TREMORS OF HISTORY: GYALRONG 2008 & 1775

 

You would think that the first requirement in reporting a natural disaster would be getting the name of the geographical location right, especially in the case of an earthquake, which unlike unlike a messy flood or a roving tornado, has an identifiable epicenter.

The initial reports in the New York Times, BBC, and CNN on the recent earthquake at Kyigudo mentioned that it happened in “… a remote area of Western China.” Only later, and especially when Tibetan monks in their distinctive wine-red robes appeared in their many hundreds for rescue and relief work, was the fact of the town’s Tibetan name and the region’s Tibetan identity revealed. This widespread amnesia regarding most things Tibetan is, of course, the result of China’s long-standing strategy of renaming and re-designating (in pinyin spelling) Tibetan villages, towns, settlements, areas and geographical landmarks – sometimes even re-situating them, administratively and cartographically, with the long-term intention of eradicating the special historical and cultural identities of all Tibetan areas, and making it appear that  they had been part of China all along – or that they were just uninhabited wilderness that China was now opening up for development.

The devastating earthquake of 2008 also received this amnesia treatment, nearly always being referred to as the Great Sichuan Earthquake, even by some Tibetans [1]. The Chinese city of Dujiangyan in Sichuan understandably got most of the media attention in China and the West because it was hardest hit in terms of human lives lost. But it should be noted that sub-standard construction (especially of school buildings) was one of the main reasons for the staggering victim count, and not just the destructive power of the quake itself, which was more intense in Tibetan areas to the west.

In fact the epicenter of the earthquake was in the Tibetan area of Lungu (Ch. Wenchuan) in the Ngaba  (Ch. Aba) Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture. Many Tibetans also perished in other neighboring earthquake-affected Tibetan areas, including Rongtrak (or Tenpa, Ch. Danba) County in Kandze (Ch. Ganzi) Prefecture and Drugchu (Ch. Zhouqu) County in Kanlho (Ch. Gannan) Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in Gansu province. Then of course there is the area of Wolung in Ngaba itself where the Chinese have set up their Panda Reserve, which was greatly affected by the earthquake. The people of Wolung are Tibetans and, that is one reason, I explain to my children, why the clumsy, slow-breeding, and essentially defenseless Panda, has managed to survive till now, while nearly every other kind of wildlife (no matter how swift, stealthy, cunning or ferocious) in China proper have long disappeared into the exotic meat-markets of Guangzhou and elsewhere (see Colin Thubron, Behind the Wall pgs 182-186 & 190-192).

The Ngaba Autonomous Prefecture  and the areas south of it, which now come under Kandze Autonomous Prefecture was, before this divide-and-rule gerrymandering by the PRC, the Tibetan region of Gyalrong with its own unique history and culture. The great scholar Samten Karmay notes that the name of this region in Tibetan is spelled as rGyal rong which is derived from its full name rGyal mo tsha ba rong. It is related to the name of the river rGyalmo dngul chu (The Queen’s Silver Stream) which is the main river in the region.  Although now absorbed into Sichuan province this whole region is geographically cut off from the actual Sichuan basin by the watershed of the massive mountain ranges. Samten-la tell us “In Tibetan geographical vocabulary the region is described as rong or ‘gorge’. It is one of the four great gorges, rong chen bzhi, of Tibet. They are : Kongpo-rong, Atag-rong, Tsawa-rong and Gyalmo-rong.”[2] Samten-la also mentions a dispute as to whether Gyalrong is a part of Kham or Amdo.

After the earthquake I sat down to write an hommage of sorts to the people of Gyalrong, but the March Uprising and everything else that followed, the crackdown, the Beijing Olympics, sidetracked me. The fact that I knew little about this part of Tibet, didn’t help. Then a couple of weeks ago I came across a brief account I had written on Gyalrong in 1998, that I had completely forgotten about [3]. I reproduce it here with some additional information. The piece is not very illuminating on Gyarong culture, people or even history, and is just a summary account of one war in that region. But what a war. One might even call it a Tibetan Thermopylae, noting the fact that the rest of Greece was not doing very much when Sparta was facing the Persian invasion. But if we take into account the unique religio-political factors and the importance of stone fortifications and engineering skill to the defenders, then the Gyalrong war is perhaps more comparable to the heroic defense of Malta in 1565 by the Knights of St. John against the overwhelming military might of the Ottoman Empire.

In the 18th century, when Manchu power was at its ascendancy in Asia, the Qing imperal army fought two long wars in the Gyalrong region of Eastern Tibet which overshadowed all the other campaigns that were undertaken during the reign of the emperor Qianlong. Though these wars were fought against the two relatively small Tibetan kingdoms of Rabden and Tsanlha, in expense alone (sixty-one million taels[4]) to the Imperial treasury, they far exceeded the costs of the campaign against Burma in late 1760s (nine million taels) and the two campaigns against the Gurkhas from 1788 to 1792 (over three and a half million taels, and where Tibetans did most of the fighting).  Even the conquest of Ili and Zungaria, a war which lasted five years (1755-1760) and involved a territory almost ten times as large as Gyalrong, cost only twenty-three million taels, approximate one-third of the cost of the two Gyalrong wars.[5] Besides the tenacity, military skills, and fierce spirit of the Tibetans of Gyalrong, the formidable stone towers and forts of the region played a vital role in its effective defense.

Even in just a photograph of the ruins of these imposing towers one is struck by the sense of power, skill and science that the Gyalrongwas brought to bear in their long struggle against Chinese imperialism. The towers come in different shapes: squares, octagons, hexagons and star-shapes. I read somewhere that these unique configurations gave the structures their strength to even withstand earthquakes. We must also bear in mind that no cement or any sort of mortar was used in the construction, just dry wall techniques, but of a very sophisticated kind. It is impossible not to marvel at the architectural and engineering skill of the Tibetans of the past when one views these ruined towers and, of course, the Potala Palace, the Gyangtse Kumbum and the iron suspension bridges of Thangton Gyalpo.

Lamas and dharma types who assert that there is nothing worthwhile in Tibetan culture besides Buddhism, should, one day, be made to carry the stones to rebuild these towers, as Marpa made Milarepa do to atone for his evil deeds.

According to such scholars as J. Dehergne, Luo Shufu and A.W. Hummel “…the stone forts (of Gyalrong) would perhaps have been impregnable had A-kui, the Manchu General not made use of cannons constructed under the directions of the Portuguese, Felix da Rocha”. A Portuguese Jesuit missionary, da Rocha (1713-1781) was in the permanent employ of the Imperial court. “He not only directed the construction of the cannons to be used (perhaps designed for ease of transport in this rugged terrain JN), but he served as “surveyor” as well, when they were actually in use, arriving at the front late in 1774 in time for the main assault on the Great Gold Stream,” (Da Jinchuan, the Chinese name for Rabden). [6]

In Lhasa, the Ganden Phodrang government, far from regarding the Manchu attack as foreign aggression against a kindred Tibetan realm, saw this as an opportunity to defeat an old religious rival – Gyalrong being one of the last strongholds of the Bon faith. Changkya Hutoktu Rolpae Dorjee, the Gelukpa lama in Peking who was the religious advisor to the Manchu Emperor, undertook a special Buddhist “magico-religious” rite for the defeat and destruction of the Bonpos of Gyalrong and for the victory of the “emanation of Manjushri”, the Manchu emperor. In 1775 the last great fort of the king of Rabden fell to Jesuit cannons and, presumably, Gelukpa magic.  In the same year the imperial army destroyed the Yundrung Lhateng, the great Bon monastery of the Rabden Royal House. A new Gelukpa monastery was built at the site.

The two Gyalrong military expeditions were such a significant drains on the Chinese imperial treasury that China’s national budget would ultimately suffer from depletion over the next fifty years and the Qing dynasty would never again approach the heights of its former imperial power.

(Note: I was told that Gyalrong rose up against the Communist Chinese occupation force in 1956. Any information on this conflict would be much appreciated.)

References:

1.Tsewang Namyal  “Jyekundo Earthquake – Next Steps and Lessons” Phayul, April 22

2. Samten G. Karmay, Feast of the Morning Light: The Eighteenth Century Wood-engravings of Shenrab’s Life-stories and the Bon Canon from Gyalrong, Senri Ethnological Reports 57, National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka 2005.

3. Jamyang Norbu, “Missionary Cannons Defeat the Tibetans of Gyalrong”, Lungta, Tibetan Journal of History and Culture, AMI, Dharamshala, Vol II Winter 1998.

4.Tael (兩; pinyin: liǎng) was a measure of silver about 40gms. Modern studies suggest that, on purchasing power party basis, one tael of silver was worth about 4130 modern Chinese yuan in the early Tang dynasty and 660.8 in the mid Ming dynasty.

5.Dan Martin, “Bonpo Canons and Jesuit Cannons”, The Tibet Journal Vol.XV No.2 Summer 1990, Dharamshala.

6. Roger Greatrex,  “A Brief Introduction to the First Jinchuan War 1747-1749)”, Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 6th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Fagernes 1992. Vol.I The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, Oslo, 1994.

Comments

  1. tenzin | May 20th, 2010 | 5:09 pm

    Thank you Jamyang la. I remember watching this documentary called “The Secret Towers of the Himalayas” about these towers and Frederique Darragon, a french woman explorer. I was quite astounded by these towers. I have never really heard about them before. I would suggest the documentary. It is quite old, a discovery channel production. Found this site about her organisation http://www.unicornfoundation.org/page/english/whoarewe.asp

    tenam

  2. Tenpa Dhargyal Gashi | May 20th, 2010 | 9:50 pm

    Wow! Incredible towering achievement if I may say so for the people of Gyalrong. If we had not been so hostile to the Bon followers and coexisted with them, we would have been a formidable force to be reckoned with. Even if not that, at least been able to hold our own. From my understanding, they were formidable warriors of the first order. Anyhow, thanks for the great research.

    “Lamas and dharma types who assert that there is nothing worthwhile in Tibetan culture besides Buddhism, should, one day, be made to carry the stones to rebuild these towers, as Marpa made Milarepa do to atone for his evil deeds.”

    Hahaha…

  3. jigme | May 21st, 2010 | 2:03 am

    I believe the Trochu gyalpo the main chieftain in Gyalrong during the communist invasion put up a very stiff resistance resulting in a massacre according to some oldtimers but sadly I cannot confirm this .
    Another interesting point you mentioned was Gyalrong being a part of Kham or Amdo. In exile I think you will find that they tend to join an Amdo Kyidu. Many if not most Khampas see Gyalrong definitely as part of Kham. As far as the language goes its in a league of its own.
    We refer to the Tawu language as Tawu lungke suggesting its incomprehensibility but Gyalrong language seems to have been classified as a separate language by some linguists…

  4. jigme | May 21st, 2010 | 2:28 am

    There does seem to be some similarity between Minyak Khampas and Gyalrong . They too build these towers and some similarity in dress as well as houses. The language too.

  5. Kalsang Phuntsok | May 21st, 2010 | 8:40 am

    I wonder why these facts of history which we are now learning were not part of the history lessons in Tibetan schools.

    All I can remember learning at school was about the Three Great Kings (Choe gyal Mi woe Nam sum)and how Lang-dharma who had killed his brother Tri Ralpa Chen was later assasinated by Lhalung Paegyal Dorji and how Buddhism was thankfully revived in Tibet after that.

  6. Jamyang Norbu | May 21st, 2010 | 9:35 am

    Dear Jigme la,
    I am trying to get in touch with any remaining member of Trochu pon’s family.You are right about the language. Experts say it is separate from standard Tibetan, though it is still part of the Tibeto-Burman language family and not a Sinic language.
    Thanks. J

  7. bhikshuni lozang | May 21st, 2010 | 11:55 am

    Hope you find Trochu pon’s family members.

    Image Google search for ‘ancient stone towers’ turned up http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-07/29/content_6884964.htm

    with subtitle “File photo of ancient stone towers in a Qiang minority group village in Maoxian County, Southwest China’s Sichuan Province. [mx.abzta.gov.cn]” with story naming the site as “Taoping village in Sichuan province” and saying the towers were built over 1000 years ago.

    Jamyang Norbu for President!!! Jaya Jamyang!

  8. bhikshuni lozang | May 21st, 2010 | 12:02 pm

    P.s. The towers in the China Daily pic are mostly the star-shaped kind, but similar in appearance to the ones shown in the Gyalrong picture.

    Maybe the early Gyalrongpas hired the same architects as the Qiangs or vice-versa.

  9. Jamyang Norbu | May 21st, 2010 | 1:20 pm

    Lozang la
    The obvious military purpose of these large stone towers and fortifications in this region points to a Tibetan origin.Only Tibetans conducted a long enough and large enough conflict with China to justify the expense and effort of building and maintaining these massive structures. I am sure the Qiang minority people in Gyalrong built their own towers, but probably through Tibetan influence. Such stone fortification building was prevalent in other parts of Eastern Tibet as Minyak, as another reader has commented.

