The Unfreindly Persuaders
Holiday is almost certainly not the purpose of the four Indian Journalists who are visiting Lhasa this month. Neither can it be an objective assessment of the situation in Tibet. For no one who do not speak Tibetan and do not enjoy complete freedom of movement can hope to be able to do so. This is confirmed by the reports so far available from them. There will presumably be more pieces from their typewriters, but there is no reason to believe that they will contain anything to surprise their readers. Apart from being upt date and slightly less well written, their despatches are more or less indistinguishable from those of Neville Maxwell published by the New York Times a few years ago.
The four journalist did not meet any ordinary Tibetan away from the eyes and ears of guides and interpreters. Moreover, their obvious ignorance of Tibetan history prevented them from assessing the amount of truth in the statements made to them. One of them describes Redi (Ragde??) as “a former slave, now second in the official hieararchy in Tibet and among the most powerful persons in this autonomous province of China” He does not explain in what sense is Redi “powerful” : Is he known to have made important decisions? Ishe feared by the Chinese because of his popularity with the Tibetan? Or is it the other way round?
From Redi and other Tibetan and Chinese officials they have learnt that China still is not prepared to give independence to Tibet, that the Dalai lama and other Tibetan exiles are welcome to return home and that Peking was not much amused by the Dalai Lama’s recent visit to Russia and Mongolia. But the journalists could have found out all these things from Hsinhua releases; there was no need for them to travel all the way to Lhasa.
With perceptive eys they have observed that the Tibean, except for a few old people, do not wear traditional costumes but Mao suits, do not practice religion and do not go to monasteries to offer prayers. They have presumed that tradition and culture have been voluntarily abandoned; it did not occur to them to wonder if there were any other reasons.
Some of their descriptions could have come straight out of a Chines publication. Example: ‘the swamp area that once acted as a barricade between the awesome 13 storey Potala Palace of the Dalai Lama….(and) kept the former sefs and lowly lamas away from the forbidden Potala….” Since they do not claim to have lived in Tibet in those days and since they could not have heard it from ordinary Tibetans either in or outside Tibet, they could only have read about it in Peking publications and in the works of pelix Greene and his coleagues. Naturally, they aslo had it confirmed this time from the horse’s mouth—someone who was no doubt introduced to them as “a former serf, ?? a chairman of such ans such committee.”
Until the first despatch from Lhasa found it’s way in print, no one knew of their visit to Tibet. There was no prior announcement about who these journalist were and what were the criteria on which they were selected for this visit. So one cannot help wondering what qualifies them to make statement like this: “The top Tibetan leadership is of local ethnic stock and it cannot be denied that Tibetans have had their lives transformed very much for the better….because it has done away with the barbarism that Tibet’s own form of Buddhist Lamaism has cruelly inflicted on the people.”
Some pretence at objectivity has been made, for instance, in observing that there are a large number of Chinese—both military and civil—in Lhasa, and that the transformation “has taken away with it what Tibet was traditionally known for---it’s mysticism and innocence untouched by modern civilization.” However, they have to spoil the effect by reaching the absurd conclusion that all these changes have been good for the people.
For most part, moreover, they have made no attempt to look beyond the dramatised versions of Peking Review. Any journalist worth his salt would have, for instance, thought of a number of deep proving questions before writing the following observation: “There are still some three horse carts winding up Lhasa’s steep hills, but for the most part they have been replaced by sturdy Chinese trucks and jeeps. Women still carry their babies strapped on their backs, but all over town are scattered nurseries in which they can keep them while they work. Most of them have abandoned their traditional and elegant bakus in favour of masculine jackets and trousers. And even in cultural shows amateur groups sing the praises of Chairman Mao and Chairman Hua in preference to religious deities.”
