Quote Unquote
April-1987
Demonstrations by Tibetan exiles on the anniversaries of their uprising against the Chinese rule on 10 March, 1959 have become a permanent feature of their life. It is quite possible that Peking has been quietly complaining about them to India and other countries where Tibetan refugees live. Yet it took them 28 years to make a public protest via international news media.
Not surprisingly, therefore, a close study of the statement of protest provides interesting food for thought. Firstly, only India has been mentioned as a country where Tibetans hold these demonstrations, whereas anyone who has been keeping track of these things know that such events also regularly take place in every country of the West where there are more than a handful of Tibetans.
Secondly, the spokesman gave the impression that the rally was held only in New Delhi and that too by “a small number of Tibetan trouble makers.” Indian newspapers themselves reported that the rallies were also held in Dharamsala, Chandigarh, Dalhousie, Simla and Bangalore and the participants, in proportion to the number of Tibetans in those localities, were far from “a small number.” Obviously not all 80,000 Tibetans refugees in India can lock up their houses and take to the streets at the same time, but were was a fair representation of all diverse groups.
The demonstrators’ charge that China is in illegal occupation of their homeland has been termed “sheer fabrication” that “runs relation with the central government.” Are we to believe that the Dalai Lama does not know about these activities, that he does not read newspapers or listen to the radio? OR that he has no control over his people? It is true that the Dalai Lama has always sought a peaceful solution to the Tibetan issue. However, as he said in this year’s statement, “it seems there is no desire on the part of the Chinese to resolve the issue on the the basis of mutual respect and for mutual benefit.” Neither is he impressed with small concessions and liberalizations: “The issue of Tibet is fundamentally political and international ramifications and as such only a political solution can provide a meaningful answer.” In other words, he has sanctioned all political means such as dialogues, demonstrations, press statements, etc.
What, therefore, is one to make of the Chinese protest? By now only hard-core Sinophiles and professional propagandists in Peking’s payroll continue to maintain that the Chinese presence in Tibet is legal. (Serious debate has only been on whether anything can be done about it.)
In this context, the Chinese protest seems more like an experiment than anything else : If it is taken at its face value, well and good; if not, no great harm done. Thus in a country where every statement needs the prior approval of the Party Central Committee and is put in the mouth of someone with a lengthy title, the “foreign ministry spokesman” in this case remains anonymous. If the statement backfires in a serious way, they can always issue an official denial—this time with the name and title of the spokesman. If the identity of the first spokesman is ever revealed, he can be conveniently labelled as “irresponsible.” And if it becomes necessary, the poor fellow can be demoted, or sacked, or executed.
April-1987
Demonstrations by Tibetan exiles on the anniversaries of their uprising against the Chinese rule on 10 March, 1959 have become a permanent feature of their life. It is quite possible that Peking has been quietly complaining about them to India and other countries where Tibetan refugees live. Yet it took them 28 years to make a public protest via international news media.
Not surprisingly, therefore, a close study of the statement of protest provides interesting food for thought. Firstly, only India has been mentioned as a country where Tibetans hold these demonstrations, whereas anyone who has been keeping track of these things know that such events also regularly take place in every country of the West where there are more than a handful of Tibetans.
Secondly, the spokesman gave the impression that the rally was held only in New Delhi and that too by “a small number of Tibetan trouble makers.” Indian newspapers themselves reported that the rallies were also held in Dharamsala, Chandigarh, Dalhousie, Simla and Bangalore and the participants, in proportion to the number of Tibetans in those localities, were far from “a small number.” Obviously not all 80,000 Tibetans refugees in India can lock up their houses and take to the streets at the same time, but were was a fair representation of all diverse groups.
The demonstrators’ charge that China is in illegal occupation of their homeland has been termed “sheer fabrication” that “runs relation with the central government.” Are we to believe that the Dalai Lama does not know about these activities, that he does not read newspapers or listen to the radio? OR that he has no control over his people? It is true that the Dalai Lama has always sought a peaceful solution to the Tibetan issue. However, as he said in this year’s statement, “it seems there is no desire on the part of the Chinese to resolve the issue on the the basis of mutual respect and for mutual benefit.” Neither is he impressed with small concessions and liberalizations: “The issue of Tibet is fundamentally political and international ramifications and as such only a political solution can provide a meaningful answer.” In other words, he has sanctioned all political means such as dialogues, demonstrations, press statements, etc.
What, therefore, is one to make of the Chinese protest? By now only hard-core Sinophiles and professional propagandists in Peking’s payroll continue to maintain that the Chinese presence in Tibet is legal. (Serious debate has only been on whether anything can be done about it.)
In this context, the Chinese protest seems more like an experiment than anything else : If it is taken at its face value, well and good; if not, no great harm done. Thus in a country where every statement needs the prior approval of the Party Central Committee and is put in the mouth of someone with a lengthy title, the “foreign ministry spokesman” in this case remains anonymous. If the statement backfires in a serious way, they can always issue an official denial—this time with the name and title of the spokesman. If the identity of the first spokesman is ever revealed, he can be conveniently labelled as “irresponsible.” And if it becomes necessary, the poor fellow can be demoted, or sacked, or executed.
posted by editorla at
8:57 PM
<< Home