  10. Phuntsok Jordhen | May 21st, 2010 | 6:04 pm

    Jamyang la,
    Very interesting read. Thoroughly enjoyed it. I can get some contact info. on the Trucho pon family. I will pass it on to you via email.

  11. Mila Rangzen | May 21st, 2010 | 11:52 pm

    great! how many towers were there in history? how big is each stone? how tall and how many warriors each would accommodate? what was the specific cause or motive for the wars? and total strength of gyalrong warriors? how many years did both the wars last? isn’t some tibetan mud almost as strong as strong as cement?
    is it separate language or different dialects of the same language? by the way tibetans who live on border areas..east west north south have interesting influences from the neighboring nations and culture. saw some on national geographic. wow! thanx.

  12. thupten thinley | May 22nd, 2010 | 4:55 am

    Five Points to Jamyang Norbu lak
    your arguments are strong, and exposes the hypocrisy and ignorance of the tibetan exile government with sharpness, wit, and scholarship. however, i wish to express my opinions on your work, which i hope, you will take note of.
    1) you don’t give alternative methods, ie, if you find Middle-Path a losing game, then “how” will you achieve Tibetan independence? what strageties will you employ?
    2) you write on various topics, some of which, i think don’t seem to be of much avail to the Tibetan cause. You need to tackle more urgent issues like Tibetan Education System in Tibetan Schools across India, the ugly rift between ” Sarjor” and ” Nyingjor”, or desired qualities in next Kalon Tripa.
    3) , i think it will be more discreet to voice your disagreement on sensitive topics( like Dhogyal,etc. ) to the Tibetan Government directly rather than spilling it in the public forum, because that destructs the Tibetan unity; and moreover, some third parties will misuse the information against us.
    4) , regarding Dalai Lama, you neither need to be anti-Dalai Lama nor pro-Dalai Lama, but take an impartial stand. He’s a man of both achievements and failures. But you’re bit more harsh on his failures, and seem to underplay his achievements.
    5) your writings sure wake up the readers,and shake their thoughts from the slumber. Such as it were, taking an anti-Tibetan government stance has turned into a symbol of intellectual elitism amongst the Tibetan youngsters and writers alike. An effort for unity–between the government and the public, between different faiths and provinces, between sarjorwa and nyingjorwa will prove beneficial in the long term.
    jamyang lak, since you’re a man of wide readership and insight, the above points are a requests from my side, which as far as i am concerned, are of paramount importance.

  13. Tenpa Dhargyal Gashi | May 22nd, 2010 | 9:19 am

    Is there a watermill somewhere in Gankyi that every five months or so, we get somebody like Thupten to bring up the old stale arguments for middle-path as if those were devastatingly insightful observations? I know you mean well but it is getting tiring nonetheless.

    1)For your information, middle-path is the alternative solution to our struggle, not the other way around. Rangzen is our birthright unless you are saying Tibetans somehow are less deserving human beings. Here is a thought: How about everybody support Rangzen instead and become United as one, like, hmmm…., before 1987? How about we support demonstrations and challenging China at every turn instead of shackling our youtn, demoralizing and confusing our people, and stop creating divisions within our movement? how about stop giving out misleading and unfortunately ill-advised santuary to the rogues and politicians of all stripes who can hide behind words and just give lip service? I can keep going but you get the basic idea. Rangzen path is not something that you can draw a map from point A to point B. It is a struggle for our basic human rights. Middle-path is a step backwards and in any case much further away from our goals. With Rangzen as the objective, our people will be united as one. That is a huge step forward. Our message is consistent. We don’t have to cringe everytime we hear our PM say we are part of China. We are more focused on China instead of squabbling amongst ourselves.

    2) It is not your job to tell a writer what he can write about and in any case it is the very fact that he writes about all areas of Tibetan life, culture, and history is remarkable and should be applauded. Why do you ask him to write about “Sarjor” and “Nyingjors” and then ask him not to write on sensitive topics that Dhogyals? Once again, it is a democracy and freedom of speech and you have to look at it as a true reflection of what we supposedly practice in exile. Regarding the qualities of Kalon Tripa, what qualities do you need for a mouthpiece? But you are right in this instance as it could prove critical, as this kalon Tripa might end up being the leader involuntarily and might be forced to be more than a mere mouthpiece in the near future. So, there is something to be said about that.

    3)Middlepath not equal to unity is the 800 lb Gorilla. Leaving religion out of politics and creating a party system is going to resovle some of that unity issue instead of clinging to this unique tibetan ‘democracy’.

    4)Yeah, maybe he is a little harsh on this end but then when push comes to shove, he is as loyal to Kundun as everyone of us. That doesn’t mean he has to agree with him on every point.

    5)I take offense to that charge. You make it seem like we are trying to be as offensive as possible to TGIE. There might be something to these ‘writers’ and these ‘youngsters’ that they decided to go against the middle-path initiated by none other than their Kundun. It is a stressful time for the young to go against the recommendation of their Tsawai Lama and to suggest mere ‘elitism’ as the sole reason is both abnoxious and callous. Nobody wants to go against TGIE but are ultimately forced out of sheer frustration due to the huge intellectual sinkhole in the middle of Gangkyi. Rangzen activists are not trying to be fashionable here and we would like nothing better than to be supportive of our govt. in our struggle for independence.

  14. Mila Rangzen | May 22nd, 2010 | 9:22 pm

    TDG,
    Great points noted.

  15. Choni Tsultrim Gyatso NJ | May 23rd, 2010 | 2:15 am

    I know you guys working on Gyalrong but I just wanted to post this which I think everyone should know about. I maybe wrong but still want to everyone know the reality of ticket price.

    Many tibetan families are not afford to attend teaching in NY.

    What is in your mind?

    Saturday, May 22, 2010
    H.H’s visit NYC, Organizer ticket sky Rock

    Choni Tsultrim

    5/22/2010

    Tibetan leader His Holiness The Dalai Lama’s visit New York City is always such great benefit for all the walks of lives in the city whether they are Buddhists or non-Buddhists everyone has something positive to say about his teachings, compassionate nature and peacefulness and even his smile and gaggles give thousand of people peace and refresh their lives and even some times change people’s lives completely by listening to his teachings.

    I remember couple of years ago HH gave teaching “ Three principles of the path to enlightenment” at Central park it was estimated close to a million of people gathered that day. I talked some of the people after the teaching. They told me that it was the best day ever they had in thier lives. Everyone was so happy that they learnt something from Dalai Lama. I remember some of my Chinese friends bought ticket for three days teaching at Music City Hall that year. They told me ticket was so expensive but it was worth.

    Same as last two years teachings in North America really helped people to know about Buddhism and Tibet. Whenever people see any announcement on magazine or online about HH’s come over America and specially in New York City is something everyone talked about and expected so that we all can get a glimpse of bless if luck enough.

    As a Buddhist I am no different from everyone else. I really felt that whole entire city has been enriched and blessed so much in so many ways and specially those are believers of Buddhism and particularly all the Tibetans and people from Himalayan range so much vibrated for the last two three weeks rushed for tickets and lined up 3:00 AM in the morning for the better seats and most importantly everyone wanted to be close to him to get the best bless which is totally understandable. The funny thing was those who paid $25-$35 over were allowed to enter actual hall to see real Buddha. Nearly thousand of people only got chance to watch TV in a separate hall even though paid $10 ticket. Half of the people in the separated hall are rebucking sharply about the separation and hundreds of people don’t even have ticket murmuring outside door with no chance to get in and see Buddha compassion they waited for long time.

    There are few questions come aross to my mind:

    1) Why there were only few Tibetans on the teaching in the Radio City Music hall among thousands ?
    2) Did Tibetans know that HH is teaching in the city?
    3) or because those days were not Saturdays and Sundays?
    4) or $360 tickets were too expensive for Tibetans to go to teaching?
    5) or Tibetans already knew what HH is teaching in New York?
    6) Why Tibetans are rushing for public talk, not for three days teaching?

    Maybe the ticket cost so much that most of Tibetan won’t be able to afford to buy even though wanted so badly to participate His Holiness’ teaching.

    Two days ago I read an article about a student asked H.H Dalai Lama why his teachings are so expensive. H.H simply answered, “Organizer decide ticket price, and not me.” I knew there so many others have same questions but never get chance to put up publicly. I actually met a family friend in New Jersey yesterday. First thing he asked me if I got chance to receive teachings. Before I answered his question he shook his head and said, “I will not be able to get any teaching from Dalai Lama because it’s too expensive and I have got four family members if we go to teaching it costs my family over $1500 and plus food and transportation and we simply don’t have money to do it.

    We all understand some money maybe go to charity and of course organizer needs money to pay off their expenses. But the question here everyone has is that……
    1) should we sell teachings to benefit something else?
    2) why teachings are over expensive?
    3) Should we think about people have no money?
    4) Are these teachings are only for rich people?
    5) Does these teachings are for benefit entire sentient being or whoever has money?
    6) Who decide cost of ticket to push away poor people’s participation?
    7) Why we sell Dalai Lama to make money for ourselves to rich your organization or Centers?
    8) Is this truly Buddhist way of benefit other?
    9) Does Tibetan office or government ever thought about this issue?
    10) Or do we still continue to ignore no matter what?

    Few days ago VOA Pema Dorjee interviewed Director of Indiana Tibetan Center Aga Rinpochen at the airport while he was there to receive HH the Dalai Lama for three days Heart Sutra teaching. He actually mentioned that they are going to raise money by selling ticket and give some money to help Earth quack in Yushu. Although the attention is perfectly right but raise ticket price to sky rock to push away so many poor people and not give chance or consider affordability those who have no money specially during this crisis is absolutely wrong and selfish. I am not saying that help victims is wrong but they needs to refresh thier mind and they shouldn’t zig zag on propose of teaching “Heart Sutra” in particuler area. Their focus should be the people around that area not raise money for the earth quack. They can raise money anytime they want for the victimized by earth quack but it is totally wrong over priced tikect and not give chance to poor people.

    This is just an example. To my knowledge pretty much all the organizer across the country no matter where and what state, ticket price for HH’s teaching is over beyond measure. We all need to wake up once again to refresh our mind why we sell over priced tickets, Why we treat Lord Buddha’s teachings as business? most importantly we need to check our motivation by doing all these thing. If we hold wrong or non-virtuous motivation from the beginning then what’s the hell to waste time and energy.

    Finally, While I was finish writing this article, I got a phone from a friend saying that he called for ticket so many times nobody answers phone. Finally somebody called Dolak said in phone “we don’t have ticket now so don’t even think about to come over because heavy security and you won’t be able to get in hall.” My friend was absolutely torn and trashed down mentally and emotionally.

    My Buddha, compassionate one,
    why I am not allow to see you?
    It because I don’t have money?
    You compassionate I know you are watching on me
    And you know how I am feeling
    I wish I have the power to make everyone equal
    So that we all equally enjoy your bless’

  16. Choni Tsultrim Gyatso NJ | May 23rd, 2010 | 3:04 am

    One of RFA chinese reportors wrote in his article saying that Dalai Lama’s ticket raised to $500.
    Here is the cope he wrote:达赖喇嘛在纽约无线电城连续三天宣讲他的理念,门票有炒到五百美元。

    One of my American friend told me that all the cheap ticket are sold out and he doesn’t have money to pay for expensive ticket.

  17. Choni Tsultrim Gyatso NJ | May 23rd, 2010 | 3:12 am

    This is so sad and Lord Buddha’s teaching also only rich people. There are some thing needs to be done but I am so confused why is this going on under Tibetans watch and specially Dalai Lama’s teachings.

    As long as people get money everyone closed eyes and kept mouth shot.

  18. jigme | May 23rd, 2010 | 7:31 am

    Jamyangla,

    I believe Samten Karmayla is from Gyalrong.
    I cannot imagine a scholar like him wouldnt have quite a mountain of info on his own his Phayul.He has commented on the origin and history of Gyalrong and is an expert on Bon as well as you know.
    Just a suggestion.

  19. Pema | May 23rd, 2010 | 8:31 am

    Here is the link to the documentary of the towers. I myself just accidentally saw them on youtube last year.

    Its a perfect docs. In Kongpo also such towers exists.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57eYXwcElkI&feature=related

  20. Pema | May 23rd, 2010 | 8:33 am

    JN la you always amazes me with your depth of knowledge on Tibet and so please keep writing and lecturing.

  21. Otto Kerner | May 23rd, 2010 | 12:38 pm

    To the author:

    I’m not really sure what you mean by “divide-and-rule gerrymandering by the PRC”. At no point in the 20th century did the Tibetan government rule in Gyalrong. The boundaries of the TAR are roughly the same as the status quo ante bellum (there was talk of splitting off Chamdo and/or Tsang, but in the end this was not done). The eastern areas were rule by a variety of local kings and chiefs — i.e., they were already divided. Even in the Nyarong war in the 1860s, when the Lhasa government sent an army to intervene in Kham, did they pretty much just restore the local rulers and then leave?

