggle for nationhood.

  46. Dawa | March 18th, 2009 | 9:48 pm

    I have so far remained non vocal on our political matters because I believed that our exile circumstance has handicapped us in many ways. I have restrained myself from voicing my opinions on many issues concerning our society, especially directly related to our cause. Besides, I always believe that I should DO something that can facilitate the development of our community and not involve in bickering. I had myself believe in the thought that our society will evolve soon to stand stronger against our adversary. But the way Samdhong Rinpoche puts our lot in such cheap fashion has sent a deep shiver down through my spine. This is repeating again!

    lets do some examination by going back in time of our referendum about a decade ago. There is a fundamental flaw in THAT referendum, the flaw that exploits the religious and I guess that makes up the majority. I did partake in the referendum but I did not vote for UmeLam. I wanted to vote for a choice that was not there, Independence. Samdhong Rinpoche’s “issue of Tibet being an internal matter of China” has the backing of H.H. The Dalai Lama and he in turn has the backing of the majority of the exile Tibetan people through that flawed referendum.
    If only the referendum was conducted with the choice between Independence and Autonomy, things wouldn’t have come to this sorry state.

    I lose no hair for monks participating in politics. Anyone who can rally people to support him or her and get their votes can stand for the office. Our society needs internal reorganization. Very important for that is to establish public information infrastructure that is independent and must serve as public forum.

  47. sharmapatel | March 18th, 2009 | 11:03 pm

    Agreed. No need to insult Samdhong Rinpoche. One can be simultaneously a pristine and holy monk and an inept politician, just as one might be a great boxer but a poor chef.

    Sera Jampa, thanks for your governmental opinion. I was really scared you might come on this forum and demonstrate some independent thought. I wouldn’t know how to take it if I saw that coming from a Han Chinese. I’m just no accustomed to it.

    Thank God you allayed my fears by spouting some nonsensical Communist rubbish!

    By the way, I heard your bowtie is really a camera.

  48. sharmapatel | March 18th, 2009 | 11:32 pm

    The Final Word on Dholgyal, for the Education of the Han-boy “Sera Jampa”

    Mr. Jampa, we all know most Gelugpas foolishly practiced Dholgyal until the time His Holiness instructed them not to. 99% of Gelugpas or more then gave up the worship of this ghost. Citing an older historical period like you do ignores this simple fact. There’s enough literature on Dholgyal for you to find the historical facts for yourself. I’m going to address the social reality.

    Let’s be blunt. The current Dholgyal membership has two camps:

    1) A bunch of pathetic and cowardly British/western youth who are misguided by “geshe” Kelsang Gyatso and have absolutely no background in Tibetan history, politics or authentic religion

    2) a number of Tibetan thugs who take Chinese money, hang out in Majnu ka tilla, and wouldn’t know rangtong from shentong. These are the worst of the lot, responsible for some rather despicable behavior and acts. The western youth are sort of just dumb fools out of their element.

    Despite the cult’s incessant blaming of His Holiness for everything from an early sunset in winter to unnecessary heat in August, the fact remains that the only reason the Dholgyal cult members are alive is because His Holiness counsels nonviolence.

    China would love to see some intra-religious feud erupt in Tibetan exile society, but it’s not going to. Unlike China, His Holiness has established freedom of religion in his community, and if people really want to worship ghosts, that’s their business….just be honest and admit that His Holiness isn’t your guru or teacher.

    Don’t even bring Chusi Gangdruk, which was a military order, into the discussion. That’s irrelevant. The fact remains that the only practitioners of Dholgyal are in the above two groups (western nitwits and Tibetan thugs). Chusi Gangdruk was also the movement that saved His Holiness’ life, so any “member” who would oppose His Holiness religious orders now is basically betraying his roots. You can’t blame someone for doing something in the past that he didn’t even know was wrong at the time.

    I hope this suffices to educate you a bit, since from your government office in Beijing you probably haven’t been exposed much to these quasi-Buddhists.

    Fondly yours,

    Prescott

  49. rig pa | March 19th, 2009 | 12:44 am

    Its great different views are being voiced on this blog on Kalon Tripa’s policies. This is what democracy is all about: debate and reach a consensus. hope such kind of heated debates would be done in the open one day. I am glad Jamyang la has supported my appeal not to use abusive languages. Maintaining courtesy is important if we are to bring diverse opinions into the open…otherwise it would be the proverbial “might is right” principle followed by the Communist Chinese…

    Dialog should be our focus, not monologues and lectures.

  50. sharmapatel | March 19th, 2009 | 8:29 am

    “This is what democracy is all about: debate and reach a consensus.”

    I wouldn’t say democracy is about reaching a consensus. It is about the freedom of each person having a vote or a say in the process, and something like majority rule while also protecting the fundamental freedoms and rights of minorities. I’m no scholar but this is my understanding of democratic nations and general policy.

    What is needed is a majority of people to wake up and realize the current policies are failing. Then you need a forum to measure and quantify in a realistic fashion the will of the people.

    A consensus is an unlikely stretch, because there are always going to be the hardliners who will maintain a policy of pacifist appeasement out of a misguided religious bent…somehow believing the Tibetan nation is responsible for representing nonviolence and Buddhism to the world. Thailand, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea….no other Buddhist nation thinks it has to take on itself the reputation of “Buddhist” activism for the whole world! Why should Tibet?

  51. tingmo zema | March 19th, 2009 | 9:15 am

    are we trying to appease the PRC?

    the same thing we accuse the indian govt with?

    this is quite unfortunate that someone from the position of the head of the state would give out such statements which is not only mind boggling but ridiculiously sad.

    even if its a question for which stand , autonomy or independence, do it with conviction, faith and confidence. WHy there is a need to kiss up their arse i dont understand.

    I sincerely feel that any representatives from the tibetan issue and even so called scholars should watch their speech. many things can be misconstrued.

    by the way, i dont understand what be the agenda or motive behind such statements other than appeasing the PRC?

  52. Tsering Choedon Lejotsang | March 19th, 2009 | 11:26 am

    “As far as the Tibet issue is concerned, we have nothing to do with western countries.We consider this as the internal matter of PRC. And if PRC is willing to deal with us as an internal matter,we are absolutely ready”
    That is the exact word by word transcription of his statement that is the focus of discussion on this blog.
    I went back to check on it once more to make sure that I wasn’t mis-interpreting his words.

    No, I don’t think I am misinterpreting it. I wonder if there is any other way to interpret his exact words transcribed above?

    Can’t believe it!!

    TCL

  53. Jeff Bowe | March 19th, 2009 | 12:31 pm

    Note to how easily Samdhong employs the term ‘we’, as if to imply that somehow he is speaking on behalf of 6 million Tibetans! One wonders exactly who, or what consensus, he does represent, certainly not the interests or political aspirations of his own people.

    Does he not realise that the people inside Tibet are struggling and dying for nothing less than complete independence. This fact is hardly a ringing endorsement for his comments!

  54. tzopa | March 19th, 2009 | 2:09 pm

    Its great to hear frm Pm.SR. Wanting to hear whats next. People watch out one day they gone put Chinese flage at Dhasa.
    I am tibs and what I think about tibet and its Gov. They don’t match eachother yet all.
    The People in and outside wants Rangzen and HHDL made Umaylam. I can see the reason for that, if i am not wrong we as a tibetan can’t slove tibs problem coz,we how to care own household but not the as hole country. Thats way Tib Gov follows HHDL ways for there own Power nothing else.
    If i am wrong then why don’t they do what all the tibs want for their future.
    Thats Rangzen.

  55. tzopa | March 19th, 2009 | 2:18 pm

    Hi Tsering Choedon Lejotsang
    “As far as the Tibet issue is concerned, we have nothing to do with western countries.We consider this as the internal matter of PRC. And if PRC is willing to deal with us as an internal matter,we are absolutely ready”
    ***** IF IT’S INTERNAL MATTER OF PRC, SO FROM WHERE DOES IT CAMES WE AND THEY? ITS ONE AS A PRC. Can anyone explane more
    That is the exact word by word transcription of his statement that is the focus of discussion on this blog.
    I went back to check on it once more to make sure that I wasn’t mis-interpreting his words.

    No, I don’t think I am misinterpreting it. I wonder if there is any other way to interpret his exact words transcribed above?

    Can’t believe it!!

    TCL

  56. tzopa | March 19th, 2009 | 2:27 pm

    Jamyang Nurbu lak.
    I have a request to you to make. Would you Please write something on OUR Gov. HHDL ADN ITS People. who they interconnect and who play games on whom.
    My feeling is that our Gov doesn’t do its own job that wanted to be done by HHDL and Tibetan people.
    I most of the time see our Gov copy the way of politic frm CCP.
    we as a People can’t look at nagative sence its opoinon so do respect it and use ur rights.
    thanks

  57. Dawa | March 19th, 2009 | 5:11 pm

    Great majority of Tibetans don’t feel the way Samdhong Rimpoche if he belives our cause is Chinese internal matter. Why do Tibetans in Tibet raise the Tibetan National flag at pain of death?
    This profanity from our PM shows that people who have the power to vote should think carefully before they cast their votes.

  58. Jeff Bowe | March 19th, 2009 | 5:59 pm

    DAWA, well said!

  59. Christophe | March 19th, 2009 | 7:20 pm

    There is something that has always baffled me with the large majority of Tibetans brought up in exile; it is their sense of subserviency… Frankly, when a PM screws up in such a way, why is there no one launching an official complain in Dharamsala? Why not, for instance, a petition urging Prof. Samdhong to publicly apologize, even — or especially — if his remark was “only” a gaffe?

    I understand that unity is imperative in exile and that a political rift might have disastrous results, but there are limits to obedience…! As far as I know, the only unifying factor for Tibetans are the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan flag, none of them being an internal matter of China. In contrast, I see Samdhong’s statement (and other past unwise decisions) being a direct cause of the growing distrust and cynicism shown by many Tibetans towards the TGIE. Isn’t that a much bigger danger than anything else?

    When are you going to ask your politicians to be accountable for their actions?

  60. sharmapatel | March 19th, 2009 | 9:58 pm

    It is clear that many Tibetans hesitate to criticize the exile government’s policies and its officials. The problem, from my perspective, is the notion that anyone connected with His Holiness somehow partakes of his holiness (no pun intended). This is similar to the veneration of aristocratic donkeys – blindly respecting social station rather than the person’s actions, ability or achievements.

    It’s like respecting the Lama’s devious and dastardly little poop of a brother/father/uncle/ad infinitum just because he’s the Lama’s brother/father/uncle. Or respecting some “tulku” who behaves worse than a layman, just because he’s purported to be a “great incarnation.” I find these to be somewhat common Tibetan phenomena.

    Of course I speak as a Westerner, but the holiness of His Holiness is His Holiness’ own thing, and being his appointee or even a lama he recognizes does not magically confer his spiritual or moral stature on that OTHER person.

