The Politics of Writing about Tibet

N. Ram has written the article The politics of Tibet: a 2007 reality check. He had issued a warning about this as a footnote to his other article Tibet in the time of high economic growth. The blog post outlining certain things in his first article is available here. Now for the second article.

The statements from the article are given below in italics.

N. Ram begins his article by asserting that the Tibetan Buddhist doctrine of reincarnation belongs to the mystical-religious realm and asks a lot from 21st century believers. He further writes that the Dalai Lama’s approach even to rebirth is decidedly ideological-political. What he proposes here is to remove the religious aura from the Dalai Lama. The theory of rebirth and reincarnation is in the realm of religion and philosophy. Giving a political color to a statement and then extrapolating that to the whole domain of idealogy and belief is anything but mischievous. The word even gives a hint to what we can expect next in Ram's article.

When a religious leader is in the forefront of struggle for independence, one can expect politics and region are going to be mixed in a disproportionate way. The use of power in one domain based on the power in another domain is quite common, and is needed to initiate a social process. And Ram recognises this - the 14th Dalai Lama has been primarily responsible for keeping the Tibet question active internationally, within China, and in the arena of India-China bilateral relations.

Politically, Tibet presents a paradox.

We immediately look forward to the paradox which Ram is alluding to. What is the paradox?

1. On the one side, there is not a single country and government in the world that disputes the status of Tibet; that does not recognise it as a part of China.
2. On the other side, there is little doubt that there is a Tibet political question; that it has a problematical international dimension; This problematical side is a function of the interplay of a host of subjective and objective factors.

The first side of the paradox is clear. The second one is vague. What are those subjective and objective factors?

They are the Dalai Lama’s religious charisma combined with the iconic international status of Tibetan Buddhism; his long-lastingness and tenacity; his alignment with colonial interests and western powers and the ideological-political purposes he has served over half a century; his considerable wealth and global investments, and resources mobilised from the Tibetan diaspora in various countries; the grievous cultural and human damage done in Tibet, as in the rest of China, during the decade of the ‘Cultural Revolution’ (1966-1976); the nature of the ‘independence for Tibet’ movement that has rallied round the person and office of the Dalai Lama and follows anything but the Buddhist ‘Middle Way’; the links and synergies he has established with Hollywood, the media, legislators, and other influential constituencies in the west; and, most troubling from a progressive Indian standpoint, the reality of a continuing Indian base of operations for the ‘Tibetan government-in-exile.’

It is quite clear that Ram is befuddled. He has beautifully written that there is a paradox. He then identifies the other side of paradox in Dalai Lama alignment with western powers. Since no single country and government supports independent Tibet (the first side of paradox), we can only conclude that the western powers, with whom the Dalai Lama has aligned, must be non-governmental ones. But Ram says those alignments have colonial interests too. Which entity is there with non-governmental colonial interests? Moreover, when you talk about political paradox, it is better to have stakeholders whose interests are in conflict. Ram here makes the Dalai Lama as a stakeholder against the world opinion. The politics of Tibet cannot be this simple where the conflict arises between the world opinion and an individual's wayward life as Ram's article wants us to believe.

The long-term assessment of China’s political leadership has been that the Dalai Lama cannot be treated merely, or even primarily, as a religious leader. The Dalai Lama’s track record certainly bears out this assessment.

Ram writes as if what China has said is found to be true. As we said before, religion and politics are going to be coalesced when the impact of occupation is harmful to the culture where religious aspects are intertwined with daily lives of people. He emphasizes this - There have been other political provocations under the guise of exercising traditional religious authority.

The Chinese central government and the Communist Party of China have shown exceptional patience.

Ram appreciates the patience. Looks like the Chinese central government is quite clean in its policies, and all problems arise because of impatient Tibetans!!!

He identifies two core issues:

1. What kind of autonomy Tibet should have?
2. Is ‘one administrative entity’ for all ethnic Tibetans possible?

What is the response?

1. According to Ram's article, the Dalai Lama says, "the Tibetans should have full responsibility for education, economic development, environmental protection, and religion." The Chinese say,"No." Ram writes,"the kind of autonomy that the Dalai Lama demanded cannot possibly be accommodated within the Chinese Constitution."
2. According to Ram's article, the Dalai Lama says,"Greater Tibet as 'one administrative entity' for all ethnic Tibetans." The Chinese say,"No." And Ram writes,"The Chinese government makes the perfectly reasonable point."

Civility, open-mindedness, flexibility, and a positive attitude to resolving the Tibet question will certainly help, on both sides.

In an article that is supposed to address the political issues of Tibet realistically, Ram has written only about the Dalai Lama and has not written about the other side of the conflict - the Chinese government. He mentions 'both sides' but writes about 'one side'.

China will not allow independent Tibet to form. It will not allow its existence. Tibet is very important for China; strategically and militarily. Ram's article is silent on these issues. No, I do not envision Tibet as an independent country. But, the least we can do is not to justify an occupation.

By citing developments and progress, we cannot justify war and killings. A war is a war. An occupation is an occupation. We can think of ways to reduce harmful casualities in any given circumstances. We can think of ways to make human lives precious and their culture vibrant in the given realistic situation. Justification of occupation, destruction, and war is a wrong step to start with. In any case, writing about what I do not agree with one side of the conflict does not imply that the other side is right. What we need is a heart that puts idealogy and politics after human well-being.

Ram has not issued any warning about future articles. But we can expect articles, in various forums and forms, from him in future as a week-long visit deserves more than two!!!

___________________________