  22. Jamyang Norbu | May 23rd, 2010 | 4:18 pm

    Otto, I am not sure what you mean either. Where on earth in the article did I say that “..in the 20th century the Tibetan government ruled Gyalrong. Any way, I did not say that the Chinese gerrymandered of divided Gyalrong from Lhasa administered Tibet, as you accused me of saying. I said that Gyalrong was divided into the Ngaba Autonomous Prefecture and the areas south of it, which now come under Kandze Autonomous Prefecture.

    No one is claiming that the various kingdoms and tribes in Eastern Tibet were not divided, or ruled by local kings and chiefs. Many of these states were at various points in history either independent, or under Lhasa rule or victims of Chinese colonial and imperial expansionism. All Tibetans know this. So what are you getting at?

    Gyalrong was part of the old Tibetan empire. When the 5th Dalai lama reunited Tibet,records tell us that Gyarong was included. But the most significant fact is that the people of Gyalrong regard themselves as Tibetans, and not Chinese. As recently as 2008 we have had many incidents of people in Ngaba and other parts of Gyalrong demonstrating against Chinese rule and waving the Tibetan nation flag and calling for independence. But of course self-determination and human rights don’t mean anything for the West as compared to business as usual with the PRC.

    You are also wrong about Nyarong. Yes Lhasa restored many of the local rulers deposed by Gompo Namgyal, but it also appointed a special governor for Nyarong called the Nyarong chikyap, who had final say in the administration.

  23. Otto Kerner | May 23rd, 2010 | 7:04 pm

    Jamyang Norbu,

    It does seem that I misunderstood what you meant: I didn’t realise that you were talking about the gerrymandering of Gyalrong into different prefectures. Had you meant what I thought you did — that Gyalrong was removed from a politically unified Tibet by the PRC — it certainly wouldn’t have been the first time someone said something like that. But I apologise for my misunderstanding with regard to this article.

    I’m still not sure that “divide-and-rule” is actually one of the things that the Chinese government is guilty of. Many of the Tibetan prefectures contain what were once several independent statelets, and thus they are now more politically unified than they used to be. Naturally, this does not prevent China from using force and terror to rule them.

    Regarding Nyarong, thanks for the information. It doesn’t surprising that the Tibetan government would not try to restore the royal family of Nyarong after the war. It would be interesting to know more about what became of the office of Nyarong Chikyab in future years. I suppose they would have been deposed when Zhao Erfeng invaded, if they were still in place at that point.

  24. Tenpa Dhargyal Gashi | May 24th, 2010 | 1:38 pm

    Pema, thanks for the link. It is very interesting that all those cultures believes in the monkey descent origin.

  25. jigme | May 25th, 2010 | 1:44 am

    Mr. Otto
    Welcome to this blog!
    Obviously you have some pro commie sympathies, thats perfectly OK.
    By the way the Chinese are not guilty of divide and rule-you are right, because they dont give a damn. They are busy colonising Tibet through the barrel of a gun so why are we beating around the bush! The present dividing up and forming of new counties and prefectures in the Tibetan areas is a cartographical wonder. I am amazed that you somehow find this so called political unification something positive!!

  26. jigme | May 25th, 2010 | 1:52 am

    By the way
    there was never a royal family of Nyarong.
    Gonpo Namgyal was just one of the Nyarong chieftains who did become very powerful and conquered most of Kham. However he was a Tyrant-as far as the rest of Khampas were concerned -I will not go into the details. It was a Dege Chieftain who actually wrote sent a message asking the Lhasa Government for help (an act of desperation) because Gonpo Namgyal had deposed the King , abducted the sons, gave orders to burn the Derge Parkhang, in a fit of frenzy would throw babies from rooftops etc..And you are asking why he wasnt restored?

  27. Otto Kerner | May 25th, 2010 | 4:44 am

    I most certainly do not have communist sympathies, and I don’t see where I said anything that implied otherwise. It’s just that there are so many things they are guilty of, I see no point in wasting breath accusing them of things they didn’t do.

    As for Nyarong, I did not ask why Gonpo Namgyal’s family was not restored. I said, “It doesn’t surprising that the Tibetan government would not try to restore the royal family of Nyarong after the war.” Perhaps this was unclear due to my typographical error. I meant to say, “It isn’t surprising that …” In other words, the reasons are obvious. I am no fan of Gonpo Namgyal.

  28. jigme | May 25th, 2010 | 7:03 am

    OK I get your point. My apologies but remember we would prefer to remain divided and diverse rather than be split up into convenient administrative units by a colonial power who obviously have no intention of leaving.

    Again may I stress -There was never a royal family of Nyarong to restore .
    Gonpo Namgyal was one of several tribal pons or chieftains in Nyarong who in his lifetime was able to conquer much of Kham but Nyarong never had a royal lineage like Nangchen, Lingtsang etc..I hope that answers your question.

  29. Mila Rangzen | May 28th, 2010 | 8:59 pm

    people’s character in general are a carbon copy of their leaders’, be it in a positive or negative way. most of the time the influence from top down is one way street and too strong. great warrior spirit in gyarong is a reflection of the strength and bravery of their leaders-warrior chieftains or kings. that said, what’s their force–at least 50,000 warriors? they must be great archers since the only way they can target their enemies is through the windows of the stone towers? at least 200 warriors in each 100 feet tall towers? between 500 to 700 existed in history 1000 years ago? any spring water on the ground floor of each tower? sanitation? although defensive structure, how do they come out on the offensive? if supplies are cut off for a few weeks the defensive structure can prove deadly to those it’s supposed to defend? the production of gun powder originated from china at least 2000 years ago, why did they have to depend on some europeans to use cannons to destroy the towers?
    another internal gelug bhonpo sectarian war and persecution? some say shamelessly it’s not sectarian, it’s political! as if to defend the continuity of unsecular nature of our governmental structure is their number one buddhist goal and responsibility. either way it’s the destruction of self by self.

    by the way who can tell me something about kongpo war and kongpo losar? is this depa shung started kongpo war fought against the chinese forces or against the po-tramo cheiftains?

  30. Namgyal | June 1st, 2010 | 5:17 am

    To my dear fellow sufferers outside India who couldn’t afford the ticket for HH’s teaching,welcome to Dharamsala,where everything is much much cheaper than the state and you can have a free teaching by His Holiness(There’s a teaching going on right now. FREE………) Problem solved!

  31. Mila Rangzen | June 2nd, 2010 | 10:08 pm

    looks like readers are starving for an article that provokes!

  32. Namgyal | June 3rd, 2010 | 7:27 am

    Jamyang Norbu la, you have been trying to provoke a riot in Each and every article,you are doing nothing for the Tibetan cause. You know what,you are even worse than the Tibetan government in Exile.

  33. Arihant | June 3rd, 2010 | 11:33 am

    There you go Namgyal.
    Mila la, I sent this guy to provoke a fight between TGIE and Rangzen reciters. The whole stage is yours now. Ting Ting. Go.

    Namgyal la, I read this article more than once and didn’t notice any provocative ideas that might incite an internal riots here. Could you please cite one from this article so that we can “fight” here.

  34. tsering | June 3rd, 2010 | 2:22 pm

    I think Mila meant thought provoking or brainstorming. Take it easy guys. Don’t blow things out of proportion.

  35. Tenpa Dhargyal Gashi | June 3rd, 2010 | 9:55 pm

    Troll Alert! Please do not feed the Troll.

  36. Arihant | June 4th, 2010 | 9:18 am

    Geshi la,
    Hopefully you are not seeing things here as
    སྐུ་དྲག and སྤྲང་པོ here,
    མཁས་པ་ and བླུན་པོ་ here,
    ལྐུགས་པ and སྤྱང་པོ་ here,
    མི་ཡག་པོ་ and མི་སྡུག་པོ་ here. I am not talking about fight as fight in a literal sense. If Namgyal doesn’t agree with Jamnor’s articles and has something to say, I want to hear it.

  37. rosaceae | June 4th, 2010 | 12:24 pm

    Dear Jamyang la,
    I have translated your article into Chinese.

    Check out

    http://lovetibet.ti-da.net/e3072812.html

  38. Yargyabpa | June 6th, 2010 | 1:51 am

    Hello folks, actually stone towers is not creation of the Gyarong people. Those who have little knowledge about of Gesar Epic and the history of Tibetan Empire, stone tower alias khardzong in Tibetan language with specific name mentioned throughout the narrative and many ruins or even some towers almost with complete form still can be seen in some regions like Gonggar and Lhrdrag in southern Tibet. In a word, the stone tower is the symbol of ancient wisdom of the Tibetan people including people from Gyalrong.

    Tibetans in overseas really need to know more about the history and culture of their own while they are acquiring the knowledge of outside world.

  39. maria | June 6th, 2010 | 10:00 pm

    Mr Otto, welcome. I am not usually to comment on the blog but love Tibet’s history, it fascinates me, especially the history wars that are played out on forums. I see you have already been accused of being a ‘commie supporter’. Unfortune is yours if you do not take the side of the dominant voices of the crowd Mr Otto. I like your comments and I also particuarly like Choni & Tempa’s commenting at 13 & 14; great comments and sure that Jamyang will always be reflecting upon his positions and that HH will in future make fair prices for ticketting for Tibetans as the priority. My belief is that all Tibetans should have free viewing with HH and then HH can ask for high price for others. Without Tibet and Tibetans there is no HH status so he must always remember this core point. His people, his country come first in my opinion.

  40. A Salar | June 6th, 2010 | 10:19 pm

    I don’t know if you guys want to know these, but here are a few additional pieces of information about the people of Gyalrong (sorry, in Chinese only):

    1. There is a temple in Ningbo, south of Shanghai, that honors the Gyalrong generals and soldiers who fought the British and died in 1841 during the first Opium War. Yes, not the same British army led by Younghusband in 1904.
    http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2008-08-07/153616079598.shtml

    2. The eastern borderlands of the Plateau produced many Tibetan Red Army soldiers during the Long March, about two dozen of them reached Yan’an. The last time I visited Markham, the seat of Ngaba prefecture, I checked out the Red Army museum. Thirty-eight Gyalrong young man from the town alone joined the Long March. The Red Army actually set up two local “Tibetan republics” in the Tibetan region of Western Sichuan.
    http://culture.china.com/zh_cn/history/files/11022841/20070518/14103982_1.html

    3. I was told by a local Gyalrong scholar that there didn’t exist any written record to suggest that the Gyalrong people identified themselves as Bopa, not even Khampa. The spoken language of the Gyalrong uses many Tibetan loan words, but the phonetics and the syntax are distinctly different, even from their neighbors in the Kham and Amdo. Yes, today they identify themselves as ethnic Tibetan, mainly thanks to the communist nationality identification and classification that took place in the 1950s. From a historical-anthropological perspective, however, to claim that they were Tibetan, one must demonstrate that the Gyalrong actually did consider themselves as such, not what others called them.

  41. Hugh | June 6th, 2010 | 11:46 pm

    Stone towers were an effective means of pinning down enemy infantry in times before guns. 20 archers with a stock of ammo, could kill hundreds. If the towers were in areas that you couldn’t bring battering rams to, they were impregnable. As for food and water, this would not be a problem unless the line of defense was overrun, in which case, the archers would die anyway. Modern people forget that a trained archer from four hundred years ago could unhorse an armored cavalry man with one shot from two hundred or more yards away. (The bows of today are for weaklings, as compared to the archers of before our times.)

  42. Mila Rangzen | June 8th, 2010 | 11:05 pm

    any book or article that argues thoroughly why we should work for autonomy/middle way by HH? let me know. thanx. not just short speech. something in depth. this must not be confused with autonomy memorandum and the note on it. this is asking what and how we want it from ccp. i m looking for reasons why we should struggle/wait for rangsi rangkyong. big thanx.

  43. jigdel4u | June 9th, 2010 | 12:23 pm

    Mila,

    For that you have to study history of Tibetan exile and its governance. Hope it helps.

  44. Mila Rangzen | June 9th, 2010 | 4:28 pm

    J,
    that’s not helping. i want something specific and indepth. author can be HH or any one. thanks for trying though. anyone else? please help.

  45. Yargyabpa | June 9th, 2010 | 9:10 pm

    Mila, do not look for the book any longer since I am 100%sure that there is no such book existed in the world. If really want to know the answer, then I suggestt you should go to India and ask HH. I am sure he has the answer for you and you can learn other things about Tibet as well. Good luck with your trip to Dharamsala.

  46. maria | June 9th, 2010 | 11:37 pm

    Hallo Mili, have you read Robert Thurman’s book Why the Dalai Lama matters? I am not sure if this is something relevant to your request or not. It may be a bit wishy washy for what you are looking towards or for?

  47. maria | June 9th, 2010 | 11:38 pm

    sorry Mila, I wrongly got your name spelt up there

  48. bhikshuni lozang | June 10th, 2010 | 10:23 am

    Dear Honorable Brother Jamyang-la,

    Have you ever tried to put a special THRASH AT JAMYANG NORBU menu button at the top of your blog to channel the spurious off-topic comment-makers away from the thread-stream?

    You could get some of the kids to do an animation page it links to, where the people get some kind of bumpa chang dbang as a reward for submitting their comment, and a kata as they are sent down an old steep and slippery tibetan ladder like the kind at drepung in lhasa!!

    p.s. keep up the good work! Jaya contrarians!

