Clearing the Mist (November, 1982)
Some people, particularly a number of high ranking officials in Dharamsala, are reportedly speculating on the motive behind our decision to publish the article “Suggestions from Controversial Tibetan” in our last issue. Although no formal letter to the editor has been received on this point specifically, the following explanations is given in the hope that it will save them from being puzzled if other materials offensive to them appear in these pages in future.
The ‘motive’ for publishing that item, quite simply, was exactly the same as the one for publishing any other item in that or any other issue of this journal, i.e. to make available to our readers all the available facts on every aspect of Tibet. The fact in this case is that there is a Tibetan exile whose views are somewhat different from those held by the rest of the community. Since these views were made available to us we felt it our duty to pas them on to our readers. We could not possibly suppress them just because most of our readers were like to disagree with them. The disappearance of freedom of expression is, after all, one of the reasons why we have chosen to leave our homeland and live in exile.
As readers are aware, we have often published even views of the Chinese government, both in their own words and via their champions in the free world. In the same spirit we gave space to rejoinders, and conterrejoingers, which we believe have helped the protagonists as well as the passive readers to arrive at a clearer understanding of the issues raised. If views that are likely to give offense to somebody are prevented from reaching a larger audience, there wold also be no opportunity for presenting the opposite viewpoints; and thus no opportunity for holders of the two views to understand each other more fully in a civilized manner—without having to resort to physical violence, a form of activity which is seldom known to have achieved much good. For this reason, despite the risk of recurrent displeasure in certain quarters, our editorial policy will remain unchanged.
Some people, particularly a number of high ranking officials in Dharamsala, are reportedly speculating on the motive behind our decision to publish the article “Suggestions from Controversial Tibetan” in our last issue. Although no formal letter to the editor has been received on this point specifically, the following explanations is given in the hope that it will save them from being puzzled if other materials offensive to them appear in these pages in future.
The ‘motive’ for publishing that item, quite simply, was exactly the same as the one for publishing any other item in that or any other issue of this journal, i.e. to make available to our readers all the available facts on every aspect of Tibet. The fact in this case is that there is a Tibetan exile whose views are somewhat different from those held by the rest of the community. Since these views were made available to us we felt it our duty to pas them on to our readers. We could not possibly suppress them just because most of our readers were like to disagree with them. The disappearance of freedom of expression is, after all, one of the reasons why we have chosen to leave our homeland and live in exile.
As readers are aware, we have often published even views of the Chinese government, both in their own words and via their champions in the free world. In the same spirit we gave space to rejoinders, and conterrejoingers, which we believe have helped the protagonists as well as the passive readers to arrive at a clearer understanding of the issues raised. If views that are likely to give offense to somebody are prevented from reaching a larger audience, there wold also be no opportunity for presenting the opposite viewpoints; and thus no opportunity for holders of the two views to understand each other more fully in a civilized manner—without having to resort to physical violence, a form of activity which is seldom known to have achieved much good. For this reason, despite the risk of recurrent displeasure in certain quarters, our editorial policy will remain unchanged.
<< Home