Passive Activity
Forty years ago in March, while India was in its transitional period to independence, a new type of gathering was convened here by the country’s leaders headed by Jawaharlal Nehru. The purpose of the Asian Relations Conference was to exchange ideas regarding the common problems which all Asian countries had to face in the post-war era. Delegates from 28 countries in the region and observers from five non-Asian countries and the United Nations discussed there various problems from 23 March to 2 April 1947. Tibet was also invited and its four-member delegation participated in the meeting on equal footing with those of other countries. China made a feeble protest at this but it went largely ignored.
Despite the boundless goodwill and permanent friendship every one spoke of at the conference, China invaded Tibet three years later, and the participating countries stood by and watched. More years rolled by. Tibet was incorporated into China and the Asian Relations Coference evolved into the much larget Non-Aligned Movement. Tibet is denied even an observer status in the Movement’s meetings.
Tibetans by now realize that this is all part of a great game euphemistically known as ‘politics.’ However, they still don’t seem to have caught on the idea of fully taking advantage of the institutions created for the practice of political craft. This half-hearted entry into modern political arena was clearly reflected at the symposium organised by the Indo-Tibetan Friendship Society in Delhi this month. The organizers had sufficient funs to invite a member of out-of-town speakers. But advance publicity for theevent was virtually non-existent. The pre-conference work did not seem to have included preparation of well though-out papers for distribution among the audience and the press.
The result was a very poor turnout, especially on the part of the Indian public at whom the whole exercise was, or should have been, addressed. Some of the speeches were overlong digressed from the them, and provided little new information for those gathered there. The already sparse audience was becoming even more so by the time the proceedings becoming even more so by the time the proceedings had to be brought to a hasty conclusion at the end of four hours.
Probably the only useful thing that came out of this symposium was one more item of ‘activity’ that the Indo-Tibetan Friendship Society can gloat over at it’s annual meeting. As for the audience, the consolation perhaps lies in the fact that only six of the 14 speakers invited were able to attend.
Forty years ago in March, while India was in its transitional period to independence, a new type of gathering was convened here by the country’s leaders headed by Jawaharlal Nehru. The purpose of the Asian Relations Conference was to exchange ideas regarding the common problems which all Asian countries had to face in the post-war era. Delegates from 28 countries in the region and observers from five non-Asian countries and the United Nations discussed there various problems from 23 March to 2 April 1947. Tibet was also invited and its four-member delegation participated in the meeting on equal footing with those of other countries. China made a feeble protest at this but it went largely ignored.
Despite the boundless goodwill and permanent friendship every one spoke of at the conference, China invaded Tibet three years later, and the participating countries stood by and watched. More years rolled by. Tibet was incorporated into China and the Asian Relations Coference evolved into the much larget Non-Aligned Movement. Tibet is denied even an observer status in the Movement’s meetings.
Tibetans by now realize that this is all part of a great game euphemistically known as ‘politics.’ However, they still don’t seem to have caught on the idea of fully taking advantage of the institutions created for the practice of political craft. This half-hearted entry into modern political arena was clearly reflected at the symposium organised by the Indo-Tibetan Friendship Society in Delhi this month. The organizers had sufficient funs to invite a member of out-of-town speakers. But advance publicity for theevent was virtually non-existent. The pre-conference work did not seem to have included preparation of well though-out papers for distribution among the audience and the press.
The result was a very poor turnout, especially on the part of the Indian public at whom the whole exercise was, or should have been, addressed. Some of the speeches were overlong digressed from the them, and provided little new information for those gathered there. The already sparse audience was becoming even more so by the time the proceedings becoming even more so by the time the proceedings had to be brought to a hasty conclusion at the end of four hours.
Probably the only useful thing that came out of this symposium was one more item of ‘activity’ that the Indo-Tibetan Friendship Society can gloat over at it’s annual meeting. As for the audience, the consolation perhaps lies in the fact that only six of the 14 speakers invited were able to attend.
posted by editorla at
9:10 PM
<< Home