  49. bhikshuni lozang | June 10th, 2010 | 11:03 am

    Dear Mila-r-la,

    I never heard of any such book, but it seems outlines for the basic idea if not procedure were presented to US Congress or such in DC since I seem to recall that the Congressional Medal of Honor awarded to HH also specifically mentions the Middle Way approach.

    Perhaps you will have to start such a book from scratch, or organize the same, yourself. Presumably, the elected representatives of refugee-book-holding exiles etc. at TGIE have somebody there that would have at least worked out a formal outline for the Middle Way side of such an argument of pro/con discourse such as you desire, but may or may not have ever published it openly.

    TGIE operates on Indian soil so must abide by laws of the land. Is there an Indian Freedom of Information Act or similar political instrument for TGIE? Or perhaps someone there would freely offer it on polite request.

    If you got the original framework, then you could analyze it point by point, independently from a thorough comparison to other possible, but not necessarily more likely successful, strategies, which you could do later as another separate analytical exercise, etc.

    I think conventional (urban legend) wisdom is that by whatever means, eventually, more and more representative govt should reach Tibet/TAR. What interests me is that, aside from the question of when, is any preparation ever done by anyone for such an eventuality?

    To my mind, distentaglement of church & state, political integration of individual government representatives (persons & institutional offices), and rights of return of refugees must be central featuring structures to any realization of the end (setting aside questions of means, at least for the sake of preliminary analysis.

    Perhaps actual preparation for the end (devils in the details) would speed up the process of achievement (taking the result as the path, as the tantras say)???

    What is published on this aspect of things, and has it been distributed to the right people with influence?

  50. Jidel4u | June 10th, 2010 | 11:18 am

    Mila,

    1-Librarians are professional database searchers by training. Take best advantage of them.

    2-If you own any books on Tibet, check the index section in the last pages, to look for keywords “Autonomy” “Middle Way Approach” and refer back the pages.

    3-Try searching library catalogue not by titles but by subjects which might take to relevant titles discussing the topics that you are looking for.

    4-Read all the March 10 and other important statements by the Dalai Lama, the Kashang and Tibetan Parliament in exile.

    I am tired of this Middle Way/Rangzen business. I am studying Economics and Metaphysics.

    Thanks.

  51. Christophe | June 10th, 2010 | 3:32 pm

    Mila,

    Try a search on WorldCat. It’s a very interesting catalogue of more than 10,000 libraries worldwide: http://www.worldcat.org/

    But frankly, I don’t think a serious argument in favor of the Middle Way was ever published; writers and intellectuals are usually prolific against such policy. As for His Holiness himself, he wrote a book entitled “The Middle Way: Faith Grounded in Reason”, but it’s about the ultimate view of reality in the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism, not about his political approach…

  52. Tibetan Mastiff | June 11th, 2010 | 3:25 pm

    Isn’t this an assault:

    http://www.zazzle.com/tibetan_buddhist_shoes-167199298614945956

  53. Tibetan Mastiff | June 11th, 2010 | 3:26 pm

    Do you want to wear Tibetan National Flag Shoes:

    http://www.khabdha.org/

  54. Pema | June 11th, 2010 | 7:19 pm

    Its very offensive to depict Tibetan Buddhist deities and Mantra on shoes.

    Every Tibetan living in West should call
    (408) 983-2800. The company is located at Redwood, California

  55. Mila Rangzen | June 11th, 2010 | 9:39 pm

    respect religious sentiments!
    no to buddha on shoes!
    no to jesus on toilet paper!
    no to moses on doormat!
    no to mohamad on anything!

    office is closed now. will call again tomorrow. every one must protest!

  56. Kalsang Phuntsok | June 12th, 2010 | 10:45 pm

    The manufacturer should first try making a shoe with pictures of the more popular dieties and scriptures like jesus, mohammad and bible & koran and see how that sells. It would make sense from business point of view as there are millions of times more potential customers. If they dont face any opposition from the muslims and the christians then I am Ok with him making shoes with pictures of buddhist dieties, but please try the others first…..

  57. bhikshuni lozang | June 13th, 2010 | 9:50 am

    Thanks JN for letting your blog streams be used for so many other topics!

    Re mantras on shoes,

    actually there is a buddhist mantra that is used to bless the bottom of the feet/shoes to ensure the good demise of any creature crushed underfoot (accidentally of course)!

    There are also the many ngan srong mantras that bless the already dead, and for stepping over cushions etc. of course these are extreme special cases, but they are precedents.

  58. Mila Rangzen | June 13th, 2010 | 11:59 pm

    folks,
    i am planning to write 5 ten page articles on the following.
    1. the blunder of middle way
    2. the need for secular bi-party democracy(when this becomes a reality i will stop criticizing middle way policy)
    3.independence! no more , no less!(awakening my folks to see reason through a satire where i will write as a chinese to tibetans)
    4. appeal to citizens of the world (chinese invasion, occupation, injustices and tyranny)
    5. awakening the chinese people if at all possible to what evils ccp cointinues to perpetrate on us for 60 years now.
    fuck the ccp and its state apparatus with peaceful lubrication! triple penetration! full celebration!

    i like rhetorical narrative style of writing.i am tired of research kind. i will also try atleast one 20 line free verse poem on our cause. not many elements of poetry in it. it will be for everyday tibetans. any advice and blunt feedback from you guys will be thoroughly appreciated.
    milarangzen@yahoo.com

  59. Arihant | June 14th, 2010 | 8:35 am

    Great Mila.
    In the second point, you said you will stop criticizing Umelam if bi-party policy is adopted. I can’t see a logic connection between Umelam and bi-party policy and why you will be satisfied with Umelam when bi-party policy is adopted. Remember that there is the constitution of TGIE that’s above all party policy.
    Remember that if the Communist Party of India (CPI) were to win the national election in India, it doesn’t mean that India would be a Communist country.

    By the way, PM Samdhong of TGIE said or rather reminded Rangzen wala who are directing their energy toward criticizing Umelam that TGIE didn’t steal Rangzen. It’s China that invaded Tibet. So the logic flow of action should be directed toward China instead of politicizing Rangzen and Umelam issue among ourselves.

    Good luck with your plan.

  60. dhatsenpa | June 14th, 2010 | 5:20 pm

    ༅། །འབར་ཁམས་ཀྱི་གནའ་བོའི་རྡོ་མཁར།

       རྩོམ་པ་པོ།  ཏ་རེ་སྐྱིད། སྒྲོལ་དཀར་སྐྱིད།

    འབར་ཁམས་ནི་རྔ་བ་བོད་རིགས་ཆའང་རིགས་རང་སྐྱོང་ཁུལ་གྱི་ལྟེ་གནས་ལ་ཡོད། ས་རྒྱ་ལ་སྤྱི་ལེ་གྲུ་བཞི་མ་6633ཡོད་པ་དང་། འབར་ཁམས་གྱི་ལོ་རྒྱུས་ཡུན་རིང་ཞིང་། རྫོང་ཁོངས་སུ་ལྷ་ཤུགས་གནའ་ཤུལ་དང་མཁོ་ནོ་གནའ་ཤུལ་ལ་བརྟག་ཞིབ་བྱས་པ་ལྟར་ན་འབར་ཁམས་ཀྱི་ལོ་རྒྱུས་ནི་གནའ་རབས་རྡོ་ཆས་གསར་པའི་དུས་རབས་སུ་ཁུངས་འདེད་བྱེད་ཐུབ། འབར་ཁམས་རྫོང་གི་གྲོང་མི་མང་ཆེ་བ་ནི་རྒྱལ་རོང་བ་ཡིན་ལ། 2006ལོར་བསྡོམས་རྩིས་བྱས་པ་ལ་མི་གྲངས་ཁྲི་5.5་ཙམ་ཡོད་ལ་དེའི་ནང་བོད་རིགས་ཁྲི་4ཙམ་ཡོད་པས་བརྒྱ་ཆ་71.91ཟིན། རྒྱལ་རོང་ཞེས་པ་ནི་རྒྱལ་མོ་ཚ་བ་རོང་གི་བསྡུས་མིང་ཡིན།

    ལོ་རྒྱུས་ཐོག་རྡོ་མཁར་འཛུགས་སྐྲུན་བྱས་པའི་དུས་རབས་དང་འཛུགས་གནས། དབྱིབས། མཐོ་ཚད། ཐོབ་ཐང་སོགས་མི་འདྲ་བས་སོ་སོ་ལ་རང་རང་གི་སྤྱོད་སྒོ་དང་མཚོན་དོན་ཡོད་དེ། ལ་ལ་ནི་དམག་བརྡ་གཏོང་བྱེད་དང་ལ་ལ་ནི་གཡུལ་ས་དང་། ཉེན་གཡོལ་ཁང་། མཐའ་མཚམས་ཀྱི་རྟགས། ཆོས་སྒྲུབ་ས། བང་མཛོད་སོགས་ཡིན་པ་མ་ཟད། ད་དུང་རྒྱལ་པོའི་དབང་ཆ་དང་གོ་གནས་མཚོན་རྟགས་ཀྱང་ཡིན། ང་ཚོས་དཔྱད་པ་ལྟར་ན་འབར་ཁམས་ཀྱི་ཁོངས་སུ་ད་ལྟ་རྡོ་མཁར་61དང་མཁར་ཁྱིམ་760ཡོད། དེའི་ནང་དུ་རྡོ་མཁར་ཟུར་བརྒྱད་ཅན་3དང་ཟུར་དྲུག་ཅན་2 ཟུར་ལྔ་ཅན་མཁར་2ཡོད་ལ་གཞན་རྣམས་ཟུར་བཞི་ཅན་ཡིན། དེ་དག་ལོ་ངོ་བརྒྱ་ཕྲག་ཁ་ཤས་འདས་ཀྱང་སྤུས་ཀ་ལེགས་ཤིང་རྒྱ་ཁྱོན་ཆེ་བའི་རྒྱལ་པོའི་མཁར་དང་རྡོ་མཁར་སོགས་ད་ལྟའང་ཡོད་པ་མ་ཟད། དེའི་ནང་དུ་ཟུར་ལྔ་ཅན་དང་། བརྗིད་རྔམ་ཆེ་ཞིང་ལྟ་ན་སྡུག་པའི་ཟུར་བརྒྱད་ཅན་དང་། གས་སྐྱོན་ཡོད་པའི་ཟུར་དྲུག་ཅན་གྱི་རྡོ་མཁར་སོགས་ཡོད། དེ་མིན་ད་ལྟ་བེད་སྤྱོད་བཞིན་པའི་མཁར་ཁྱིམ་མང་པོ་ཡོད། གཞན་ཡང་རྡོ་མཁར་གྱི་རྩིག་ངོས་ལ་ལྟ་ན་སྡུག་པའི་རི་མོ་ཁྱད་པར་ཅན་ལྡན།

    རྒྱལ་པོའི་རྡོ་མཁར།

    འབར་ཁམས་ལ་སྔར་རྒྱལ་ཁག་བཞི་ཟེར་བའི་རྒྱུ་མཚན་ནི་འབར་ཁམས་ས་ཁུལ་ལ་སྔར་རྒྱལ་རོང་རྒྱལ་ཁག་བཅོ་བརྒྱད་ནང་གི་མཆོག་རྩེ་རྒྱལ་པོ་དང་རྫོང་འགག་རྒྱལ་པོ། དམ་པ་རྒྱལ་པོ། སོ་མང་རྒྱལ་པོ་བཅས་རྒྱལ་ཁག་བཞི་ཡོད་པ་ཡིན། རྒྱལ་པོའི་ཕོ་བྲང་རྡོ་མཁར་བཟོ་སྐབས་རང་རང་གི་མངའ་ཁོངས་ནས་རྡོ་བཟོ་ལག་རྩལ་ཆེས་ལེགས་པོ་ཡོད་པ་ལ་བཀའ་བཏང་ནས་སྐྲུན་དུ་འཇུག་པ་མ་ཟད། རྒྱལ་པོ་གཞན་པའི་མངའ་འོག་གི་བཟོ་མཁས་པ་གདན་དྲངས་ཏེ་སྐྲུན་པ་ཡིན་པ་དང་། རྡོ་མཁར་བཟོ་སྐབས་མི་ཤུགས་དང་དངོས་ཤུགས་འབོར་ཆེན། དུས་ཡུན་རིང་པོ་བཅས་སོང་ཡོད་པས། རྒྱལ་པོའི་ཕོ་བྲང་དང་རྡོ་མཁར་གྱི་བཟོ་སྐྲུན་རྒྱ་ཁྱོན་ཆེ་ཞིང་བཟོ་སྐྲུན་སྤུས་ཀ་ལེགས་པ་མ་ཟད། རྒྱལ་རོང་བོད་དམངས་རྡོ་མཁར་བཟོ་བའི་ལག་རྩལ་ཆེས་མཐོ་བའི་ཆུ་ཚད་མཚོན་ཐུབ།

