Frivolous Reflections
The Dalai Lama’s overruling of the Cabinet decision to reduce the Tibetan New Year celebrations early this month deserves more serious attention that it has received. It is high time that we made up our mind as to how we should act under similar circumstances in future. The Kashag will recall that a couple of years ago when Dharamsala tried to impose on Tibetan the Indian Government policy of prohibition, there was widespread resentment. The enforcement was never tally effective, became increasingly less so every day, and the situation was back to normal when the Dalai Lama told an Indian newspaper that he felt there should be no ban on drinking and other social activities when mood and occasion called for them.
The reason for the projected subdued Losar was the demise about a month ago of the Dalai Lama’s mother. This would have been a good reason if her death was unexpected, if it had occurred immediately before the Losar or if she was not assured of a higher rebirth. However this was not so: she was 81 and by Tibetan standards had lived a full, happy life and never offended anyone. Her death had already been mourned officially and privately by all Tibetan appropriate religious rites had been conducted. So what was the point of the extra exhibition of loyalty conceived only a few days before the New Year?
It must be stated bluntly that this decree was as hypocritical as the earlier one on prohibition. At that time, chang was banned, but people could drink the more costly beer, whisky and spurious distillations. During the recent Losar, people were not supposed to dance in the streets, but it was alright to gamble, get drunk and fight indoors. It does not seem to have occurred to our leaders that drinking whisky instead of chang hardly constitutes good behavious; or that becoming drunk and disorderly instead of dancing will be seen as mourning. SO that whole show of austerity intended during the Losar would have amounted to no more than self-deception.
I am not proposing that Tibetans should let it all hang out three hundred and sixty five days a year. But I see no reason to be ashamed of in having a good time once in a while, and especially on appropriate public occasions, in a life otherwise sufficiently crowded with work and worries. In future, the ordinary Tibetan would do well to ponder over every decision affecting their daily life made by someone else and consider its purpose and effectiveness carefully. Not much will be gained by submitting to them reluctantly and then grumbling in the privacy of closed doors. Since our society is supposed to be a democracy and not a dictatorship, the ordinary people have the right to question their elected leaders on any issue until satisfactory answers have been provided. It does not seem right for use to go on expecting the Dalai Lama to step in every time we are not very happy about decisions made by people immediately below him.
The Dalai Lama’s overruling of the Cabinet decision to reduce the Tibetan New Year celebrations early this month deserves more serious attention that it has received. It is high time that we made up our mind as to how we should act under similar circumstances in future. The Kashag will recall that a couple of years ago when Dharamsala tried to impose on Tibetan the Indian Government policy of prohibition, there was widespread resentment. The enforcement was never tally effective, became increasingly less so every day, and the situation was back to normal when the Dalai Lama told an Indian newspaper that he felt there should be no ban on drinking and other social activities when mood and occasion called for them.
The reason for the projected subdued Losar was the demise about a month ago of the Dalai Lama’s mother. This would have been a good reason if her death was unexpected, if it had occurred immediately before the Losar or if she was not assured of a higher rebirth. However this was not so: she was 81 and by Tibetan standards had lived a full, happy life and never offended anyone. Her death had already been mourned officially and privately by all Tibetan appropriate religious rites had been conducted. So what was the point of the extra exhibition of loyalty conceived only a few days before the New Year?
It must be stated bluntly that this decree was as hypocritical as the earlier one on prohibition. At that time, chang was banned, but people could drink the more costly beer, whisky and spurious distillations. During the recent Losar, people were not supposed to dance in the streets, but it was alright to gamble, get drunk and fight indoors. It does not seem to have occurred to our leaders that drinking whisky instead of chang hardly constitutes good behavious; or that becoming drunk and disorderly instead of dancing will be seen as mourning. SO that whole show of austerity intended during the Losar would have amounted to no more than self-deception.
I am not proposing that Tibetans should let it all hang out three hundred and sixty five days a year. But I see no reason to be ashamed of in having a good time once in a while, and especially on appropriate public occasions, in a life otherwise sufficiently crowded with work and worries. In future, the ordinary Tibetan would do well to ponder over every decision affecting their daily life made by someone else and consider its purpose and effectiveness carefully. Not much will be gained by submitting to them reluctantly and then grumbling in the privacy of closed doors. Since our society is supposed to be a democracy and not a dictatorship, the ordinary people have the right to question their elected leaders on any issue until satisfactory answers have been provided. It does not seem right for use to go on expecting the Dalai Lama to step in every time we are not very happy about decisions made by people immediately below him.
posted by editorla at
9:02 PM
<< Home