    It needs to be abundantly clear that critiquing and criticizing Samdhong Rinpoche when he is wrong IN NO WAY reflects a person’s opinion of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. For example, my American friends like Obama and despise the hypocritical coward Hilary Clinton (his appointee). Maybe that’s unfair, and her pathetic failure to stand up for human rights is at Obama’s own direction. Who knows? But she’s the _______ (insert descriptive phrase of your choice) who could have opened her mouth with a useful statement in China, and didn’t!

    Yes, someone should petition Samdhong Rinpoche to apologize publicly for this “expedient” lie. It would be a humbling but positive step in the right direction.

  61. Barkor Bomo | March 20th, 2009 | 2:06 am

    Hi SHARMAPATEL,

    I enjoy reading your postings and appreciate the frank thought provoking opinions, however be wary of religious controversies. Tibetan monastic politics is deep, dark and divisive; it has been one of our major drawbacks historically too and made us vulnerable to our enemies. It must be kept away from such forums where our sole concern should be Tibet, so let’s go back to Samdhong Rinpoche’s latest comments. TCL is right, its so
    unbelievable, we are still stunned!

  62. Tashi Samdup | March 20th, 2009 | 3:33 am

    I agree that countries all over the world do not consider Tibet a separate nation. However, the world will reconsider their stand one day if we continue our activism until our last breath. In the mean time, let us print Jamyang Norbu’s recent pamphlet- ‘Losar Gift for Rangzen Activist’ and distribute them as much as we can. Let us make a BOLD COMMITMENT that we’re going to carry a bunch of copies in our bag pack where ever we go and that we’re going to pass it as much as we can. If not, leave a copy at your nearby vacant seat on bus, train, and plane or toilet seat. Let us educate the world that Tibet was an independent nation.

  63. Rinchen | March 20th, 2009 | 5:57 am

    As far as I think, this comment however indiscreet it might appear at face.. is perhaps over analysed.. may be the Kalon Tripa is throwing a subtle hint here and there, a bait perhaps for the chinese…if at all this comment had any weight.. it might have already been all over chinese media..publicised more vehemently then anywhere..

  64. Hugh | March 20th, 2009 | 7:04 am

    Well, Reverend Samdong has some call to say the issue has nothing to do with Western countries. Perhaps Western countries should no longer give money and aid to the TGIE and citizen donations should no longer be good for tax credits as charity contributions. Perhaps all of the western dharma supporters who have propped up much of Tibetan Buddhism in exile and in the West should stop support too. Then Samdong can perhaps get aid from Beijing and finally his words would make sense.

    Internal matter of China, indeed. I don’t think people should let him out of the pickle he’s just put himself in. But, i will be surprised if people actually hold him accountable. I fear people will play the whole “let’s not criticize the man since is a holy and all that wonderful good monk peace love and light stuff.”

    Rinpoches are human just like the rest of us. Practicing Buddhism in a monastic setting for years and years and years doesn’t make one infallible nor should one’s religious status give one immunity from the errors one makes. Nor does such status give one impunity to act or say as one pleases without bearing responsibility. The Buddha said that the wearing of monks robes doesn’t make one noble in the least…that nobility comes from within. Buddhists tend to forget this.

  65. Rig pa | March 20th, 2009 | 7:04 am

    Sharma patel,

    You have a correct understanding about democracy. unfortunately tibetans are not fully educated when it comes to democracy. we still need to learn a lot and we are learning, as years go by. one thing we should cultivate is to excercise patience.

    tibet is not an internal matter of the PRC at all. it was an independent nation brutally occupied by the present Chinese regime.

    I guess we should lodge an official complaint to the Kashag, asking their clarification regarding Kalon Tripa’s statement.

    One thing surely doesn’t work, that is to sulk and feel victimised by the Kashag. This is what all the comments given seem to imply…

    Lets march forward the dream of Tibetan freedom, without elbowing out those who hold diverse opinions. As I said before, our goal is to establish a free, democratic and pluralistic society…for that we need to pratise pharchin druk, “six perfections”: giving, character, patience, hardwork, concentration, and wisdom…

  66. Phuntsok Jordhen | March 20th, 2009 | 11:24 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiZL9zvQ3Sc
    This link has rare video footage of Chinese police brutality during last year’s protest.

  67. Jeff Bowe | March 20th, 2009 | 1:03 pm

    HUGH/CHRISTOPHE

    Your comments are spot-on.

  68. Tsering Ringzin | March 20th, 2009 | 2:40 pm

    Dear Golok la and other Tibetans.

    Going off subject for a moment…Some time ago I posted a comment about ‘sharma patel’, this was in response to his barely intelligible remarks, such as

    “Sharma Patel is only mosquito stirring the winds in tiny tiny small part of freedom lands. None above being endorsement to violence or hatred but being big humor intention to dispel misery of suffering pain created by evil regime of China Communism. Dont worry Tibetan brothers I am fast achieving 8th bhumi and studying atomic science! (posted June 28th, 2008 | 1:32 am )

    It was noted at that time that Patels’ English seemed almost contrived, certainly it was like no other Indian-English I have had many years experience of reading and hearing.

    “…Here Sharma will market the Chairman Mao toilet paper so we can be cleaning our bottom with face of your devil guru” (Posted 8th July 2008 | 7:45 pm)

    How surprising then to note Patel’s most recent posting, in which his Englsh has experienced a magical transformation:

    “Of course I speak as a Westerner, but the holiness of His Holiness is His Holiness’ own thing, and being his appointee or even a lama he recognizes does not magically confer his spiritual or moral stature on that OTHER person.”. (Posted March 19th, 2009 | 9:58 pm)

    Why the posture of broken-English in the first place?

    Does Patel understand that this is a mature place to exchange views, debating very serious issues. As requested previously if he/she is not capable of respecting, issues that are of critical importance to all Tibetans, then please use a forum more appropriate for such humor.

  69. Golok Ambum | March 20th, 2009 | 8:36 pm

    Tsering Ringzin,

    I shouldn’t answer you for at least two reasons: a) it distracts from the original post on Samdhong Rinpoche and b) it’s not up to me to decide who can or cannot comment Jamyang Norbu’s blog. Understand that I’m not acting as a censor but simply as a barrier against spammers (more than 8,000 in one year) and real provocators.

    However, since it’s your fourth comments on this subject — and since your IP is strangely associated with another commentator —, let me remind you that Internet is a free world where everyone is entitled to express his/her views, even in the most cynical manner. As for Sharma Patel’s English, read his posts more carefully and you’ll realise that his friend Prescott has helped him for some time.

    Golok Ambum
    Webmaster

  70. Hugh | March 20th, 2009 | 9:45 pm

    Hoo Rah, Golok Ambum!

    Tsering Ringzin’s weird post was a much ado about nothing. I’ve noticed Sharmapatel and his friend (I gather) make more coherent and natural (to English speaking ears) posts as time goes on. Sharma P is a dedicated soul, at least in posting, bless him and Prescott.

    Back on track……

    Why would Samdong Rinpoche choose to say such a thing when it is clear to some that the pandering to China’s worries hasn’t done much for Tibet? I admit I am ignorant of his motivations for such. But I will also say that it is painful to see such a bowing down to an aggressor’s wishes.

    Why must the victim always be concerned with the feelings and pain of the aggressor? Whoever said that compassion didn’t start with caring about your own dignity? There are some questions raised by this and perhaps all of us can hash out some ideas to why, or maybe answers can be discovered.

    In Irish history, a great man Daniel O Connell was once seen as “the liberator.” But he hated his own Irish culture and language, believing in the “superior utility of English.” And it turns out this set back Irish independence for decades. As an Irish language speaker, I see him as a self-hating coward, when we have far more numerous examples of those, even assimilated Irish who learned the language as a second language, who stood up and simply declared their nation’s right to be free.

    Perhaps some parallel can be drawn here. In oppression you will have those who agree with the oppressor outright, those who disagree but appease them (believing they are saving people from violence), those who cannot fight but will shout, and those who will fight back. (And probably other shades and categories.) So this is an insightful thing to explore and discuss.

  71. N Pema | March 21st, 2009 | 12:30 am

    SR now prostating to Beijing instead to three Jewels.

  72. Tsering Ringzin | March 21st, 2009 | 5:19 am

    Golok la

    Thanks for clearing that up. I was not not suggesting censorship of anyone, but was curious as to the nature of the posts. The handful of previous comments I offered were through the use of friend, who very kindly provided free access to their computer.

  73. Tenzin | March 21st, 2009 | 8:28 am

    What next O reverend Samdhong Lama? I remember watching you saying at the Nove meeting that the “period of creating condusive atmosphere” had been stopped since 2007. What are you doing now?

    History, though you might come up with a dialectic respose, will judge you for creating confusion and weakening the Tibetan movement at this crucial period. Woe are we, the Tibetan people, who had this misguided notion of your political skills and elected you twice. We could have used a much more ‘normal’ person, to lead us.

    I hope people in Dhasa, our MP, can ask our Kalon Tripa, who gave him the mandate to say that Tibet is an internal afaair of China. I did not.

    kyi hi hi!

  74. sharmapatel | March 21st, 2009 | 11:07 pm

    Tsering Rigzin, is it (?) I’m trying to remember without scrolling up:

    To be clear, I, Prescott, am now composing quite a bit of the postings on my good pal Sharma Patel’s computer. He’s an old friend, and though blessed with what I find to be an uproarious (if somewhat dark) sense of humor, he was concerned about his message not getting through due to his rather problematic English.

    Thanks for the support Golok Ambum and friends. It’s nice for Patel to be called “a dedicated soul” and I hope the same can be said of myself.

    Now, Patel’s comments about Chairman Mao toilet paper and so forth should be understood in context. Patel has personally met with Tibetan torture victims, seen the witnessing of nuns raped with cattle prods and been generally privy to information that has made clear to him the utter brutality of the Chinese regime.

    Like us all, Patel undergoes continual refinement of his political thought. At one point, he believed in autonomy as a viable option!

    Patel and I do take literary license to make a point from time to time (see the piece on the underground tunnels that connect Hu Jintao to Lucifer!)

    We can only hope that the characteristic spirit of Tibetan humor, and the more recent interest in unrestrained and free speech, will continue to allow posters to enjoy our comments. This being the free world, by all means feel free to disagree, jest and poke fun as you see fit. We’ll return the favor (especially if you’re a Han Communist!)

