Finding the Future Dalai Lama: The Role of the Ganden Phodrang Trust

 My interview Finding the Future Dalai Lama: The Role of the Ganden Phodrang Trust is on YouTube

In this compelling interview with Ishan Dhar, eminent historian and Tibetologist, Mr Claude Arpi—currently a Distinguished Fellow at the Centre of Excellence for Himalayan Studies, Shiv Nadar University—delves into the complex dynamics of the forthcoming succession of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. He offers insights into the role of the Ganden Phodrang Trust, its composition, and the potential challenges it may encounter in navigating this critical transition.

 

 

Dalai Lama@90

My article Dalai Lama@90 appeared in The Times of India

 The Tibetan spiritual leader’s succession could see nasty exchanges between India and China. That’s why Dalai should quickly provide details about the process of finding his successor

Here is the link...

The Dalai Lama is 90 years old.
What an incredible destiny for Lhamo Dhondrub, a boy born in Taktser, in a remote hamlet of Amdo province in north-eastern Tibet; at the age of four Tenzin Gyatso was recognized as the reincarnation of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama and for the Tibetans, the incarnation of Avalokiteshvara, the Bodhisattva of Compassion.
The world is in turmoil today; time seems to have accelerated and violence has reached every corner of the planet. In the midst of all this, the Dalai Lama continues to preach love and compassion to other human fellows. 
He was hardly 15-years when the Chinese People’s Liberation Army walked unhindered onto the Tibetan soil. A new ideology, less compassionate than the Buddha Dharma which had come from India 12 centuries earlier, had according to Mao, ‘liberated’ the Land of Snows. A few months later, the young Dalai Lama was officially enthroned as the spiritual and temporal head of the Tibetan State. 
In March 1959, following a mass uprising in Lhasa, the Dalai Lama had to flee his motherland and take refuge in India where he still lives in Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh. 
Apart from possessing an extraordinary charisma, why does the Dalai Lama matter so much in today’s world?
I had the good luck (or good karma) to meet him over the years. First in July 1972 in Dharamsala: after this first encounter, I began to understand something that I had not so far realized: the poor Tibetan refugees and their leader had a different set of values than westerners have. 
In seeing this ‘simple monk’, as he prefers to call himself, I saw that inner strength and the power of compassion are qualities which are practically unknown today in the world, but he embodies a wisdom which was part of the spiritual and cultural heritage of a nation that had spent most of its time looking ‘within’.
Though the Dalai Lama reached India in 1959, the world’s interest in Tibet began in the 1970s only, when the Tibetan leader started travelling abroad.
In May 2011, he took a radical decision: he relinquished his secular power, offering it to the people of Tibet, who thereafter started electing their own ‘political’ leader. Today, a Sikyiong or President runs the Tibetan administration from Dharamsala.
On September 24, 2011, the Dalai Lama released a long statement about his succession, he mentioned two options: a traditional reincarnation (leaving written instructions on how to find the reincarnation) or an ‘emanation’, which would mean the transfer of his consciousness and knowledge into a selected young boy (or girl). 
In the same message, the Tibetan leader wrote that at the age of 90, he would re-evaluate whether the institution of the Dalai Lama should continue or not.
It is what he did on July 2, when he reaffirmed that the Institution was there to stay. A few months ago, in a book Voice for the Voiceless, the Tibetan leader had clarified: “Since the purpose of a reincarnation is to carry on the work of the predecessor, the new Dalai Lama will be born in the free world (outside China).”
It was certainly a shock for Beijing who expects to control the succession process …and the next Dalai Lama.
The recent statement is however does not give details about the succession of the Dalai Lama. In 2011, he had mentioned two possibilities; today he seems to have opted for the traditional reincarnation which often means a gap of 20 years or so before the new Dalai Lama is able to lead his people. 
The possibility of an emanation seems to have been dropped; it would have cut the time gap (till the Dalai Lama reaches majority) which can be used by China to interfere during the regency. 
This period has often been used in the past by China to intervene in Tibet’s religious affairs. Many Tibet watchers believe that this gap is too dicey; Buddhism should adapt to the modern world and a new system of succession should be devised, but ultimately, it remains the choice of the Dalai Lama alone.
Beijing was quick to react to the July 2 statement; China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning told the press: “The Dalai Lama’s reincarnation must follow the principles of domestic recognition and approval by the central government, in line with religious traditions and laws.” 
It is ironic that an atheist State which believes that “Religion is Poison” can be so affirmative on an esoteric issue like soul migration. 
When Minority Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju asserted that the decision would only be taken by the established institution and the Dalai Lama himself, and “nobody else”, Beijing started threatening.
The Ministry of External Affairs then clarified that it “does not take any position or speak on matters concerning beliefs and practices of faith and religion.” Later, the Indian Prime Minister wrote from Argentina: “I join 1.4 billion Indians in extending our warmest wishes to His Holiness the Dalai Lama on his 90th birthday.”
Beijing will certainly not leave it at that, exchanges may soon become nastier and could end with two Dalai Lamas? But what legitimacy would the Communist one have? 
The point remains that a world in turmoil needs a Dalai Lama; we can only pray for a smooth succession and hope that Dharamsala will provide more details on the process in the coming months.

