The Case For a United Independent Tibet

(This was to be Part II of my previous “Catch-22…Part I”, but I realized this post stood on its own and just needed a new title.)


On the surface of it the official Middle Way Approach (MWA) theory that even if Tibet were to become independent  most of Kham and all of Amdo would somehow inevitably be excluded from this wonderful development, might seem just pseudo-historical speculation of a particularly simple-minded kind.

But underlying this claim is a false and divisive line of reasoning that is being brought into play to panic Khampas and especially Amdowas into giving up the freedom struggle. At its least mischievous the explanation is that the Lhasa government of the past never bothered about Kham and Amdo. At its vicious worst the argument goes that Lhasa sold out (tsongba ray) these two regions. And this often degenerates into poisonous charges of Lhasa aristocracy exploiting Khampa and Amdowa pilgrims to the Holy City and stealing the intellectual works of Amdowa scholars, in particular “Gedun Chophel’s history”, as readers of this blog will have noticed in quite a few of the comments.

The pre-1950 Lhasa government was certainly anachronistic, weak and often corrupt, but far from selling out Kham and Amdo, it never gave up its claim to these areas. In fact it asserted them in various diplomatic venues and situations, whenever it could.

Lonchen Shatra Paljor Dorje, Darjeeling 1893.

On the 10th of October 1913 the great patriot and prime minister of Tibet, Lonchen Shatra, in his formal position paper at the Simla Conference, which might be regarded as our diplomatic or international declaration of independence, made a detailed statement of Tibetan independence. Shatra included the regions of Kham and Amdo in this declaration, even specifying the precise traditional frontiers of these regions with China:

“On the North-east by the stone pillar at Miru Gang in Zilling, thence to the East along the course of the river coming from the Mar-chen Pomra mountain until it comes to its first big bend and thence to the South-east at a place called Chorten Karpo in Jingtang … on the North the Kuen Lun Range, the Altyn Tagh Range , the Ba-kang Po-to Range, thence to the North of Tso Ngon-po, including the Ba-nak Kha-Sum country to the border of Kan-su province of China, thence in a Southerly and South-easterly direction including the country of Go-lok, Hor-kog, Nya-rong, Gya-rong, … Chak-la, and Dar-tse-do, thence in a Southerly direction….etc., etc.,” [1]

To support his statement he brought with him from Lhasa “a mass of documents”. Even a fairly unfriendly academic as Goldstein writes that Shatra, in his presentation “… took a very hard line on both the political and territorial issue, demanding the reunification of all Tibetan speaking peoples under the administration of the Dalai Lama including all of Amdo and Kham.” [2]

The Tibetans produced fifty-six volumes of original source materials to back up much of it claims. The documents included: “…census rolls, primary registers of tax revenues, judicial records, land registries, charters naming appointments of headmen, officials, chiefs, lamas and monastic administrators, proclamations, public notices, monastic endowment records, militia service musters, and displays of seals.”[3]

The Chinese, who did not have a single original document to back up their case, were unsettled by the Tibetan presentation, and their leader Mr. Ivan Chen (Zhen Yi-fan) showed “evident signs of panic” according to Sir Henry McMahon[4]. Not withstanding their weakness the Chinese absolutely refused to even consider Tibetan demands and insisted that all of Tibet was part of China. The conference broke down on the question of the Sino-Tibetan boundary, and the Chinese who had initialed the draft did not sign the final convention.

SIMLA CONFERENCE, 1913-14. Seated from left: Kusho Wangchuk Tsering (endnote 5), Mr. B.D.Bruce, Mr. Ivan Chen, Sir Henry McMahon, Lonchen Shatra, Teichi Trimon, Nyendron Tenpa Dhargay. Charles Bell is standing immediately behind McMahon.

The agreement reached between Britain and Tibet was that the territory held by the Lhasa government would constitute “Outer Tibet” while those that the Chinese held would be referred to as “Inner Tibet”. The Tibetans were unhappy with this compromise, but were forced to accept it. For the sake of this discussion, it should be pointed out that the Tibetans insisted that all of Kham and Amdo be recognized as “Tibet”, even if the qualification, “Inner”  had to be added. That was the bottom line for Lhasa. Of course, besides the Sino-Tibetan boundry question, the Conference dealt with other major issues, but those are outside the scope of this discussion.

The 13th Dalai Lama was dissatisfied with the outcome and appears to have issued, quite unfairly, a rebuke of sorts to Shatra, according to Charles Bell. Bell himself when questioned by His Holiness on the “Outer” and “Inner” division of Tibet, explained that though China wanted to treat Kham and Amdo as “provinces” of China, “…We arranged for them to be called Inner Tibet, thus keeping Tibet’s name on them. Later on, if your army grows strong enough to ensure that Tibet’s rights are respected, you may regain the rightful possession of this part of your country. But not if the name (or rather “claim” J.N.)  be lost.” [6]

Although of course it wasn’t as simple as Bell represented it to the Dalai Lama, but there was an essential if “crude” truth to Bell’s advice. Diplomatic success is in nearly all instances inherently a corollary to military victory or power. If your armies have smashed the Ottoman Empire in 1918 then you can, as Winston Churchill did in 1921, take a portion of it and create a previously non-existent nation, call it Trans-Jordan (later Jordan), and boast that you did it “…with the stroke of a pen on a Sunday afternoon in Cairo.” Since Churchill was partial to champagne and a whiskey or two with lunch, his afternoon exertions allegedly produced an erratic borderline, the result still visible on today’s maps. The curious zigzag of the border between Jordan and Saudi Arabia is euphemistically referred to as “Winston’s Hiccup”.

The 13th Dalai Lama’s generals and officers, who had defeated Chinese troops in Shigatse and Lhasa a couple of years earlier with untrained country levees, knew from their own hard-earned experience the value of military power. In those early years of Tibetan independence they strove to create a modern army. The resounding success of this modern army in 1918 in Kham carried tremendous political significance. For the first time in about a thousand years Tibetan troops had decisively defeated an invading Chinese army. I have recounted this in some detail in the section “The Missing War” in my review essay “Black Annals”, which readers can check if they want to refresh their memory.

Kalon Lama Jampa Tendar, victorious commander of Tibetan forces in 1918.

It was not as complete a victory as Tibetans would have liked. Once again the British played a double-game with us. But Chamdo, Drayak, Sangyen, Gonjo, Markham, Beyul, Dengkhok, and all of Derge were liberated up to the Rongbatsa line where a treaty was concluded. Most Khampas felt that the 1918 victory was a turning point in their history for they describe it grandiloquently as kalpa sa-ta lo, or the “The New Age of the Earth Horse.” It was not just a war but a national liberation. The 1918 victory was also clear proof that a trained Tibetan army was capable of defending its own frontier against Chinese aggression.

But in the following years Lhasa’s military ambitions in Kham and even Amdo were not sufficient to its strength and resources. In 1931 the Tibetan administration in Chamdo became involved in a quarrel between two monasteries in Tre-hor, and sent troops across the cease-fire line. Initially the Tibetan were very successful, capturing most of the districts of Kanze and even Nyarong. The Chinese asked for a cease-fire, and if the Tibetans had agreed at this point they might have been able, so Shakabpa tells us, to hold on to this “considerable amount of territory”. But Tibetans had penetrated to within a few days march of Dhartsedo and unwisely decided to reject the Chinese offer. Later that year a massive Chinese counter-offensive pushed the Tibetans back and even took the eastern half of Derge.

The next year a very ill-advised Tibetan advance into Jeykundo, then under the rule of Ma Bufang, the Hui Muslim warlord of Amdo, also ended badly for Tibetans.

As unfortunate, even disastrous, as these defeats were, I am mentioning them to underline the fact that the Lhasa government hadn’t just given up on Kham and Amdo and that its officials weren’t just endlessly partying in the capital, as the anti-Lhasa narrative goes. Many U-Tsang officers and soldiers (and Khampa militiamen) died during these wars. Three generals were killed in action in 1918.  The old governor-general (1931-32) Ngabo (not Ngawang Jigme) died, probably of heart-failure from the stress of the conflict (“his wind element became agitated” Shakabpa). The gossip in Lhasa was that he killed himself by swallowing a diamond in remorse for his defeat.

Tibetan defeat can be to a great extent be explained by the decline of the Tibetan military strength from its peak in 1918, to the beginning of the 1920s when  “the ultra-conservative” monastic section of the National Assembly (Tsongdu) led by the monk official Tenpa Dhargay (dronyer-chenmo “Apso”) and supported by Lungshar, conspired to undermine that new power bloc of military officers and officials, led by Tsarong which was “committed to modernization”[7]. In the following years the modern Lhasa police force was disbanded, military spending reduced, army officers degraded, and endowments for monasteries and lamas increased. After the death of the Great 13th, the subsequent rule of two lama regents, both corrupt and reactionary, reduced the Tibetan army to a fraction of its size and effectiveness, before the Communist invasion of 1950.

In a real sense not only the loss of independent Tibet in 1950, but even the break-up of the Tibetan empire in the 9th century and the subsequent loss of Amdo and most of Kham can be be blamed directly on the powerful clerical and monastic faction of Tibetan politics. It is beyond any academic dispute that the assassination of the Tibetan emperor Lhasay[8] Darma (r. 838-842) by a Buddhist monk “…was devastating for the Tibetan, because it gradually led to a civil war and the disintegration of the whole country.”[9]

Lhasay Darma, Inscription: Khri Darma 'o dum tsan. Gyangtse Kubum. photo S.G.Karmay 1987.

In an original and remarkable study of this event, the great Tibetan scholar, Samten Karmay, has made a convincing case that contrary to monastic propaganda, the emperor did not persecute Buddhists, but was rather attempting to reign in the extraordinary privileges and political power appropriated by the Buddhist clergy, which had gotten so out of hand during the reign of his older brother Ralpachen, that it weakened Tibetan military power and alienated lay officials and generals. But for his efforts to strengthen imperial rule and secularize his administration, Lhasay Darma was assassinated by a Buddhist monk, and unrelentingly demonized forever-after in Tibetan history and myth.

The fact that this act of murder committed by a member of the Buddhist clergy (probably at the bidding of a monkish conspiracy) was the direct cause of the break-up of the Tibetan empire, though not in dispute, is never raised in any political discussion on why Tibet lost its independence. Samten la, points out that the empire was intact at the time of Lhasay Darma’s reign and even far-flung “… territories such as Dunhuang (in Gansu) were still under Tibet’s rule”. So all of Amdo and Kham were certainly part of Tibet until the assassination of Lhasay Dharma.