    Warmly and sincerely,

    Prescott

  75. zztop | March 22nd, 2009 | 6:03 am

    Jamyang Norbu la, I really don’t think that you have started here a constructive discussion. Sorry sir! If this blog of yours were really happening in the real world, it would seem very much like the ‘Thamzing'( Is it called ‘struggle session’ in English? Doesn’t matter what ever…)I heard about it from elderly Tibetans and I know how it is done? Also, In this matter of ‘thamzing’ I have seen a picture of Panchen Lama, in which he looked broken and disenchanted surrounded by people with their fingers pointing at him, I wondered what they were actually accusing him of. After his death, there were many who turned coat as soon as they realize what he had actually contributed to the cause of six million.
    The Views shared in this page are almost monotone and I don’t think this makes a discussion which you believe. Actually nobody mentioned anything about the exile government’s stand on ‘genuine autonomy’ Of-course china claims to have given Tibet the autonomy but our bargain is for a genuine and better one, in which ‘cholka sum’ will be together, with Tibetan administration of the internal matters without any chinese interference. So to push for that, I think kalon’s statement came, as a step closer to that realization.
    Sir please give some light on the topic.
    regards to you.

  76. Christophe | March 22nd, 2009 | 1:13 pm

    zztop,

    Do you sincerely believe that Prof. Samdhong needs to endorse all the PRC’s lies to get “a step closer” to the realization of “genuine autonomy”? In that case, where would you set the limits? Should he also declare that Taiwan in an integral part of China, that the TYC is a terrorist organization, that Tibetan serfs were liberated in 1959 and that the Dalai Lama is a wolf in monk’s robes?

    No matter what Dharamsala said in the past to please Beijing, nothing was ever gained in return. In Tibet, things only went from terribly bad to much worse. The only tangible result of this appeasing policy has been the lost of confidence from the Tibetan people in their exiled government. Is that what you’re looking for?

    Personally, I can only see Samdhong’s statement to ANI as nothing but a step closer towards a serious political disaster.

  77. Tenpa | March 22nd, 2009 | 1:48 pm

    zzztop, you are missing the whole idea about thamzing and that is rather sad considering you claim you heard how it is done in the past. In Thamzing session, it doesn’t matter whether one is being accused of something one has actually done or not (most of the time it is something the person is innocent of) the main point is to force out a confession out of the person through physical and psychological means. Now, here we have a video clipping where he is actually heard uttering those infamous words and thus the subsequent disgust and verbal admonitions from the crowd. If u still compare this to a thamzing session then I guess you don’t get the democratic principles. Furthermore, you come across as an apologist for his stupidity and lord knows we don’t need any more help in that department. Let him own up to his mistakes and we would all be better off.

  78. Tsering Choedon Lejotsang | March 23rd, 2009 | 4:23 am

    Tenpa, Christoff

    Well said. To the point.

    TCL

  79. Confused inji | March 23rd, 2009 | 12:52 pm

    In message #73 Tenzin said: “What next O reverend Samdhong Lama?”

    In response to news that South African government has decided to refuse the Dalai Lama visa to join a Peace conference he was invited to, Mr Samdhong is again talking as a self-appointed PRC defender:

    >> Samdhong Rinpoche, the prime minister of the Tibetan government-in-exile, said South Africa was under pressure from Beijing and its decision to bar the Dalai Lama was a business matter.

    “South Africa is a newly emerging country and China is giving it considerable economic resources so it is understandable,” he said Monday in Dharmsala, India. “Every country has to protect its economic and political interests.” <<

    Every country, except Tibet?

    If the so-called “middle way” policy made it difficult for many Tibetan Freedom supporters to support the ever diluting Tibetan cause, this new approach apologizing for China’s international bullying is making it harder still.

  80. Sangay | March 23rd, 2009 | 12:59 pm

    I have no problem when Middle-pathers claim that their policy is the best and mutually beneficial approach to solving our issue. I regard that as their opinion and respect for it. I have mine. What is my problem with them is in their quest to entice China sometime they become so engrossed to pleasing it that they tamper with our history. One can come up with 100s of excuses/interpretations for PM SR’s recent admittance of our disputes as China’s internal matter, but we all know what its remifications are. And it was a very detrimental statement. It, in a way, endorses China’s 60 years of propaganda which over 95% of Chinese people around the world are taught and recite like a mantra, that Tibet is a part of China.

    If Umaylam supporters think their policy of appeasement and accommodation is the only lifeline that can salvage our hope, fine. However, their policy must be pursued at all times with an unmistaken message that their choosing of ‘autonomy’ over independence is a compromise on their part to make the deal workable for China, without scarring our historical differences. Just because His Holiness the Dalai lama supports Umeylam doesn’t mean His supporters are off the hook from making off-limit comments. His Holiness has always maintained that historical differences between the two nations existed, but says He’s ready to sacrifice those differences to work with China. There’s a subtle difference between what His Holiness says and what PM Samdhong Rinpoche said. I believe Rangzen should be our goal, but I m not a fan of Jamyang Norbu. I strongly believe that PM Samdhong Rinpoche owed us explanation, including those who support him and elected him.

    Bhoegyalo!

  81. zztop | March 23rd, 2009 | 2:20 pm

    Hello christophe and Tenpa la.
    I don’t think that we are in such a stand that we interfere in the matter of a free country when we don’t have one. ‘TYC a terrorist organization’ sounds great but could never be one. By the way if it had to be declared for the sake of Tibet china negotiation, let it be, no problem, at least it could be used as a bargain chip and moreover it would add to its prestige that is diminishing. ‘Dalai Lama a wolf in a monk’s rope’ would be an interesting statement to come out. His Holiness, if he knew that it would make a difference, would immediately ask the Kalon to release such statement and do it for once and for all. These are all a mere exaggeration and they don’t posses any logic but I do see logic here with Kalon
    The ‘thamzing’ that I mentioned was of late Panchen Lama. When he was alive people gave him all the bad names, for an instance, he was called the ‘fat business man’ without knowing what he was contributing to the cause of Tibet. It was the short sightedness of the people that got the realization of his great deed to his race, his people only after his passing away.
    Sad but true.

  82. Christophe | March 23rd, 2009 | 6:15 pm

    This is a 50-paisa question for zztop:

    According to the latest Tibetan Review, China could demand that the Dalai Lama apologise for having allegedly called for the expulsion of the Chinese Army and Chinese citizens from Greater Tibet — the famous “cholka sum” entity hold as a core value by the “genuine autonomy” bargain.

    What Prof. Samdhong should do “for the sake of Tibet China negotiation?” Should he apologize…?

  83. Hugh | March 23rd, 2009 | 7:33 pm

    I thought of a person to compare with Reverend Samdhong. Vidkun Quisling. Now the comparison is strained and Norway is today not threatened with extinction, but I think he may be in danger of becoming a quisling. Hell, even the last Panchen Lama had about as much as he could take at one point, and years before he wrote his letter about Tibetan conditions to Beijing, he could have been viewed as a Quisling too. So how much will Reverend Samdhong swallow and repeat? Does he really believe Tibet is an internal affair of China? Or is he just spewing up words to appease China?

    As for the Middle Approach – umey lam – China isn’t fooled. China knows the score. They don’t want Tibet to exist as anything other than a tourist place with enough local color to entice travelers to visit and to show how good they are to their ‘minorities’ (read “subhumans” because that is how the PRC thinks of Tibetans who want to remain Tibetan.) So why bother with the pretense? Meaningful autonomy indeed.

    Many Chinese people are appalled at what their government is doing. I have met some of them. They are all expats now, living in exile like a lot of Tibetans. I have met many more Chinese who are condescending and damned prejudiced against Tibetans. It reminds me of white racists in the US who hate black people. But the difference is black people are Americans too. Tibetans are not Chinese, nor should they have to be. And whether annexed to China, as they are now, or not, Tibetans deserve the same dignity and respect as anyone else. The PRC doesn’t care about Tibetans any more than they care about any other of the “minorities” of nations they snatched up from the Manchurian empire’s former control.

  84. Tenpa | March 23rd, 2009 | 8:40 pm

    zztop, first off, talking bad about somebody whether it is based on faulty percepton or on reality is not ‘Thamzing’. Saying so diminishes the utter cruelty and inhumanity behind the psychological torture inflicted upon the victims just as saying few thousands killed is the same as halocaust. It is a bad example but I get what you are saying. If that is the logic you are going to pursue, then there is no end to the level of absurdity you are espousing to that end. So, should Kundun come out now and apologize for the ‘slavery’ he had committed in Tibet and praise the PRC for the emancipation of millions of serfs? How about we agree that we are sub-human barbarians who know nothing better than eating our babies and tilling our land backwards? come on, lets keep going, this exaggeration game is kind of fun, don’t you think? You got to understand there is a line that cannot be crossed and the people of Tibet depend on us to guard that line instead of wiping it off and then redrawing it few paces back every time somebody has a bright idea. There is not many civilizations who will betray their own history and land and would rather fight till the bitter end. Even if they were subdued, they will not willingly admit they are part of a the oppressors. Unfortunately, our people seem to be the most ‘lawo’ and cheerfully willing to give up our land and history all at the same time belieiving in some sort of bizarre utopian ideal. Is this the same type of policy of appeasement that got our nation in this quagmire in the first place? How many stupid things did we let china do to ‘appease’ them that is now biting us in the butt right now and we still want to continue doing this? I hope our women can still love us as we lie down and take it in the rear and then thank the rapist for the sodomy.

  85. Jeff Bowe | March 25th, 2009 | 11:14 am

    In a futile effort to appease Communist China the Tibetan Administration continues its petrified strategy of compromise in the hope of encouraging negotiations. Having unilaterally jettisoned Tibetan independence as a political goal, a concession that has singularly failed to impress the Chinese, and invited a deepening sense of frustration within the exiled Tibetan community, Dharamsala’s insistence of ‘unconditional talks’ leading to a ‘certain degree of freedom’, a language of dangerous surrender, concedes complete political and territorial control to China. Meanwhile, the Chinese Foreign Ministry continues its uncompromising demands

    The momentum of this capitulation has been growing for some time, encouraged by remarks made by the exiled Tibetan Prime Minister, and promoted by the Dalai Lama in his annual March 10 statements. In a filmed interview during March 2009 Samdhong Rinpoche plumbed new depths of appeasement when, responding to accusations made by China’s Wen Jiabao that the West exploited the Dalai Lama, replied:

    “If there is any truth, they should establish with evidences. As far as the Tibet issue is concerned, we have nothing to do with Western countries. We consider this is an internal matter of the People’s Republic of China,and if the People’s Republic of China is willing to deal with us as an internal matter, we are absolutely ready“.