The Importance Of Being The Dalai Lama

My article The Importance Of Being The Dalai Lama appeared in Rediff.com

Here is the link...

One can only sincerely wish the Dalai Lama a very long life at the service of world peace.
His presence is much required today on the planet, notes Claude Arpi, who has known His Holiness for more than half a century.

The Dalai Lama will be 90 years old on July 6.

Personally, it is an occasion for me to look back and realise the luck (or good karma) that I have had to meet him over the years. Let me start at the beginning of my 'Tibetan adventure.

The year was 1971. That summer I decided to visit Afghanistan during my university holidays.

In July, while I was in Kabul I heard some hippies speaking about what they called a 'cool' place called 'Manali.' I was also told that 'cool' Tibetan refugees were living there.

I did manage to come to India the very next year, and though I could hardly speak English, I decided to make the trip to Manali. I reached Palam airport early in the morning, jumped into a cab for the old Delhi railway station and boarded the first available train (and then bus) to the North.

It was on the road between Kulu and Manali that I saw my first Tibetan. This encounter was to change my life.

In India or in Tibet for that matter, everything that happens can be explained by one word -- 'karma.' It must have been my karma to meet this Tibetan!

The more I met with these peculiar people, the more I became interested in their way of being as well as their history.

They had lost everything: Their country, their wealth, very often members of their family and still they could stand on the side of the road that they were building and smile.

How could someone educated in a Cartesian country with a modern utilitarian education understand this bizarre phenomenon?

We are taught that if one loses everything important and dear in life, one must be sad and grim-faced, there are no two ways about it.
In the beginning I wondered whether the experience of the Chinese invasion and the destruction of their thousand-year-old civilisation had been too much for them and that something had cracked in their brains. It was not the case.

My First Encounter in July 1972

While in Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh, I met their leader, the Dalai Lama and I began to understand something that I had not so far understood: These people had a different set of values than the Westerners have.

In seeing this 'simple monk', as he prefers to call himself, I saw that inner strength and the power of compassion are qualities which are practically unknown today in the world.

This monk seemed the embodiment of a wisdom which was part of the spiritual and cultural heritage of a nation that had spent most of its time looking 'within', into the heart of man.

World Interest in Tibet

Today there is an explosion of interest in Tibet.

The Dalai Lama is central to this interest, especially at a time when the planet is plunged in violence and chaos.

This interest has multiplied after the Dalai Lama reached India in 1959 and was granted asylum by the Government of India.

Suddenly Tibet was no more the last 'hidden' kingdom of the planet and the 'God-King' could be approached.

The Dalai Lama and Auroville

In recent years, my main contact with the Tibetan leader has been through Auroville.

Since January 1973, when the Dalai Lama spent two days in Auroville and Pondicherry (on January 17, he met the Mother in the Sri Aurobindo Ashram), the exchanges between the community of Auroville and the Tibetan refugees and their leader have been frequent and regular.

In 1978, a group of us met the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala where he encouraged us to start a Tibetan Pavilion in the International Zone of Auroville.

In December 1991, the Pavilion of Tibetan Culture officially became part of Auroville Foundation thanks to a resolution of the Auroville governing board under Dr Karan Singh and Dr Kapila Vatsyayan, the famous art and Tibetan scholar.

In January 1993, His Holiness agreed to be the Patron of the Pavilion.

Later in the year, the Dalai Lama came to Auroville to lay the foundation stone of the Pavilion and in January 2009, he returned to inaugurate the building.

Some anecdotes

Fifty-three years after my first encounter with the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala, what can one say about him?

Too many things, of course, to fit into an article, but his sense of humour, his down-to-earth attitude, and his capacity to bring together opposites in a world often torn apart by different faiths, different religions or different cultures, stand out.

When I met him for the first time in 1972, he was truly an 'ordinary monk' walking freely out of his 'palace' (Z+ security cover was not yet necessary at that time); he used to visit construction sites or the main temple (known as Tsuglhakang) for prayers or pujas.

He then had a Land Rover that he would share with his two teachers, Ling and Trichang Rinpoches.

In the early 1970s, there were hardly two and three cars in McLeod Ganj (then known as 'Upper Dharamsala'); of course, there were no traffic jams like today.

Whenever Tibetans would hear the sound of a car approaching, they would bend low in reverence, not daring to look up; it was sure to be either 'His Holiness' or one of his gurus.

To see such devotion was deeply touching for my Cartesian mind.

I have to admit that during that first year, I did not ask for a private audience as my English was more than limited and I would not have known what to say.

The Dalai Lama travelled for the first time to Europe in September/October 1973. I managed to go to the airport in Geneva (he was to arrive from Italy where he met the Pope).

There was hardly anybody to receive him; however I was thrilled when he told one of his attendants: "I have seen him in Dharamsala".

Unfortunately, the photos of his arrival in Geneva have been lost.

His sense of humour

In the late 1990s, I had gone to Hunsur, Karnataka to interview him for my first book The Fate of Tibet, (he granted me three long interviews to clarify some points of Tibet's modern history).

One senior police officer who was not given a room near the Tibetan leader was very upset; he told the Dalai Lama's attendants that he would take revenge.

I arrived just then for the interview. He stopped me from going to meet the Dalai Lama; it took a good half an hour for the Dalai Lama's secretaries to finally 'negotiate' my release.