The loss of these territories did not, of course, just happen overnight, and Lhasa was somehow able to hold on to varying degree of influence and power that diminished over the centuries that followed. But for this present discussion there is no need to go into a detailed account of this decline.

Suffice it to note that the appointment by the Manchu emperor of an amban (imperial commissioner) at Xining in 1725 over the Mongol banners and Tibetan tribes of Amdo is often cited as the end of Tibetan influence in the region. But in reality the Xining commissioner had little actual power, and in the case of the Golok tribesmen apparently no influence at all, according to a recent study by Paul Nitupski.[10] Furthermore according to the Italian scholar Luciano Petech, Lhasa maintained a parallel organization in Amdo “till about the middle of the 19th century, a commissioner called the sgar dpon, whose functions above all concerned trade and the control of local monasteries.” [11] The garpon like the Manchu amban, appears to have had little actual control over regional politics.

But from the late 19th century much of Amdo was gradually occupied by the Hui Muslim warlords of the Ma clan, and only as late as from 1928 to 1949 was Amdo assimilated into Qinghai province and a part of Gansu province.

But even during this late period the relationship between Amdo and Lhasa was held together largely through the extensive monastic network of spiritual, scholastic, cultural and even financial and commercial connections that bound most of these institutions, lamas and their lay congregation together throughout the Tibetan Buddhist world. “The Amdo scholar Pema Bhum la told me that the people of Amdo always considered Lhasa to be the center of their civilization that they used such traditional aphorisms as “thoe-nyima Lhasa” “Lhasa the sun of the Upper Region” “or when I close my eyes I see Utsang” to express their feelings for their cultural and historical roots. The great scholar Tashi Tsering la once told me that such important scholastic and religious institutions  in Amdo as Labrang Tashi Khyil and others, would describe themselves  as “Utsang Nyipa” or the “second Central Tibet.” to show their closeness to the source of Tibetan civilization.”

The Lhasa government also used whatever opportunity came its way to strengthen its ancient bonds with Amdo. Taktser Rimpoche told me that when he was abbot of Kumbum monastery he received regular correspondence from the Governor General of Eastern Tibet, Sawang Lhalu, especially the year before the Communist invasion.

In 1926 The Tibetan government conferred the official rank of rimshi on the paramount Golok chief Trulku Tendrak of Arkhyong Gongmatsang, chief of the Ri-mang tribes.[12] Another chieftain, Rinchen Wang gi Gyalpo, of the Sershul nomads, was also granted an official title and costume at the ceremony which took place at Dzachukha.  Joseph Rock mentions that when he travelled across Golok territory in 1926 he was told that Arkhyong Trulku the chief of the “largest and most important” Golok tribe, the Ri-mang, was absent from his encampment and said to have gone “…to make his submission to the Tibetan government.”[13]

From left: Golok Arkhyong Gongmatsang, Geshe Jampel Rolpae Lodroe, Derge Governor Tethong Gyurme Gyatso, Rinchen Wang gi Gyalpo, Gyangtse regiment officer. Dzachukha, 1926. AMI Visual Archives

When these and subsequent Golok chiefs visited Lhasa they would wear their ceremonial robes and receive the proper reception and audiences with the Dalai Lama that protocol required. I think it might be pointed out that all Khampas and Amdowas coming into Tibetan government territory did not require an official lamyik (a passport or visa), which all Chinese, Indians and of course Westerners did.

Geshe Sherap Gyatso, vice-president of Buddhist Association of China, with chairman Mao Zedong, Beijing circa 1951.

Even when Geshe Sherab Gyatso of Amdo an eminent Buddhist scholar but a known agent of the Guomindang (later of the PRC) attempted to enter Tibet from China in April 1944, with fifty Chinese “students” and a great deal of gifts and propaganda material, the Tibetan government announced that geshe la would, of course, be permitted to enter Tibet, but not his Chinese “students”. Bapa Phuntsok Wangyal the Communist agent, entered Tibet quite freely without a passport, and in fact received considerable hospitality from aristocrats and people of U-Tsang as he mentions in his autobiography. Even the very conservative kashag accepted his written petition on reforming Tibet.

After the first major uprising in Kham in 1956, when many thousands of refugees from Kham and less from Amdo poured into Lhasa (The Dalai Lama says over 10,000 people) the Lhasa government did not turn any of them back. There was already a food shortage in Central Tibet because we had to feed the Chinese occupation army, but the Lhasa public only showed sympathy and support to the refugees. The Chinese authorities ordered the kashag to use what remained of the Tibetan army and the Lhasa police force to round up the refugees and send them back.

As powerless as it was, the kashag under Surkhang shapé, refused to do so. It may not seem like much to us now, but we should bear in mind that the Vichy government of France did not hesitate to give up its own citizens of Jewish origin, when ordered to do so by the Nazi occupation authority. In fact the French government and police willfully collaborated with the Nazis in rounding up tens our thousand of French Jews and shipping them off to the death camps in Germany. In one case the French police, on it own initiative, arrested 13,152 Jews, including 4,051 children—which the Gestapo had not asked for.

Tsering Shakya la in his accomplished History of Modern Tibet tells us that the Chinese put enormous pressure on the Tibetan government to use its few remaining regiments to “quell the Khampa uprising”, and to even assume principal responsibility for this task. The kashag together with the tsongdu (National Assembly) came up with a deliciously Machiavellian counter-proposal. They requested the Chinese to first allow the Tibetan government to substantially increase the size of its standing army, and further provide it with modern arms and equipment. The Chinese dropped the issue.

With a little more research and some consultation on the international-legal side of things, I think a solid case could be made for Kham and Amdo to be considered inalienable parts of  independent Tibet. Without rewriting history or  overstating our case we could definitely establish that the Tibetan government had always regarded and treated the people of Kham and Amdo as Tibetans, as its own people, even though for certain periods of time it did not collect taxes or administer most of them directly. In turn we could certainly show that the people of Kham and Amdo regarded Lhasa as the capital of their linguistic, cultural, and spiritual civilization, and that in moments of great crisis, also their political center, as Gompo Tashi Andrugtsang and the thousands of Eastern Tibetan refugees did in the fifties. And of course there is the undeniable historical fact that all of Kham and Amdo had, a couple of hundred years before been indisputable constitutents of the Tibetan nation.

And this is where I want to point this bizarre and absolutely erroneous interpretation of international law and perhaps even the historical process itself that MWA leaders and advocates seem to have embraced. They appear to believe that there is some kind of  “statute of limitations”, some kind of cut-off point in the time-line of history (fifty to hundred years perhaps) beyond which a country that has lost its independence can never legally reclaim its previous status. Hence, the MWA argument that if Tibet becomes independent then only the territory under the administration of the Lhasa government in 1950 (63 years ago) would be considered (by the UN, the International Court of Justice, by who? ) to be part of Tibet, but that Amdo and the rest of Kham, not directly governed by the Ganden Phodrang government for some hundred years, would not qualify.

This is, of course, ridiculous. India became an independent nation after 200 hundred years of British rule and another 300 under the Moghuls. And all Tibetans know at least this much about Jewish history that the Jews established an independent Israel after loosing their homeland 2000 years ago.

The Scots lost their independence 300 years ago, when a Scottish King married an English princess and his son, James, became king of both Scotland and England. Scottish claim to independence is far less straightforward than the Tibetan one, and Tibetan “Braveheart” fans should note that their hero’s story is just one chapter of Scottish history. But now, when the Scottish National Party wants Scotland to secede from the “Union”, there is of course a great national debate, as there should be, but nobody tells the Scots, “Sorry boys, you’ve left it too long – you’ve passed your sell-by date.” Scottish independence is a real issue. And that is what Tibetans have to do – make of the issue of the independence of Tibet and its three regions, a real and resounding one internationally. That is the first step.

You do not have to have a history of continuous, or near-continuous self-rule in order to claim independence. In fact you don’t even have to have a history at all of being a nation. I think it might be safe to say that many, if not most, of the countries in the United Nations did not have a history of being independent states prior to their being subjugated by Western colonial powers. Most of the countries in the Middle East were just provinces, vilayets, of the Ottoman Empire, before the British and the French carved them up into the present day states of Iraq, Syria, Lebannon, Jordan, etc., for their own purposes.

Even Palestine, whose issue, in one way or the other, is ever-present in the global media, was just a few sanjaks (districts) of the Ottoman Empire. One could go on an on with such examples up to the present day with East Timor and Kosovo. I think I can say with some confidence that if the issue was just about history, then cholkha-sum Tibet  has a better case for independence than any of the aforementioned states. But of course, history, though certainly important, is only one factor that ultimately determines whether a nation becomes independent or not.

The right to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law, enshrined in the United Nations Charter, binding on all UN member states, and enumerated as Article 1 of both binding UN human rights covenants.  Under self-determination, all peoples have the right to freely determine their political status with no external compulsion or interference. And it was this principle through which nearly every new country after World War II was granted their independence. There are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination, besides a controversy or two regarding the principle itself,  but the fact of it being the cardinal principle in modern international law is not really in dispute. In fact this principle is considered a fundamental, universally-accepted “peremptory norm” (jus cogens) of modern international law.

Hence I think it is important for all of us, especially MWA believers and followers, to remember that the Tibetan people’s right to self-determination was explicitly recognized by the United Nations General Assembly in three Resolutions – 1353 (XIV) in 1959, 1723 (XVI) in 1961, and 2079 (XX) in 1965 – that called on China to respect this right.

The General Assembly … solemnly renews its call for the cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedoms, including their right to self-determination.” United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 1723 (XVI), 1961.

And it should be pointed out that the resolution is absolutely clear about whose right to self-determination was being discussed. The resolution in no way even hints that the “people” in question might mean only those Tibetans living under the pre-1950 Lhasa government, nor only citizens of the Dalai Lama’s Ganden Phodrang government. The resolution simply says “the Tibetan People”, the definition of which, as I have pointed out in the first part of this essay, even China has acknowledged as including all people of Tibetan ethnicity in the so called “minority areas”, which would mean all Khampas and Amdowas.

