. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
By Christophe Besuchet
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sort of political sentence pronounced on the Tibetan people resembles the terrible “death by a thousand cuts”. This was a form of execution practiced in China until the early twentieth century, in which the condemned person was killed by using a knife to methodically remove portions of the body over an extended period of time. The punishment is said to work on three levels: as a form of public humiliation, as a slow and lingering death, and as a punishment after death.
In referring to this form of capital punishment I am not talking about the harsh treatment meted out by Communist China to those living in occupied Tibet.
No, today what I’m concerned by is not China. It is the recent retirement of the Dalai Lama and the fatal amendments consequently made to the Tibetan Constitution and ratified last Saturday by the Tibetan Parliament. What is happening is actually a tragedy for the Tibetan people, and by any means the end of Tibet as a nation. A slow death, where portions of its sovereignty have been methodically cut off over time.
The first shock came on 21 November 2010. The Dalai Lama, much to the general surprise, announced during an interview on CNN-IBN that he would completely retire from politics “within six months”. Three-and-half months later, on 10 March 2011, he announced that his retirement was definitely decided and that it was to be ratified by the present Parliament. Although a great deal of emotions was expressed after these announcements, I was not among those who feared that Tibet’s struggle would not survive without the charismatic leader. I was, however, seriously alarmed that such decision would deprive Tibet of its head of state, with no replacement, no public consultation and, I must add, in a rather undemocratic manner.
Jamyang Norbu first raised this question of head of state and the subsequent legitimacy of the Tibetan Government on 28 March in his article “Resolving the Dalai Lama Resignation Crisis“. He called attention to a fact that most journalists, bloggers and commentators had until then failed to grasp in their respective judgments of the Dalai Lama’s announcement. Jamyang Norbu’s piece definitely inspired and influenced the debates that took place since then on this issue. Unfortunately, we know now that despite every advices and appeals the Dalai Lama “categorically” rejected the role of a symbolic head of state.
The second shock came along with the announcement of his retirement: in an address on the opening day of the Parliament session, on 14 March, the Dalai Lama declared “ineffective” two important documents passed by the Parliament in 1963 and 1992, calling explicitly for the restoration of Tibet’s independence. Here again, the issue was overlooked by most commentators and did not seem to steer much debate. It is surprisingly Robert Barnett of Columbia University, a controversial expert on Tibet, that underlined first this important issue in a Foreign Policy‘s article, followed recently by Wangpo Tethong who wrote:
“It is disturbing that His Holiness has now made a very strong linkage between his political retirement and the revocation of these two documents that have provided to the Tibetans a visionary guidance for their struggle for freedom. Why is it not possible to adjust these documents and edit only those parts that are related to the future role of the Dalai Lamas?”
The third shock — and indeed the final blow — came when the Dalai Lama gave further details on his decision. During a public speech at the Tsuglagkhang on 19 March, he clearly insisted that there were no such things as a “government in exile” or a Tibetan “prime minister”, and that in English one should use “administration” instead of “government”. This was nothing new, of course, but his remarks just made a shiver run down my spine… If the Dalai Lama was to insist on that point at such a particular time, it could only mean that he had programmed the termination of the Tibetan nation and was envisaging Tibet’s future solely through the narrow lens of his Middle Way Approach. The recent change in the government’s name, very unfortunately, proved me correct.
Obviously, if we take the Middle Way Approach to its logical — and suicidal — conclusion, a head of state is no longer relevant under PRC’s administration. It would be thus logic to abolish this function as a further concession to the Chinese regime. But in this case, it would also require doing away with the prime minister and the cabinet; in Communist China, provinces are ruled by governors, not by ministers. Why then such a masquerade? Why not to call a spade a spade?
The most alarming in all these events is the time factor. Indeed, there is much to wonder as to why everything had to be so hastily settled, with no public consideration of any kind excepted for submissively acquiescing to the Dalai Lama’s decisions and “suggested” amendments. Among others, one could seriously question the Dalai Lama’s insistence for an “immediate” amendment to the Charter as he called in a letter issued to the Parliament on 27 May, when most of the concerned people had agreed to give it more consideration and time.