Objective investigation thus does not appear to be the reason for the visit of the four journalists. The only thing left for use to do, therefore, is to speculate on whether their visit has any connection with the supposed reconciliation between the Chinese and the exiled Tibetans that is being so eagerly reported in the Press. Of course, the Dalai Lama has said that he is not averse to Tibet’s federation with China but only if this makes the people of Tibet happy. This has always been his position and no amount of distortion by reporters and editors has been able to conceal the real substance of what he has said. The Tibetan issue is becoming a growing embarrassment to many governments-definitely including the India—and business interests which own or have substantial influence in the media world. So there is a concerted effort to persuade the Tibetan exiles to return home, since in this day and age it is inconceivable that anyone, however powerful, can physically drive 100,000 people to where they do not want to go. Simulteneously, for the benefit of the man in the street, all effort are being made to give impression of a dialogue in progress between Peking and Dharamsala. The Chinese are, of course, happy to co-operate in this venture. The group of Tibetans who recently visited the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi to apply for Tibet visas were treated with unprecedented cordiality. The embassy has recently acquired a Tibetan-speaking Chinese on the staff and , for the first time, two embassy officials visited the Tibet House Museum and tried to fraternize with its staff.
The idea clearly is to give a general impression that all differences between the Chinese and the Tibetans are soon coming to an end. In this light, one can be forgiven for conjecturing that the reports of four jounalists from Lhasa is mean to “confirm” the much-publicised policy of liberalisation and increasing happiness of the people so that the eventual repatriation of the Tibetan refugees can be achieved smoothly. Everybody connected with this move must be slapping themselves on the backs for the ingenuity of the whole scheme.
There is only one small snag. There is no likelihood that the Tibetan refugees themselves will be taken in by this charade. They have been victims of the Chinese deception for so long that they are incapable of dreaming of returning home until complete independence is restored to Tibet and every single Chinese is packed off from her soil. For the last 20 years they have been saying this over and over again and in no uncertain terms. If the parties with vested interests still choose to igmore their demands and expect them to join in their games, all we can say is, this being a democratic country everybody is free to spend his time, money and energy in what ever fashion it pleases him.
Holiday is almost certainly not the purpose of the four Indian Journalists who are visiting Lhasa this month. Neither can it be an objective assessment of the situation in Tibet. For no one who do not speak Tibetan and do not enjoy complete freedom of movement can hope to be able to do so. This is confirmed by the reports so far available from them. There will presumably be more pieces from their typewriters, but there is no reason to believe that they will contain anything to surprise their readers. Apart from being upt date and slightly less well written, their despatches are more or less indistinguishable from those of Neville Maxwell published by the New York Times a few years ago.
The four journalist did not meet any ordinary Tibetan away from the eyes and ears of guides and interpreters. Moreover, their obvious ignorance of Tibetan history prevented them from assessing the amount of truth in the statements made to them. One of them describes Redi (Ragde??) as “a former slave, now second in the official hieararchy in Tibet and among the most powerful persons in this autonomous province of China” He does not explain in what sense is Redi “powerful” : Is he known to have made important decisions? Ishe feared by the Chinese because of his popularity with the Tibetan? Or is it the other way round?
From Redi and other Tibetan and Chinese officials they have learnt that China still is not prepared to give independence to Tibet, that the Dalai lama and other Tibetan exiles are welcome to return home and that Peking was not much amused by the Dalai Lama’s recent visit to Russia and Mongolia. But the journalists could have found out all these things from Hsinhua releases; there was no need for them to travel all the way to Lhasa.
With perceptive eys they have observed that the Tibean, except for a few old people, do not wear traditional costumes but Mao suits, do not practice religion and do not go to monasteries to offer prayers. They have presumed that tradition and culture have been voluntarily abandoned; it did not occur to them to wonder if there were any other reasons.
Some of their descriptions could have come straight out of a Chines publication. Example: ‘the swamp area that once acted as a barricade between the awesome 13 storey Potala Palace of the Dalai Lama….(and) kept the former sefs and lowly lamas away from the forbidden Potala….” Since they do not claim to have lived in Tibet in those days and since they could not have heard it from ordinary Tibetans either in or outside Tibet, they could only have read about it in Peking publications and in the works of pelix Greene and his coleagues. Naturally, they aslo had it confirmed this time from the horse’s mouth—someone who was no doubt introduced to them as “a former serf, ?? a chairman of such ans such committee.”
Until the first despatch from Lhasa found it’s way in print, no one knew of their visit to Tibet. There was no prior announcement about who these journalist were and what were the criteria on which they were selected for this visit. So one cannot help wondering what qualifies them to make statement like this: “The top Tibetan leadership is of local ethnic stock and it cannot be denied that Tibetans have had their lives transformed very much for the better….because it has done away with the barbarism that Tibet’s own form of Buddhist Lamaism has cruelly inflicted on the people.”
Some pretence at objectivity has been made, for instance, in observing that there are a large number of Chinese—both military and civil—in Lhasa, and that the transformation “has taken away with it what Tibet was traditionally known for---it’s mysticism and innocence untouched by modern civilization.” However, they have to spoil the effect by reaching the absurd conclusion that all these changes have been good for the people.
For most part, moreover, they have made no attempt to look beyond the dramatised versions of Peking Review. Any journalist worth his salt would have, for instance, thought of a number of deep proving questions before writing the following observation: “There are still some three horse carts winding up Lhasa’s steep hills, but for the most part they have been replaced by sturdy Chinese trucks and jeeps. Women still carry their babies strapped on their backs, but all over town are scattered nurseries in which they can keep them while they work. Most of them have abandoned their traditional and elegant bakus in favour of masculine jackets and trousers. And even in cultural shows amateur groups sing the praises of Chairman Mao and Chairman Hua in preference to religious deities.”
Objective investigation thus does not appear to be the reason for the visit of the four journalists. The only thing left for use to do, therefore, is to speculate on whether their visit has any connection with the supposed reconciliation between the Chinese and the exiled Tibetans that is being so eagerly reported in the Press. Of course, the Dalai Lama has said that he is not averse to Tibet’s federation with China but only if this makes the people of Tibet happy. This has always been his position and no amount of distortion by reporters and editors has been able to conceal the real substance of what he has said. The Tibetan issue is becoming a growing embarrassment to many governments-definitely including the India—and business interests which own or have substantial influence in the media world. So there is a concerted effort to persuade the Tibetan exiles to return home, since in this day and age it is inconceivable that anyone, however powerful, can physically drive 100,000 people to where they do not want to go. Simulteneously, for the benefit of the man in the street, all effort are being made to give impression of a dialogue in progress between Peking and Dharamsala. The Chinese are, of course, happy to co-operate in this venture. The group of Tibetans who recently visited the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi to apply for Tibet visas were treated with unprecedented cordiality. The embassy has recently acquired a Tibetan-speaking Chinese on the staff and , for the first time, two embassy officials visited the Tibet House Museum and tried to fraternize with its staff.
The idea clearly is to give a general impression that all differences between the Chinese and the Tibetans are soon coming to an end. In this light, one can be forgiven for conjecturing that the reports of four jounalists from Lhasa is mean to “confirm” the much-publicised policy of liberalisation and increasing happiness of the people so that the eventual repatriation of the Tibetan refugees can be achieved smoothly. Everybody connected with this move must be slapping themselves on the backs for the ingenuity of the whole scheme.
There is only one small snag. There is no likelihood that the Tibetan refugees themselves will be taken in by this charade. They have been victims of the Chinese deception for so long that they are incapable of dreaming of returning home until complete independence is restored to Tibet and every single Chinese is packed off from her soil. For the last 20 years they have been saying this over and over again and in no uncertain terms. If the parties with vested interests still choose to igmore their demands and expect them to join in their games, all we can say is, this being a democratic country everybody is free to spend his time, money and energy in what ever fashion it pleases him.
posted by editorla at
9:06 PM
<< Home