I do not think that there was any misunderstanding in the United Nation on this particular issue. In the UN debates on Tibet and also in the two reports of the International Commission of Jurists (1959 & 60) which were quoted extensively by the discussants, the cases of those Tibetans whose rights were being discussed were from all over the three traditional regions of Tibet. I quote:  “Rigong, Amdo”, “Dzongsar, Derge”, “Rawa, near Lithang”, “Nangsang, Ba”, “Jayangshipa and Schachung monasteries, Amdo”, “Doi-Gyatsang, Amdo”, “Datsedo, Kham”, “Dakhang Nangkhe and Chadze, Amdo,” etc., etc., and of course districts and towns in U-Tsang as well.

If you read the proceedings it is clear that the delegates were aware that the territory under the jurisdiction of the Lhasa government was invaded by the PRC in 1950, but that there were Tibetan areas not under Lhasa administration, where the major uprisings against China’s rule had taken place and where “acts of genocide” had been committed by China. For the purpose of the resolution it is clear that when the General Assembly called “for the cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights and freedoms, including their right to self-determination” they were referring to the people of all three regions of Tibet.

I think it is also beyond dispute that the people of the three regions of Tibet have clearly exercised their right to self-determination and demonstrated their choice – their rejection of China’s rule – in the numerous armed uprisings from December 1949 in Nangra and Hormukha in Amdo,  in February 1956 in Lithang which precipitated the Great Khampa Uprising, and in March 1959 in Lhasa, to name a few major instances. The ongoing self-immolations in Amdo and Kham, which now exceeds 120 cases, clearly demonstrates the people’s rejection of Chinese rule, and clearly voices their call for the return of Tibet’s sovereign ruler, the Dalai Lama, to his ancient capital Lhasa, and for his government to rule over  a unified and independent Tibet.

What MWA is asking all Tibetan to do is give up their struggle for independence and voluntarily chose to be a citizen of China and voluntarily live under Communist rule. It is important for all Tibetan especially Khampas and Amdowas, to understand that by doing this they are in effect renouncing the most important legal decision all Tibetans (including Khampas and Amdowas) have obtained to date from the United Nations,  in effect giving up their right to self-determination, and in a real sense even giving up their basic human rights, which they will be doing when they make the choice to live voluntarily under the Communist Party.

You may have heard the story of a native American tribe selling the island of Manhattan to the Dutch in 1626 for the equivalent of $24 worth of “beads, buttons and other trinkets,” and according to a scurrilous folk song “throwing in the Bronx and Staten Island for a bottle of booze”. The story is probably apocryphal, made up by some racist inji to demonstrate how stupid the natives were.  I wonder what kind of story a future Chinese racist is going to invent to show how easily Beijing fooled these dumb Tibetans into selling away their right to an independent Tibetan homeland for nothing of any substance, not even some bead or buttons, much less a bottle of booze.


[1] Anon.  The Boundary Question between China and Tibet: A Valuable Record of the Tripartite Conference between China, Britain and Tibet held in India, 1913-14. Peking. 1940. pp.1-6.

[2] Goldstein, Melvyn C. A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951; The Demise of the Lamaist State. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1989. pp. 68-71.

[3] Shakabpa, Tsepon W.D. Bhod Kyi SeDon Gyalrap (Political History of Tibet) Vol II, Sherig Parkhang, Dharamshala, 1976.

[4] Premen Addy, Tibet on the Imperial Chessboard, Academic Publishers, Calcutta Delhi, 1984. p.279

[5] Wangchuk Tsering, was my great-grandfather from my father’s maternal side. He hailed from Amdo and received a Chinese education as a child. Starting off as an assistant he later became one of the two Manchu commissioners for customs at Yatung. He retired in Darjeeling and assisted the Thirteenth Dalai Lama during his exile there. The family still has a letter from His Holiness granting him the governorship of Markham in Eastern Tibet ­– an honor which Wangchuk Tsering respectfully declined. JN.

[6] Bell, Charles. Portrait of the Dalai Lama, Collins, London 1946. pp 206-207.

[7] Goldstein, ibid.

[8] “Lang” or “Ox” Darma was the derogatory epithet used in subsequent clerical propaganda about the emperor Lhasay or “Heavenly Son” Darma.

[9] Samten G. Karmay, “King Glang Dar-ma and his Rule” The Arrow and the Spindle, Studies in History, Myths, Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet, Vol II. Mandala Publications, Kathmandu, 2005. p.15

[10] Paul Kocot Nietupski, Labrang Monastery: A Tibetan Buddhist Community on the Inner Asian Borderlands, 1709-1958, Lexington books, UK, 2011, p. 117.

[11] Luciano Petech, Aristocracy and Government in Tibet, p.13.

[12] Jamyang Norbu, “The Girl and the Golok Chiefs”

[13] Joseph Rock, The Amnye Machen Range and Adjacent Regions, Is.M.E.O., Roma, 1956.


126 Replies to “The Case For a United Independent Tibet”

  1. Thank you Jamyang la, this post is absolutely fantastic! You’re bringing here the best arguments and the best defense in favor of the Cholkha I’ve ever read. It will definitely give though time to advocates of CTA’s destructive logic, and I’m already looking forward for the grin on some faces.

  2. Thank you Jamyang la for this piece,it’s a sad reality where we have to argue our own existence as a ‘people’..where we have to argue with our own people that our precious land actually belongs to us…
    it’s baffling and insane to put it mildly the arguments made by the ‘dark side’ that Kham and Amdo would be lost if we support Rangzen…
    the argument of Umey Lam is a lie, it challenges all of us who believe in our people and country to openly reject this treasonous paper…..if we are not prepared to openly challenge the authors of this document…..then our commitment to Rangzen is a lie.

  3. “I wonder what kind of story a future Chinese racist is going to invent to show how easily Beijing fooled these dumb Tibetans into selling away their right to an independent Tibetan homeland for nothing of any substance, not even some bead or buttons, much less a bottle of booze.”
    for the insatiable “international goodwill” which may result in financial aid and pat on the backs for being such selfless loving kind hearted compassionate Tibbies.

  4. ” I wonder what kind of story a future Chinese racist is going to invent to show how easily Beijing fooled these dumb Tibetans into selling away their right to an independent Tibetan homeland for nothing of any substance, not even some bead or buttons, much less a bottle of booze.”

    #8 Dawa la, The CCP is doing it right now: trying to sell Tibetans and the world the concocted fairytale story of Princess Wencheng as irrefutable justification for the invasion and occupation of Tibet. If the fairytale of a Han Princess civilising Tibetan “savages” is not racist, then nothing is.

    This sort nonsense from a people that used to bind their eldest daughters’ feet. Civilised Han? Not likely.

    Thank you JN la.

  5. But the sad fact is who cares? In the past few years, more than a hundred Tibetans have self immolated but that news story has been covered up by the Chinese. So, if this argument was to be presented to any international council, there will be little movement on the Tibetan front due to Chinese money and influence. So, while talks of Tibetan independence might seem noble and even right, is there any realistic hope of that ever happening.

    Instead to think of it wouldn’t it be better under the current government which is definitely not as communist as the word connotates. With China’s rising power and wealth Tibetans have greater access to better healthcare and better education (albeit some issues exist). Given the pouring of Chinese investments in TAR that has raised its living standards, would an independent Tibet have access to such resources. And given our history especially with conservative monks serving the administration and how the clergy has been the cause of many of the calamities that have befallen Tibet as a nation wouldn’t the chances of any development occurring in an independent Tibet be at risk until the society as a whole changes. When we have a society where a large percentage of its peoples are in the clergy, unproductive elements in society maintaining hyperconservative values that deter societal advancements, a poor, backward and fanatical Tibet (albeit independent) seems less appealing.

  6. Jamyang La, Thank you for this much needed post- eye opening and confusion riddance piece. PLEASE TRANSLATE THIS INTO TIBETAN.

    You are not just a blogger or writer, or activist to a Tibetan. You are our teacher and a moral compass.

    Khe Khutse Trilo Tenpa dhang Thuk ki shel dhon lhun ghe Drup gy

  7. Another selective choice of pieces history from histories to prove the need for a highly assumptious political moment for an political entity that was long sorted out by aftermath 1951 & 59 through a well charted Tibetan political moments organised or undorganized, even under PRC, moved beyond this both within and without Tibet. The story undermines, our past and recent history -more so the role of HHDL and entire exile political struggle that made clear that there is only one Tibet. hence the concept of United Tibet is highly reactionary and divisive.

  8. Excellent piece. Thank you JN la.
    We must not throw away our precious identity and the right to self determination in a hurry out of desperation. MWA is an act of desperation!!


  9. Thanks for all your ‘honest’ journalistic endeavors. We Tibetans should realize that in order to live in a progressive, democratic world it is not only about ‘economics’ and any kind of ‘win –win’ situation but open, honest and transparent communication.
    Jamyang Norbula it would be good if you could write & inform us about when & why TGIE changed its mind & policy of Tibetan Independence back to the 17 Point Agreement; or almost. What triggered the ‘Strasbourg proposal’ & the Middle Way? Is there solid evidence to substantiate the fact that the Chinese were open to such a ‘deal’? Is it a case of building a house upon the sand; out of desperation or more double game by some western interests?

  10. Thank you, Jamyang la. Please, somebody translate this into Tibetan. It will clear out many confusions and often hatred and mistrust among the people of three provinces. Indeed, Utsang, Kham, or Amdo- we are same and shared a same fate, same history and were once under the great Choegyal Mepon Namsum.

    Jamyang la is trying to set the record set. Without him and his incisive writings, we are dubbed by those psuedo-khewang, pious MWA drumbeaters such as Samdhong Lobsang Tenzin, his Chamcha Penpa Tsering, and Lobsang Nyendak, and Bhuchung Tsering, etc etc. with their blessing and dha-dah Giri, Our history was beginning to change to serve their interest of trying to hold on to the power by pretending to be a true follower of His Holiness.
    When they were about to loose their case for MW and more people were paying attention to Rangzen movement, especially with the formation of Tibetan National Congress with suppport of 22% of the TPiE members– Samdhong Lama rattled!

    What did Samdhong Lama do then? He used His Holiness to speak up against Rangzen people citing their “wild” behavior– highlighting on TYC and Kalden Lodoe’s hangama at the DC kalachakra. Ofcourse, Samdhong didn’t inform His Holiness the whole stroy but a bias one. Thats why, His Holiness was hurt.