    This alarming concession, that Tibet is part of China, which has been greeted with dismay and anger from Tibetans around the world, has interesting beginnings. The Tibetan Administration flew this controversial kite via a report featured March 14, 2005 in the South China Morning Post (SCMP). It is worth examining that article, which was later challenged in a communication from the Office of Information and International Relations (OIIR)

    “The article is being interpreted in some quarters that there is a change in His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s stand. This is to clarify that the position of His Holiness the Dalai Lama on autonomy for Tibet has remained the same since the 1980s as was explained in his 10 March statement on the anniversary of Tibetan National Uprising Day which the South China Morning Post failed to cover” (communication from Thubten Samphel Office of Information and International Relations to The Editor of the SCMP-Dated 29 March 2005)

    It should be noted that no formal and public denial was at the time issued by the Tibetan Government, or more importantly from the Office of the Dalai Lama. An act one would have expected, if Tibet’s political leader had not made these comments. Here is the key quotation from the SCMP

    “This is the message I wish to deliver to China. I am not in favour of separation,” he said. “Tibet is a part of the People’s Republic of China. It is an autonomous region of the People’s Republic of China”…. “Tibetan culture and Buddhism are part of Chinese culture ”

    This quotation was either a gross error of communication or more ominously was designed to signal to Beijing a willingness to negotiate a settlement, which surrenders the prospect of Kham and Amdo as an integral part of a unified and free Tibetan polity. Given the placatory nature of the remarks it’s difficult to avoid such a conclusion, particular when one considers former commitments made by the Tibetan Administration concerning the territorial and political status of the three traditional Tibetan regions. During his acceptance address (5th September 2001) Samdhong Rinpoche assured Tibetans that the Tibetan leader:

    “In his proposals for negotiations with China, he has put the condition that the three provinces of Tibet should remain as one entity. Unification of the three provinces of Tibet is indeed one of the most important reasons for his proposal to give up the idea of independence in favour of self-rule”.

    Interesting words, particularly as they fail to clarify to whom the condition has been presented, to the Chinese leadership? If so when and was it formal? Such points notwithstanding they at odds with the remarks featured in the SCMP (and certainly conflict with Samdhong’s most recent public assertion that the Tibet issue “is an internal matter of the People’s Republic of China”) which, in accepting Tibet as being synonymous, were hardly a robust or reassuring defence of Chol-kha-Sum.

    And what does Samdhong say to Tibetans who are rightly opposed to sacrificing Tibet’s independence and territorial integrity as a price for negotiations. “If some people are angry at our policy, it doesn’t bother us.” (Outlook India 19th March 2005).

    Samdhong Rinpoche’s disturbing concessions (reflected to a worrying degree in the quotation in the SCMP) raises serious questions not only on the political wisdom of Dharamsala’s current policy of appeasing China, but also regarding the future status of Tibet, as envisaged by the exiled Administration. While we can indulge in a murky relativism as to the ‘meaning-of-the-meaning’ it looks like a pretty emphatic and uncomplicated acknowledgement.

    In the singular absence of a formal statement from the Tibetan Administration, publicly clarifying or rejecting Samdhong’s (or those featured in the SCMP article) remarks, the lines of evidence converge to reveal a willingness to offer ill-conceived compromises in a perilous attempt to entice China into negotiations. If such posturing is part of a sophisticated game of diplomacy it has proved a failure and one which is sliding, at a worrying rate, towards a complete and formal acceptance of all Chinese demands. Now whether this is strategic word-play, or not, what sort of message is that for Tibetans inside Tibet and the Tibetan Diaspora? How do they benefit from such sophistry? How does it advance the Tibetan cause?

    The comments quoted in the SCMP shared a strikingly similar syntax with key points in recent 10th March statements, which supports the observation they may well be attributed to the Tibetan leader. References to ‘ethnic equality’, ‘remaining in China’, ‘not wishing independence’ and ‘certain degree of freedom’ were all reflected in the concessionary item in the SCMP. They have since become firmly established in Dharamsala’s lexicon of appeasing China.

    Are we witnessing disingenuous practice by the Tibetan Government, saying one thing to the Chinese in private, another to the Tibetan public, releasing statements, then denying responsibility. Giving interviews to papers then retracting or denying the contents. There is a long history of selective confusion and denial. Former Kalon Tashi Wangdi had a similar experience in 1991 with an Indian paper in which he ‘said’ that independence was not the goal of the Tibetan Government, there was a tremendous reaction against this and he later claimed to have been misrepresented. Yet, how prophetic he was all those years ago, as we now know that indeed the Tibetan Government is NOT seeking independence! Was he privy to a decision kept all along from the Tibetan people? Perhaps Jamyang may care to ask to him at the forthcoming meeting in Switzerland?

    Some may recall the strange goings-on surrounding the official Tibetan ‘response’ to the Chinese White Paper on Regional Ethnic Autonomy in Tibet released on 23rd May 2004 (see ‘Papering the Sino-Tibetan Cracks’ Tibetan Review January 2005) . Released as an email it was subsequently dismissed as a fake, although curiously aspects of that incident suggested it may well have been released by the Tibetan Administration. Whatever the facts-of-the matter that rejoinder failed in any genuine way to address the central issue of Tibet‘s status, or address the cold-fact that China had formally rejected the notion of ‘autonomy’ for Tibet, and seriously undermined any credibility in pursuing the ‘Middle-Way Approach‘. Instead of issuing a swift, intelligent and politically informed response the Tibetan Administration continued with a policy which had been emphatically and rejected, by a regime psychotically opposed to reason or compromise,. Faced with that humiliating rejection it offered no condemnation of China’s ‘White-Paper’ and on July 6 2006 issued a statement that it had decided not to respond publicly. Leaving the Tibetan people entirely in-the-dark once more.

    Then we had the puzzling rewording of the agreed Action Plan of the 3rd International Tibet Supporters meeting in Berlin (Tibetan Review October 2001) which differed in key sections from that democratically agreed by delegates. Further back there was the infamous 1990 International Consultation on Tibet in London in 1990 in which the phrase ‘statehood independence’ were retrospectively removed from the final declaration (Tibetan Review March/May 1991). The gremlins are always active whenever the issue of Tibetan independence is raised.

    Of course communist China is adept at such nefarious activity and unsleeping in its determination to cause confusion and disruption within Tibetan politics. However, it would be naive in the extreme to refuse to accept that the Tibetan Government is not engaged in similar political games. This is itself a tragedy as they should be harmonizing their efforts in unity and co-operation with the political will of ordinary Tibetans, working with one voice towards independence, the same goal Tibetans inside Tibet are fighting and dying for.

    Instead the Tibetan Administration is now embarked upon a course of strategic suicide, while contemptuously dismissive of the genuine concern from within its own community, which is rightly questioning the nature and direction of the Tibetan cause. Is it sound strategic thinking to abandon previous commitments to self-determination and genuine political, civil and religious freedom in the pursuit of a failed policy which is diametrically, though silently, opposed by the majority of its own people? What political wisdom lies in announcing, prior to the actual commencement of negotiations, a willingness to accept a ‘solution’ which, in the main, is to the exclusive benefit of the other side? What damage is caused to the morale of the wider Tibetan community by such messages of capitulation? Is the Tibetan Administration foolishly naïve in expecting reason and flexibility from communist China?

    Such doubts are of course washed-away by those supportive of the exiled government, and inconvenient facts are shunted into some obscure and distant siding, safely away from the troublesome attention of logic or political criticism. Such individuals specialise in silence, lethargy and conformity, which is why Tibetans who do care passionately about their county’s legitimate right to independence are required to be particularly active and assertive in their efforts, if only to overcome the deafening silence and hindering inertia from those who take pleasure in putting the status in Dharamsala’s quo. It may be a difficult reality to accept but despite the Dalai Lama’s wisdom, intelligence and enlightenment his policy of appeasing Beijing has produced nothing in terms of progressing negotiations, or advancing the common aspiration for complete independence. Only by submitting to the dictates of Beijing will any movement take place in terms of talks. For their own manipulative purposes China insists on personalising this issue by focussing upon the position of the Dalai Lama, as this avoids any entanglement in the thorny issue of Tibet’s political status, either now or in the future. This explains why it’s always ‘private individuals’ or ‘envoys of the Dalai Lama’ who are engaged in efforts to initiate talks, as China refuses to recognise or give legitimacy to the Exiled Tibetan Government. Thus, the dice are already loaded and in agreeing to Beijing’s rules the Tibetan Administration is falling into a very dangerous trap with a predictable and worrying outcome. Yet this does not appear to worry Dharamsala.

    Despite the brutal lessons of history, the countless deaths, torture, rapes, broken treaties, mass campaigns of forced sterilizations, slave labor camps, environmental destruction, and Beijing’s expansionist policies, Tibetans are now asked by their leadership to accept that meaningful negotiation with China is not only possible but will yield a positive outcome of ‘genuine autonomy’ (whatever that nebulous term means!). Not too long ago the cry was for ‘negotiations without conditions’ that now appears to have been replaced by ‘talks at any price and on your terms’! Incredible as it seems the Tibetan Administration, having formally renounced the terms and legality of the so-called 17 Point Peace Agreement, appears to be working towards a ’solution’ which would not be very different from that notorious ‘treaty’. Such a monumental step backwards, to accept formalized occupation and slavery, would make a cruel mockery of decades of sacrifice and suffering on the part of Tibetans, whose efforts for freedom would become a tragic, catastrophic and needless waste.

    That does not seem to bother some who are content to follow the official ideology, whatever the cost to Tibet. More concerned with cultural survival than regaining Tibet’s rightful freedom, such thinking regards the sacrifice of Chushi Gangdruk and the continuing suffering of political prisoners inside Tibet for Rangzen as a vain and tragic demonstration of patriotism. Far better to accept political reality ‘Tibet’s independence is history’, ‘concentrate upon preserving Tibet’s religion’ and ‘accept autonomy within China’ These arguments echo the treacherous reasoning of Ngapo Jigme and Phuntsok Wangyal, who also urged Tibetans to seek the best arrangement possible as an ethnic-minority member of the so-called ‘Great Motherland’. In advocating the abandonment of Tibet’s rightful struggle for national liberation and legitimate claim to independence the history of Tibet is being rewritten and the tragic errors of negotiating with China look set to be repeated. How then do we regard the decades of bloodshed and suffering of Tibetans, which sprang in part from the justified rejection of the so-called 17 Point Peace Treaty?

    Whatever the tortuous meanderings of efforts to engage in talks with the Chinese it is the birth-right of Tibetans to enjoy a free and independent nation, a fact which cannot be signed away by either the Dalai Lama or the Kashag without the collective authority of the Tibetan people. Such action would be an undemocratic betrayal of the will of the six million Tibetans who dream, not of remaining part of communist China, for a “certain degree of freedom” or so-called “genuine autonomy” but for nothing less than Rangzen. If the Tibetan leadership is genuinely committed to an open, democratic and accountable system of governance then it must recognize and honour the common political aspiration of its own people. It must also have the intelligence and honesty to acknowledge that its barren policy of compromise with China has lead the Tibetan cause into a very hazardous game. Yet despite being aware of that Dharamsala, like a drunken man who insists on driving home, ‘knows best’ and is prepared to trample over the wishes of its own people in a desperate effort to achieve what exactly? An opportunity for the Dalai Lama to return to the ‘Tibet Autonomous Region’, as a puppet of the Chinese? For a truncated region of Tibet, and the abandonment of Kham and Amdo? History is politically valuable if lessons are learned, a fact ignored by the Tibetan Administration as it begs China to be allowed back inside the prison.