During all this time the Dalai Lama was waiting in his apartments.

When I reached I profusely apologised; he then said: "It is fine, they [the police] are aware that most of the French are terrorists" and he kept on laughing!

A couple of years later, The Fate of Tibet was released by him in Delhi; once the function ended, I bragged and several times said 'Thuk-je-che' (Thank you); he immediately cut me: "You don't know Tibetan. I know as much French as you know Tibetan, Merci beaucoup monsieur."

My face went red.

Tawang

During the series of interviews, I once asked the Dalai Lama if the Tibetan government had not committed a great blunder at the time of India's Independence, when it refused to immediately acknowledge the 1914 border agreement and the Simla Convention.

He thought about it and told this this story which took place just before independence, he said: "About Mon (Tawang) in NEFA area, I remember that around 1945/45, at that time I had no responsibility. I heard and noticed that a special Tibetan national assembly took place as a British [Indian] mission came to see the Kashag [Tibetan cabinet] in the Potala.

"Mr H. Richardson [later head of the Indian Mission in Lhasa] was one of them. From my window in Potala, I noticed that and I was told that the Tibetan national assembly was taking place; the session was going on because the British army wanted to enter Tawang area and the Tibetan government wanted to protest. ...

"At that time, because Tawang and these areas had been in possession of the Tibetans [in the past], and the [national assembly] wanted to hold on to these areas although in 1914 at the Simla Convention the border had already been demarcated and [the McMahon Line] was agreed by the Tibetan government.

"But most of the Tibetans did not know that (laughing). But they did not know that the government had already decided in 1914 [about the border between Tibet and India].

"So they did not know what had been decided [in 1914, i.e. the McMahon Line]." The Dalai Lama could stop laughing, "such a wonderful government!" he repeated.

This truthfulness, this straightforwardness, this capacity to be able to make fun of oneself or those close is extremely rare for a head of a State.

One can only sincerely wish the Dalai Lama a very long life at the service of world peace. His presence is much required today on the planet.

« La succession du dalaï-lama n’est pas qu’une question spirituelle, c’est un levier géopolitique »

My article in Le Monde
Claude Arpi, spécialiste du Tibet : « La succession du dalaï-lama n’est pas qu’une question spirituelle, c’est un levier géopolitique »

Here is the link...

Alors que le chef spirituel bouddhiste doit fêter ses 90 ans le 6 juillet, l’historien et tibétologue appelle, dans une tribune au « Monde », la communauté internationale à ne pas rester passive face à la mainmise de la Chine sur le Tibet.

Les célébrations pour le 90e anniversaire de Tenzin Gyatso ont débuté cette semaine à Dharamsala, en Inde, et une prise de parole du quatorzième dalaï-lama est attendue mercredi 2 juillet. Figure mondiale de la paix, défenseur infatigable de la non-violence, il incarne depuis plus de soixante ans la mémoire vivante du Tibet libre et la conscience spirituelle de millions de bouddhistes. Mais cet anniversaire symbolique met en lumière une question cruciale et largement ignorée du grand public : sa succession.

Traditionnellement, le dalaï-lama est reconnu comme la réincarnation d’un bodhisattva – un être éveillé voué à la compassion envers les êtres humains. Sa désignation ne relève ni du hasard ni d’une élection politique, mais d’un processus religieux complexe fondé sur la reconnaissance de signes spirituels. Cette transmission a toujours été assurée par les autorités religieuses du Tibet.

... 

 

The Phantoms of Chittagong: The unsung Tibetan heroes of the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war

My article The Phantoms of Chittagong: The unsung Tibetan heroes of the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war appeared in Firstpost

Here is the link...

On 50th anniversary of the liberation of Bangladesh, we need to recall one of the best-kept secrets of the war: The role played by the Special Frontier Force, a highly trained Tibetan regiment based in today’s Uttarakhand, in the Chittagong Hills.

We are soon going to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Bangladesh from the clutches of the dictators of West Pakistan. One of the best-kept secrets is the participation of the Special Frontier Force (SFF), a highly trained Tibetan regiment based in today’s Uttarakhand.
The SFF played an important role along with the Mukti Bahini, the Bangladeshi freedom fighters, in the liberation war in the Chittagong Hills.

Creation of SFF
SFF was founded in November 1962, a week before China’s unilateral cease-fire. The idea was that the Tibetans would themselves ‘liberate’ Tibet!
Dapon Ratuk Ngawang, a senior Tibetan officer (who has now passed away), explained how the SSF became known as ‘Establishment 22’ or simply ‘Two-twos’: the first commandant of the force was a senior Indian Army officer, Brig (later Maj Gen) Sujan Singh Uban, an artillery officer, who had earlier served as Commander of the 22 Mountain Brigade.
The Phantoms of Chittagong The unsung Tibetan heroes of the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war

SFF and the Bangladesh war
The Official History of the 1971 War published by the Ministry of Defence mentions all the victorious battles, but the Tibetan regiment is not even cited and today it is extremely difficult to find any document proving the Tibetan soldiers’ participation. This is mainly due to inter-services rivalry.
A few years ago, Dapon Ratuk (the rank of ‘dapon’ approximately corresponds to a Commanding Officer) explained in an interview: “The Tibetan regiment known as Special Frontier Forces (SFF) has never functioned under the control of the Indian Army. It was established in 1962, after the India-China war. The main objective of the regiment was to fight the Chinese Army (with the help of the Indian Army). At the time of the creation of the force, we thought that the operations could be based at Lhuntse Dzong in Tibet (near the Indian border). The plan was to engage the Chinese Army in a military conflict within five-six months of the force’s creation. But the India-China war came to an abrupt end on 22 November 1962, and due to international pressure to maintain peace, no further military engagements occurred with China. Therefore, the services of the Establishment 22 regiment were not used for what had been planned.”