    Then What?
    All the hungama began- His holiness’ speeches at Ladhak and Italy were circulated every nook and cornor of the Tibetan world to undermine the Rangzen movement. Samdhong’s dirty hand was evident as thousands of booklet containing that speeches was printed with Gadhen Phodrang Trust Money. I thought it wasn’t a great use of the trust money– an abuse of trust by Samdhong lama.

    To me, it look like Samdhong continue to feed wrong info to His holiness– ad his holiness became ever more angry to the Rangzen people.

    One stark reality is: Before Samdhong became the Gadhen Phodrang boss, his holiness is very close to TYC and the TYC executive members always get audience.
    After Samdhong became Gadhen Phodrang boss, TYC executive cannot get audience with His Holiness leave alone other rangzen advocates. Heavy handedness of Samdhong was evident in his speech at the TYC concluding session when he said,His Holiness will not come to TYC as well as any other Tibetan political organisation- a decision obviously made without his holiness approval.

    If you recall, His holiness was always more open and liberal than Samdhong.

    Samdhong is making a rift between His holiness and the Tibetan people especially who support Rangzen.

    Samdhong through his chamchas are distorting the history of Tibet inorder to justify their flawed policies. In the meantime diving the people and confusing the people when they make specches as if we were never part of one Tibet.

    In that sense, This JN peice is most enlightening and much warranted. I salute you as you are not only brave but most elightened Tibetan.

    Thank You.







  12. Thank you Jamyang la for another excellently researched and written article.
    However, the irony is that it has taken more energy and over six decades and counting to try and convince our own people that we are different from the Chinese, that we have our own history, culture and language and that we share nothing in-common with the Han people other than that we belong to the human race like them. If it takes this long to persuade our own people then how would we fight for our rights via autonomy or Rangzen?

  13. I am really surprised that MWA proponent even said that when Tibetans prostrate in front of Jokhang they are prostrating to Wencheng Kongjo (Chinese) and Brikruti (Nepalese).

    Tibetans come all the way from distant part of Tibet some even travel by full prostration all the way to Lhasa to pay respect and get the blessing of Jowo Rinpoche – (Buddha).

    I have never heard or read that Tibetans come all the way to Lhasa to prostrate to Songsten Gampo let alone Kongjo.

    This is another rewriting of Tibetan history. Average Tibetans who come to Lhasa for pilgrimage doesn’t even know about statues of Songsten Gampo or Kongjo in Jokhang.

    I am enclosing the link of website which site above post.

  14. karze,
    It was sikyong losang senge who said Tibetans prostrate before Chinese princess. He wrote article in 2004 “prostration by Tibetans to the Chinese princess”, referring to Tibetan pilgrims prostrating in the Tsuklhakang before statues of the Tibetan emperor and his Nepali and Chinese brides. According to Mr. Sangay, this “great respect and love pilgrims … have shown toward the statue of Princess Wang Chen [sic] for more than a millennium is proof that there is no inherent hatred among Tibetans towards the Chinese per se.” losang singe and Middle way type are all GYAMI KYAKPA ZA KHEN!

  15. Lobsang Sangay Facebook comment.

    “The most important aspect of freedom struggle is single voice, unity and single leader. In democracy, you ought to have diversity, freedom of speech and opposition leaders. The two are inherently contradictory,” said Sangay, a Harvard-educated scholar.”


  16. “The most important aspect of freedom struggle is single voice, unity and single leader. In democracy, you ought to have diversity, freedom of speech and opposition leaders. The two are inherently contradictory,”
    What a pile of bullpucky. It sounds more like a lame excuse of a budding mini autocrat to quell dissent than a genuinely thought out pronouncement of a responsible and genial leader. Don’t cheapen your intellect by ooh and ahhing at these disingenuous and cheesy sound bites. Is that a suggestion that democracy enjoyed by struggling people should be retracted and postponed till everything is perfectly laid out. Unity is important but freedom to express ideas and opinions is more important. Unity can be achieved by any two bit dictator. It takes integrity on all sides for real democracy to thrive.

  17. Most living organisms are full of that thing which rhymes with IT.

    If you have brain make a case for your point.
    If you have cojones come out with your own name.

  18. It looks like our history sensitivity failing as we don’t read or we don’t take care of it because we think it wont’t lead us that far. Interpreting history to suite ones proposition is still worse because it ignores other parts. This is what is being being done here. Is JN known for his history cognizance and intellect to that matter meticulous hard works that is one such quality? Of course not. So let this be a piece to get ourselves interested in Tibetan political history that is still like an Iceberg far more remained unwritten than written.

  19. Jamyang la has his point presented to pursue Rangzen only and he has rights to do so as a citizen of a country.Having read through his opinion and partial factual arguments he should be treated as someone who truly cares about his country.
    The part that is problematic is his presumably kind-of near-leadership (speaking on behalf of)role of Rangzen ..and many do believe in his opinion and follow his footsteps.That in itself is a subject for debate but there is a general tendency of creating more & more rangzen pro similar of JN..who would employ his ways as a political critic or writers or mukbahabur without anything to prove as a result. To become or assuming even a near-leadership role has responsiblity not just to preach but practice and prove through ways to achieve result.Otherwise, we will have lots of JN in the future..somewhat “chomay”.

  20. 30@ I do agree with you. I do believe that JN’s rights being Rangzen protagonist in this society but not through misinterpreting everything thing by hook or crook. It is not just Chomay but misleading quite a lot gullible people which could be clearly reflected in its follow up comments. IMPACT: Strangely these people begin criticising their/our common establishments and institutions even hate. This, even JN may not have intended.

  21. OR, maybe, JN is doing a really great service and opening people’s eyes to the reality of exile politics and the authentic Tibetan history which is being distorted beyond recognition for a while. You guys seem to think writing and researching material is such an easy task. It takes hard work to produce material. Only people who havent written nothing will think writing takes no effort.

  22. It looks like you got hit as intended. You are doing exactly what was trying to say. Who is exactly trying to distort history -CTA Or MWA or HHDL be specific? You think, as many others do, that any of these entities has vested interests to distort our polity. you are already drained into the gutter as expected. And you will keep firing within. You may be right, it indeed takes quite a lot to write an authentic piece let alone write a history. But the context wasn’t. No one can manipulate history it will be there to unearth sooner than later -you need not worry!

  23. Daveno 30 Karmat 33, You have not shown one evidence to show that JN distorting histoy. You only call him chomay or say he is distorting history but you cannot show it. JN has perfect real research study which he give with all the footnotes and namses of books and authors and page numbers. Which one is wrong? Proof it. You two ‘chomays’ only have insults and nothing more. You are people who have no knowledge of our history or even care about Tibetan history. You are chamchas of Samdong and your true boss PRC.

  24. There is a famous saying, “history is written by the victor”. You are claiming JN is distorting history but you have to show us where he did that, instead of acting like iiresponsible tibetan govt officials who make up history to suit present circumstances. Did you people egen read the article? Dont act like chai stall politicians making elaborate claims with nothing to back it with.

  25. Aside from being emotionally draining and costing me precious nap time, reading comments by MWA apologist is a fascinating exercise in social media, political correctness and the mindset of Dhasa’s minions.
    The MWA apologist led by SR and a puffed up PT along with their minions continue to attack those who support Rangzen by asking for a road map to Independence !!! these two and their minions live with the illusion that MWA is a success.

  26. Agree that what was put in here pieces of history is correct but please explain do they really suggest that we are in need of UNITED INDP. TIBET. This is the bone of contention which I believe is game play and divisive.

  27. #38 KarmaT
    I agree with you that divisiveness is not good. But leaders of a democratic country should understand that their actions are scrutinized and from that scrutiny criticism may follow. They should not take that personally. They should welcome those criticisms to make improvements instead of labeling the critics and dissenters with such Cultural Revolution era phrases as “trouble makers.” Talk about Stockholm Syndrome. Those people who really care will scrutinize the critics themselves and see if what they say have substance. Others just follow brainlessly. It’s not the fault of the critics fault. It’s the fault of the Orwellian sheep in our society.

  28. Divisiveness? Think for a second: who is to blame for that? Before dual Karmapa, Tibetans were united. Before the ban on Shugden, Tibetans were united. And before the MWA, Tibetans were united. Now, don’t tell me that JN is responsible for any divisiveness! On the contrary, he’s trying hard to get us united! And this article clearly proves it.

  29. @39, i do agree with you that leaders should welcome all criticism whether they are benevolent in intention or selfish motives as many critics tends to be well read intelligent lots.Through such excercise,Leaders could improve their followers overall conditions.

    However,in our situation critics do have huge responsibilities in comparison to other developed free nations.Knowing the “sheep” in our community, critics should be an examplary role model showing and practicing better ways with results.Then the “sheep” will be much better than just dormant mukbahadur.

  30. Gyaltsenla – I agree that JN la is one khewang who has tried his best to be ‘inclusive’ and fair to all. One may not agree with all he says but this he does. Tibetans are sensitive to their regional and sectarian backgrounds – there’s no denying this fact.
    Just a FYI regarding what you called the ‘dual Karmapa’ issue.
    Considering our history of sectarianism & intolerance; it is an IRONIC fact & a curious case that this issue has gotten a majority of Tibetans more united!

  31. I think what GYALTSEN means by “dual karmapa” is the controversy created by senior Karmapa priests aka Situ and Shamar.

    Shamar choose Trinley Thaye and Situ(Gyaltsab /Beijing/Dalai Lama)opted for Ugyen Thinley.

    Ugyen Trinley and Trinley Thaye are both, to this day, still carrying on as if each is a living bodhisattva deity.

    It is said these devas never met, but have expressed a desire to meet.

    What would that meeting be like?

    Upon embrace, would they instantaneously cancel each other out in a burst of radiant energy as when matter and anti matter collide? Or, would they merge into one super elephantine Karmapa and usher in the New World Order? lol

  32. #43
    I know VERY WELL the old controversy; that is so very obvious. I am also aware of what GYALTSEN was ‘targeting’ for; that too is quite plain to see.
    My comment was to specifically point out the ‘unity’ part with a fresh & totally DIFFERENT POINTN OF VIEW.