All this haste is even more difficult to understand if we consider that four months before his original announcement on CNN-IBN, the Dalai Lama had not yet planned a date for his retirement. In July 2010, asked in an interview on NDTV if he had set a time frame for this retirement, the Dalai Lama answered “No.” In fact, even during the November interview, the Dalai Lama was hesitant about the date, and it’s interesting to see how he answered Karan Thapar’s questions:
Karan Thapar: Do you have a date when you want to retire?
Dalai Lama: No. Firstly I have to discuss with our exile Parliament. I want to inform them [of] my intention, although I briefly mentioned [them] already.
Karan Thapar: So only after you discuss you will decide a date?
Dalai Lama: That’s right.
Karan Thapar: But it is not something that is going to happen soon?
Dalai Lama: Oh, I think… [hesitating] I think within… within a few, within next…, I think six months… I think. I think it will be.
Karan Thapar: Within six months you will retire? [Thapar baffled]
Dalai Lama: Oh yeah. No, I have to discuss.
Karan Thapar: And then when do you think the retirement will happen?
Dalai Lama: I don’t know. Perhaps…, I think…, next…, a few months. I think, maybe, OK.
The sudden timing imposed by the Dalai Lama as well as the real scope of his decision seem to have surprised even someone as close to him as the Special Envoy Lodi Gyari. In an interview on Kunleng, a few days after His Holiness’ original November announcement, Gyari was personally confident that the Dalai Lama would retire from his role of head of government, but not as head of state. Three months later, after the Dalai Lama had given more precision on his retirement, he however acknowledged that the Dalai Lama has devolved both his roles.
In regards to such a curious and unwise timing, one should definitely question the legitimacy of the constitutional amendments ratified last Saturday, particularly in regards to the government’s new name. If we are to understand the conclusion of the recent Special Meeting held in Dharamshala, the Parliament did not pay any consideration to the fact that the 418 delegates were “unanimous on not changing the name of the Tibetan government.” This gives much thought about the democratic process of this whole affair.
Finally, looking back in 1992, one should not forget that the Dalai Lama had written a quite different scenario for the day he would resign from his leadership. In his “Guidelines for Future Tibet’s Polity and Basic Features of Its Constitution” (one of the two documents he declared “ineffective”, originally written for an eventual return in Tibet), he had carefully mentioned the need of an elected president to be Tibet’s head of state. Why then such a sudden change? Why the Dalai Lama didn’t even propose an alternative to his retirement, such as a presidential election as originally planned?
It is sad to admit it, but the only logical conclusion I see to the Dalai Lama’s refusal to be Tibet’s symbolic head of state seems to have nothing to do with the duties required by this function — he will definitely continues to travel and meet foreign dignitaries —, nor with the democratic emancipation of his people — he would have proposed them a choice —, but with his refusal to enshrine a Tibetan state in any form. I sincerely hope to be proven wrong, but if not, 29 May should be marked in Tibetan calendars as the Capitulation Day.
This is a great opportunity for Ranzen Walas to take matters in your hand.
mobilize your crew and putting up a Rangzen wala’s government and draft your constition and setting up your government structure.
Let elect jamyang for Kalon tripa, Christophe for foreign minister, and Lasang for home minister.
I’m a bit of a novice in this and am trying to understand all the implications of HHDL stepping down. Can you please answer my inquiries?
Is it possible that His Holiness is concerned about China’s insistence that they will appoint the next reincarnation of the Dalai Lama? Were they to successfully do so as they have with the Panchen Lama – even though the Tibetans refuse to acknowledge him as legitimate – could they then attempt to take over the exiled government? If the position of Dalai Lama is removed as head of state so to speak and the governing body is run by elected Tibetans doesn’t this help prevent any sort of messing around the Chinese might try?