However in 1971, the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi thought of using the Tibetan force to conduct guerrilla warfare within East Pakistan; she mentioned this to RN Kao, the then Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) Chief.

Brig Uban wrote in his memoirs, The Phantoms of Chittagong: “Suspecting it to be a long drawn-out affair, the Government of India sent for me as an expert in unconventional guerilla warfare and asked me to study the situation by visiting the border areas and meeting people and to submit a report, which I did after a hurried visit to the affected border areas and meeting several Bangladesh youth leaders.”

He goes on to explain: “My personal visit confirmed what the map showed, that is Bangladesh was a paradise for guerilla warfare. Forests and hills, rivers, streams and lakes made many areas inaccessible. Yet there was fish and fowl in abundance to keep a guerilla force functioning independently.”
The Phantoms of Chittagong The unsung Tibetan heroes of the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war

He added an important aspect: “On top of that if you take on a disillusioned and angry population of 75 millions, one can visualise the Force needed by the martial law authority to maintain a semblance of order in any part of that country, a guerilla warfare I thought would suck Pakistan dry of troops and resources if it ever decided to retain this part under its possession.”

Uban proposed to conduct guerilla operations in the Chittagong Hills in order to cut the retreat route of the Pakistani troops. He recalled, “Apparently General Manekshaw (the then Army Chief) had been thinking on similar lines and one day sent for me to investigate this possibility. Our minds met and I set out to prepare this Special Force of Northern Hill Tribes (the Tibetans) for this new venture. Leaders and men of this force did not take much time to understand the full implication of joining this venture and they made a representation in writing that they [should] be allowed to participate and make some contribution if ever Pakistan forced this war on India.”

Uban had two fighting forces under his command: The SFF as a commando force and the Mujeeb Bahini, the elite Bangladeshi force.

SFF’s involvement
In early 1971, the Tibetan force heard that during a special meeting called by the Indian Army in New Delhi, Brig Uban had volunteered to lead the Establishment 22 in the Bangladesh liberation war: “It was SS Uban Singh and my colleague Dapon Jampa Kalden who voluntarily decided to take part in the War,” recalled Ratuk.

The narrative from the old Tibetan officer continued: “Later they told me about their plans. First, I refused to join them… I told them that the Establishment 22 had not been created to fight ‘for India’; rather it was established with the sole aim to fight the Chinese.”

Finally, after a directive came from the Department of Security of the Central Tibetan Administration in Dharamsala, Dapon Ratuk accepted. “The Department told us that there was no alternative but to go to war ‘for India’. Moreover, they told us that the Indian government was in a very critical situation at that time and our participation in the war could help save a lot of Indian lives,” he recalled.

Through Brig Uban, the force was in direct contact with RN Kao, responsible for the External Intelligence in the Cabinet Secretariat.

The old Dapon remembered: “Once the decision to participate in the operations was taken, Dapon Dhondup Gyatotsang (he lost his life during the 1971 Operations), Dapon Pekar Thinley and myself divided the regiment into three units. We decided that each one of us would lead one unit in the war. Due to his age and despite his military experience, Dapon Jampa Kalden couldn't take part in the operations; he remained the administrative link between the Indian government and Establishment 22.”

The fascinating story of the Establishment 22 continued: “After we captured Chittagong, Kao came to visit our regiment (in Uttarakhand) and gave awards and speeches in praise of the Tibetan unit's heroic battles” — a sort of acknowledgment of the sacrifice made by the Tibetans to liberate a country which was not theirs.

Before the operations
It is not surprising that the SFF was already present in East Pakistan several months before the official start of the operations.
Some years ago, Dapon Jampa Kalden gave us another perspective: “Initially there was some guerilla training given in places like Tamil Nadu, to the Bangladeshi guerrilla groups, the Mukti Bahini. The training was given by the Indian Army.”

In December 1970, a year before the beginning of the Army operations, the force was informed of the possibility of a war. In March 1971, it became obvious that India would have to go to war to liberate Bangladesh in order to solve the issue of millions of refugees in West Bengal. Jampa Kalden recalled that in February 1971, the SFF had already started infiltrating Bangladesh along with the Mukti Bahini. At first, it was probably for reconnaissance only, simply because “the operation was decided in March (1971) but we were already in Bangladesh in February. I was there two months before the operations were decided”, said the Tibetan officer.

He further explained: “The Mukti Bahini was very good at making guerrilla plans and at guerrilla tactics. Mukti Bahini was solely responsible; they would go on their own and fight. We were responsible to support the Mukti Bahini and provide some reinforcement to them. The real battle started in March.” This was after the massacre of the students on the campus in Dacca by Gen Tikka Khan on 25 March.

