A Resolution for the year
Yet another year draws to an end with no solution to the Tibetan question in sight. Most Tibetans continue to hope for complete independence from China although signs persist that Dharamsala may be prepared to settle for something less. The difference in approach is caused by the fact that while our government-in-exile appears to believe that a compromise will be preferable to an indefinite period of exile, the ordinary Tibetan is less trustful of Peking. Paradoxically, his only consolation is that Peking also refuses to consider any concession. The Chinese have announced once more—in case some people missed it the first time—that Dharamsala has made two demands : that Tibet be given the same status that has been promised to Taiwan; and that the whole of Tibet autonomous region—be taken into account during talks. Both these demands have been rejected outright, and the only response from Dharamsala has been a rather lame Press statement which seems to be asking the Chinese leaders to be more reasonable.
It is clear that the Chinese have no intention of quitting Tibet. Their idea of solving the problem is to persuade the Dalai Lama to return from exile. To this end their efforts include “free and frank” interviews with the Panchen Lama and other Tibetan dignitaries arranged behind the bamboo curtain and promises of some vague powers of position to the Dalai Lama.
Many Tibetan visitors, particularly those from Lhasa and other big cities, report that, compared to the earlier situation, they now enjoy a certain amount of freedom in religious and other matters. However, in the absence of a cast-iron guarantee, no lasting significance can be attached to this change. It is obvious that the Chinese can withdraw their lenient policies any time it suits them. What is even more important, however, is a question that has often tended to be shoved into the background—that of the Tibetan rights. It is hardly necessary to feel gratitude towards the Chinese just because now they are not oppressing the Tibetans as much as they used to earlier. The question whether they had any right to oppress them at all in the first place remains valid.
It will be morally wrong for us to relinquish our rights just because the opposition seems formidable. Tibet belongs to Tibetans and there should be no appealing to the Chinese for any concessions. The proper procedure should be fore China to hand over Tibet to its rightful owners; and any appeal for concession should come from their side.
By aggreeing to be legally a part of the “Great Motherland”, Tibetans would be voluntarily entering a prison door. By continuing to fight for our rights we stand to lose nothing. So it is fairly clear that the only realistic option before us is to persist with our demands and snatch any opportunity of reinforcing them that may be found along the way.
Yet another year draws to an end with no solution to the Tibetan question in sight. Most Tibetans continue to hope for complete independence from China although signs persist that Dharamsala may be prepared to settle for something less. The difference in approach is caused by the fact that while our government-in-exile appears to believe that a compromise will be preferable to an indefinite period of exile, the ordinary Tibetan is less trustful of Peking. Paradoxically, his only consolation is that Peking also refuses to consider any concession. The Chinese have announced once more—in case some people missed it the first time—that Dharamsala has made two demands : that Tibet be given the same status that has been promised to Taiwan; and that the whole of Tibet autonomous region—be taken into account during talks. Both these demands have been rejected outright, and the only response from Dharamsala has been a rather lame Press statement which seems to be asking the Chinese leaders to be more reasonable.
It is clear that the Chinese have no intention of quitting Tibet. Their idea of solving the problem is to persuade the Dalai Lama to return from exile. To this end their efforts include “free and frank” interviews with the Panchen Lama and other Tibetan dignitaries arranged behind the bamboo curtain and promises of some vague powers of position to the Dalai Lama.
Many Tibetan visitors, particularly those from Lhasa and other big cities, report that, compared to the earlier situation, they now enjoy a certain amount of freedom in religious and other matters. However, in the absence of a cast-iron guarantee, no lasting significance can be attached to this change. It is obvious that the Chinese can withdraw their lenient policies any time it suits them. What is even more important, however, is a question that has often tended to be shoved into the background—that of the Tibetan rights. It is hardly necessary to feel gratitude towards the Chinese just because now they are not oppressing the Tibetans as much as they used to earlier. The question whether they had any right to oppress them at all in the first place remains valid.
It will be morally wrong for us to relinquish our rights just because the opposition seems formidable. Tibet belongs to Tibetans and there should be no appealing to the Chinese for any concessions. The proper procedure should be fore China to hand over Tibet to its rightful owners; and any appeal for concession should come from their side.
By aggreeing to be legally a part of the “Great Motherland”, Tibetans would be voluntarily entering a prison door. By continuing to fight for our rights we stand to lose nothing. So it is fairly clear that the only realistic option before us is to persist with our demands and snatch any opportunity of reinforcing them that may be found along the way.
posted by editorla at
9:00 PM
<< Home