    Your comment is the usual fluff, arrogance and ‘full of yourself’’

  33. @40 Be careful what kind of cocktail you are trying to make. Three elements are not same at all. Two are religious -where we have little understanding how complex it is. Only some people with authority can only perform such things. Of course we can talk about it but it will lead no where. But accusing MWA being divisive needs little application of you cognitive capability. MWA -it was one of the most discussed talked about policy of exile democracy. Where are you?

  34. If MWA approach has renounced Independence, then why continue to have a ‘Sikyong’ or Prime Minister. Or for that matter a Parliament or a Khashag, or continue to collect Green Book taxation – that which are all indicative of an sovereign nation. MWA professes association with China, yet it is set up as an independent exile government. These are some of the contradictions and hypocrisy that MWA has created amid much confusion, and damage to our original struggle for Tibetan independence. MWA has already failed.

  35. @46 Another highly reactive comments without fuller knowledge of what MWA actually stands for? MWA proposed several solutions on autonomy and still shall be ready to propose as per any given changing situations. Those solutions were still available for PRC to relent or negotiate. Nothing has been given up so far everything that matters including legitimacy of PRC rule over Tibet remained intact. It is still too early to say that MWA has been a failure. Don’t get confused here. So we can still go on maintain our status quo if so like.


    If MWA approach has renounced Independence, then why continue to have a ‘Sikyong’ or Prime Minister. Or for that matter a Parliament or a Khashag, or continue to collect Green Book taxation – that which are all indicative of an sovereign nation. MWA professes association with China, yet it is set up as an independent exile government. These are some of the contradictions and hypocrisy that MWA has created amid much confusion, and damage to our original struggle for Tibetan independence. MWA has already failed.






  37. LEFT AND RIGHT…when one go in for a negotiation with a position and proposal, the position is by no means THE END.. just the beginning. Unless the 2 party agrees to it…it is rather foolish to pretend to live on that position.

  38. Karmapa controversy is in part is created by Indian intelligence Agencies – rivalry between IB and RAW. IB support Shamar candidate and RAW which support the Karmapa Urgyen Thinley Dorje. There is very small section of Indian politicians and babus who dislike Tibetans in India.

    As for Shugden controversies and ban they themselves are largely responsible for it in engaging in sectarian propagation.

  39. @48, you sound more like a Chinese than a Tibetan. Why in the first place you’re suggesting to shut down all the channels of information and connections when you very well know the people inside Tibet are still suffering and need our help more than ever before. So far the Chinese side is not responding and still showing no concern for the Tibetan people’s wishes. And time will soon come when we decide an another alternative for the MWA, and at the time Tibetan as a nation will remain and will not die with the MWA. Whether MWA followers or Rangzen advocates, China stand as thorn in the flesh. Look out for Chinese???? and not your own people.

  40. JN la explained
    ” On the surface of it the official Middle Way Approach (MWA) theory that even if Tibet were to become independent most of Kham and all of Amdo would somehow inevitably be excluded from this wonderful development, might seem just pseudo-historical speculation of a particularly simple-minded kind.

    But underlying this claim is a false and divisive line of reasoning that is being brought into play to panic Khampas and especially Amdowas into giving up the freedom struggle. At its least mischievous the explanation is that the Lhasa government of the past never bothered about Kham and Amdo. At its vicious worst the argument goes that Lhasa sold out (tsongba ray) these two regions. And this often degenerates into poisonous charges of Lhasa aristocracy exploiting Khampa and Amdowa pilgrims to the Holy City and stealing the intellectual works of Amdowa scholars, in particular “Gedun Chophel’s history”, as readers of this blog will have noticed in quite a few of the comments.

  41. But, in reality, there is a very deep rooted stereotype on Amdowas and even their speaking-accent in our actual society.Although people in the position are not able to feel and experience it because they are not from Amdo.

    Ask your neighbors and friends around Dhramsala and check what is their view on Amdowas! Amdowas are fucked in this small society, but, hopefully it will not last very long,,,,,

  42. I am working on a book called confessions of a tibetan bigot. In this book, the protagonist is a middle aged man named Tsering who is so bent on being politically correct that he actually feels guilty of himself as not being honest on his himself. Being picked to work for an entity under the establishment using his connections, he really didn’t feel like working there. And when someone critizes the establishment, he feels obligated to protect the establishment although his heart says the otherwise. I am basing my character on non other than mr. jeshong of voa not long tried to trash JN …. Any thoughts on this matter would be appreciated…..

  43. I think people here aee unintentionally wasting the JN’s space by not sticking their comments to key issues that each such writings raised. The Key issue here is the Concept of “united Independent Tibet” whic I argue is no longer needed because all three provinces are already UNITED and Independence is not a short term goal to be invested all our resources now. This is take us decades back in terms of our efforts, diplomacy and results that we achieved through MWA. But equating MWA to relinquishing independence all together is a false or falsified notion. 1) MWA as policy is subject to chsnge as per changing political realities or even abandoned when time calls for it. 2) MWA as policy fully aware of what meant independence for Tibet and what are Tibet’s basic rights in this Global international communities and it will never go against people who aspire for it. Thats it!

  44. Its our generation to see the reality than going back to the history ,yesterday i saw Mr jamyang Norbu la was hanging with chicks but today he is quite active in writing bullshit article which create lots of misunderstanding and conflict within our own society ,so what ever he was before and he will become ,i don’t bother at all, but one thing he should critically think about is he should point his 10 fingers on chinese government not on our own government.if you have guts to face to the world than go and kick the chiness not our people and our government.

  45. please write a book about chinese economy.when i was in japan in tv document iheard somthing similar to your point.i am watching your speech in youtube all the time.and i like it very much and you now lot more then many tibetan like for that i respect you so much and also it is my duty do like you or if i cant atleast give some the point is that in china they are so many prolem on joint togehter challenge the china”s
    red when i was in japan .in japan there are some who are very spcialist in world they visit china and what they saw is that in china the water is going on top of the tree it is not reaching to if the root is not strong enough water oneday it will fall very why i am telling is this that one japanese economist he saw one shoe factory in shanghai.the president of shoe factory is son of high rank what happened is that oneday shoe company collaps next day the president of shoe company shift to another company.again he is same president i that china if your family is belongs something high ranking milltery and you dont have any knowledge of running company it is no the problem is all the workers get trouble.and shoe factory they are maybe 30000to 40000people working .so what i want is that please write the book which can make wakeup call for those workers then there is revolution in china.also one mainthing now a days many rich chinese they are running away from they homeland with money.mainly to australia ,canada ,and europe too.if you write a book on them it very great for those workers .i am also tibetan but we have to thing for those poor chinese also.this is the weapon to get our freedom

  46. In the past “KARMA” was given as reason why Chinese oppression and occupation of Tibet. Thank god at least we don’t hear karma being blamed these days.

    The total marginalization of lay people by clergy aka monks especially by Trulku in all sphere from politics to mundane human activities.

    From last king Lang Darma to 1950 there are hardly any prominent lay scholars or person of any historical significance.

    Even the history of Tibet is divided into two 1) Gyalrab (History of Kings) and 2) Choejung (History of Religion).

    Lang Darma the last king of Tibet was depicted by Buddhist scholar monk as vile and evil even possessing a horn and black tongue. Its why Tibetan elders scratch their head or protrude their tongue in front of officials to prove their innocence.

    Trulku system has contributed so much in the religious and cultural spheres of Tibetan people while it was certainly responsible for the political and historical demise of Tibet.

  47. “In a real sense not only the loss of independent Tibet in 1950, but even the break-up of the Tibetan empire in the 9th century and the subsequent loss of Amdo and most of Kham can be be blamed directly on the powerful clerical and monastic faction of Tibetan politics. It is beyond any academic dispute that the assassination of the Tibetan emperor Lhasay[8] Darma (r. 838-842) by a Buddhist monk “…was devastating for ……”

    It all boils down to POWER – Maintaining & controlling it.

    In Tibet’s case it was the RELIGIOUS Clerical System – With Gelug sect finally coming out as the final winner. (But the religious clergy in eastern Tibet areas did NOT have that kind of political clout).

    Even the civil war between the factions of the 2 Regents after the demise of the Great 13th was about maintaining that power structure and prevention of any ‘non-sectarian’ tendencies; even though the 13th Dalai discouraged it.
    The faction opposing Reting Rinpoche even had had their own candidate for the 14th Dalai Lama.

    After the demise of a Dalai Lama; opposing factions acted to put down those who had been close to the ‘deceased’ Dalai Lama & regain control.
    So again it boils down to power & control the way each faction saw fit.

    In modern times too it is the same EVERYWHERE. But now we have campaigning; voting & elections etc etc etc.

  48. Dear brothers and sisters,
    It is time to think more and more analysis on our approach and your kind justification should be a realistic rather burned by emotion. Freedom is our birthright no one is deny for that but we should carefully think how we gonna achieve without any strategies simply a bulk of emotion and hatred.Even you are not supporting for the middle way approach absolutely there is no any accusation. But one thing i strongly telling that it is not way to pointing finger to our own government and struggling rangzen to our government. even if you are great writer or actor if you dont have ethics and humanity than what is the used of becoming writer .. if you are gonna really love your country and country man then just follow the path that majority folk takes. dont try to make conflict in our own society. no matter whether you khampa,utsang,amdo,we are same ,same identity ,same blood of tibetan. we all are wish to return his holiness the dalai lama back to tibet

  49. I agree to some extent on “EVERYWHERE” if it does not include us EXILE-infancy stage.
    To atleast minimize the negativities and have some balance in the future, education was given high priority by HIM.

  50. #61.

    How so?
    I was discussing about what # 59 was blaming towards the ‘demise of Tibet’; what onen may call undermining last many centuries of ‘efforts’.

    Does not the fact that the Lang Darma the last king being murdered was to do with power & control politics of the time ? What has it to do with our last 50 years in exile?

  51. Better put – What has it to do with ‘undermining” our last 50 years in exile?
    I’d like to know; please educate us on this.

  52. @48 you have not justify your agreement based on reality rather emphasis on stupidity accusation on our own exile administration.first you study the MWA and then comment. little knowledge is dangerous

  53. #63.
    Exile ‘Infant’ years were pure survival. Efforts by Exile community under HH leadership was phenomenal – especially with EDUCATION – everyone is in agreement with that.

    Let’s put it this way:
    Now 50 plus years the educated Tibetans want a stake in the exile ‘govt’. Like ‘EVERYWHERE’ they too want a say in ‘things’ for the future of our identity & ‘nation’. Towards that they want to ‘democratically’ form their own political party. What is your say?