    མཆོག་རྩེ་རྒྱལ་པོའི་རྡོ་མཁར་།

    མཆོག་རྩེ་རྒྱལ་པོའི་རྡོ་མཁར་ནི་འབར་ཁམས་རྫོང་མཁར་དང་བར་ཐག་སྤྱི་ལེ་བདུན་ཡོད་པའི་ཤར་ཕྱོགས་ཀྱི་མཆོག་རྩེ་གྲོང་བརྡལ་གྱི་སའི་སོ་གྲོང་སྡེར་ཡོད་ལ། མཆོག་རྩེའི་རྒྱལ་རབས་དང་པོ་ནི་སྤྱི་ལོ་1286ལོར་སྲིད་དབང་འཛིན་འགོ་བཟུང་བའི་རྒྱལ་པོ་སྟག་འབུམ་ཡིན་པ་དང་། དེ་ནས་བཅིངས་འགྲོལ་མ་གཏོང་བར་དུ་རྒྱལ་རྒྱུད་ཁྱོན་བསྡོམས་བཅུ་བདུན་སོང་། རྒྱལ་པོ་སྟག་འབུམ་ནི་སོ་མང་རྒྱལ་རབས་གསུམ་པའི་རྒྱལ་པོ་རྒྱལ་སྩ་བན་ཐར་གྱི་བུ་གསུམ་ལས་ཆུང་བ་ཡིན། མཆོག་རྩེ་རྒྱལ་རབས་གསུམ་པའི་རྒྱལ་པོ་ནམ་མཁའ་འབུམ་གྱིས(1401ལོ་ནས་1447)སྲིད་དབང་བཟུང་དུས། རྒྱལ་པོས་རྗེ་ཙོང་ཁ་པའི་དངོས་སློབ་ཚ་ཁོ་ངག་དབང་གྲགས་པར་རོགས་བྱས་ནས་མཆོག་རྩེ་རྡོ་མཁར་ཡི་ལྷོ་ཕྱོགས་སུ་ཚ་ཁོ་དགོན་པ་བཏབ། མཆོག་རྩེ་རྒྱལ་རབས་ལྔ་བའི་རྒྱལ་པོ་རྒྱ་གར་འབུམ་(1512ལོ་ནས་1571)གྱིས་སྲིད་དབང་འཛིན་དུས། རྒྱལ་པོས་ཁུ་འཇོ་བླ་མ་ནོར་བུ་ལ་རོགས་བྱས་ནས་མཆོག་རྩེ་རྡོ་མཁར་འགྲམ་དུ་སའི་སོ་དགོན་པ་བཏབ་པ་དང་རྗེས་སུ་དགོན་པ་ནང་དུ་བླ་མ་ནོར་བུའི་སྐུ་གདུང་བཞེངས་ཡོད། མཆོག་རྩེ་རྒྱལ་རྒྱུད་ཀྱི་ནང་དུ་རྒྱལ་མོ་གཉིས་ཡོད་ལ་དེ་ནི་རྒྱལ་རབས་བཅུ་གཅིག་པ་རྒྱལ་མོ་གཡུང་དྲུང་ལྷ་མོ་(1818ལོ་ནས་1843)དང་རྒྱལ་རབས་བཅུ་གསུམ་པ་རྒྱལ་མོ་རིན་ཆེན་ལྷ་མོ་(1873ལོ་ནས་1891)གཉིས་ཡིན། མཆོག་རྩེ་རྒྱལ་རབས་བཅོ་ལྔ་བའི་རྒྱལ་པོ་མཁྱེན་རབ་དམ་པ་རྒྱ་མཚོ་ནི་(1894ལོ་ནས་1910)དགེ་ལུགས་པའི་བླ་མ་ཡིན་པས་རྒྱལ་རྒྱུད་མེད་པས། 1912ལོར་ཝུན་ཁྲོན་བ་སི་རྒྱལ་རབས་ཉེར་གཉིས་པའི་རྒྱལ་པོ་སོ་ཀོ་ཞིན་གྱི་བུ་བསོད་ནམས་ཚེ་རིང་གིས་མཆོག་རྩེ་རྒྱལ་རབས་བཅུ་དྲུག་པ་བྱས། མཆོག་རྩེ་རྒྱལ་རབས་རྗེས་མའི་སྲིད་དབང་འཛིན་མཁན་ནི་སོ་ཀོ་ཁོན་ཡིན། 1935ལོའི་ཟླ་7པར། མའོ་ཙེ་ཏུང་དང་ཀྲུའུ་ཏེ་བཅས་དམར་དམག་རྒྱང་འགྲོ་དུས་སུ་མཆོག་རྩེ་རྡོ་མཁར་དུ་ཉི་མ་ཁ་ཤས་བསྡད་མྱོང་། 2005ལོར་རྒྱལ་ཁབ་འབྲེལ་ཡོད་སྡེ་ཁག་གིས་མ་དངུལ་བཏང་སྟེ་ཡུལ་མི་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་སྔར་གྱི་རྡོ་མཁར་གྱི་་རྨང་གཞིའི་ཐོག་ཞིག་གསོ་བྱས་ཏེ་ད་ལྟ་རྒྱལ་རོང་མི་དམངས་ཀྱི་རིག་གནས་དང་དམར་དམག་རྒྱང་སྐྱོད་རིག་དངོས་བཤམས་སྟོན་ཁང་དུ་གྱུར།

    འབར་ཁམས་ཀྱི་མཆོག་རྩེ་དང་རྫོང་འགག དམ་པ། སོ་མང་བཅས་ཀྱི་རྒྱལ་པོ་བཞིའི་རྡོ་མཁར་ལ་དཔྱད་པ་ལྟར་ན། མཆོག་རྩེའི་རྡོ་མཁར་ནི་སྔར་བརྩེགས་དགུ་ཡིན་ལ་ཕྱིས་སུ་བརྩེགས་དྲུག་གྱུར་པ་ལས་གཞན་པའི་རྡོ་མཁར་ཚང་མ་བརྩེགས་དགུ་ཅན་ཡིན། དེ་མིན་གྲོང་མི་ཚོའི་རྡོ་མཁར་ནི་བརྩེགས་བདུན་མན་ཡིན། དེ་ནི་གནའ་བོའི་རྒྱ་ཡིག་དུ་འཁོད་པའི་“རྒྱལ་པོ་བརྩེགས་དགུ་ལྡན་པའི་ཁང་དུ་སྡོད་”དང་མཐུན། ང་ཚོས་1907ལོར་འབར་ཁམས་ཡོང་བའི་དབྱིན་ཇི་བ་པུ་ལུ་ཁེ་ཡིས་བླངས་པའི་མཆོག་རྩེའི་རྡོ་མཁར་གྱི་པར་ལ་བལྟས་ན། ལོ་བརྒྱ་སྔོན་གྱི་མཆོག་རྩེའི་རྡོ་མཁར་ནི་བརྩེགས་དགུ་ཡིན་པ་རྟོགས་ཐུབ།

    རྫོང་འགག་རྒྱལ་པོའི་རྡོ་མཁར་།

    རྫོང་འགག་རྡོ་མཁར་ནི་འབར་ཁམས་རྫོང་ནུབ་ཕྱོགས་སྤྱི་ལེ་16ཡོད་པའི་རྫོང་འགག་གྲོང་བརྡལ་གྱི་འབྲུག་འཁྱིལ་རི་སྒང་དུ་གནས། རྡོ་མཁར་ནི་སྤྱི་ལོ་634ལོར་རྫོང་འགག་འཕན་ཁོའི་(ཁོ་འཕན་ཡང་ཟེར)རི་ཐོག་ཏུ་བཞེངས། སྤྱི་ལོ་736ནས་791ལོའི་བར་ལོ་ཆེན་བཻ་རོ་ཙ་ན་རྫོང་འགག་ཏུ་བྱོན། སྤྱི་ལོ་780ལོར་སྔར་ཆུ་ཕོ་ལ་ཡོད་པའི་བོན་དགོན་ཞིག་ནང་བསྟན་ཆོས་ལུགས་ལ་བསྒྱུར་ནས། མིང་ལ་ཆུ་འཕོ་ནོར་བུ་གླིང་ཞེས་བཏགས། འཕན་བཞེར་ནི་ཞང་ཞུང་དཔོན་ཞིག་གི་རྒྱུད་ཡིན་ལ་བོད་རྒྱལ་གྱིས་རྒྱལ་རོང་ས་ཁུལ་དུ་མངག་པའི་དམག་དཔོན་ཡིན། འཕན་བཞེར་བུ་གཉིས་ཡོད་པས་གཅིག་གིས་རྫོང་འགག་གི་རྒྱལ་རྒྱུད་བཟུང་བ་དང་། གཅིག་ནི་ཁྲོ་སྐྱབས་རྒྱལ་རྒྱུད་ཀྱི་རྒྱལ་རབས་དང་པོ་ཡིན། སྤྱི་ལོ་1254ལོར་རྒྱལ་པོ་རྣམ་རྒྱལ་གྱིས་རྒྱལ་སྲིད་འཛིན་དུས་རྒྱལ་མཁར་འཕན་ཁོ་ནས་འབྲུག་འཁྱིལ་རི་སྒང་དུ་སྤོས། སྔར་འབྲུག་འཁྱིལ་རི་སྒང་ཐོག་ལ་ཡོད་པའི་རྫོང་འགག་རྡོ་མཁར་ཞིག་ནས་ཤུལ་ཙམ་ལས་མེད་ཀྱང་དེའི་གཡས་གཡོན་གྱི་ཟུར་བཞི་ཅན་གྱི་རྡོ་མཁར་གཉིས་པོ་བརྩེགས་དགུ་ལྡན་པ་ད་ལྟའང་ཡོད། སྔར་དམག་འཐབ་ཀྱི་སྐབས་སུ་མི་རྣམས་རྡོ་མཁར་ནང་ཡིབ་ཐུབ་པ་མ་ཟད། མི་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་དོང་ལམ་ནས་ཆུ་འགྲམ་དུ་ཕྱིན་ཏེ་ཆུ་ལེན་པ་དང་། ཕ་རོལ་པོ་ལ་དམག་བཀྱེ་ས་བྱེད་ཐུབ་པ་མ་ཟད། རྒྱུ་ནོར་གསོག་འཇོག་བྱེད་སའང་ཡིན། རྒྱལ་རོང་བ་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་རྡོ་མཁར་མིང་ལ་“ཁོ་བྲོ”ཟེར་བ་ནི་རྒྱུ་ནོར་འཇོག་གནས་ཞེས་པའི་དོན་ཡིན། ལོ་རྒྱུས་ཐོག་རྡོ་མཁར་ནི་རྒྱལ་པོའི་དབང་ཆ་དང་ཐོབ་ཐང་མཚོན་བྱེད་ཡིན་པས། རྒྱལ་པོའི་རྡོ་མཁར་ནི་ས་དེའི་ཆེས་མཐོ་བ་དང་། ཟུར་མང་བ། བརྗིད་ཉམས་ཆེ་བ་དང་རྩིག་རྩལ་ཆེས་ལེགས་པའི་རྡོ་མཁར་ཡིན།

    དམ་པ་རྒྱལ་པོའི་རྡོ་མཁར།

    དམ་པ་རྒྱལ་པོའི་རྡོ་མཁར་ནི་འབར་ཁམས་རྫོང་དམ་པའི་ཡུལ་ཚོའི་ཀ་ལིང་གྲོང་ཚོ་ལ་ཡོད། དམ་པ་རྒྱལ་པོ་དགེ་ལེགས་ཀྱིས་སྲིད་དབང་མ་བཟུང་སྔོན་དུ།(སྤྱི་ལོ་1685ལོ་ནས་1693བར)དགེ་ལེགས་རྒྱལ་པོས་སྲིད་དབང་བཟུང་བ་ནས་བཅིངས་འགྲོལ་མ་གཏོང་བར་དམ་པ་རྒྱལ་པོའི་རྒྱལ་རྒྱུད་ཉེར་གཉིས་བརྒྱུད་ལ། དེའི་ནང་ལ་རྒྱལ་མོ་གཉིས་བྱུང་མྱོང་སྟེ་གཅིག་ནི་ཚེ་རིང་ལྷ་སྐྱིད་(1893ལོ་ནས་1926བར་) དང་གཅིག་ནི་རྗེས་རབས་རྒྱལ་མོ་བསོད་ནམས་དབང་མོ་(1946ལོ་ནས་བཅིངས་འགྲོལ་བཏང་སྔོན)ཡིན། དམ་པ་རྡོ་མཁར་གཡས་གཡོན་ལ་སྔོན་རྡོ་མཁར་གཉིས་ཡོད་ལ་དམ་པ་རྡོ་མཁར་དང་གཡོན་ཕྱོགས་ཀྱི་རྡོ་མཁར་ནི་1933ལོར་བརླགས། ད་ལྟ་གཡས་ཕྱོགས་ཀྱི་རྡོ་མཁར་ཡོད་ཅིང་ཟུར་བཞི་ཅན་ཡིན་ལ། བལྟས་ན་གཟི་བརྗིད་ལྡན་ཞིང་བརྩེགས་དགུའི་མཐོ་ཚད་སྨི་29ཡོད། མཁར་མགོ་ཕྱོགས་བཞི་ལ་པད་རྒྱན་ཡོད། རྗེས་རབས་རྒྱལ་མོ་བསོད་ནམས་དབང་མོས་རྡོ་མཁར་སླར་གསོ་བྱེད་ཆེད་ཤིང་ཆ་མང་པོ་གྲ་སྒྲིག་བྱས་ཀྱང་། བཅིངས་འགྲོལ་བཏང་རྗེས་བསོད་ནམས་དབང་མོས་ཤིང་ཆ་དེ་ཚང་མ་དམ་པའི་གྲོང་ཚོ་དགུ་ལ་བགོས་ནས་སློབ་གྲྭ་འཛུགས་རྟེན་བྱས།