  86. Gangtruk | March 25th, 2009 | 4:32 pm

    Talking about Autonomy as a strategy with Communist regime in China is one thing. But bowing down to the Chinese pressure and giving up believe in our rights to exist as an independent nation is treachery. Dalai Lama is not served well by sychophants in TGIE led by Samdong. They will tell him anything that they think he wants to hear with complete disregard for the openions of Tibetan masses in and out side Tibet. We want independence and Dalai Lama should hear it. Sham ‘special meetings’ and plebiscites only help red china. Hello! what are the tibetans protesting in Tibet demanding?

  87. Tsering Choedon Lejotsang | March 28th, 2009 | 11:39 pm

    Dear Jeff,

    Thank you for the detailed and convincing argument.

    I am sure many Tibetans visit Shadow Tibet, and like me, many will find it a true eye opener.

    But it is also likely that there are many who do not visit this blog.

    Thus in the interest of reaching out to a wider Tibetan audience, I think it absolutely ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for you to get this article put up on the Phayul.

    I think our people should start thinking critically about any decision and moves that our government makes, including the comments and moves by HHDL. HHDL could be enlightened spiritually, but I think he needs “politically intelligent” people to advise him on political matters.
    And it is hoped that exposing younger generation Tibetans to such analytical articles will help raise a generation of “politically intelligent Tibetans”.

    We can worship HIM spiritually 100% and we all do.
    But when it comes to political matters, I am not so sure if he is as astute as one would like to believe.

    We must learn to think beyond “what ever HHDL says has to be right because he can see through eternity”.
    I don’t believe he can see through “eternity” in political matters, because if he could, we would not be in the situation that we are in.

    TCL

  88. Jeff Bowe | March 29th, 2009 | 10:41 am

    Dear Tsering Choedon Lejotsang

    Thank you for your comments, I appreciate your support and welcome the suggestion you make. I shall contact Phayul. Let us hope however that the article is not too hot for their purposes.

    Meanwhile it has been featured on the following:

    http://tibettruth.wordpress.com/yep/

    Tibetans are cordially invited to visit.

  89. Christophe | March 30th, 2009 | 3:50 pm

    Dear Jeff,

    Thank you very much for such an enlightening and disturbing post.

    I don’t want to pour cold water on TCL’s idea, but I would be surprised if Phayul publishes your piece. As far as I can see, they don’t like much to echo writings discrediting His Holiness.

    In May last year, when His Holiness declared to The Sunday Times “I can’t wait to be a Chinese citizen”, Phayul never carried this disquieting story. Yet, surprisingly, it published another article that appeared the very same day in the very same newspaper, “Dalai Lama offers help to the Chinese”, an article clearly of much less political significance for Tibetans. Naively believing that Phayul’s Editor had missed this particular news item, I sent an email with the article’s full reference. As I wasn’t receiving any answer and as the news was definitely not going to show up on the pages of the favourite Tibetan portal, I wrote again an email, but this time denouncing Phayul’s editorial policy and lack of courage in raising disturbing yet important issues…

    Maybe you could try to send your article to the World Tibet Network News instead?

    Christophe

  90. Jeff Bowe | March 30th, 2009 | 6:06 pm

    Christophe,Thank you I am pleased you found the article of interest. I note your experience with Phayul, I have not been holding my breath as far my piece been given exposure. Indeed as I write this I await their response to my my communication. World Tibet Network News. Shall we test their steel? Regards, Jeff

  91. Jeff Bowe | March 31st, 2009 | 10:25 am

    Christophe, it has now been dispatched and acknowledged by WTNN. So we shall watch with interest. Regards

  92. Jeff Bowe | April 1st, 2009 | 9:52 am

    On the same subject…. The Hindu Website recently featured an interview with the Dalai Lama, inlcuding the following:

    ‘The Hindu’: “The Chinese government’s pre-condition for talks is that you accept the One China policy. You have said you are willing to accept the Chinese government’s socialist system as long as there is genuine autonomy”.

    Dalai Lama: “Yes, we are not asking for separation. We are happy to be a part of China. We just want dignity and respect”.

    One cannot help buy wonder exactly the identity of this ‘we’ which is being referred to here, surely it does not represent the Tibetan people, who are uprising against Chinese occupation and demanding with one voice, Rangzen!

  93. zztop | April 3rd, 2009 | 1:41 pm

    Regards to you all. Once again I would like to sate that this place seem more like a place to jot down your hate mails directed to His Holiness and the exile govt for their policy of appeasing chinese. Actually I don’t really believe that it was intended to please those chinese but than where do we stand? Jamyang la once quoted,’borrower is a slave to the lender’ Indeed a great true! Even a powerful country like America has to appease the chinese many times for the accomplishment of their selfish interest, why not a hand full of Tibetans to get their things done?
    Everything you people mentioned here in this blog is not something without logic. Of-course, it does have a great logic and I am not that naive not to understand you. But the question now is how we should bring about those changes and how we should educate Daramsala about these rational views. I think it would be inspiring for great many Tibetan youths if Jamyang la comes here leaving behind his American dreams and reach out to the common Tibetans. I would be more than glad to vote and support him if he decides to fight an election so that ‘change’ could come to Daramsala and not only the ‘words’

  94. zztop | April 3rd, 2009 | 2:01 pm

    Amdo Gundun Chomphel, a great Tibetan scholar, who also was one of the first Tibetan to encounter a blond(engy) warned Tibetans to be careful of the cunning monkey with blond hair.

  95. Jeff Bowe | April 3rd, 2009 | 4:37 pm

    He was a very astute observer, a capacity to be too trusting seemes to have caused a great deal of problems for the Tibetan cause.

  96. Prescott | April 3rd, 2009 | 11:18 pm

    I was interested in Lejotsang’s comments about His Holiness. It’s a great point. The spiritual and political are different. The concept of “seeing through eternity” itself would imply a kind of fixed mode of being that does not exist. No one, I imagine, could see through eternity because karma and causes and conditions are always evolving and changing. This is true in the spiritual realm. How much more in the political?

    It is absolutely correct to follow His Holiness the Dalai Lama in every spiritual matter. It is equally correct to stand for Rangzen as a supporter of H.H. the Dalai Lama. His Holiness seems to encourage people to think and analyze for themselves. He also seems to have a keen interest in developing and fostering democracy. When it becomes abundantly clear that the Tibetan people will settle for nothing short of Independence (when the machinations of conniving middleway-ists subside) I do have faith that His Holiness will once again assert that the birthright of Rangzen is the new goal.

    If His Holiness told me to eat feces and dance naked in front of the Queen Mother for my spiritual development, I’d do it (much to my chagrin!)because I trust his spiritual wisdom blindly. But His Holiness would never ask me to abandon my independent thought and blindly follow his political lead, anymore than he’d have me dancing in front of the Queen Mother eating filth (excuse the somewhat irreverent humor). Anyone who trys to paint Rangzen supporters as “against” His Holiness is either naive, or worse, malicious and concealing either great insecurities or more personally troublesome agendas.

    It’s similar to the fact that His Holiness will never kill a single living being, but something about his Presence will inspire the rest of us to die or kill for him without reservation. So, the game is not to become *like* the Dalai Lama, but to understand the best way to serve him. In my humble opinion, the best method of serving His Holiness is to work for the independence of Tibet.

    Bhod Rangzen,

    Prescott

  97. zztop | April 8th, 2009 | 2:20 am

    Prescot said, “If His Holiness told me to eat feces and dance naked in front of the Queen Mother for my spiritual development, I’d do it (much to my chagrin!)because I trust his spiritual wisdom blindly.”

    Hey prescot, Buddhism is based on reasoning and logic and not on blind faith. It emphasizes on rational thought. Budddha himself asked his followers to check his teaching like a gold smith does it with the gold before he actually follows it. The fact is that you sounded more like a fanatic than a practioner of the faith. You would have done great if you were an al-quaida who follows the mullah blindly.
    Why this double standart? It is strange to hear people like TCL(perhaps she wanted to sound like TLC- a pop group that has vanished)making a statement that she trusts His Holiness spritually and not politically. It doesn’t make any sense. Also at the same time her ‘sir name’ sounds very much like an aristrocat of the old society, who sucked the blood of the common people of Tibet.

  98. Jeff Bowe | April 8th, 2009 | 9:30 am

    Christophe, it would appear I have not been favoured with a positive response from Phayul or WTNN concerning my article. As previously considered the subject-matter is too controversial.

  99. Pema T. | April 8th, 2009 | 12:41 pm

    To a certain extent, I think we have reach so far and the gap is narrowing day by day. Opinions may vary depending on many factors but we have to see the reality and then make comments which carries some weight rather than resorting to criticism unplanned and unattended to on the certain personal of the TGE.

    It makes me laugh hard when I hear lady like Tsering Choedon Lejotsang mincing words which are rather dry on the political soundness of H.H. The Dalai Lama. What she meant to say …read below..

    “”””We can worship HIM spiritually 100% and we all do.
    But when it comes to political matters, I am not so sure if he is as astute as one would like to believe.””””””

    You roam around and find out someone who is more astute than H.H. The Dalai Lama, you will find none. It is as simple as that. Don’t boast around, instead comtemplate if you the one to lead Tibet, will it be easy for you. It will take a life time for you reach the global world on the issue of Tibet and I don’t have time for that…….

    His grace spread everywhere,
    They love and cherish him;
    They support and hold him close,
    They know he is the one.

    Spritually and politically for Tibet

  100. Prescott | April 8th, 2009 | 3:14 pm

    Pema T,

    I look forward to your explanation of why, after 50 years of Middle Way policy, you and your supporters have nothing to show for it. Nothing at all. Not even the slightest reduction in rape and torture. Objectively, it’s hard to make an attribute that the TGIE is politically astute in light of the FACTS. Nobody wants to blame His Holiness, but the fact is that His Holiness’ responsibility for all sentient beings may sometimes preclude him for taking the necessary actions to benefit TIBET.

    Do you fail to understand that your spiritual worship of His Holiness is totally unrelated to any means or methods that will effectively stop the oppression in your homeland?

    If spiritual activity would suffice, the previous thousands of tulkus in the 50’s who were praying like mad to avert this disaster would have succeeded.

    Spiritual prayer and ritual can strengthen convictions and maybe even enhance worldly activity, but it’s not a panacea for the ills of samsara. If someone is about to rape you, praying to Chenrezig won’t help much. It’s another story if you throw a good right hook.

    With total devotion to His Holiness,
    and to the birthright of Rangzen that His Holiness MUST enjoy,

    Prescott

    p.s. Lejotsang posts some of the more insightful commentary on this site, so I daresay, you appear to be out of your league in making rather narrow and commonplace observations that aren’t substantiated by much theory or facts.