Asked why very few in Eastern Command headquarters in Fort William in Kolkata knew about the operations in the Chittagong Hills, he replied: “Our headquarters was independent. (We were under) Chittagong Hill Tract Area command and I was in charge with Brig SS Uban.”

This created some friction with the Army; many were not keen to acknowledge the role of the Establishment 22. Worse, the force was not even allowed to parade in Chittagong after the victory. This was just petty jealousy!

Incidentally, the force had only one helicopter. The pilot, Sqn Ldr Parvez Rustomji Jamasji, had to carry out all the duties, para-dropping over the battle sites, rations and ammunition dropping, rescue operations, etc — a feat in itself for which the young pilot was awarded Vir Chakra.

For their part, the Tibetans have never been officially rewarded or acknowledged.

Why India needs to rethink its Tibet policy, if there’s one

The Dalai Lama with President Bush at the White House (2010)

My article Why India needs to rethink its Tibet policy, if there’s one appeared in The Daily Guardian

Here is the link...

A look at the US’s recognition of the Tibetan government-in-exile makes one question why India does not build a more formal and meaningful relationship with the Land of Snows, especially given how the two share a significant cultural, religious and sentimental bond.

On 20 November, the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) proudly announced that its Sikyong (president), Lobsang Sangay, had entered the White House. Dharamsala called it “a historic feat”, the first time that the CTA head was invited into the White House. In November, Sangay had already been invited to the State Department to meet Robert Destro, the Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues. The fact that the building was not the White House, but the Eisenhower Executive Building next door is just a detail.
The Tibetan government-in-exile, which has so far not been recognised by any country, was often in the past denied entry to the US Administration buildings. “The logic for both denials was that the US government does not recognise the Tibetan government-in-exile. Today’s visit amounts to an acknowledgement of both the democratic system of the CTA and its political head,” said a CTA press release.
Whether it amounts to a virtual recognition of the Tibetan government or not can be argued. It is, however, certain that the outgoing US President, who will soon leave his job (and his house), is keen to put his successor in front of as many fait-accomplis as possible.
Whether the visit ‘next-door’ is a positive development for Tibet or not, only the future will tell. However, one wishes that the South Block would start meeting regularly with the Dalai Lama and the CTA officials. It would certainly be far more meaningful for the future of Tibet (even if Dharamsala does not realise this). Why was the visit of Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla to Dharamsala in July kept hush-hush and local journalists asked to not publish any photos? Why so much unnecessary discretion?
Interestingly, a few days before Sangay’s visit to the White House, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution (H. Res. 697): “Affirming the significance of the advocacy for genuine autonomy for Tibetans in the People’s Republic of China and the work His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama has done to promote global peace, harmony, and understanding.” Among other things, the Resolution said that “it would be beneficial to convene a bipartisan, bicameral forum… between Members of Congress and His Holiness the Dalai Lama to discuss peaceful solutions to international conflicts”. On 18 November, during the debate, Representative Ted Yoho also strongly criticised Beijing for violating the Tibetans’ religious freedom: “the CCP sees Tibet culture and religious heritage as a threat to its control”.
Some parts of the US legislation should trigger a re-thinking of India’s Tibet policy (not sure if Delhi has one!). Take the example of the US Statement of Policy on Reincarnation of Dalai Lama: “The wishes of the 14th Dalai Lama, including any written instructions, should play a determinative role in the selection, education, and veneration of a future 15th Dalai Lama.” Why can’t South Block simply state that it will support all the decisions taken by the Dalai Lama in the matter of his reincarnation and will welcome the 15th Dalai Lama as an honoured guest of India, like the present pontiff has been since 1959. It is not necessary to go into details like the US Resolution does.
Then, regarding the preservation of the Tibetan plateau’s environment and water resources, the US bill “recognises the key role of Tibetan plateau as it contains glaciers, rivers, grasslands, and other geographical and ecological features that are crucial for supporting vegetation growth and biodiversity, regulating water flow and supply for an estimated 1.8 billion people.” America is far away, but it is India which will suffer the brunt of the climate change on the Third Pole and the intensive damming on the Roof of the World. It is a great pity that Delhi keeps mum on the subject.
The US appointment of a Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues is worth thinking about for India, though the post should be more holistic in its definition and the officer should be able to deal with not only the Ministry of External Affairs, but also the Ministries of Home Affairs, Culture, Education or Defence in order to coordinate a new Tibetan policy.
Section 618 of the US legislation speaks of ‘Diplomatic representation relating to Tibet’: “The Secretary [of State] should seek to establish a United States consulate in Lhasa, Tibet”. The rationale is given: “(1) to provide consular services to United States citizens traveling in Tibet; and (2) to monitor political, economic, and cultural developments in Tibet.” It is crucial for India to have a similar policy.
In 1947, India inherited from the British a full-fledged mission in Lhasa. An ICS officer, Hugh Richardson, served as the first head of the Indian mission, but was replaced in August 1950 by a bright young Chinese-speaking IFS officer, Sumul Sinha. Unfortunately (and unwisely), the Prime Minister discreetly downgraded the Mission into a Consulate General in 1952. Thereafter, it remained so till December 1962, when, for unknown reasons, South Block decided to close it down. I have spent several years trying to find out why it was closed, but I have no answer till date. Maybe foolishness and panic were the causes for it.
The fact that the Ministry of External Affairs keeps the history of the crucial two years before the Sino-Indian conflict inaccessible to the Indian public does not help understand what really happened in the months preceding October 1962. For example, who in India knows that the Indian Consul General in Lhasa was practically kept under house-arrest for thirteen months before and during the border war and that there was no retaliation or even complaint from the Government of India? Another example is how the last Indian Consul could not even visit the Potala during his tenure in Lhasa. The reasons mentioned by Dr P.K. Banerjee — that the Chinese Consulates in Mumbai and Kolkata were causing problems — can’t be taken seriously.
The presence of an Indian Consul General in Lhasa could have helped to accelerate the process of the repatriation of the nearly 4,000 Indian PoWs, or, at least, put some pressure on the Chinese Government to release them. But was Delhi even interested?
Decades later, India tried to reopen the Lhasa Consulate, but in vain. In the 2000s, Shivshankar Menon, who served as Ambassador in Beijing and Foreign Secretary, is said to have played a pivotal role in this effort, but it is obvious that it was easier to hurriedly close the mission in December 1962, than to reopen it. Incidentally, Nepal still has a representative in Lhasa today.
Without copying the US, this is something that Delhi should insist on. It is India’s legitimate right due its old cultural, religious, sentimental affinity with the Land of Snows.