    སོ་མང་རྒྱལ་པོའི་རྡོ་མཁར།

    སོ་མང་རྒྱལ་པོའི་རྡོ་མཁར་ནི་སོ་མང་ཡུལ་ཚོ་མུར་ཁྱུ་གྲོང་ཚོ་ནང་ཡོད་ལ། སྔར་གྱི་སོ་མང་རྡོ་མཁར་གྱི་གཡས་གཡོན་དུ་རྡོ་མཁར་གཉིས་ཡོད་ཀྱང་ད་ལྟ་ནུབ་ཕྱོགས་ཀྱི་རྡོ་མཁར་བརྩེགས་དགུ་མ་ལས་མེད་དེ་། སོ་མང་རྒྱལ་རབས་དང་པོ་ནི་བཙན་པོའི་གདུང་རྒྱུད་མངའ་བདག་ཁྲི་ལྡེའི་བུ་མདའ་དར་དཀོན་མཆོག་སྐྱབས་ཡིན། ཁོང་ནི་སྤྱི་ལོ་1183མངའ་རིས་ནས་ལྷ་རྒྱལ་གླིང་དུ་ཕེབས། རྒྱལ་པོ་ནོར་བུས་རྒྱལ་སྲིད་བཟུང་དུས་(1301ལོ་ནས་1354བར) ལྷ་རྒྱལ་གླིང་ནས་མུར་ཁྱུར་སྤོས། རྡོ་མཁར་མིང་ལ་ཕོ་བྲང་འགྱུར་མེད་མཁར་ལྗོངས་ནོར་བུའི་གླིང་ཟེར། མདའ་དར་དཀོན་མཆོག་སྐྱབས་ཀྱིས་སྲིད་དབང་བཟུང་ནས་1913ལོར་བདུད་འདུལ་པད་མ་རིག་འཛིན་གྱི་བར་རྒྱལ་རབས་བཅུ་དྲུག་བརྒྱུད། 1914ལོ་ནས་1950བར་སོ་མང་ལ་རྒྱལ་པོ་རེས་སྡོད་ཀྱི་རྣམ་པས་སྲིད་བཟུང་། སོ་མང་རྒྱལ་རྒྱུད་ཀྱི་ནང་དུ་སྙན་གྲགས་ཆེ་བའི་རྒྱལ་མོ་གཉིས་ཡོད་ལ་གཅིག་ནི་(1737ལོ་ནས་1757བར)རྒྱལ་མོ་སྒྲོལ་མ་མཚོ་དང་། རྒྱལ་མོ་བསོད་ནམས་སྒྲོལ་མ་(1798ལོ་ནས་1814བར)གཉིས་ཡིན། ཆིང་གོང་མ་ཆན་ལུང་གིས་ཆུ་ཆེན་ལ་དམག་ཐེངས་གཉིས་གཏོང་སྐབས། རྒྱལ་མོ་བསོད་ནམས་མཚོས་ཆིང་གོང་མ་ལ་ལ་རྒྱབ་སྐྱོར་བྱས་པས། གོང་མ་ཆན་ལུང་གིས་‘ཡིག་དཔོན་རྣམས་འགྱོགས་དང། དྲག་དཔོན་རྣམས་རྟ་ཐོག་ནས་འབབ་’ཅེས་པའི་གསེར་བྱང་གནང་། གསེར་བྱང་དེ་ནི་སྔར་སོ་མང་རྒྱལ་སྒོར་ཡོད། དུས་དེར་སོ་མང་རྒྱལ་མོའི་སྙན་གྲགས་ཆེ་བས། 1896ལོར་རང་ལོ་65ལོན་པའི་དབྱིན་ཇིའི་ས་གཤིས་རིག་ཚོགས་ཀྱི་བུ་མོ་ཁོངས་མི་དང་པོ་སྙན་གྲགས་ཆེ་བའི་གནས་ཡིག་རྩོམ་པ་པོ་དབྱི་ས་པེ་ན་པེ་ཏེ་ཁྲེང་ཏུའུ་ནས་སོ་མང་རྒྱལ་མོའི་ལོ་རྒྱུས་ཐོས་པས། ཐག་རིང་ཞིང་ས་དོག་ལ་མ་འཛེས་པ་རྨིན་ཅང་དང་མྱག་ལོ། སྤོ་དཀར་ལ་བཅས་བརྒྱུད་ནས་སོ་མང་རྡོ་མཁར་ལ་ཐོན་པ་དང་དམངས་ཁྲོད་དུ་སོ་མང་རྒྱལ་མོའི་ལོ་རྒྱུས་འདྲི་རྩད་བྱས།

    དབྱི་ས་པེ་ན་པེ་ཏེ་ཡིས་རྡོ་མཁར་གྱི་སྒོ་ནི་བླངས་ཆོག་པའི་རྡོ་དང་ས་སྤུངས་པ་ཡིན་པས་དངོས་པོ་སྣ་ཚོགས་རྡོ་མཁར་ནང་དུ་འདྲེན་སླ་བ་དང་། རྟ་ཟོག་ཀྱང་རྡོ་མཁར་ནང་དུ་ཁྲིད་ཆོག མི་རྣམས་ཀྱིས་རྡོ་མཁར་ཕྱིའི་ས་རྡོ་སོགས་བསལ་ནས་སྐས་བཙུགས་ནས་ནང་དུ་སོང་རྗེས་སྐས་མཁར་ནང་དུ་བླངས་ཆོག་པས་རྡོ་མཁར་འདི་མིང་དོན་མཚུངས་པས་ཉེས་གཡོལ་ཁང་ཡིན། རྡོ་མཁར་གྱི་འོག་ཏུ་རྟ་ཟོག་འདོག་པ་དང་སྟེང་དུ་མི་བསྡད། འབྲུ་རིགས་ཀྱང་བཞག་ཆོག དེ་ནི་གྲོང་སྡེ་ཞིག་གི་རྡོ་མཁར་འགའ་ལ་དཔྱད་པ་ལས་ཤེས་པ་ཡིན། སྐབས་དེར་རྒྱལ་པོ་དང་དཔོན་པོ། ཡང་ན་ཕྱུག་པོ་རྣམས་ལ་རང་རང་གི་ཉེན་གཡོལ་བྱེད་སའི་རྡོ་མཁར་ཡོད་ཚོད་རེད། རྡོ་མཁར་གྱི་བཟོ་སྐྲུན་བྱེད་སྟངས་ནི་ཀླ་ཀློས་སྐྲུན་ཐུབ་པ་ཞིག་གཏན་ནས་མིན།

    ཟུར་བརྒྱད་རྡོ་མཁར།

    འབར་ཁམས་ལ་བརྗིད་ཉམས་ལྡན་ཞིང་བཀོད་ལག་རབ་ཏུ་མཛེས་པའི་རྡོ་མཁར་ཟུར་བརྒྱད་ཅན་གསུམ་ཡོད་པ་སྟེ་དེ་ནི་རྫོང་འགག་གི་ཆུ་ཕོ་གྲོང་སྡེ་ལ་གནས་པའི་བཟོ་བུ་རྡོ་མཁར་དང་བཀའ་ཙུ་རྡོ་མཁར། ཀྱོམ་ཀྱོའི་བྲོ་ཤོག་རྡོ་མཁར་ཡིན། བཟོ་བུ་རྡོ་མཁར་ནི་ལྷོར་གནས་པས་ལྷོ་མཁར་དང་། བཀའ་ཙུ་རྡོ་མཁར་ལ་བྱང་མཁར་ཡང་ཟེར། དེ་གཉིས་ཀྱི་བར་ལ་སྨི་བརྒྱ་ཙམ་ལས་མེད། བཟོ་བུ་རྡོ་མཁར་ཟེར་དོན་ནི་བཟོ་བུ་ཚང་དང་ཉེ་བས་རེད། རྡོ་མཁར་དེ་ནི་ཁ་ཤར་ལ་འཁོར་ཡོད་ཅིང་མཐོ་ཚད་སྨི་29བརྩེགས་དགུ་ཡོད། རྡོ་མཁར་འདི་དང་བྱང་ཕྱོགས་སུ་གནས་པའི་རྡོ་མཁར། འབོ་སྟུག་ཡུལ་ཚོ་བཅས་བར་ལ་འབྲེལ་མཐུད་བྱེད་ཐུབ་པའི་དུང་ལམ་ཡོད་པ་དང་། དུང་ལམ་ནང་ཆུ་ཁུར་བའི་མི་གཉིས་ཐུག་ནའང་འགྲོ་ཆོག་པར་བཤད། རྡོ་མཁར་འདི་བཟོ་སྐྲུན་བྱས་པའི་ལོ་ནི་ཧྥ་རན་སིའི་ཧྥ་ཏེར་ཁེ་ཏ་རུག་གིས་རྡོ་མཁར་གྱི་ཤིང་ལ་དཔྱད་པ་ལྟར་ན་སྤྱི་ལོ་1230དང་1400བར་ཡིན།

    ཀྱོམ་ཀྱོའི་བྲོ་ཤོག་རྡོ་མཁར་རྫོང་ལ་མཐོ་ཚད་སྨི་43.2བརྩེགས་དགུ་ཡོད། འདི་ནི་ད་ལྟ་རྒྱལ་ཡོངས་ཀྱི་ཟུར་བརྒྱད་རྡོ་མཁར་ཆེས་མཐོ་བ་ཡིན། དེའི་ཤིང་ལ་དཔྱད་པ་ལྟར་ན་དེ་ནི་སྤྱི་ལོ་1400ནས་1470ལ་སྐྲུན་པ་ཡིན།

    དེ་མིན་འབར་ཁམས་ལ་བཀོད་ལེགས་རྡོ་མཁར་ཟུར་ལྔ་ཅན་དང་། མཁར་ཁང་མཐུད་པ་དམངས་ཀྱིས་རྡོ་ཁང་དུ་སྐྲུན་པའི་རྡོ་མཁར་སོགས་ཡོད། རྡོ་མཁར་ལ་ལའི་རྩིག་ངོས་རྡོ་དཀར་གྱིས་གཡག་མགོ་དང་རྟ་མཆོག་སོགས་དོད་དུ་བཅུག་ཡོད། ལོ་རྒྱུས་དང་ཁྱད་པར་དུ་རྡོ་མཁར་སྐོར་གྱི་དཔྱད་གཞི་ཡིག་ཆ་རབ་ཏུ་དཀོན་པས། ང་ཚོས་འབར་ཁམས་ས་ཁུལ་གྱི་རྡོ་མཁར་གྱི་གནས་ཚུལ་གསལ་བོ་ཤེས་པར་དཀའ་ནའང་། ད་ལྟ་ཡོད་པའི་རྡོ་མཁར་ལ་རྩད་ཆོད་ཞིབ་འཇུག་དང་དམངས་ཁྲོད་ཀྱི་བཤད་སྲོལ་སོགས་འཚོལ་སྡུད་བྱས་པར་བརྟེན། རྡོ་མཁར་ལ་ངོས་འཛིན་ངེས་ཅན་ཡོད་པ་འདིའོ། རྡོ་མཁར་ཞིབ་འཇུག་བྱེད་རྒྱུ་འདི་ནི་བོད་མི་རིགས་ཀྱི་ལོ་རྒྱུས་རིག་གནས་ཞིབ་འཇུག་བྱེད་པའི་བདེན་དཔང་དང་རིག་གནས་ཤུལ་བཞག་ཕུལ་བྱུང་ཞིག་ཡིན་ཞིང་། འདི་རྣམས་འཛམ་གླིང་རིག་གནས་རྗེས་ཤུལ་གྱི་མིང་ཐོར་འགོད་པའི་ཡར་ཞུ་ཕུལ་ཡོད།

    མདའ་ཚན་པས་སྤྱི་ལོ་ ༢༠༠༨ ཟླ་ ༡༠ ཚེས་ ༢༤ ལ་ རྩོམ་​གྱི་གྲས་སུ་བ

  61. Kalsang Phuntsok | June 15th, 2010 | 8:31 am

    Arihant,

    The reason Mila says he will stop criticizing Umeylam is because he believes bi-party system will provide equal opportunity to debate for Rangzen supporters. And if Umeylam prevails in such a system, which is presumably fair and just, he won’t have any regret because majority wins in a democracy. If you follow Mila’s comments, you will know he wants one of the parties to be Rangzen party.