“It is necessary that we establish a sound system of governance while I remain able and healthy, in order that the exile Tibetan administration can become self-reliant rather than being dependent on the Dalai Lama. If we are able to implement such a system from this time onwards, I will still be able to help resolve problems if called upon to do so,” he said.
COLD MOUNTAIN I agree – time for a Rangzen Party to get up and running!
I’m extremely saddened, disturbed, and humiliated to read Mr. Christophe Besuchet’s article “Decapitated, then emasculated: The programmed termination of the Tibetan nation”. Mr. Besuchet a truly very strong, and longtime supporter of independent Tibet and welfare of Tibetan people, but with this article he not only crossed the fine line of human decency, ethical journalism, moreover he was ruthlessly targeting His Holiness Dalai Lama recent decision of devolution of his power to elected leaders of Tibetan people.
Mr. Besuchet is one of the rare individual who has deep immense knowledge of Tibet history, past and current affairs of Tibetan political state, Tibetan people utmost reverence and faith to His Holiness, and the most important His Holiness compassion, hard work, and truly caring to his people (inside and outside Tibet) for last fifty some years in exile.
He should have avoided naming his article “Decapitated, then emasculated: The programmed termination of the Tibetan nation” and inhuman examples of material reference in his article. His strategy, motive, and approaches in writing this article are aligned to current China CCP demonizing propaganda of His Holiness.
We the Tibetan should be very careful to associate with fanatical, one sided, my way or highway, Tibet supporters, moreover if such supporter can easily trample His Holiness Dalia Lama under foot when he thinks is coming as hurdles in between his or her, and its organization aim, goal, vision and mission.
In every nation struggles, there always was / is difference in leaders ideology, but true, honest, caring, leaders will never bring their laundry in public. One example: Indian freedom struggle leader Mahatma Gandhi and Subas Chandra Bose had extreme approaches to overthrow English rule, but their laundry was never washed in the public, journals, newspapers, and during inner circle meetings of Indian National Congress.
Christophe simply channeled a truth, uncomfortable as it may be, Tibet’s people are being abandoned and betrayed by an administration that is surrendering Tibet’s nationhood in exchange for ‘autonomy’ under China’s rule. Recent decisions to rename (without the mandate of the Tibetan people) the administration as an ‘institution’ are another appeasing step towards the demise of Tibet as an international issue. Depressing as this latest capitulation to China’s demands is there will be more to come, reminding all who support and care for Tibet’s true cause that now is the time to press for Rangzen to be re-instated as the prime objective.
I think it was after all inevitable. Once you compromise on the fundamentals, no matter what you do, it will never be right.
Too bad that thousands of brave men and women died thinking they were dying for their country. But since those in Red Robes sitting on high thrones must have some rituals or prayers to rescue their souls as part of the greater plan to bring peace and harmony to the entire sentient beings throughout the universe, so I guess I should just shut up. I wonder why it took so long to realise that we were after all part of China, what happened to the ocean of wisdom. Anyways, now we can do away with all the nonsense of protesting in front of Chinese embassies, demanding human rights, pretending to be citizens of an occupied nation. We can finally put a stop to all of that.
Oh by the way who do I ask for a refund of my Greenbook payment?
Samdong Rinpoche Clarifies That Tibetan People Had No Say In Decision To Rename Tibetan Adminstration
http://twitpic.com/58m1hu/full Tibet
I do agree with Puron Dorjee that the title “Decapitated, then emasculated” is harsh and should not have been used.
However, if the people have something to say concerning the “government” or “administration”, the discussion should be open and free. We have no more the rules from 1938 that applied to Mahatma Gandhi and Subas Chandra Bose. It’s a pity no one did ask the people about such a fundamental change.
I was surprised and saddened to hear that HHDL has said that there is nothing such as Exile government on March 14, 2011.
How many time HH has said and talked about Exile government in the past.