  54. @67,Which is why PRIORITY was given to minimize and form some balance in the future “unlike in the past events went by unnoticed or not by choice for many or EVERYWHERE where they do not know the name of their own country”. If the result of the PRIORITY has achieve to a level of acceptable majority (somewhere 80+%),its all good-the control is in the majority by choice.

  55. @TSUNDDRU Of course we need to learn from the history and we did? 1959 uprising was pan Tibet uprising that accepted HHDL’s leadership to defend it? Do not fall under trap of western legalistic nation state arguments of independent Tibet. Thereafter all three cholkha’s of Tibet stood in unison build CTA under HHDL’s leadership after Bodhgaya’s “Nagenchenmo”. The came our constitutions and charters which directly or indirectly govern exile democracy which has been created either direct or indirect(representations) consultations with Tibetans within. AND so on -my take is these are highly significant political development which counts. I think PRC know that too. TIBET is one where is the case for UNITED Tibet?

  56. KARMAT #69

    Yes of course in exile after Bodhgaya’s ‘Nagenchenmo” under leadership of HHDL – for the FIRST time all 3 cholka’s of TIBET stood in unison. This was also the FIRST time all 3 cholkas had appointed REPRESENTATIVES in the Central GOVT! Even first woman representative was appointed for FIRST time in those early years.

    But please remember most of the early appointed/selected Representatives were also part of 1959 pan Tibet uprising against an extremely aggressive regime that did NOT abide by its AGREEMENT. That regime literally had the then central govt as hostage. That is the key. But in their hearts the Pan Tibet uprising had HHDL as their Leader; remember the symbol of the ‘golden throne’?

  57. Some of your guys are arguing for the sake of arguement. You might better spend your time rereading all the Jamyang la’s article.

    Think out of the box, OK?

    Yours agu.

  58. My profession requires me to observe the exile Tibetan community. From my long observation, there are two different Tibetan ‘communities’. (This could be community within community or even two within one single family.)

    One is , what I would call ‘ main stream’. Tibetans who look up to His Holiness the Dalai Lama for guidance and leadership. Kalons, most of the Chithues, wannabe Chithues know that short cut to power and benefits is to parrot Middle Way to play to this vote bank.

    Former TYC Vice-president and present Dotoe Cithue has confided to his close friends that he has learned his rangzen lesson and is now not going to lose his Chithue election ever again. He joked that he will be the longest serving Chithue of the exile parliament. He has become the middle ways the newest and the fiercest champion. People will recall his attack on Jamyang Norbu ! Expect more in coming days.

    He is not alone. Championing the middle way has become a very profitable business and means to various entitlement, including scholarship for their children etc. Not many people will give up these privileges easily.

    Second group is: Rangzen fighters and lost rangzen fighters. The Rangzen fighters are still waging their small battles against China but have to firefight the middle way opportunist ( remember Jeshong Sangay- now in wolf’s clothing, sorry, I mean monk’s robe attack on JN )

    The lost fighters are giving up and becoming indifferent. Sadly, the number in this group is getting bigger and bigger.

    This group of lost rangzen fighters/believers are the main group of people, who almost always donate time and money for any cause of Tibetan. More and more are giving up on it and specially back off from any middle way and public prayers.

    They have the well being of Tibet at heart, but for now they are the disappointed majority.

    My observation is this : It is a great loss for His Holiness the Dalai Lama and CTA because the majority in the rank and file of this group is highly educated both in traditional and modern education.

    Long time back, Dharamasala can wave their hands, and say, there are only few disgruntled people like former Nangsi Secretary like Tashi Topgyal. Today, it is not. There are in hundreds, if not more.

    They also know that Lobsang Sangay is fake and opportunist.

    Trust me. His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s office and CTA need to pause and think over this issue.

    But the question is, will they ?

  59. @73 You can’t be a good observer so judgmental and sweeping conclusion without factual backups. You are trying polarize the society but fortunately it is not so you will never succeed. I am MWA supporter and never benefited anything and never did it for the sake of it but I think we have any conflict with Rangzen protagonist. In fact it helps MWA and supports its progress. So where are you?

  60. @70 So you seems to know these events very clearly. There are many more and has been consolidated over the last fifty odd years which could withstand some centuries political moments. Right question is what are their implications? -if you asked me -There is only Tibet.

  61. Karma T @ 74:

    You wrote:

    “I am MWA supporter and never benefited anything and never did it for the sake if it ”

    I can totally agree with you. In fact, majority are not doing this for personal benefits. They follow His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

    But educated class knows that this ” my path is the highway” is very short-sighted. Too tied down to the life span of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

    His Holiness the Dalai Lama is no doubt the heart and soul of Tibetan struggle. But Tibetan people should realize that Tibet as a nation was in existence before the present Dalai Lama and will always be there.

    Tibetan struggle will not end with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. As long as there is oppression, there will be resistance. For student of international politics, U.S.( Japan and India) among others will be using Tibet issue in future. Even groups within future leadership of China will prop up Tibet for their factional fighting. Mark my words! Don’t despair. It is a national struggle!

    How well Tibetans will be able to reap the future benefits to their favor depends on two things: education level of Tibetan youths and fortune of China.

    China’s greatest advantage is demographic. But no one can foretell the future of China.

    I urge the Tibetans youths to study His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s speech. Forget for a while all His good buddhist teachings. Go back and just focus on His speeches on China, for me the latest being one He gave to group of Tibetan youths in U.S. in Madison ( ?). My feeling is future will prove Him wrong on China.

    It is a matter of which side of advisers one listens or books you read on China. I don’t think His Holiness the Dalai Lama is not getting enough input on different scenarios.

    Good advisers always provide three scenarios: optimistic , pessimistic and realistic picture. Again, it should co-relate with time span.

    Now back to the MW believers: this group can be divided into two:
    One is what I would call the followers and other ushers or defenders. I have a Tibetan friend, who I know him from his youth. He is zealot for Tibet, in a good way.

    Long time opponent of any one criticizing TGIE ( now CTA) was a well known guy in Mcloed Ganj called Chatzoe Ngawang Tenpa. He was one of those guys out to mobilize public against JN and others. JN criticized him as bull dogs of this and that. My young friend would never ever believe it.

    Then one day, he ended up talking to a rather important person, who enlightened him that house Chatzoe -la stays belong to private office and Chatzoe la’s then young daughter was studying in England! My young friend has all the potential of becoming a ‘ small time’ Chatzoe -la, but this and other things got him so disgusted.

    Like this, I can offer you hundreds of example.

    But there are opportunist leaders who play it both ways. I know a prominent monk in an important monastery in South India. If there was certain issues that he want to impose on monks and that others in the management committee say might not look good if private office knew about it, he would brush off their argument by saying that private was run by a bunch of old men and why should people care so much for their opinion.

    But if his own opinion is in line with private office, and others express reservation, he would brush it off as this is the “decree” of Private Office.

    Problem is there are lot of merchants in this business and many are fakes – out there for their personal benefits. New entrants will make the loudest noise to make their mark or proof their worth. Then just keep an eye on the progression of their future career.

    Where as Rangzen followers are real.

    This is my experience of observing Tibetan community for over 20 years.
    Tibet is a great nation and it will survive as long as its people get good, REAL modern education on the top of their great cultural heritage.

  62. @76 You are beating around the bush but I like your sincerity. People who play around are few and we know them. They wont last long often they themselves has to suffer for life for a little gains. But assess implication of the force of the seemingly silent or dormant majority.

  63. Tibet-Watch is absolutely Right. Dharamsala is filled with opportunist. At this time, we should continue to fight for Rangzen and Dharamsala’s cronyism not only because it is the right thing to do and our basic rights but also for our sanity.
    In the land of one-legged men, two-legged man is considered abnormal. Like wise, JN is considered troubled maker and “crazy” in the sea of insane China apologist Middle-Way Supporter. These days previous rangzen supporters are also attacking JN obviously for some opportunistic reasons. Yes, Tibet-Watch is right! Lobsang Yeshi and Sertha Tsultrim are two worst and coward Rangzen advocate who when the going gets tough– they Quit. It’s a common practice in Dharamsala these days– and this is a serious concern if you really care!.
    Recently, i saw this guy who was kicked out from TGiE for stealing valuable from His Holiness’ Pvt Office, standing behind His Holiness at one of the visit in south India. I came to know that the guy is Los Singhe Phayul Chickpa (Bawa) and reinstated his official position in South Office of Tibet, Bangalore.
    If a thief who was kicked out of His Holiness Pvt office was allowed to meet and roam around His Holiness, why can’t JN be allowed to meet his holiness. Jn only crime is speaking his mind.
    Such double standard is worrying and sadly becoming an order of the Dhasa.
    I will leave it here- lots of issue to vent. but for now take care

  64. Either way HH is correct.He does not seek Independance for being MWPro. And for Tibetan for having MW as its official policy.Same response should be expected from any MWpro.

    Confusion arises when we consider him what he is not.

  65. Mila Rangzen in his great piece wrote:

    ” Neither the Dalai Lama nor Samdhong Lama or Penpa Tsering or Thupten Lungrig or Lobsang Nyendak or Lobsang Sangay or Kalden Lodoe or Libby Liu have a roadmap to the much promised paradise of genuine autonomy. ”

    Who is this Kalden Lodoe and Libby Liu ?

    Can some one enlighten us a little bit more about their contribution for Tibetan nation ?

  66. ” Neither the Dalai Lama nor Samdhong Lama or Penpa Tsering or Thupten Lungrig or Lobsang Nyendak or Lobsang Sangay or Kalden Lodoe or Libby Liu have a roadmap to the much promised paradise of genuine autonomy. ”

    MW proponents will insist in no uncertain terms, that MWP is not just any ole roadmap but a veritable treasure map, the very blueprint which will eventually lead us to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if followed faithfully, reverentially.

    Let me share a long quote from a MW apologist Nawang Phuntsog, where in his Phayul article; The Middle Way: A Highway for Solving Tibet’s Agony. Speaking in the third person says…

    “On the other hand, the autonomy protagonists neither deny the past nor turn a blind eye to the urgency and the gravity of the present. Rightly described as “ a mutually beneficial policy based on the principle of justice, compassion, non-violence, friendship and in the spirit of reconciliation for the well-being of the entire humanity.”

