In the Limbo
Those in India and in the United States who happened to see the television coverage of Rajiv Gandhi’s news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC would not have failed to notice that the urbane and witty Prime Minister was visibly at a loss for words, albeit only briefly, when the question of Tibet unexpectedly came up. Clearly he was not briefed on this subject for this particular occasion as his advisers must have thought there is no earthly reason for it to crop up. Most of the Tibetan refugees in India are leading a reasonably happy life : and their government-in-exile’s relationship with Peking also appears to be as good as can be expected under the circumstances—what with the procession of official delegations and the frequent speculations about a proposed visit by the Dalai Lama himself.
Thus, though there undoubtedly is a ‘Tibet question’ still in existence, there is no crisis element in it: so there is no urgent need to look into it. IF Tibetans themselves feel it is sufficient to send a few ritualistic memorandas and letters to the editor, why should anyone else lose much sleep over it?
The Chinese are so confident with the situation that they have graciously invited India to reopen its mission in Lhasa. There would have bee no such proposal if the Chinese still believed Tibet to be a ‘troublesome’ place, or if they thought the Indians believed it to be a ‘troublesome’ place. And neither would the bulk of the Indian intelligentsia see any reason why a ‘positive’ response cannot be given to such a grand gesture of friendship. One daily has already rushed to comments : ‘Delhi may not be in hurry to accept the Chinese invitation as it has to consider the sentiments of the Tibetan refugees settled in this country. But viewed in the broader perspective of bilateral relations, India has much to gain in making a positive response.’
So far Dharamsala has maintained an enigmatic silence. But it won’t be long before usual lame protests and sobs and moans are heard. In the absence, however, of any concrete eveidence to demonstrate we mean what we say, such protests are not likely to prove much of a deterrent to any move which others may feel are beneficial to their interests but which may harm the Tibetan cause.
Those in India and in the United States who happened to see the television coverage of Rajiv Gandhi’s news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC would not have failed to notice that the urbane and witty Prime Minister was visibly at a loss for words, albeit only briefly, when the question of Tibet unexpectedly came up. Clearly he was not briefed on this subject for this particular occasion as his advisers must have thought there is no earthly reason for it to crop up. Most of the Tibetan refugees in India are leading a reasonably happy life : and their government-in-exile’s relationship with Peking also appears to be as good as can be expected under the circumstances—what with the procession of official delegations and the frequent speculations about a proposed visit by the Dalai Lama himself.
Thus, though there undoubtedly is a ‘Tibet question’ still in existence, there is no crisis element in it: so there is no urgent need to look into it. IF Tibetans themselves feel it is sufficient to send a few ritualistic memorandas and letters to the editor, why should anyone else lose much sleep over it?
The Chinese are so confident with the situation that they have graciously invited India to reopen its mission in Lhasa. There would have bee no such proposal if the Chinese still believed Tibet to be a ‘troublesome’ place, or if they thought the Indians believed it to be a ‘troublesome’ place. And neither would the bulk of the Indian intelligentsia see any reason why a ‘positive’ response cannot be given to such a grand gesture of friendship. One daily has already rushed to comments : ‘Delhi may not be in hurry to accept the Chinese invitation as it has to consider the sentiments of the Tibetan refugees settled in this country. But viewed in the broader perspective of bilateral relations, India has much to gain in making a positive response.’
So far Dharamsala has maintained an enigmatic silence. But it won’t be long before usual lame protests and sobs and moans are heard. In the absence, however, of any concrete eveidence to demonstrate we mean what we say, such protests are not likely to prove much of a deterrent to any move which others may feel are beneficial to their interests but which may harm the Tibetan cause.
posted by editorla at
9:07 PM
<< Home