Why China will change: The Tibet factor (An Interview with Lodi Gyari)

Lodi Gyari Rinpoche is no more. He passed away yesterday morning in a San Francisco hospital, where he was being treated for liver cancer. 
Rinpoche was 69. His family members were reported to be with him.
Gyari Rinpoche was born in 1949 in Nyarong in eastern Tibet, where he received a traditional monastic education as the tulku of Khenchen Jampal Dewe Nyima from Lumorap Monastery. 
In 1959, he fled with his family to India.  
In 1970, Rinpoche had been one of the founding members of the Tibetan Youth Congress.
In 1982 and 1984, he was a junior member of the delegation which went to China to 'negotiate'. 
See my book, Dharamsala and Beijing: the Negotiations that never were. 
From 2002 to 2009, he conducted the talks with China as the Dalai Lama's Special Enjoy. 

I am posting today a twelve-year old interview with Lodi Gyari Rinpoche.
It appeared on April 20, 2006 in Rediff.com under the title Why China will change: The Tibet factor

Here is the link...

A few days before his departure for Beijing for the fifth round of talks with the People's Republic of China, the Dalai Lama's chief negotiator and Special Envoy in Washington, DC Lodi Gyari Rinpoche spoke to Claude Arpi.
Examining the dynamics of the 'dialogue process' with China, he shared his frustrations and hopes for the future. He also explained how difficult it has been for the Dalai Lama to abandon his claim for independence and to accept that Tibet becomes a 'genuinely autonomous' part of the People's Republic.
He also examined an interesting factor which may play a role in finding a solution to the Tibetan tangle: The revival of Buddhism in China.

What can you tell us about the negotiations that you are conducting with China?

The Tibetan movement is a very unique movement. This can be seen from the way we are conducting the negotiations with the People's Republic of China. We are doing it in a different way. If one day, His Holiness the Dalai Lama's' efforts succeed, it will not only have an impact on the six million Tibetans, but it will also be a breakthrough for humanity, because of the nature of our negotiations.
Even for someone like me, engaged in the negotiations, I see it more as a spiritual practice than an exercise in diplomacy. Let me explain this. I remember very vividly that in 1987, when His Holiness first presented the 'Middle Way approach' in a formal document, he consulted a few people outside of the Tibetan leadership.
One of them was former (US) President (Jimmy) Carter. His Holiness has a lot of respect for President Carter, not because he had been the US president, but because His Holiness believes he is very wise and religious minded (in fact he became closer to us after he left the White House). So I flew directly from New Delhi to New York to Minneapolis, where President Carter was staying at that time, to show him an 8-page document, which later became the 'Strasbourg Proposal'.
He really took time to read it through (he is famous for that) and took nearly one hour to study it very carefully. Then he turned to me and asked: "What is His Holiness' bottom line?" I told him: "This is the bottom line." He was surprised: "If this is the bottom line, you have to start from somewhere else."
I responded to President Carter saying this issue was raised, but His Holiness' position is that he is not a politician and that he was a simple monk who wants to be really sincere and transparent and place on the table what he really wants.
It is because of such a nature of our negotiations position that I feel our success, when it happens, will be a major breakthrough in the art of negotiation.

Was it difficult for the Dalai Lama?