    Why do I feel that you already know this but wrote your comment anyways just to taunt Mila.

    I dismiss your comment about Samdhong as pure tautology.

  62. Mila Rangzen | June 16th, 2010 | 2:51 am

    one poem per month on our issue.

    arihant,
    equal access to power in dhasa follows party system. with party system, rangzen activist and supporters get a fair chance! i shall shut up! others may not agree with me here and i must say i do recognize their democratic right to be critical of any governmental policy regardless of whether party system materializes or not. however, the struggle within will unfortunately continue until justice prevails within. ccp will pay. rangzen is worth every risk. for now middle way party is using every apparatus including tgie to smother our freedom of thought and murder our instinct for independence. through this so called ‘partyless system’ subservience is demanded. ‘yes you can be kalon tripa but only on the condition that you have to abide by our middle way values and its national policy’ is the sad reality. to question any one’s motivation and loyalty simply because one’s views are not compatible with governmental policy is an attempt to crush the freedom of speech and create a culture of ralug mentality. what else can be more undemocratic than this?

    more than 1 million lives lost for independence. and millions continue to suffer oppression and indignities. any one who argues otherwise is simply trying to play with words(samdong’s penchant for word play!). does tgie continue to give any meaning for the supreme sacrifices of the million dead? international recognition or not, tgie is the engine. when it fails us all else will. ‘tgie did not steal rangzen’ is a cheap remark that satisfies the front benchers in the indian cinema hall. why do we keep bringing up ‘you, me’ into a debate that calls for wider perspective? can we see it from a different angle than derive some childlike satisfaction from the feeling that you have successfully pinned your ‘opponent’ down with such third class remarks?

    just wishing is not enough. lack of political direction and clarity of purpose in our struggle is killing us.
    deep down it’s independence. no more, no less. alas! faith, not reason, continues to dictate us. massive appeal to inappropriate authority and not to the authority of natural reasons is helping the ccp to gradually drag us as
    a people into the fate of american indians and australian aborigines.
    the point of no return. let’s wait another 50 to 100 years. great vision!
    thanks for wishing me luck. it will be hard for me but once done with those 50 pages single space the purpose of my life is fulfilled. i shall happily respond to the calling from heaven!

    thanks kalsang phuntsok for spraying some cool water on the eyes of arihant!

  63. bhikshuni lozang | June 16th, 2010 | 9:45 am

    If Mila has the energy to sing for freedom then who are we to stop him!

    I like the poetry idea; Rap started from the West Indian dub poets, i think if you can get some short and succinct Tibetan history to the memories of the young generations with rhyming dub poems then that is a big part of the struggle achieved!

    If you can also get at the younger generation of Chinese without antagonizing them so that they retract in defensiveness then there also will be a good chance of getting their support (sooner or later??) at the grass roots level.

    Why not get some of the Tibetans with strong Chinese connections like in Taiwan etc to help, like Ven Dzongsar Khyentse, etc?

    If you can open a progressive space then no need to fuss so much with thrashing Umeylam; on the other hand, without anywhere else for people to go, no amount of critique will change anything.

    The case of Tibetans in Zhizang (Sinocized Tibet)looks like it is already gone past Native Americans and Australian aboriginals state, but with seemingly even fewer legal protections (Native Ams have legal rights over tribal property ordinances for example).

    On the other hand, cases like East Timor and Baltic states show that there’s reason to work to keep hope alive.

    The struggle for more democracy in TGIE sounds like a very good idea.

  64. Mila Rangzen | June 17th, 2010 | 4:09 am

    the articles that will address the chinese people and citizens of the world on the question of tibet will attempt to create a huge guilt consciousness in their hearts for what ccp continues to do to us with world leaders’ eyes wide shut. we cant blame them but if we can then it must begin with ourselves. blacks have largely succeeded in this. even innocent whitemen today feel the need to move about very cautiously when dealing with blacks lest they be called names for what many of their grandfathers did to them yesterday.
    progressive path on the grassland of rangzen is possible when the steering of the tgie is in the hands of those bitten by rangzen conviction. a lamb shedding tears of blood before a big hungry wolf stands what chance you know best. a young monk in tsopema whose only interest in life is to be a hermit, will naturally turn down medical scholarship offers from haward let lone become a doctor. goal precedes result. tgie is the main engine.
    secular bi-party system is fair and just answer! give us a chance! this is our demand. a blessing from HH on this! Right now we do not have genuine democracy, in fact, we are still in the thrall of Theocracy, who with their privileged positions, have an amplified voice in our society. This really needs to change, politics and religion must be severed completely.

    rise and rise again
    until lambs become lions!

  65. T.D | June 17th, 2010 | 7:38 am

    If our society is filled with people like mila Rangzen, then it is better we don’t have bi-party system.It is because he is so fond of critcism that anything he disagree considered wrong and subject to abondon. That is very destructive attitude!

  66. bhikshuni lozang | June 17th, 2010 | 8:30 am

    Well said Mila, i will only add the possibility, speaking as a Harvard Grad coming out of 10 years solo retreat in Khumbu, that the two aims are not necessarily mutually exclusive!

    Jaya Andolan!

  67. Tenpa Dhargyal Gashi | June 17th, 2010 | 11:46 pm

    waiting for your articles, Mila. It should be interesting, to say the least.

    T.D: in democracy, Mila would have the right to criticize what he deems wrong and unconscionable while the opposition would have the same right to disagree with him. I would say that is much better than one-party system.

  68. Mila Rangzen | June 18th, 2010 | 12:46 am

    it’s not a question of fondness of criticism but rather a necessity of it. in true democracy criticism is indispensable. it helps us see 2 or more sides of the situation so we can evaluate them and make well informed decisions for the good of our nation. have you ever wondered why there are state supported opposition parties in democracies around the world? why there aint any in authoritarian regimes? if HH is serious about a full fledged democracy in a free tibet then it’s time we start practicing it now while HH is alive and in exile so the fear of the return of the old feudal tibet is removed for good from the hearts and minds of all tibetans. for now i cannot and do not trust the structure of our govt that is more prone to demand submissiveness and uniformity from its people than appreciate and take pride in their critical thinking in diversity. 51 years in exile is a long time! good men fail us when system sucks.

    let’s fix it
    before it’s too late
    hold my hand
    let’s fix it together!
    yes, together we can!

  69. Mila Rangzen | June 18th, 2010 | 1:15 am

    TDG,
    it will take a while!
    i am not a writer in any sense
    and those pages need to be fully loaded with tear gas!
    do you know jim corbet? a legendary hunter in north india in the early 1900’s. his style of writings impress me so much so that i read all his classic wildlife books when i run into nuns like T.D and get depressed! it’s therapeutic!

  70. Bina | June 18th, 2010 | 4:40 am

    So nice to hear – or read- you all talking about history and poetry etc: but I think there is too much talk and not enough action. Seems to me the way the bloody chinese have made inroads into Tibet and the number of Dead that soon Tibet will only be history.

    It is time the world stood by the Tibetan people and got rid of the chinese, so sad that it was H:H. who told the Kampas not to resist. Evil must be resisted. Didn’t the world resist the Nazis?
    How can dialogue, pacience and compassion win back Tibet?

  71. Kalsang Phuntsok | June 18th, 2010 | 9:31 am

    Mila,

    I agree with you 100%.

    Not only the expressed consent of HHDL is important but also the nature of that consent is very crucial. It should be so that it is not left to any misinterpretation. It should NOT be so that it appears as if it is bestowed upon us, rather it should be a DECLARATION, a clear AFFIRMATION of the natural right of every Tibetan to a true democracy where opposing views gets equal opportunity in governance and most crucially in our case, the path and objective of our struggle towards freedom of the 6 million Tibetans.

    History tells us that the path towards Democracy, Equal Rights, Fair Judiciary is long and bloody, but inevitable. I just hope that we have learned from history and are wise enough to avoid unnecessary pains of transformation. I hope we hold the Standards which we accuse our enemy of lacking.

  72. Mila Rangzen | June 19th, 2010 | 3:41 am

    k phuntsok,
    what a hammer on the nail!
    no to double standard! is tgie listening?

    where is lejo tsang? i enjoy her writings..bold and beautiful! i hope she or those professors or any one can shower some feedbacks here.

    bina, one scary thing about ‘religion’ people as as head of state is when things get a little ugly they will not hesitate to compromise our political world for their spiritual illumination!

    a bust for andruk gompo in dhasa, a gold medal for every veteran of tibetan independence wars from 1949 to 1974, and a silver certificate each for all the peaceful independence political prisoners from 1974 to this day is very
    reasonable.

  73. Kalsang Phuntsok | June 19th, 2010 | 9:16 am

    If the middle way advocates don’t believe that tibetans have the right to independence, why are they not saying it openly. Deep down they know they are selling away their natural right of freedom for a compromise with the devil.

    Please this is not a poker game. Emancipation is not achieved by bluffing, it demeans the idea.

  74. Arihant | June 19th, 2010 | 12:11 pm

    I agree that no segment of voice or stray voice in our community should be suppressed simply because it doesn’t sit well with majority of the opinion. When we first came into exile, Rangzen was the only goal. In the course two decades proceeding the establishment of exile government, some unfavorable reshuffling and realigning of the international political games have put us at a great disadvantage. Nonetheless Rangzen has thus far been the only standing slogan when Tibetans take to the streets to demonstrate against China.
    At the same time, ever since Deng Xiaoping supposedly said to Gyalo that everything can be discussed between the two except Rangzen, TGIE with guidance from the His Holiness the Dalai Lama officially adopted the Umelam approach to deal with China (The PM Samgdhong said this approach can be traced far back to 1951 when 17 Point Peace Agreement was signed.)
    Now the official policiy of TGIE is Umelam. I hope Rangzen advocates truly understand the mission of Umelam approach in its entirety. I think its mission is to unite all Tibetans under one administration to create an atmosphere where Tibetan culture and religion will have a lifeline support to continue in the 21st century. Though I am not particularly interested in preserving culture and religious tradition but these are the main binding force that bring Tibetans together. This is I think a very important point to remember.
    Promoting bi-party system in exile though I don’t think is the right move is your right to campaign. But criticizing Umelam to promote bi-party system is like screaming at your wife when you are mad at your mom.
    As the PM Samdhong says Rangzen is not in the hand of TGIE. TGIE is not denying the rights of Rangzen wala to campaign for it. So it’s better to accept the fact that China has stolen the Rangzen and man up to fight for it from China instead of wasting time criticizing among us.

    I just had a cursory look at the kalontripa website. I drew some conclusions from the nominees and nominators. I am not claiming its reliability and conclusiveness. I will not mention one of the conclusions either as it led to misunderstand who I was.
    After more than five decades in exile, almost 65% of nominators were born in Tibet. And only about 4 out of 25 nominees were born in India. I was surprised to learn that none of die-hard Rangzen wala is on the list of nominees for katriship. Worst yet, one of a very few outspoken rangzen wala is having a bad time in chituelhanKhang. Why aren’t outspoken Rangzen advocates like Jamyang Norbu, Lhasang Tsering, Tenzin tsundue running for katriship or chitue seats so that they amend laws to fit their ideals?
    Why don’t Kalsang Phuntsok and Mila Rangzen run for these offices?
    Or are you guys not interested in changing policy through legislature from chitueLhankhang? Or you guys want to stage an unlawful takeover of TGIE or siege a military coup? Or just enjoying verbally harassing TGIE?

  75. Arihant | June 19th, 2010 | 5:32 pm

    I heard this sad news that about 9 Tibetan students from Tibetan Homes Foundation Mussoorie were expelled from the school because of some “sex scandals”. Currently they are in the Tibetan Reception Center in Nepal so obviously these students are new arrivals from Tibet.

    As usual, media in exile Tibetan community has completely been silence on this news because of the typical mentality of “Tibetans don’t-act-bad-behavior” and we-have-to-protect-our-image.

    I don’t know the nature of “sex scandals” but simply having sex among high school students should not be a ground enough to rip off the opportunity of a life time for these children to study in India. Their parents have sacrificed so much to send their own children to India with full trust in Tibetan government in exile.

    I don’t think it’s a wise decision to expel students from school especially those new arrival children who risked so much to go to India. Their whole life would be messed up now by sending back to Tibet.
    This is cruel. Sometimes we are more forgiven to enemies than ourselves.

    I think it’s a right time to bring up this issue and the issues related to sex scandals such as Tibetan teachers and school staffs having sex with minors. It would be nice if we can do some clean up of ourselves.

    Sorry Jamnor la for bringing it up here. It seems like any Tibetan related topics can be discussed on this blog.

  76. tsering | June 20th, 2010 | 2:16 am

    Arihant la,
    Why are we allowing ourselves to be politically duped over and over since 1951? Does our leadership have the wisdom to learn from past deceptions we suffered under China?
    Independence is also for one administration for all the provinces. Do not imply otherwise.
    China, not TGIE, stole independence from us. We all know that. China is the criminal. No one is accusing TGIE of stealing independence. We are talking direction, not means here. People are doing their bit with side by side critique. Reread ‘waiting for mangtso’. What constitutional power does Katri have? Karma Chompel screwed himself with the last year chithue drama. With juchen’s help he may become Katri!
    Military coup in exile! Good joke! Tihar jail!