  101. Pema T. | April 9th, 2009 | 2:23 pm

    Prescott,

    As an avid supporter of Tibet, you should understand that the majority of the Tibetans have voted in favor of the Middle way approach of H.H. The Dalai Lama in dealing with the Chinese. So that’s why you and your familiarity Lejotsang’s argument doesn’t make much sense. It’s time we stand together to steady the ship.་Read the below Tibetan text…

    གལ་ཏེ་བཅོས་སུ་ཡོད་ན་ནི།་ དེ་ལ་མི་དགའ་ཅི་ཞིག་ཡོད།
    གལ་ཏེ་བཅོས་སུ་མེད་ན་ནི། དེ་ལ་མི་དགའ་བྱས་ཅི་ཕན།

  102. jigme | April 10th, 2009 | 6:52 am

    Pema

    Please ask your closest circle of friends what they would choose , rangzen or umelam , without the emotional blackmail- and you will be refuting your own argument.Middle path is no path. Umelam is Shunyata in sanskrit-emptiness. It might have worked with another adversary, not china.

  103. Pema T. | April 10th, 2009 | 12:43 pm

    Jigme Lak,

    For your information I am not against Rangzen at all but whether you like it or not the majority of the Tibetans inside Tibet and the outside has voted in favor of the middle way policy. We have to compromise with the Red Chinese to make our cause something meaningful. Of course, everybody needs Rangzen at the surface level but who is really working for it. The only name that comes to mind is H.H. The Dalai Lama.

    Do you think Rangzen will come to you in your sleep?

  104. zztop | April 10th, 2009 | 1:50 pm

    You said,
    “Please ask your closest circle of friends what they would choose , rangzen or umelam , without the emotional blackmail- and you will be refuting your own argument”
    There is nothing about emotional blackmail here but I am sure that people driven or spurred by emotions would say that they would opt for ‘Rangzen’ as it is concreat and moreover such people have this desire to live in the history books, fancing telling their grand children their great deeds and basking in its glory. I am not against ‘Fancy’. Everyody can engage in it. But here we should remember with our sane mind that such struggle needs great sacrifices and renounciation.
    Ask your friends, how much they could sacraifice or recounce for the sake of this noble cause. Perhaps, all of them, without shame, would say that they would die for Rangzen. Don’t listen to what people say, look at what they do.
    With regards.

  105. jigme | April 10th, 2009 | 1:53 pm

    I have yet to hear a slogan asking for umelam or autonomy in any rally. When the people in Tibet rise and protest against all odds the slogan is always Rangzen. They are the ones who are getting the beatings,tortured etc. Do you mean they don,t count?
    HH has to stick to his umelam . He has no choice , he is bound on moral grounds. We however are not. Thats the difference. Hypothetically if all tibetans called for independence or violence (and in a proved referendum )HH would still stick to umelam and non violence.Remember his first priority is human values, second the buddhist teachings and third Tibet. Therefore I say all tibetans use what God gave you -your gray cells.

  106. jigme | April 10th, 2009 | 2:05 pm

    ZZtop,

    I am honest to say that I cannot claim I would be dying to sacrifice my life at this very moment for tibet. But that doesnt mean stifling the voices of those who are crying out for it.To yearn and demand for freedom is surely the last dignioty we deserve.What has umelam brought us? Might as well ask for the whole cake then. Even Harry Wu wants us to demand for Independence!Can it get more ridiculous. As long as there ais a commie state its not goiung to make a difference whther we demand independence or autonomy so lets go for independence.!!

  107. Tsering Choedon Lejotsang | April 11th, 2009 | 8:43 am

    Dear Jeff,

    It is a shame that neither the Phayul nor the WTNN had the courage to carry your article.

    The narrowness of thought and the Tibetans’ all consuming need to portray themselves as the “ultra loyal” citizen is doing more harm than good to the Tibetan cause.
    We will be there eventually, I hope….
    although it might take a while before people can think beyond the narrow conservative circle.
    Anyway, thank for trying.

    I saw your videos Bhod rangzen in our voice.
    It captures the thinking and the voice of the Tibetan refugees very well.
    Thank you
    TCL

  108. Confused inji | April 11th, 2009 | 10:04 am

    Here is a comment by an overseas Chinese separatist leader Lee Yuan Kew who helped carve Singapore out of Malaysia and became its founding dictator:

    http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/10/stories/2009041060791000.htm

    Mr. Lee said China believed that the Dalai Lama’s reported acceptance of the status of Tibet “is not his true position.” In fact, the Chinese “need no interlocutor” to resolve the Tibetan problem. “They need time to bring up a new generation [of Tibetans]: speaking Chinese, thinking like them and integrating … into China.”

    Buddhist religious ideals are wonderful, but they do little to protect Tibet from genocide by a regime which considers itself the only true “religion” and which follows the ruthless Han doctrine of annexation and total assimilation.

    “They need time to bring up a new generation [of Tibetans]: speaking Chinese, thinking like them and integrating … into China.”

    That is what “Chinese Tibet”, or “internal affair of PRC, is going to look like without the protection of sovereign rights of an independent nation, like in Northern Mongolia, Korea and Vietnam. Even the latter two have been significantly siniziced during the period of China’s imperial domination. The Chinese-occupied Southern Mongolia is already only Mongolian in name only.

    What makes the monastic leaders believe that there would still be any genuine Tibetan Buddhism left after a couple of generations of colonial “internal affair” treatment by China?

  109. Tsering Choedon Lejotsang | April 11th, 2009 | 10:59 am

    Reasons why Umelam (middle path) will not bear any results:

    1. All the parties concerned in this “dialogue” for genuine autonomy are not sincere. All are just pretending.

    2. Tibetans are pretending that they don’t mind being called “citizens of China”. For if Tibetans are contended with autonomy within PRC, they will be “Chinese citizens”. But we all know that no Tibetan wishes to be called a “Chinese”, whether Umelam-ist or Rangzen advocates.

    3. In the heart of every Tibetan, the flame of Rangzen burns, day and night, every second of our lives. Many of umelam-ists, if not all, believe that umelam is a sort of a first step, the spring board from where to jump to the ultimate goal of Rangzen.

    4. China knew this all along. They were simply pretending to be negotiating to waste our time. They never intended to sincerely allow genuine autonomy.
    For granting genuine autonomy would amount to helping Tibet advance one step towards its ultimate goal of Rangzen.
    China knows that deep down in our hearts; Tibetans will never rest until we get a separate homeland. The resistance war of the 1950s, the uprisings of ’87, ’89, 2008, and the continuing uprisings in Kham, Golok and Amdo are all proofs of the enduring spirit of the Tibetan people’s thirst for an independent homeland.

    5. The world wants to feel good about “doing” something for Tibet. Thus, once in a while they pay lip service to HHDL and call on China to have dialogue with HHDL …(note HHDL and not TGIE). But they are not sincere in their efforts. For if they are, why can’t they do something more than just give “gold medals” to HHDL or confer honorary citizenship to HIM.
    It is like tricking the child with a sweet while the real treasures/honours are all heaped at the doorsteps of China.

    6. But I must say that at this point in time, out of the three parties (Tibet, China and hte world), China is the most frank and truthful about its intentions. In Nov 2008, just before the Special Meeting, they categorically refused to grant any separate status to a unified Tibet, neither genuine autonomy, nor anything else. And they also said that seeking “Genuine autonomy” is just a trick for advancing towards the ultimate goal of independence. And they announced that they never really had any dialogue on Tibet or “genuine autonomy”. The only dialogue was on the personal status of HHDL. But that too is over.

    7. The enemy has declared that they have seen through our plans and they don’t believe in the sincerity of our proposal. And I think they are right in their assessment.

    8. The reason why China is so paranoid about us not being sincere with our “genuine autonomy” proposal is because they think:
    “Why should a country and a race with nearly two thousand years of written history, and unique culture and identity, suddenly say they wish to be a part of another country – China? There has to be a trick somewhere?”

    9. Looking at the extent of China’s paranoia, it is as if it is saying “you have every right to be an independent country. And judging from your bravery and will power, you might be successful in gaining independence. To prevent that from happening, we have to clamp down and subjugate you in the cruelest manner possible”.

    10. Why do we Tibetans need to continue with this sham of “not wanting Rangzen”? Why? Why? For whose sake? For how long?

    11. The Umelam is a dead end road. China publicly closed that off last November. No amount of prostitution from our side will change China’s mind. For once Chinese mind starts getting paranoid; there is no bound to the degree to which they can fall. They lose sight of everything. As we say in Tibetan:
    རྒྱ་དོགས་པའི་ཕུང། བོད་རེ་བའི་ཕུང།
    (Paranoia is a Chinese’s downfall; Hope is a Tibetan’s downfall.)

    12. The only road left to us is the Rangzen road.

    13.I am sure many will ask me “what concrete steps can you take to achieve that?”
    My answer: Let us first set a firm, unwavering goal. Next, let us come up with road maps to achieving it.
    Let us all stop telling lies to ourselves and pleading and begging for “genuine autonomy”. China has refused categorically. So why stoop any lower?

    TCL

  110. Tsering Choedon Lejotsang | April 11th, 2009 | 12:35 pm

    Why Tibetans sometimes sound fanatical in their worship of HHDL:

    Spiritually, I too worship HHDL, and I too might react like a fanatic if someone were to tell me that HHDL is not holy. Spiritual belief is a subjective matter and no amount of objective logic can disassociate a person from his/her spiritual belief. There is no measure for the degree of success/failure of one’s spiritual beliefs.

    But politics is different. It is objective. There are objective ways to assess the results of policies and strategies. You need go no further then the case of the previous US president. His policies not only wrought havoc in the US and Iraq, but is a key reason for the current global economic disaster.

    Because of Tibet’s “religion and politics combined system”, people are unable to differentiate where HHDL the spiritual leader ends and where HHDL the political leader begins.

    As your spiritual leader, you believe in his omnipotence. And you naturally think that he is omnipotent politically as well.

    But looking at how our political situation has evolved over the last 50 years, can we in all sincerity to ourselves believe that HHDL is omnipotent in political matters?

    By refusing to think critically and by accepting everything that HHDL and the TGIE do without any analysis, aren’t we doing a disservice to HHDL and the Tibetan cause?

    Whereas Tibetans wish for HHDL to be the driver in day time as well as night time, it could be that the driver is Omnipotent in the day time only. It could be that when it comes to night time driving, he might not be as adept in reading the signs and navigating the terrains.
    Rather than having blind faith in the driver and shutting your eyes tight, if you thought the driver not as good with night driving, wouldn’t you try to help read the signs and terrains so as to reach the destination safely?
    In such a situation, would the driver resent the help and support from the passengers or would he be grateful?
    In my #87 posting, that was all that I was suggesting. HHDL is and should continue being the “DRIVER”, but there is a dire need for politically intelligent “passengers” to advise him on how to read signs and terrains, help him navigate through the night safely. And Tibet is passing through one of the darkest nights of his history.