A Chinese person pointed out to me that on HHDL’s Chinese site he uses the term “ethnic Tibetan.” The Chinese man says this is the first time he’s seen that. Does anyone know whether this is intentional, accidental, the translator’s hand in it, etc.? Here’s the quote (I haven’t gone to the actual site yet):
视讯演说 :: 2011/5/7 美国明尼苏达州藏族社区讲话
The above is copied from 14th Dalai Lama’s Chinese site…This is probably the first time I saw he call Tibetans “Ethnic Tibetans”.
Most fellow Tibetans have reacted strongly to the obvious ‘shock numbers 2 & 3’. Some have welcomed ‘shock number one’; but by & large it seems the least significant of the three that have been dealt to us recently.
For someone illiterate in the legality of political processes and some such I liken ‘shock number ONE as to having given up the ‘TITLE’ to your House or other valuable property. Even if the courts find you physically ‘put’ in the property; & your neighbors can vouch for your having lived there for any number of years- BUT if the title on that piece of paper does NOT bear your full name because you were conned into signing it away ; you would be hard pressed to regaining it.
Giving up the title as HEAD of State of a Sovereign Nation is giving up claims to this most valuable ASSETT – Tangible and NON TANGIBLE. I SURELY hope I am wrong & that we will wake up to these facts that have hit us………………
This is not about ‘clinging’ to theocracy and holding onto the last vestiges of the ‘red robed’ RULE. This is about holding onto the LEGALITY of THE Sovereign State.
Sheila, This slow slide, into using such China- appeasing terminology, has been going for some time now. Other noted figues using similar terms include Lodi Gyari and Samdhong, it appears to be a reflection of a distinct attempt to support the ongoing efforts to surrender Tibet’s nationhood in exchange for mreaningless ‘autonomy’ under China’s ‘enlightened’ and ‘just’ National and regional laws on ‘autonomy’.
It’s about time the world knew who we really are. We are not the stereotypical compassionate people that others expect us to be. Just because HH preaches Compassion, does not mean that we follow it whole heartedly. We, like any other nationality, are made of the same emotions that create discrepancies in a nation. Its time we take the matters in our own hands than hope for a miracle to happen on the strengths of someone’s charm and popularity. Its about time, Tibetans realized that going against HH in some- or perhaps any- matters is not necessarily a “bad thing.” We need to think for ourselves and stop hiding under the shrouds of a singular man. When I go see and meet the world, I want to be known for more than just for a monk or the serenity of the landscape. We do not exist to fill the hole in some westerner’s spirituality, we do not exist to become a research target for some University Department but we exist for the reasons only we know.
Don’t blow the issue of HH’s retirement out of proportion. Perhaps that is exactly what we need at this time of the history. Tibet and Tibetans have to choose between a Nation or an image that only HH can retain. We, commoners are not skilled enough to fill in the shoes that HH expects us of or the world see us as. We are normal people, we need an anchor for our identity and we need our land. Have we not learned from the history as we are falling into the same ideological path that made some dream of UTOPIA. With the new Chief Minister, we have to start taking decision about what we really want. Do we want to feed the false image of ourselves for the rest of the world or act like normal citizens who want tangible things.
#14 Tenzing Jamyang – WE welcome HH’s retirement and devolution of power.
What I am referring to is to the ‘Heading’ of this article – ‘decapitated’….i.e. HH’s refusal to even be the ‘CEREMONIAL/SYMBOLIC’ HEAD of State. (Devoid of any political power)
TWO COMPLETELY different LEGAL ISSUES. And that’s the whole point – legality of the Sovereignty of Tibet.
I am copying and pasting this particular paragraph from Christophe’s essay:
Jamyang Norbu first raised this question of head of state and the subsequent legitimacy of the Tibetan Government on 28 March in his article “Resolving the Dalai Lama Resignation Crisis“. He called attention to a fact that most journalists, bloggers and commentators had until then failed to grasp in their respective judgments of the Dalai Lama’s announcement. Jamyang Norbu’s piece definitely inspired and influenced the debates that took place since then on this issue. Unfortunately, we know now that despite every advices and appeals the Dalai Lama “categorically” rejected the role of a symbolic head of state.