  77. Mila Rangzen | June 21st, 2010 | 1:18 am

    With the secular bi-party system democracy….

    Tibetan National Rangzen Party( and its members for the administration)

    President:
    Lhasang tsering

    Kalon tripa:
    Jamyang norbu

    Kalons:

    Tenpa tsering
    Karma chompel
    Kp godrukpa
    Tseten norbu
    B tsering
    Tenzin sonam
    Tsewang rinzing

    Lower house (party based chithues)
    Tenpa dhargyal gapshi
    Choedon Lejotsang
    Kalsang phuntsok
    Topden
    Lhadon
    Tendor
    Tenzin seldom
    Jigme ugen
    Kelsang tseten
    Zoksang
    Tenzin gelek
    Buchung d sonam
    Tenzin tsundue
    Loten namling
    Lobsang wangyal
    Losang gyatso
    Dorji tseten
    Lhakpa tsering
    Riga tawo
    B tsering
    Mingyur samkar
    Rfa lobsang yeshi
    Ex tyc lobsang yeshi
    Tsering rhitar
    Palden gyal
    Rangjung dolma
    Pema dhondup
    Techung
    Wangdi dewatsang
    Tenzin norsang
    Nyima samkar
    Lobsang sangay
    Phurbu dorjee
    Joe Hamilton
    Maura
    Golok ambum
    Tsering chodup
    Dhadon sherling
    woser
    ritu sonam

    Upper house( province based chithues)
    Doetoe…kasur sonam topgyal
    Domey…pema bum
    Utsang…namgyal tethong

    from the list above
    Those Not bitten by rangzen conviction
    Remove them!

    Looking for rangzen leaders
    Young or old
    Add them to the list!
    by 2016
    we must be ready!
    for the steering of tgie
    in our hands, our hands only!

    Special Department of religion(for religious harmony. also as advisors to cool down any political violence among ourselves. just incase)

    Gelug…gyalwa rinpoche
    Nyingma…sogyal rinpoche
    Kargyu…karmapa
    Sakya…sakya trinzin
    Bonpo…namkhai norbu
    Jonang…losang rinpoche
    Yeshu…frasi sonam
    Khaje…abdul gafar tashi
    Hindu… ravi Shankar phuntsok

  78. Arihant | June 21st, 2010 | 8:25 am

    Tsering la,
    Thanks for asking. I will answer your question when I feel like it okay? Right now, I want to talk about the fate of these 9 children from Tibet who were expelled from Tibetan Homes Foundation. They are to be handed to Chinese authorities from Nepal.

    The youngest “sex offender” is 11 years old Tibetan child. Based on this “sex crime”, they will be handed to Chinese custody from Nepal to put it in a clear and precise term.
    It reminds me watching a video clip in which a thug of Taliban beating a 14 year old Afghan girl because she had run away from her husband. What Tibetan Homes Foundation did was the opposite extreme of this types of inhumane punishments of Taliban.

  79. Kalsang Phuntsok | June 21st, 2010 | 3:40 pm

    Arihant, is this story published in any newspaper or website? Who is your source for this information?

    Deportation would not be possible without involvement of the Indian police / immigration officials. TGIE or the Homes Foundation doesn’t have the authority to deport anyone from India nor it can grant asylum to anyone. If the Criminal Laws of the land were broken, the Homes Foundation would be right in reporting to the proper Indian Enforcement authority.

    Apart from being off the subject, it would not be worthwhile to further comment on your post until you furnish some more concrete details.

  80. Pema | June 22nd, 2010 | 5:22 am

    Did middle-way policy came into being after Nixon kissed Mao’ bum.

    If that was reason than it was folly to assume some to fight for us.

  81. bhikshuni lozang | June 22nd, 2010 | 8:02 am

    #77 lineup looks like archaic patriarchal same-ole same-ole…where’s the radical representation makeover there except for JN!???

    (okay, maybe give you MR and Karmapa too but HH Gyalwang Drukpa not mentioned at all either)

  82. Sangay | June 22nd, 2010 | 10:20 am

    #80

    It’s a folly, isnt it, but our Dhasa politicians and self-styled ‘intellectual’ posters here have marketed the folly so vehemently as an ‘erudite’ stategy that they dont leave any scope for deabate.

    Pempa Tsering, speaker of our Parliament-in-Exile, during his recent visit to NY along with PM Samdhong Rinpoche said to the gathering that we could not demand Rangzen or self-determination because India does not support neither demands!

    Sometime it makes you think if we are fighting for our own cause or someone else’s…

  83. Dan | June 22nd, 2010 | 1:33 pm

    Look, as I did recently, at the first part of this video, and see how, in a late 1970’s speech on the occasion of March 10th, His Holiness makes several references to rangzen, oddly translated as ‘freedom’ in the English subtitles (not a satisfactory translation, although of course freedom, self-determination and independence are interdependent and overlapping ideas, no doubt about that… but scratch all that since anyway H.H. is unambiguously talking about the collective freedom of Tibetans when He uses the word rangzen).

    I have always understood that this Middle Way was an offer, but since the offer was never in any way accepted by the partners in negotiation (certainly not in any public way, with all the automated barking about ‘disguised independence’), the offer could be withdrawn. A few times I imagined it was withdrawn, but I evidently misunderstood.

    Conservatives need to be reminded that this is something new for them to be conservative about. Some young people have already forgotten that it’s an idea with a not-very-long history.

    I watched the recently reissued version on DVD (not identical to the 1979 original version), and am not 100% the Google Video version is the same as the DVD, altho’ it seems so. The speech starts at the 22 minute mark, in case you are impatient to get there.

    Didn’t mean to interrupt the furious argumentation. Go back to it. May H.H. live long! Democratic egalitarian attitudes and vigorous debates about the best directions to take, ditto! I see no contradiction there. Not the least. But what do I know?

  84. Tenpa Dhargyal Gashi | June 22nd, 2010 | 11:35 pm

    Mila, I accept the position.

    Dan, I think it started off as an offer (supposed to be very ‘cunning’ on our part as we would later dupe them and gain total independence) and when the world leaders realized how convenient it became for them to simply shrug off supporting true universal values and play lip politics while they engage in trade with modern day slave-made owners. Now, since every cunning assholes in the world are praising the ‘vastness’ of the vision and ‘buddhist ideals’ of the middleway, it suddenly became really hard to withdraw the offer, what with the Nobel Peace Prize award shining on a mantle somewhere in Gangkyi. It is like asking somebody to marry you, invitations have been sent out, 2000 family and guests have already booked their tickets, wedding dress purchased, expensive diamond, and everything set up. The night before the wedding, you realize your ‘fiancee’ had never agreed to the wedding and it was actually one of her ugly cousin who played a prank on you because you are gullible.

  85. Arihant | June 23rd, 2010 | 8:32 am

    Kalsang Phuntsok la,
    Here is the article about 9 new arrival Tibetan children expelled from Tibetan Homes Foundation.
    http://tibettimes.net/news.php?showfooter=1&id=2916&&cp=1

    These new arrival Tibetan children were expelled from the school. They were taken to Tibetan Reception Center in Kathmandu, the same place where they had registered their Tibetan identities when they escaped from Tibet.

    The fate of new arrival Tibetan children being expelled from school is not a topic worth discussing?

    These children didn’t have anybody in exile to turn to for help. If THF didn’t have plan to send them back to Tibet, why then these children were taken to Tibetan Reception Center in Kathmandu?
    I understand the reason that this inhumane punishment for having sex in the school was to teach a lesson to these children and discourage others of doing the same in the future. But it’s too cruel a punishment especially it’s coming from a Tibetan school not a Taliban school.

  86. Arihant | June 24th, 2010 | 7:32 pm

    Latest update on this news;
    The following article says there were four new arrival Tibetan children still in the Tibetan Reception Center in Kathmandu. The rest of them had been picked up by their relatives.
    http://www.tibetexpress.net/bo/home/2010-02-04-05-35-27/3458-2010-06-23-06-08-55

    The article in the following link says the elementary school students in the Veterans Memorial Elementary School in Provincetown, Mass can get condom from the school without given out their names.
    http://www.parentdish.com/2010/06/24/massachusetts-elementary-school-to-distribute-condoms-to-student/
    http://www.parentdish.com/2010/06/24/massachusetts-elementary-school-to-distribute-condoms-to-student/

  87. bhikshuni lozang | June 24th, 2010 | 8:23 pm

    point taken TDG but misogynist metaphors like “ugly cousin bride” will never help your cause as it just keeps embedding everything opposite to Tibetan-self-realisation deeper and deeper into tibetan society by the very people trying to free it!!! none are free till all are free

  88. tsering | June 25th, 2010 | 2:53 pm

    ani lozang, no dharma karma bum, please!

  89. Mila Rangzen | June 27th, 2010 | 7:36 pm

    TD GAPSHI,
    what happened to your facebook id? new one? let me know. thanx.

  90. Tenpa Dhargyal Gashi | June 27th, 2010 | 9:48 pm

    Hey Mila, I took it off for one month. Will be back on July 10th.

  91. Tibetan Mastiff | June 28th, 2010 | 3:08 pm

    I often goes to Rangzen.net and read articles there too.
    I’m sure other fans of this blog also do the same thing.
    But I wonder why readers don’t make comments there as they do here.
    Any idea? Perhaps it is new blog or the requirement of registration?
    I wish we can be active and engaging by posting commments on http://www.rangzen.net too.

  92. yangchen | July 21st, 2010 | 11:41 am

    Sir JN la,
    After going through your articles about Yushu and Gyalrong, I wanted to request you to kindly write about the history of Miynak. What is the real issue of claiming Minyak under Tehor and Minyakwas refusing the claim?
    Some claims that Minyak does not come under the territory of Tibet. Is it related to the ruling power of then Gaden Phodrang on Minyak during the independent Tibet?
    There are many stone forts in Minyak ( i have never seen them eventhough i was born there) as you have mentioned earlier. There could be some interesting history about these Khars in Minyak.
    Anyone who cares to drop some relevant lines are warm heartedly appreciated.

  93. Thenorbu | July 28th, 2010 | 1:13 pm

    Yo Mila,

    I am very disappointed that you have not enlisted ARIHANT in your list running your imaginary E-Govt.

    I stand behind Arihant.

  94. Mila Rangzen | July 28th, 2010 | 9:47 pm

    theborbu,
    there is no place for middle believers in my e-kashag, chithue totso and katri seat. i flush them down the toilet right off the bat! arihant like lobsang sangay and tashi namgyal are staunch middle way belivers. hence, out! i do appreciate their education, service and energy.
    however, i m looking for independence doers only in my attempts to change the structure of our govt and to change the course of our struggle for once and all.
    i dont mind arguing with you guys though. cause you do have some idea about what democratic debate is all about.

  95. THENORBU | August 4th, 2010 | 12:32 pm

    Milgzen,

    Your choice i respect. I will come back to this blog after 5 years just to say hi.

    Merci !

  96. yeshe | November 26th, 2012 | 6:37 am

    hapyy to see your article on Gyalrong..
    i am from gyalrong, when i was small, i heard lot stories from old generation about war between Manchu dynasty and Gyalrong.

  97. Pam Logan | December 24th, 2012 | 12:57 pm

    Thanks, JN, for this great article. Like some other commentators, I would love to see more scholarship on Gyalrong, Minyak, and also the Qiang people – preferably in English since I don’t read Tibetan! I have been putting together a brief history of Minyak for a book I’m writing and it’s been quite difficult to get answers to even very simple questions, for example, what is the relationship of the Chakla and Minyak kingdoms? Is Chakla a direct successor of Minyak, or should they really be regarded as separate entities that ruled overlapping areas at different times?

    Again, thanks for posting this and I hope you’ll do more.

  98. Pam Logan | December 24th, 2012 | 1:17 pm

    About the towers, based on researching local history and also personally climbing around several of them in the Minyak area, I believe that they were a key element of local defenses against invading forces. At Laha Village, workmen restoring a tower under the direction of Minyak Rinpoche discovered a mortar apparently used for preparing gunpowder and they also found what appeared to me to be a cannonball. According to Darragon’s carbon dating data, that is one of the oldest towers, nearly a thousand years old. From what I’ve been able to dig up, over the centuries that valley was repeatedly attacked by Mongol and Chinese armies, so it makes sense they would post lookouts in the towers to watch for approaching armies and also used the towers to shower their attackers with rocks, arrows, spears, cannonballs– whatever they had at the time. The towers that I’ve seen were not built of dry-laid stone, but rather mortared with clay, a locally available material which is still being used today to restore towers. Tower-building is an extension of the random stone construction technique used locally to build houses and temples, some of them as high as four stories tall. I would guess that the star-shaped footprint was a special technique that was copied from Minyak to Gyalrong or vice versa.

Post a comment