    Apart from the “religion and politics combined system”, another matter compounding the problem is the “identity crisis” of a dispossessed people.

    Except for a handful of successful people, majority of Tibetans in exile and in Tibet live extremely hard lives. Tibetans are regarded as second / third class people whether in exile or in Tibet. The one thing that keeps many of us going is to think that our leader, HHDL is revered by the world. That is our one claim to glory.
    As for those who are successful, the more successful you become, the more you want to assert who you are. Who are you? You are Tibetan. Not everyone knows a whole lot about Tibet, but many have heard or read news about HHDL. Thus, once again HHDL forms the basis of your identity.

    Hence the fanatical reactions shown by many Tibetans when they sense even a vague sign of criticism against HHDL. They perceive it as not only a criticism directed at HHDL, but a criticism to their very identity. It generates enormous insecurity in them.

    HHDL does not need ordinary people like us to defend him fanatically.
    I believe HHDL will be more pleased with us if we matured into people who can think rationally and critically.

    TCL

  111. Pema T. | April 11th, 2009 | 1:49 pm

    Tsering Choedon Lejotsang,

    I do understand the points mentioned above but how you are going to implement it. Do you think it will bear the fruitful result that we Tibetan are awaiting for? Are you sure it will work and not confuse the matter farther because you know too many cooks spoil the food.

    If Jamyang Norbu lak wants to suggest something to H.H. The Dalai Lama on the issue of Tibet, I think H.H. The Dalai lama will gladly accept it. You too can do the same thing. There is no need for you to show your childish nature in this forum.

    Wishing peace and Rangzen for Tibet.

  112. Jeff Bowe | April 11th, 2009 | 5:35 pm

    Dear Tsering Choedon Lejotsang

    Great comments, your insights into Tibetan thinking on such crucial issues, are important, and provide a valuable understanding. Keep the fires of Rangzen burning.

  113. Tsering Choedon Lejotsang | April 11th, 2009 | 10:17 pm

    ZZtop
    (or is it ZZbottom, as in the lowest ranking creature in the universe)

    You said:
    “It is strange to hear people like TCL(perhaps she wanted to sound like TLC- a pop group that has vanished)making a statement that she trusts His Holiness spritually and not politically. It doesn’t make any sense. Also at the same time her ’sir name’ sounds very much like an aristrocat of the old society, who sucked the blood of the common people of Tibet.”

    Your comment “aristocrat of the old society who sucked the blood of the common people of Tibet” gave you away. No Tibetan will make such a statement. It is only the Chinese who believe in such lies.
    If you wish, you can think of me as a descendant of “aristocracy”; “aristocracy” achieved by virtue of slaying the dirty filth that is your race.
    It is a pity that my father and uncles could not get their hands on the filthy scum bag who produced the sperm that spawned a vermin like yourself. For if they could, you would not exist and, the world would be so much better.
    This blog is for humans only.
    Get lost! Crawl back to whichever whole you crept our from.

    TCL

  114. zztop | April 12th, 2009 | 11:46 am

    Cool down my dear TLC! Don’t show any signs of frustration as you are indirectly showing your weakness. Have patience! Don’t make your mouth filthy by the sperm of filthy scum, perhaps it would be fine for you if it was a ‘royal sperm’ ‘I know your double standards’. By the way, I wonder what your race is.
    So I think I was right in my guess that you had an aristocratic background; Your name does sound like one. But sadly you are not one,today. I thank the ‘three jewel’ that it has almost ceased, or we might be slayed for your virtue.
    Thanks for letting me know that this blog is for humans. I thought it was for monkeys.
    ZZBOTTOM

  115. Pema T. | April 12th, 2009 | 12:01 pm

    Tsering Choedon Lejotsang,

    Don’t be so harsh on others for it will bear no happy fruit. You said

    “We can worship HIM spiritually 100% and we all do”

    Tsering lak, where is the practice, it is very much missing in your character. Simply believing will not help. Practice what you preach.

  116. Jeff Bowe | April 12th, 2009 | 1:29 pm

    Dear Tsering Choedon Lejotsang,

    Pay no heed to the transparent snares aimed to distract from the intelligence of your comments. Focus upon the issues, ignore the ad hominem attacks, which themselves concede your arguments, and allow the straw-man tactics of others to swing in the breeze. Unable to address your points such people are keen to drag you into a swamp of emotion.

  117. zztop | April 12th, 2009 | 2:35 pm

    You said, ‘No Tibetan will make such a statement. It is only the Chinese who believe in such lies’

    Do you want to falsify this notion that the lords of old Tibet didn’t sucked the richness of lay Tibetans. People who claim such statement are not necessarily the chinese. There are many living examples who have great many miserable tales to tell of how they were literally sucked of their life by people like you. Are you sure you are a Tibetan? Do you really think that no Tibetans would say or claim that?
    Your post no. 110 has utterly proven your lack of standard. Now I would like to question your said faith in His Holiness (HHDL) spiritually. I doubt you motivation, your inspiration. I prey you are positively inspired.

    ‘Spiritually, I too worship HHDL, and I too might react like a fanatic if someone were to tell me that HHDL is not holy.’ Regarding this statement I recommend you once again read my post no.97. You idea matches Prescot. Don’t feel offended if someone tells you that His Holiness Is not holy. The only people who says so are always the chinese bosses or their puppets. Have a good laugh if somebody says so.
    As a Tibetans we should be more concerned and anxious about what we should be doing after His Holiness passes away rather than struggling for his power.
    Regarding our bus journey I advice you not to take out your dirty head out of window and if you were sitting between seat no. 1, 2 and 3 you are reminded that you are not allowed to fall asleep, you know why.

  118. zztop | April 12th, 2009 | 2:43 pm

    Hi Jeff, please don’t tell me that you want to drive that Tibetan bus. I know some Engy who actually wanted to be the director of Tibetan institution.Strange!

  119. Jeff Bowe | April 12th, 2009 | 4:26 pm

    I would imagine the majority of contributors and visitors to this forum would appreciate a return to the central issues under consideration.

    Recent postings have sought to deflect the discussion, through carefully constructed provocation, and crude distortion. Yet the original views expressed by Tsering Choedon Lejotsang deserve objective examination, as they offer an insightful perspective on aspects of the Tibetan cause, which are normally stifled by a rigid conformity to the prevailing orthodoxy. Lest we forget, this comprises a form of sacred dogma which arrogantly ignores the wishes of its own people by advocating a capitulation in exchange for a dangerous and uncertain future under the tender mercies of communist Chinese rule.

  120. Christophe | April 12th, 2009 | 4:51 pm

    Jeff #98 and Tsering Choedon Lejotsang #107,

    Actually Jeff’s piece was published in WTNN one day after it was submitted, in issue 2009/03/31 as well as in their April 1, 2009 Archives.

  121. Jeff Bowe | April 12th, 2009 | 5:25 pm

    Christophe, thanks for that, seems the shared doubts as to the prospects of it being accepted were misplaced. Fair play to WTNN.

  122. Tsering Choedon Lejotsang | April 12th, 2009 | 5:45 pm

    Thank you Christoff for letting me know.
    It just made my day to know that WTNN had the courage to carry it. Good for them!! And for the readers!

    TCL

  123. Tsering Choedon Lejotsang | April 12th, 2009 | 5:48 pm

    Thank you Jeff for your word of support.
    Yes, I do agree. It is no use wasting time addressing the ad hominem attacks.

    I should have refrained from responding to ZZtop.
    It is such a waste of time and energy addressing such lowly snares; a time and energy that could have been spent more productively.

    TCL

  124. Jeff Bowe | April 12th, 2009 | 5:54 pm

    no problem

  125. rainbow chasers | April 13th, 2009 | 2:22 am

    just to let you know…
    the “tsang” in family names like andruktsang, dewatsang, lejotsang…are just family names in kham. although majority of khampas dont use it. it literally means “nest” as in bird’s nest or “shed” as in cowshed. a khampa with such a family name does not necessarily mean he/she is an aristocrat or cheiftain or even rich. a lot of them are economically poor like others. and there never was such a thing called aristocracy in history in kham province. aristocracy was a system in lhasa only.

    well, lejotsang,
    your views on our cause and how you support them with reasons are just beautiful and enriching. politics and religion should never mix at governmental level. it has screwed us up left and right down the centuries–esp the last century. individually anybody can follow any religion.
    please speak up like you write here when on radio/tv/video interviews. it will encourage others to open up what they actually think rather than play around safely with their tongue. it is every tibetan’s responsibility.

    also don’t ignore those who have differing views completely. if you did, then today i wouldn’t have known your side of views which has enlightened me and my friends thoroughly.
    we are not here to gather a bunch of “yes, i agree with you on anything” idiots. we are not here to engage in some niceties. we are here to argue and thrashout the differences with reasons and help each other open the eyes wide shut!
    thanx.

  126. zztop | April 13th, 2009 | 1:35 pm

    Hi Jeff, I strongly believe that I am on this ‘issues under consideration’ I also know it, with my right mind, that it was never meant deflect the discussion. Actually Jamyang Norbul has consented to carry on with the discussion before long-Please refer to post no.43(JN). He asked for the ideas of all and sundry. So I was here just expressing my views, which is very poorly represented here in this blog. Jamyang la has also requested not to use bad words and to show respect. I don’t think if if i have used a bad word in my post except that ‘blood sucker’ I am sorry if that had offended, but a lot of them came in return. I believe it could be a change after all those monotone -The Anti-TGE, isn’t it? If somebody dared to

  127. zztop | April 14th, 2009 | 11:18 am

    Dear moderator, I am not finished with my previous post. Please let me complete it.

    If somebody dared to jot down in favor of the TGE and its policies, the advocates of the ‘issues under consideration’ banged at them with their bombastic words equipped with all the newest scandal of the Exile Govt. and at the same time they are tagged with ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘fanaticism’ (perhaps barbarian,too) and establish their superiority of being highly liberal and modern in thought. We should respect opinions even if it was a ‘secret dogma’ as sooner or later you have to face that so called orthodoxy.
    Here I quote Rainbow Chaser “please speak up like you write here when on radio/tv/video interviews.” It would be interesting!

    Dear Rainbow Chaser, as many thanks were being changed here, I would like to offer one of mine to you. ‘Thanks’ for being so to kind to inform me of that ‘tsang’ thing, I will ask somebody to make it sure. By the way it is my sincere advice to you not to go chasing the chinese made plastic rainbow.
    Regards to all.