    Rightly described as? Who is this Rightly? Rightly opine the Middle Way synonymous with Dalai Lama, therefore, with human flourishing. Indeed, from his lofty perch, t’s every Tibetan’s Moral duty to embrace MWP as the very well being of humanity is at stake, along with friendship, compassion, principles of justice, a spirit of, well, you get the idea.

    Moralizing not done, he ends his long paragraph with,”the Middle Way (MW) policy is indeed revolutionary and visionary in terms of its scope and impact. The inclusion of the spiritual dimension into the political process is a refreshingly new paradigm that “would surely set a new benchmark in a world troubled by ethnic conflict”

    Haha Really? That the synthesis of religion and politics is “revolutionary and visionary”?? When its been done to death throughout History, by every society?

    As If, secular nations like Canada, Sweden,etc, are dying to paradigm shift towards an Exile Demo-Theocratic style of governance(or Iran with its strong emphasis on Islamic laws)because, one day, this form of rule will be the dominant model??

    Someone misinterpreting the concept of Paradigm Shift. The insight is pretty profound actually- (tho after one comprehends it, seems commonsensical) roughly, its the theory that scientific, and by extension, social world views are subject to change over time due to new knowledge gained–hence we see the world differently than how our ancestors did. Scientists, philosophers, academicians, in short, educated people are now said to view the world largely thr Kantian lens.

    Anyway, by in large, a mature, thoughtful article by Mila Rangzen. Can’t wait for part 2. The Solution!!

    Who is this Kalden Lodoe and Libby Liu?

    A whole rain-forest of internet paper have been wasted on these two individuals by now. What is there to say that was not said before? Why don’t we forgive their past transgressions and move on until they fuck up again?

  67. It will be a surprise if Mila RANGZEN’s solution will not have a rub of RANGZEN element in it…Perhaps his solution is in the title itself “LITTLE Tibet.

  68. Mila is right. I thought MWA people has a detail plan in that memorandum. But i read that yesterday and find no solution to the problem but a huge beg. We are begging for some concession from the Chinese who doesn’t care us a shit.

    Middle way Memorandum– full of shit, Highway to Nowhere.

  69. Don’t know about the article, but reviving our arm struggle in this region is remote ,bearing in mind that Nepal now is part of China and in name only an Independent country; extremely hostile and proactive in their ill treatment of all Tibetans. And sadly, since Lo is ethnically Tibetan, any undue attention by tourists who happen with higher statuses draws Nepal’s ire and suspicion. The natives of Lo are treated like third-class citizens because of their ethnicity and sympathy for Tibet. Suffice it to say that China has also flooded the area with spies on the ground and watched via satellites 24/7. Therefore it is not logical to start an arms struggle there, not only for the movement but also the adverse results for the already suffering Lo natives. I am speculating that the visits of the said dignitaries to Lo may have been just that, a visit.

  70. Thanks Gyalpot

    yeah, I know that, its not logical to start armed struggle not only in Mustang, that place full of Chinese spies, but also whole Nepal

    its weird that some Nepal media has mentioned that there is a Tibetan trying to create armed resistance inside Nepal..impossible

    any way, I wonder then, if there is a chance of forming resistance then it will be in India, not Nepal???

    since India shared a long border with Tibet

    I hope to see this happen, so terrorist PLA will be in fear for the first time

  71. Agu Tonpa:
    Automatically equating support for Rangzen with Shugden is a false and dangerous assumption that’s at best disingenuous and at worst a deliberate distortion aimed at whipping up hysteria to push a sociopolitical agenda.

  72. That shugden card is mean and dishonest trick. It’s one of those hallucinogenic mushrooms that can make even the most sensible Tibetans to lose all sense of reality.

  73. That guy is using my name. I bet that’s the NGTIB- with a pea size brain.

    After all, Who cares about shugdhen workshipper? They are as right or wrong as we Palden Lhamo or Nechung workshipper. The point is we are same– after all a workshipper!

    I bet if your dad is a shugdhen or ganesh workshipper, you’ll be one too. So, don’t be too smart about this.

    Yours Agu

  74. Karze

    yeah..Nepal seems forget its long friendship-relations with Tibet..they just want money..even if that mean thier friends will die!!!

    Nepal case of being so anti-tibet draws a lot of questions

    I am not sure about this..but I feel now as former nepal king being anti-maoist and since maoist is anti-tibetan..may be his return will be good for least better than terrorist maoist

    I was from long time thinking of what is the current possibilities of reviving the old type of tibetan armed resistance that seems forggoten..I think in India maybe??

    I feel this is the only way that will make tibet free

  75. @ 95
    occult practises is not necessarily negative. They meant to aid in the process of our attaining higher consciousness. but unfortunartely, more and more it is being practised not in spiritual sense but personal gain, which still may be o.k but worse when practised to bring harm and injury to others. thats where one has totally deviated from the spiritual path and lost the direction.

  76. I read this article today, its a very intresting article about mustang, and china fear

    I actually surprised that china still concern about nepal allowed tibetan to establish armed resistance after all what did nepal do to satisfy china???!!!

    there is no possibility at all to this happen, nepal now arrest tibetans for no reason

    china concern must be one of two..china obsession of fear of armed resistance, means just like the psychic who fear from nothing…or there is a real possibility which is seems impossible based on the deteriorating tibetans situation in nepal

    I think the first is true, which is evidence of the weaknes of china, unlike what people think, and if the later is true..its, in two cases, its a good news

  77. Jamyang la,

    I am sure you are curiously watching the drama unfolding in Dharamshala these days in the name of Middle way and HH. The ‘Mechanization’ and consolidation of Middle way power seems to be working successfully with the sacrificial goats as the ‘Rangzen’ critics. As someone mentioned in the blog, diasporic version of thamzing has started.

    The people who had taken Tibet dearly are now tried in the middle way court as separatist and terrorist. I wait to here your thoughts of these recent events.





  79. Gyamtso Kyab

    with middle way aproach, Tibet in deep crisis, and will continue, until the Dalai Lama or sikyong realise how inaffictev this aproach is.

    middle way will continue destroy Tibet, since negotiation doesn’t work with chinese, they see this as sign of weakness, chinese only knows the language of guns, this is fact, weather has been accepted or not

  80. Jamyanglak,

    I stand with you for the fact that you are standing up for a full independent Tibet. I suppose, you do not support the Middle Way Policy.
    However, skewing the Middle Way Policy’s idea is not at all making contribution towards Tibet’s ultimate goal.
    Middle Way Policy never indicated that it is fighting for some part of original Tibet (approximately 2.5 million square kilometers of traditional Tibet or Boe Cholkha Suum). The Middle Way Policy is definitely fighting for a genuine autonomy for Tibet which includes all areas of Tibet(Boe Cholkha Suum = approximately 2.5 million square kilometers).
    Historically, Tibet remained week after the assassination of Emperor OhuDuum Tsenpo( commonly known as Lang Dharma ) until the Communist China invaded in 1950s. Within that period, the territory of Tibet saw many changes. In 1959, Tibet was fully occupied by the Communist China. Presumably, from then onwards, Tibet as a territorial nation and country has ceased. Mind you that this fact has nothing to do with the Middle Way Policy. The Middle Way Policy clearly says, history of Tibet is past. This means, Tibet until 1959 was an independent nation which includes all Tibetans (Cholkha Suum) but was past.
    All of these points has to come to a clear light, otherwise, polarized views could be generated. Polarized views on any idea is harmful.
    Jamyanglak, please do not send mixed messages. History is past. We can learn from past. Present is the most important. Present should be calm and confident. Present aims for future. Aiming future, present has to be executed.

    Thank you

  81. Sorry folks, so called Middle Way ( Medals’ way)has failed us miserably, creating a division in our society. We gave up everything for nothing. It’s almost delusional considering the threadbare arguments CTA is making in defence of Medals’ Way. Oh yes, there is a great news! HH says that ” Resolution” of the Tibetan issue be seen in his lifetime. But did not HH say something similar many times in the past 50 years.

  82. Looks like the Dalai Lama Democracy sucker punched poor Karma Chophel, he’s reeling and delirious. Now finally woke up to reality, he’s humbly on his knees, begging for forgiveness, pleading to the House to completely expunge his statement from the record. What a joke. Why did he bother in the first place?

    Below are some excerpts from the Tib Sun article, a sad read. The old man really knows how to push his ppls emotional buttons.

    “Tsering (Penpa)stressed that this was the first time that the Dalai Lama expressed the sentiments contained in his words: “There is this low confidence in me. Earlier I used to think that because the Tibetans inside Tibet has a lot of faith in me, I thought that I should remain alive till the age of 113. But since such things are occurring, I think it might be now appropriate for me to live up to the age of 108.” (obviously in this instance, the “scientist” DL isn’t speaking, but the “Divination” DL is)
    “So on those matters civil servants also were outwardly grieved, and many of these civil servants were shedding tears at that meeting. And that’s the issue that eventually spread in the Tibetan community.”

    “This was a matter of grave concern for all the Tibetans inside and outside Tibet. That’s why the Parliament made this resolution motion. Thirty members took part in this deliberation. Each and every one expressed their faith in His Holiness, and resolved to request His Holiness to commit himself to live up to the age of 113 and beyond. That was the first point of the resolution,” the Speaker said.”

  83. Some real patriotic Tibetans are “blacklisted” through emotional black-mail, which is becoming more and more a trend. I draw the following conclusion:

    Although it is never easy to be subject of nasty bashing, these people will have His Holiness the Dalai Lama to thank for in future. When the history of Tibet will be written, they will be remembered as last men standing for Free Tibet – Rangzen, – the word tattoed on young nun who self-immolated in Tibet.

    I also fear that it might be a reflection that there is ‘coup’ of sort in Gaden Phordang against more professional advisers/senior staff by people with shady characters like Kalden Lodoes. Note the (s) in Lodoe.

    Senior Advisors of Gaden Phordang and Tibetan public, especially the educated one should watch those politicians (which includes Chithues) who jump to raise this emotional issues in Tibetan community or parliament as really having the best of intention for Garden Phordang.

    Story and Moral:

    Late Kunsang Paljor once wrote an article in a journal published by him. In his article he wrote ‘in support’ of a misdeed of an important member of Gangchen Kyishong at time.