It has been extremely difficult for His Holiness. When he chose 'the Middle Way' path, there were tremendous protests from his own people. This strong opposition came from people who were ready to give their lives for the cause. And as someone who served His Holiness very closely and has been intimately involved in the process, I can tell you, it was very painful. It was certainly a difficult thing for those of us who had the honour to be associated with him. But it was even more difficult for His Holiness to take such a decision.
He showed that he was a real leader, because a real leader has sometimes to take unpopular decisions. He showed that he had the courage to take difficult decisions. I always share this with my Chinese colleagues to give them an idea of the extent His Holiness has gone to work for a mutually satisfactory solution.
I would like to mention a personal experience. My mother was one of the first women to take on the fight against the Chinese. She was quite well known. Though she was a very gentle woman, she never hesitated to fight the Chinese.
When I accompanied His Holiness to Strasbourg to present the Proposal, she was deeply upset with me. Until His Holiness' presentation of his proposal to the European Parliament, I would keep this document under my pillow because it was extremely confidential.
When I returned from Strasbourg, the first thing my mother told me: "If I had known that the documents that you were so preciously guarding were this Proposal, I would have ripped it apart."
This is just to give you an idea about the mindset of the Tibetan people when they first heard of the Proposal. This shows how difficult the process has been.

Tell us more about your involvement in this dialogue.

My first trip to China was in 1982, when I was chairman of the Tibetan parliament. I was part of the high level exploratory delegation sent by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. When we first landed in China, the Chinese officials came forward to greet us. For a moment, I did not know what to do: if I shake hand with them, it would a betrayal of the thousands Tibetans as well as my family members.
At that moment, I had a flashback of my grandmother and my brothers who died under indescribable circumstances. I thought that if I shake hands, I would betray all those Tibetan who died. Many Tibetans had a similar experience.
Despite all this, we are today engaging the Chinese because we believe that it is the best solution. From this angle also you can see how important the dialogue process is. This is certainly not just diplomacy. It is the background of our dialogue with China.

How would you describe the negotiations?
Usually some kind of glamour is associated with negotiations of this nature, but in our case, it is not like this. There is a real human approach. That is why I believe that the impact of this type of dialogue goes far beyond the Tibetan people and the Tibetan plateau.
Further, if these efforts of His Holiness bear some fruits, it can bring about some fundamental shift in China. You may think it is too ambitious, but if it sincerely done, it is possible though it is difficult. From this point of view also it is very important that our process succeed.

Does anybody else in the world show interest in the Sino-Tibetan dialogue?

Lately, there is a renewed concern about China, especially in Washington, DC. There was a time when there was so much enthusiasm about China: it was considered as the most important country to be courted. It was the biggest market that ever existed. China could get away with everything. But things have changed.
If the Middle East developments had not happened, it would have come even earlier, but there is today a great concern about China; some people even see China as a threat.
I tell my American friends: "Well your concern is real, but You can not solve anything through confrontation or by using force. You should make China more friendly and less isolated."
That is why I think that with the positive attitude of His Holiness, the Tibetan issue can be a tremendously positive factor for the future of China. I do not say this in an idealist way, but am being very practical.

Can you give us some examples?

Zhao Ziyang, the former Chinese premier, died recently after spending many years under house arrest. When he was critically ill, we received a message from one of his sons: 'My father is very ill, can you ask His Holiness to pray for him?' We assumed that this request came because the son was interested in Buddhism. I passed the request to His Holiness who prayed for him. Then after the death of Zhao Ziyang came a communication from all his children thanking His Holiness for praying for their father.
But what surprised me most is when we were informed that virtually the last word of Zhao Ziyang was the name of His Holiness. We are talking about a person who reached the highest level of the Chinese hierarchy (general secretary of the Communist party and premier).
This illustrates the extent of reverence for His Holiness even in China today. There are many other instances.
I do not believe that it is too far-fetched to think that the Tibetan issue can have a profound impact on tomorrow's China. This sentiment is shared by many Chinese. I see this through my contacts not only with the Chinese government, but with Chinese of all shades.
I am surprised and encouraged to come across Chinese in the government, in the Communist party, but also this new class of rich Chinese entrepreneurs who believe that what China really needs is the presence of His Holiness.

Are you trying to negotiate the future of the Tibetan people?
If you look at the Tibetan plateau, you see that Tibet is the giver of life: all the major (Asian) rivers have their sources in Tibet. Perhaps in a few years time, definitely in 50 years time, people will be fighting wars over water.
Recently, I dined with some senior Indian officials. I was telling them that it was very smart of them to invite the Saudi king as chief guest for the Indian Republic Day. They said their prime minister made a special exception and went to receive the king at the airport. I said: "Yes, after all, he is the custodian of the most holy shrine for the Muslims." They said: "Yes, he is also the custodian of oil."
Unfortunately, the time will come when there will be a scarcity of what we today take for granted, particularly resources like water. You do not need to be a prophet to know that there will be shortage of water in 50 years time. Just with that consideration alone, imagine how important the plateau of Tibet is.
You know that former Chinese premier Zhu Rongji took the wise decision to stop the deforestation in Tibet. He took the decision not because he cared for the environment, certainly not for the sake of the Tibetans, but he realized that the floods in China were due to the deforestation in Tibet, which was not natural ones, but man-made.
For many decades, the Chinese authorities had not cared for the Tibetan plateau, thinking that whatever they can take from Tibet will only benefit them. But at the end the people of China began to suffer much more than the Tibetans.
So you can see that the whole issue of Tibet is larger than the interest of Tibet and the Tibetan people, and has wider ramifications.

What about India?