  128. Christophe | April 17th, 2009 | 7:00 pm

    Tsering Choedon’la,

    I very much appreciated your comments #109 and #110, and I believe your frankness should be highly commended. I know how difficult it is for a Tibetan to express oneself in such manner — as much as how risky it can be. I wouldn’t be surprised that you live far away from the overwhelming orthodoxy of Dharamsala and the settlements…

    Your posts are even more interesting since you are the only Tibetan commentator on this blog who dares to question His Holiness’ political aptitude and to push for a broader discussion. In contrast, shoddy arguments from your and JN’s detractors sounds like dying echoes from the party line. They sadly remind us that conformity and sycophancy are still one of the most favoured qualities among those who claim to support and follow the Dalai Lama’s Middle Way Approach.

    Regarding this latter, although there are many more reasons why it will not bear any results, I would like to add one to your own list. It is its very nature. One should realize that the Middle Way Approach got some kind of support *solely* because it was formulated by His Holiness — not out of political conviction or principles. It would have come from anyone else that most Tibetans would have disregarded it, the same way they disregarded Prof. Samdhong’s Satyagraha or “Truth Insistence” scheme. Contrarily to what Pema T. wrote, the majority of Tibetans didn’t vote in favour of the MWA but in favour of His Holiness. And this is a big difference…

    In other words, it means that when His Holiness will disappear the MWA will loose all its credibility, giving room to an enormous confusion. This should ring a bell for a person such as zztop who remarks, “As Tibetans we should be more concerned and anxious about what we should be doing after His Holiness passes away rather than struggling for his power.” From this perspective, it is absolutely regrettable that the Special Meeting of last November couldn’t come to anything else than status quo and couldn’t even begin to pave the way for the dark post-Dalai Lama period that will eventually come.

    As for what you describe as His Holiness “omnipotence”, I would rather use the word “omniscience”, a quality attributed to the Dalai Lama when one refers to him as “thamche khyenpa” (ཐམས་ཅད་མཁྱེན་པ།), commonly and poetically translated in English as the “All-Knowing One”.

    Unquestionably, most Tibetans believe in His Holiness’s omniscience. This makes any kind of debate very difficult. Yet, leaving the religious realm aside, we can only agree that it is scientifically impossible to know everything in worldly matters or in political affairs. Not only it is virtually impossible, but also the Dalai Lama himself recognizes that he isn’t perfect when he acknowledges his misjudgements, be it his wrong and costly appreciation of Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai (“My Land and My People”), or more recently when he stated that he had lost faith with Chinese leaders.

    It would be simply insane, from any one with some kind of modern education, to believe that His Holiness could know and anticipate everything in politics. Religious and political wisdom are definitely two different things, and if it is difficult to argue about the first, omniscience in the second can easily be proven wrong. Once again, think for a second: if His Holiness knew everything — in particular the evolution on Chinese politics —, why would have he radically changed his policy in the mid-1970s?

    If we objectively agree that the Dalai Lama cannot be politically omniscient, the argument by which his political astuteness cannot be discussed because he is spiritually enlightened is consequently downright nonsense. As zztop kindly reminded us, didn’t the Lord Buddha himself asked his followers to check his teaching? As for claiming that “you will find none more astute than H.H. the Dalai Lama” (Pema T.), it is utterly naive: from His Holiness own writings, Mao Zedong would have been much more astute than him when they met in Beijing in 1954…

    No doubt, in a world devastated by tragedies and ideological bankruptcy, the Dalai Lama’s principles sound ideal — we all agree that it’s much wiser to forgive an enemy than to kill him. The problem is that it doesn’t take into account the reality of Chinese leaders, foreign interests and what is commonly known as realpolitik. The human race is not yet ready for moral and ideological considerations in its day-to-day business, and there is no reason why Tibetans should pay the price in trying to bring about such a hypothetical enlightened world. Instead of saving the World, let’s first give a hand to Tibetans leaving under Chinese occupation and get the country back from such a ruthless enemy — before it is too late.

    Understand that I do not wish to undermine and tarnish His Holiness’ image. I’m simply convinced that Tibetans are yet to prepare themselves for a post-Dalai Lama era, and that essential questions should be freely raised while His Holiness is still alive. In particular when himself requests his people to take their future into their own hands. As such, all should welcome your frank and intelligent analysis.

    Thank you Tsering Choedon.

    Christophe

  129. Pema T. | April 21st, 2009 | 12:58 pm

    Christopher,

    Well pondered write ups. Sometimes we go too far not realizing the ugly realities surrounding us. Instead of helping to forge unity, these gray haired brothers will come out with comments which are divisive in nature. Read below….

    ” I know how difficult it is for a Tibetan to express oneself in such manner — as much as how risky it can be. I wouldn’t be surprised that you live far away from the overwhelming orthodoxy of Dharamsala and the settlements…”

    Anywhere, make sure to come out with someone who you think could do more than H.H. The Dalai Lama in dealing with the Red smiling Chinese.

  130. zztop | April 21st, 2009 | 1:25 pm

    Christophe
    Know that even if you put all your energy in trying to undermine and tarnish the image of His Holiness, it will not have a morbid of impact on his charisma. He will still be shining like a pole star serving its purpose.
    I really don’t see the necessity to confront the traditional wisdom on the pretext of being educated. Why should it be insane for the educated to have faith in His Holiness ideas? For me it is insane and sad to know of the educated people with their utter contempt for anyone with power. You actually sounded like a snob. Why are you so scornful of Daramsala? Are you sure that you were properly advised by your parents? Many a times I have seen that a child speaks their parents disillusionment. Look into yourself and ask how much you have contributed to our cause other than being big mouth. If you think that conformity and sycophancy is what goes in Daramsals, why don’t you come here and do something constructive rather than being pessimistic.
    You mentioned that mao-thushi was more astute than His Holiness. Oh boy! come to your senses. Don’t you know that as a result of his political astuteness, more than 30 million of chinese died, according to chinese official estimation. I am afraid you are tuined like this, programmed to function as a being who has complete disregard for the tradition. I sincerely believe that it will take some generations for Tibetans to understand you and to be as liberal and open-minded as you.
    Because of the presence of His Holiness, the chinese feel a great pain in their ars. Also it because of the folded hands of His Holiness that Tibetan refugee claims to be one of the most successful in the world. His Holiness representation of Tibetan is widely acknowledged by the international community and it is because of him that we are left with some respect in the exile society. All in all, because of his holiness, we have gained politically as well as financially and I am satisfied with whatever achievement we have got within these 50 years of exile.
    I have read about Indian freedom struggle and many other great struggles of freedom in the world. In the end the most important factor which resulted in the acievement of the freedom of those countries was the ‘Time factor’ If you say that Gandhiji gave India the freedom, or Bhagat Singh did, I wouldn’t agree with anyone. What they actually tried was to unite the country and to reform its society so as to prepare for the future which was inevitable.
    Regarding the freedom of Tibet too, the time factor will play its part. The educated and enlightned people should prepare and educate the common people by reaching out to them. If you could do that, It will surely make difference to to the cause of Tibet.
    Don’t play that lame Game

  131. Jeff Bowe | April 21st, 2009 | 3:36 pm

    Intelligent, well reasoned and balanced discussion can of course accomodate differing perspectives. However when comments slide towards the personal, and are infused with a barely concealed venom, designed to provoke an emotional response, then it is difficult to consider such contributions as a mature and serious effort to reach understanding.

  132. Tsultrim Gyatso | May 10th, 2009 | 10:12 pm

    I think Tibetan exile Government basically beg China to talk but right now communist party now know how to play game with Tibetans,so it doesn’t matter how many times tibetan government send people for talk and how many times change your policy on China the result is the same.

    It was so socking thing to hear that Samdhoung Lama said Tibetan Issue is China’s internal issue. If you think Tibetan issue is China’s internal issue then what’s the fuck thing that we are pay so many people’s lives and be outside the country for such long time.
    China’s internal Issue of course China has power or rights to decide whatever they wanted.
    I think Sanmdhung monk abusing his power and try to give up everything that Tibetan struggled for the last 50 years.

  133. Pema | May 11th, 2009 | 8:12 pm

    NDTV interview of Prachanda after resigning from the post of PM following the sacking of Army Chief. He points out that Chinese have made all out effort to have more diplomatic with Nepal during 2008. He denied leaning towards China but said would like to have equal diplomatic relation with Indian and China.

    http://www.ndtv.com/news/videos/video_player.php?id=1100148

  134. sherab lama | July 25th, 2009 | 1:21 pm

    Not only I overhear but I have seen a dozen of comments on samdhong rinpoche’s talk from different kind of people with many funny nick names. However, my surprise toward the Tibetan people is, they only know how to pull others leg. If not then why don’t you wise guys come up and lead the movement? Or else let other do what ever they can. Don’t mess up guys. It’s not a time of messing around. My point is- I am not saying that the current leaders are expert and great in all fields. Rather I see them struggling to over come from the situation. Everyone know that Tibetan needs greater and expertise leaders. But the question is, who? Do you know the answer? Those who don’t know the answer of this question should eat the food whatever is given. Thank you!

  135. Jeff Bowe | July 27th, 2009 | 7:28 am

    Even if that means accepting Chinese domination and surrendering Tibet’s right to independence and self-determination?

  136. Thupten | July 27th, 2009 | 8:51 pm

    It is pitty that some people are very critical of what our Exile Prime Minister’s is doing to solve the Tibetan issue etc. He is discharging his duties in line with policy framed by the members of the Tibetan Parliament-in-exile. Mind you, the Chetue’s are elected by the people and the Umilam is not a creation of Samdong Rinpoche. If you disagree with Umilam, the proper way to deal with this issue is that you bring the issue to the Chetue assembly for change of policy.

    Think of your contribution to the Tibetan cause first before pointing your finger to the selfless hardworking Prime Minister.

  137. sonam | September 14th, 2009 | 11:27 pm

    Hi Respected Prof. Jamyang.
    Thank you so much for your article it was very good and giving us reall knowladge of tibet history. so, here is me and my some friends requesting to you please can you translate in to tibetan script your article, its benefit for more undrestaning. becouse lake of my english knowladge we have problem to undresting full article. if you could please it is very helpfull those who don’t know english. thank you.
    your sincer
    sonam

  138. Dorjee65 | December 21st, 2009 | 8:52 am

    “As far as the Tibet issue is concerned, we have nothing to do with Western countries. We consider this is an internal matter of the People’s Republic of China, and if the People’s Republic of China is willing to deal with us as an internal matter, we are absolutely ready.”

    The Rinpoche is right and a realist. He knows China will not talk otherwise. It’s about time Exile Tibetans look at the situation in a realistic way. China holds all the cards, TGIE don’t.

  139. Kalsang Phuntsok | December 21st, 2009 | 11:25 am

    Thanks Dorjee65, for reminding that China has the upper hand. But please tell your Rinpoche to feel free not to talk on my behalf. I cannot compromise one bit on my basic right to Rangzen. And whoever tries to sell my Rangzen cannot be my friend. We all know the reality, and I am not afraid at all because it can’t get worse than it already is.

    Hands off my Rangzen.

Post a comment