    The guy in the story was grateful to him for writing in support of him. But late Kunsng Paljor la told many of us that his whole point of writing was that he wanted to keep the issue of misdeed alive, and since there was no way, anybody would dare criticize the guy, he said the best strategy was to keep raising the issue in a different way.

    Gaden Phordang should watch for the end result. Does it enhance the stature of His Holiness or does it undermine ? And protect our Holiness accordingly from shady characters.

    With my sincere prayer of His Holiness’ health and longevity.

  84. When people engage in parliament motions with wanting or requesting to live 108 or 113 or beyond, says a whole lot about their mindset.

  85. I don’t understand actually, why the Dalai Lama are so keen to promote middle way, aren’t he claim he resign as a political leader??

    its no morethan a show

  86. Yes Dolma, DL has stated many times over the decades that the Tibetan situation will be resolved, that he is “optimistic” about the Chinese government, that self rule would be possible by 1989.(at the time, confirmed by the Narchung oracle hhaha)

    Just few weeks ago in Lithuania, on 13 September 2013, the “Dalai Lama says China’s Tibet policy now ‘more realistic’.” “I am quite optimistic”

    Another reason for optimism says DL is that; “some Tibetan areas were allowing locals to worship him as a deity.” I am sure it will not matter to DL or his fans that in July China denied there had been any change in their policy. DL said he is also optimistic that more and more Chinese intellectuals and Buddhist are showing solidarity with Tibet. Where is the evidence? OH I forgot, HH don’t need any evidence, as all rational buddhists know, Gods never lie.

    Kind of disturbing that DL feels optimistic even when 121 Tibetans self immolated, even as hundreds, perhaps thousands of Tibetans in Tibet received harsh prison sentences by the Regime. Ofcouse his optimism isn’t about Tibetan independence or liberating Tibetans from CCP tyranny, his optimism, like his fortune cookie wisdom, is about keeping up the morale of his flock via consolations. His objective, to sell the idea that MW is God’s way and superstitious Tibetan buddhism is the new religion for the new millennium. The fake tulku system which had cloth DL and his ilks in immense power must continue no matter, whether in independent Tibet, CCP Tibet or in exile. Tibet is negotiable, but who will rule the Tibetan ppl (gaden phodrang) that’s non negotiable. The public humiliation of Karma Chophel is a warning against all Tibetans that contrary views against the sanctified MW doctrine, or questioning the righteousness of our theocratic social hierarchy will not be tolerated.

    DL knows perfectly well that the Tibet situation will not be solved any time soon, if ever, so an adroit strategy for gaden phodrang must be to keep a tight rein on the Tibetan population via the sheep word “UNITY.” Unity equals unquestioning obedience to the will of the Dalai Lama. How is this when he is retired, some may ask. But if he is retired, why is the DL lording over Tibetan civil servants on 2 September just few short months after the Salugara fiasco? This meeting too was about keeping all Tibetans in line, specially the Tibetan politicans, in this case, Karma Chophel.

    As one media wrote; “The Dalai Lama had met all staff members above the rank of department officers at his residence, after the Kashag (Tibetan Cabinet) had requested the Dalai Lama for an audience for the purpose of encouraging the civil servants in their daily works.”

    “The heads of the democratic institutions were also present, along with the heads of the autonomous bodies of the administration, general and civil service Commission.”
    “During the meeting the Dalai Lama elaborated on his three main responsibilities, particularly after the devolution of his political responsibilities.”

    So the Dalai Lama gathers all our governmental officials together, ordering them around AS IF he is still in charge, the Tibetan Cabinet is wilfully allowing the DL to dictate policies AS IF he is still in charge, while various Tibetan Media keep reporting AS IF the Dalai Lama has completely devolved his political powers. The joke is surely at our expense.

    If, as the Dalai Lama said in an interview, “he is only seeking “meaningful autonomy” for Tibetans within China and accepts Chinese rule.” First of all, why a simple Buddhist monk, who by his own admission, have no political authority, “seeking” anything other than Enlightenment? This yet another clear example of DL’s penchant for BSing.

    The more important question is, if we accept Chinese rule over Tibet as DL wants, why do we need the Dalai Lama? China is atheist! to me, that simply means(tho nothing is simple) more science less religion. I’ll even grant the argument that China has raised the living standard of common ppl in Tibet. These are solid positives in my book. Yes, China is also our enemy, yet, to understand is not to forgive.

    The point is, I much rather have one Big Brother watching me than two.

    Even at this time, the feudal ties tug us toward unquestioning obedience and faith, keep us blind and simple forever till all we are left with is beggary and prayers– though if wishes were diamonds, all beggars would be millionaires.

  87. @110 The Owl
    Well said! Exactly how I feel.

    How in the god’s name does His Holiness think that he has the right to give away Tibet’s independence!
    Tibet existed as a sovereign nation before the Dalai Lamas. The Dalai Lamas did not found/create Tibet and it is not for a Dalai Lama to give away something that is not his alone. Tibet is our collective land. We have as much right to decide its fate.


  88. I am sorry for your arguments and accusations that are out of “pure-a-hole”created out of your peabrain.
    “”How in the god’s name does His Holiness think that he has the right to give away Tibet’s independence!””—NOT JUST HIS HOLINESS BUT MORE THAN 80% OF THE TIBETAN IN EXILE DID WHEN THEY VOTED FOR MW…SO WHY JUST ON HH…THROW SOME BORN ON ME AND OTHERS IN 80% TOO!!
    “”The Dalai Lamas did not found/create Tibet and it is not for a Dalai Lama to give away something that is not his alone. Tibet is our collective land. We have as much right to decide its fate.”” JUST AS YOU THINK YOU HAVE RIGHTS , HH AND OTHER 80% ALSO HAS RIGHTS…SO SHOVE IT OR FIGHT FOR IT THROUGH PROPER WAY NOT THROUGH UNREALISTIC UNWINNABLE RANTS!!

    “”So the Dalai Lama gathers all our governmental officials together, ordering them around AS IF he is still in charge, the Tibetan Cabinet is wilfully allowing the DL to dictate policies AS IF he is still in charge, while various Tibetan Media keep reporting AS IF the Dalai Lama has completely devolved his political powers. The joke is surely at our expense. “” I READ “KASHANG REQUESTED”…SO STOP YOUR CREATIVE WRITING SKILLS..SAVE IT FOR YOUR CHILDREN BED TIME STORY….

    “”If, as the Dalai Lama said in an interview, “he is only seeking “meaningful autonomy” for Tibetans within China and accepts Chinese rule.” First of all, why a simple Buddhist monk, who by his own admission, have no political authority, “seeking” anything other than Enlightenment? This yet another clear example of DL’s penchant for BSing.”” TO SEEK ENLIGHTMENT OR AUTONOMY IS HH OWN PERSONAL BUSINESS ..NOT YOURS OR MINE.

    “I’ll even grant the argument that China has raised the living standard of common ppl in Tibet. These are solid positives in my book. Yes, China is also our enemy, yet, to understand is not to forgive.” THIS CLEARLY PRESENTS THE SIZE OF YOUR BRAIN, HOW NARROWISH PEASIZE!

    “Even at this time, the feudal ties tug us toward unquestioning obedience and faith, keep us blind and simple forever till all we are left with is beggary and prayers– though if wishes were diamonds, all beggars would be millionaires.” —YOU ARE WAY OUT OF REALITY..POPO MOMO GENERATION HAS GONE…U SHOULD HAVE COMMENTED THIS WHEN THEY WERE ALIVE.

  89. Does anyone know if there is a comprehensive document on the details of Middle Way policy, and how it will correspond to the Chinese constitution? I will be indeed grateful.

  90. #113
    Exile Tibetans do not constitute more than a percent of the Tibetan population so pray let us know from where did you pull that 80% out of.
    In my opinion, the main problem with most Middle Way people is that they support because His Holiness supports it. If tomorrow His Holiness were to say he is for Rangzen almost all Middle Way people will change to Rangzen. And the most disturbing thing is most of them will be even proud of it and boast. This is not faith based on reason. It does not serve the object of adoration either. And while this kind of extreme faith may be good for those people individually, it is not good for Tibet.
    It is discouraging to find lot of Tibetans defending Chinese rule over Tibet more zealously than the Chinese themselves. I feel sorry for Tibet and the Tibetans in Tibet.

  91. @#113 Daveno

    I wonder where you got that 80% from?
    And even if that 80% is “correct” figure, you and I know how that referendum was done.
    In Hunsur where I originally hail from, it was done as follows:

    When everyone gathered at the meeting, the village head announced “everyone must vote. I heard from Lekhung (Office at the Settlement centre) that His Holiness thinks Umey Lam the best”.
    When that kind of announcement is made, we all know what the outcome is going to be. It was a biased survey to begin with.
    And what is His Holiness doing continuing to stick his nose into politics even after he “resigned” from politics!


  92. I,m having a difficult time explaining to my foreign freinds why HH keeps issuing political statements when hes retired from politics. I think its insulting to treat us like children who can be chided, scolded, and lied to without end. No amount of celbrityhood and fame is an excuse to get away . And for once why doesnt he appreciate the freedom fighters at least once…i woyuld have the most respect for HH once that happens.

  93. @120, You should have educated your folks in hunsur on Rangzen (if Rangzen is the ONLY) during referendum time,, should have fought for it!!

    You should ask this “sticking nose into politics” question to HH face to face, just like you would to your friends or neighbours..why ask here when you know clearly HH does not visit here.

  94. Dear Jamyang Norbu la, We think what so ever was the history and what caused the loss of our country,we as being Tibetans have to fight for our right based on reality. Most of us( those who have shown interest in our history) know the fact, but we have to move forward and find for a better solution according to the situation. The way you bring up the discussion is poisonious, which brings friction among the Tibetans. This is what Beijing wants, but not the Tibetans. H.H. THE Dalia Lama has devoted his whole life for the Tibetan cause, should appreciate rather than criticise. H.H has been working hard bringin democracy in our sociaty. CTA is elected by the majority of Tibetans in exile. There must be some Tibetans who dislike the politic, but if they really are Tibetans who are concerned about the Tibetan cause they should have the sense of appreciation for the hard work by sacrifising their time and pivate life , otherwise it will be as there is a saying in Tibetan” it is easy to tell others how to harvest by sitting on the sofa than to do it by yourself. Nyiyang and Tendol, from Norway.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *