Wild bill Hiccup
The Great White Chief in Washing has signed what the Tibetans have fondly begun to call the “Tibet bill”, and a fresh batch of rather lengthy thank-you notes has been sent to him by various refugee organisations, led by what in effect is the Tibetan parliament. The US President—or rather, his aides—must have read similar missives sent on earlier occasions with a bit of amusement. For Tibetans had lost no time thanking Reagan when the House of Representatives adopted the bill last June. Grateful appreciation was showered on him once more when the bill went through the Senate in October; and finally, more deservedly, when he signed it in December.
All through the life and times of this bill, Tibetan behaved as if the US government is about to recognise the Tibetan right of independence. This overreation is not only bseless and unreal but is also likely to produce a backlash of disappointment when the truth becomes clearer. The enactment of the bill simply means that the United States is cognizant of the Chinese human rights violation in Tibet and is prepared to go to a certain extent to make them change this bad habit. Which is not same thing as supporting the Tibetan demand for independence. If Tibet does become independent and the native government is also found guilty of such crimes, the United States would be constitutionally obliged to make similar actions.
Once this distinction is clearly understood, it becomes possible to see the passage of the bill for that it is – a significant historic achievement in itself which, rightly, has left Chinese leaders frothing at their mouths. It may also prove to be the all important stepping stone for higher reaches. What about because of President Reagan’s far-sightedness or a dramatic change in his administration’s foreign policy, as has been hastily made clear.
Tibetans reacted in the manner they did because their poor grasp of the mechanics of democratic government. Having only had the experience of theocracy directed from Lhasa and a totalitarianism from Peking, they are firmly convinced that anything important must, and can only, be done either directly by the government or with its whole hearted blessing. This explains why even members of our parliament imagine themselves to be high-ranking officials of the government. Moreover, ordinary Tibetans, from whose ranks they are elected, also expect them to behave like that. A Tibetan MP would never dream of criticising the government on any policy matter. His speeches to the people invariably turn into a public relations exercise for the government.
Other ogranisations in the community dutifully follow suit. If they don’t, the reason for their existence would be questioned by the government as well as by the people. If an individual or organisation not connected with the government is seen to achieve something worthwhile, the latter at once feels it should be ‘nationalised.’ After all, how can we have an outsider do something that the government has not been able to ! Think of the scandal, dear boy ! This sort of attitude surely explains why, despite being sandwiched between Teng Hisao-p’ing’s Four Modernisations and Rajiv Gandhi’s 21st Century, we are still in the world of swords and sorcery.
The Great White Chief in Washing has signed what the Tibetans have fondly begun to call the “Tibet bill”, and a fresh batch of rather lengthy thank-you notes has been sent to him by various refugee organisations, led by what in effect is the Tibetan parliament. The US President—or rather, his aides—must have read similar missives sent on earlier occasions with a bit of amusement. For Tibetans had lost no time thanking Reagan when the House of Representatives adopted the bill last June. Grateful appreciation was showered on him once more when the bill went through the Senate in October; and finally, more deservedly, when he signed it in December.
All through the life and times of this bill, Tibetan behaved as if the US government is about to recognise the Tibetan right of independence. This overreation is not only bseless and unreal but is also likely to produce a backlash of disappointment when the truth becomes clearer. The enactment of the bill simply means that the United States is cognizant of the Chinese human rights violation in Tibet and is prepared to go to a certain extent to make them change this bad habit. Which is not same thing as supporting the Tibetan demand for independence. If Tibet does become independent and the native government is also found guilty of such crimes, the United States would be constitutionally obliged to make similar actions.
Once this distinction is clearly understood, it becomes possible to see the passage of the bill for that it is – a significant historic achievement in itself which, rightly, has left Chinese leaders frothing at their mouths. It may also prove to be the all important stepping stone for higher reaches. What about because of President Reagan’s far-sightedness or a dramatic change in his administration’s foreign policy, as has been hastily made clear.
Tibetans reacted in the manner they did because their poor grasp of the mechanics of democratic government. Having only had the experience of theocracy directed from Lhasa and a totalitarianism from Peking, they are firmly convinced that anything important must, and can only, be done either directly by the government or with its whole hearted blessing. This explains why even members of our parliament imagine themselves to be high-ranking officials of the government. Moreover, ordinary Tibetans, from whose ranks they are elected, also expect them to behave like that. A Tibetan MP would never dream of criticising the government on any policy matter. His speeches to the people invariably turn into a public relations exercise for the government.
Other ogranisations in the community dutifully follow suit. If they don’t, the reason for their existence would be questioned by the government as well as by the people. If an individual or organisation not connected with the government is seen to achieve something worthwhile, the latter at once feels it should be ‘nationalised.’ After all, how can we have an outsider do something that the government has not been able to ! Think of the scandal, dear boy ! This sort of attitude surely explains why, despite being sandwiched between Teng Hisao-p’ing’s Four Modernisations and Rajiv Gandhi’s 21st Century, we are still in the world of swords and sorcery.
posted by editorla at
9:04 PM
<< Home