You can read JN’s complete original article on HH retaining position as SYMBOLIC HEAD of State on this very blog. There is another one put out in the ‘Tibetan Political Review.
Thank you Tenzin Jamynag for your honest words..this is why us westerners need to take a step back and let Tibetans decide what is best for them and then offer assistance that is in line with TIBETANS DECISION. It’s clear that Christophe has an ax to grind on this issue and most likely it has more to do with his own personal feelings of failure and frustration that he is taking out on HHDL & the Administration.
TENZIN JAMYANG | JUNE 14TH, 2011 | 8:01 PM
It’s about time the world knew who we really are. We are not the stereotypical compassionate people that others expect us to be. Just because HH preaches Compassion, does not mean that we follow it whole heartedly. We, like any other nationality, are made of the same emotions that create discrepancies in a nation. Its time we take the matters in our own hands than hope for a miracle to happen on the strengths of someone’s charm and popularity. Its about time, Tibetans realized that going against HH in some- or perhaps any- matters is not necessarily a “bad thing.” We need to think for ourselves and stop hiding under the shrouds of a singular man.
It seems some people are confused when Christophe and those who share his views (me included) express discontent at HHDL’s refusal to retain the constitutional role of the “Head of State”. They think we are opposing devolution of his power. That is clearly not the case.
The importance of “Ganden Phodrang” is unfortunately undermined by the one who sits on its throne to the detriment of the Tibetan people who aspire to see the restoration of the Tibetan nation. Devolution of power is one thing (and I welcome it) but to completely sever all ties of the “Ganden Phodrang” to the Tibetan nation is a whole different thing, which leaves the Tibetan struggle and its Government vulnerable to dangers of losing its legitimacy in the international stage.
IT’S TIME TO FLY
It’s time to shake our wings and test the winds
Our roost is worn and he has flown
It’s time to make the journey on our own
It is only right our needy wishes he rescinds
Or we will never make it across the valley
Wherein the weakly cannot safely parley
Leaving us to fend for ourselves is only natural
For only the strong- willed shall endure;
Grow flight feathers and mature
This journey of ours is long and our flight path astral
It is our dream to fly free you cannot deny
We will resist, and not lie down and die
Come brothers, gather around the precipice
Pray to the heavenly bodies in the sky
Its’ time, its’ time, it is time to fly
Norbu Zangpo
#17 continued…
It also opens up the room for troublemakers and Chinese sympathizers within Tibet to question the legitimacy of the the “government in exile” now that it is not even headed by the Dalai Lama, whom all Tibetans respect and revere regardless of their stand on the Rangzen vs. Middleway approach. Now the Chinese political educators can tell the protesting patriots who have been hoping and demanding the return of the Dalai Lama, “look your Dalai Lama has abandoned you.”
His Holiness, in all likelihood, would be mostly doing what a constitutional head would be doing anyways. What we are asking is why this cannot be put down in writing in the constitution by clearly defining his role.
KP la, you (including JN la, Christopher la and many others) can not have both the ways – for many years now, JN la has been writing article after article to HHDL to step aside as the head of TGIE. When finally HHDL did stepped aside, now you people are writing to do opposite.
You wrote “Devolution of power is one thing (and I welcome it) but to completely sever all ties of the “Ganden Phodrang” to the Tibetan nation is a whole different thing,” – Please update your knowledge on recent event, including our Charter amendment. Who said that HHDL has completely severed all ties with Tibetan nation?
1) Preamble of our amended Charter has very clear reference of Ganden Phodrang, its history, and importance of HHDL.
2) Per our amended Charter, we will approach HHDL at any time when we feel his advice and action is needed in the future.
3) Per our amended Charter, HHDL has full authority to resolve Tibet issue.
4) Per our amended Charter, HHDL will represent Tibetan people when meeting with other head of the nation.
5) Per our amended Charter, we will keep HHDL name to the offices of Tibet in other countries.
So, with above information, do you still think HHDL has completely severed all ties with Tibetan nation?
KP la, regarding legitimacy and respect of the “government in exile”, it is not in the hand of CCP, it is in the hand of us – like you, me, JN la, and all the Tibetan people. If we belittle and try to smear our leaders for very small mistakes here and there, or mere error in usage of a quotation. Then you don’t have to knock the CCP door to destroy our society, we are the biggest destroyer of our own society.
Punron Dorjee: have you ever read “The Jewel in the Ballot Box”, written by JN in 2007? JN never requested HHDL to “step aside as the head of TGIE”. Get your facts straight!
http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=18854
PUNRON DORJEE la, if “Per our amended Charter” HHDL has full authority to resolve Tibet issue and will represent Tibetan people when meeting with other head of the nation, why the charter cannot clearly define HHDL role as “Head of State” as mentioned by KP? These two functions are exactly the duties requested from a head of state! And tell me: if HHDL has full authority to resolve Tibet issue, what is left of his devolution of power?
Puron Dorje: ALL International media is reporting INNACURATE then. Please should we not control this grave error?
Sonam la, please check the date on JN la’s article you have mentioned, since our first direct election of Kalon Tripa Rinpoche, HHDL has very strongly spoke out on his complete retirement from TGIE.
From that time onward JN la started writing on how HHDL should lead us and what position or title he should hold, your mentioned article falls in the later phase of JN la chronology of his articles.
Gyaltsen Norbu la, you wrote “why the charter cannot clearly define HHDL role as “Head of State” as mentioned by KP?”, you should listen very careful to current Kalon Tripa Rinpoche detail explanation speech given to 15th Chitue members. You will get clear and full answer for your question.
PUNRON DORJEE la, I listened to Kalon Tripa Rinpoche clarifications but I wasn’t impressed at all. Like Christophe I believe that this has to do with the “programmed termination of the Tibetan nation” and with nothing else.
What about my second question: if HHDL has full authority to resolve Tibet issue, what is left of his devolution of power?
Punron Dorjee: Impressive! With this “later phase of JN la chronology” you sound like an expert in literature! So please quote me a single article in JN “first phase” where he asked for HHDL not to lead us. Based on your previous comment that “JN la has been writing article after article to HHDL to step aside as the head of TGIE”, there must be plenty of them. And don’t come with the usual “banyan tree under which nothing grows”: it’s outdated and out of scope.
Cho cho Gyalpo tsering @18… I like that!
Somebody wrote already the Obituary – ‘The Ganden Phodrang Chogley Namgyal Government of Tibet.’ On phayul.com. Now we are all confused and mix up. Kalon Tripa is Head of government (Political) so now Kundun is still Head of State (non political) – informal non legal traditional ganden phodrang? Any one able to explain please?
Congratulations to Lhadon Tethong, Mary King, Ghada Shahbender and Nada Alwadi on receiving the James Lawson Award for Nonviolent Achievement! http://bit.ly/m3OpvF
After all the recent mess in Dharamshala, this is a good news for those who still believe that independence can be restored! Hear her moving acceptance speech http://t.co/d9xu1RV
Hi all,
Patient Name: Tibet
Doctor’s Name: Tibetan youths
Diagonosis: Loss of Homeland, Destitute, scattered feeling with no objective in sight, hallusination ” If I take of my family, all my life’s problem will be solved”
Medication: Violence ? Middle way path ? Local remedies?
Intervention: Doctor to implement or administer the medications.
Prognosis: Freedom or Autonomous regions within few years if the Doctor implements the remedies with unity and with intensity. Action !!!!
Dopka
i agree with Puron Dorje, and in my view this is an article full of judgmental projections. The writer is fabricating lots of distraction and harsh words. H.H. has been always very committed to the Tibetans. What a disrespect after a lifetime of trying to get closer to dialogue with the chinese. I dare you to stand even one day in his position. But as they say, the best players are always on the side line. Stop pointing the finger,and look in a mirror. Compassion and best wishes.