In terms of geopolitics, it is very encouraging that there is today much more trade relations between India and China. It is not the Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai relation, which was very unfortunate, but a much more rational relation. But then, it would be an illusion if anyone in South Block (the Delhi area where India's ministry of external affairs is located) feels that there could be a real progress in the relations with China without solving the problem of Tibet. It would be very naïve.
For centuries, Tibet acted as a buffer between these two great Asian civilisations. Now we can become a bridge. A buffer was important during the 19th and the 20th century to bring a certain amount of stability: It was like a wall separating empires during what is known as 'the Great Game.'
Today we do not need a buffer, but a bridge. Tibet could play that unique role, to be the bridge. This could help find a lasting and genuine solution. A solution in which the Tibetan issue would not be considered would not be lasting.
A genuine and lasting solution will be in the interests of these two great Asian nations. No one else than Tibet can help to bridge the difference between India and China. Though we are very much part of the Indian civilization, many people feel the Tibetan language must be similar to Chinese language, just because of the fact that Tibet is under China. Similarly, they believe that the Tibetan culture or civilisation is similar to the Chinese.
I have to explain that our link is much deeper with the Indian civilisation. His Holiness describes the link between the Tibetan and Indian civilisations as a filial link. Many aspects of the Indian civilisation have been kept intact in Tibet.
His Holiness jokes and says that the Indian civilisation has been put in a deep freezer on the Tibetan plateau. One of the good things out of our misfortune is that many texts, the ancient wisdom of India, has been preserved in Tibet.
Today scholars in Sarnath are retranslating these texts into Sanskrit or Pali. But by circumstances, we are politically and otherwise very much part of the Chinese political orbit. This fact is also a positive factor.

What is the status of your negotiations today?

The first round of negotiations dates from 1982, when the first Tibetan high level exploratory delegates went to China. More recently, I went thrice to China after 2002 and we had a fourth round of talks in Geneva in January 2005. Soon, I will go back to China to conduct the 5th round of talks.
It is a very slow process; it is going to take a long time, before we can make substantial progress. I always tell my Tibetan friends: "Don't be in a hurry and don't ask me to hurry." We should not allow ourselves to be forced into an agreement too quickly. After all, we have already waited very long.
His Holiness is in good health; we have time. We are committed and optimistic and we will continue very slowly.

Are you optimistic about the outcome of the talks?

Yes, I am hopeful, because if I had lost hope, I would have no business to conduct these talks. If I did not believe in this process, it would be immoral for me to continue to lead this team. I do it as my spiritual practice.
His Holiness is not only my political leader, but also my guru. If I had any doubt in my heart, my job would be to go to His Holiness and tell him: "Your Holiness, please take me out of this business because I do not believe in it."

The Trumpisation of Indian Foreign Policy

My article The Trumpisation of Indian Foreign Policy appeared in Mail Today/DailyO


Are we witnessing a Trumpisation of the Indian Foreign policy?
Some signs tend to show that, like the US president, Delhi is too often changing its stance, principally in its relations with China; though ‘destabilization’ of the opponent might not be the prime Indian motivation, as in the American case.

Leaked Missive
Take the program ‘Thank you India’, planned by the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) in Dharamsala.
On February 22, Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale wrote to Cabinet Secretary PK Sinha, advising Indian government officials, including ministers, to skip the events organized by Dharamsala.
Sinha obliged and ministries were informed to stay away from a function to celebrate the 59th anniversary of the arrival of the Dalai Lama in India.
The Indian and foreign press abundantly commented on Sinha’s ‘leaked’ missive. The MEA apparently said that it was not supposed to have been ‘leaked’, but India is an open society, such things are bound to happen.
Now, despite the missive, two government representatives attended the function which had in the meantime been shifted to Dharamsala.
Indrani Bagchi, the diplomatic editor of The Times of India wrote: “After a stunning volte face on its China policy that made it seem like India was suddenly kowtowing to China, India is trying recalibrate its approach.”
Union Minister for Culture Mahesh Sharma and BJP general secretary Ram Madhav participated in the Dalai Lama’s ‘Thank you India’ programme.
Gokhale had personally met the Dalai Lama and Lobsang Sangay, the Tibetan ‘president’ to ask them to move the celebrations outside Delhi.
In order not to rock the boat with China, the government had earlier refused permission to the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), funded by the Ministry of Defence, to have a conference on India-China relations in its premises in Delhi. A global parliamentarians’ conference on Tibet scheduled for April, was also not permitted.
Apart from the latest summersault, which does not give a mature image to the Indian diplomacy, a question remains: why did Gokhale and Sinha need to put their warning in writing?
China was certainly delighted by the circular, even though it has not incited Beijing to be ‘nicer’ to India or accept compromises on any of the contentious issues between the two nations. For the last 60 years and more, each time India has kowtowed, China has given nothing in exchange.
The best example has been the Panchsheel agreement; during the four-month negotiations in 1954, India surrendered one by one all its rights in Tibet, and hardly one month after the signature of the accord, the People’s Liberation Army started intruding in Barahoti, in today’s Uttarakhand, while a road was being built on Indian territory, in the Aksai Chin area.

Logical Approach
Has any lesson been learnt?
An article in Bloomberg commented: “That the letter was leaked a day before the foreign secretary was visiting Beijing suggests that a message was also being sent to China – that India would not allow the Dalai Lama to agitate the Tibet issue in India publicly.”
There is no doubt that the high profile Tibetan event in Delhi would have irritated China, but why could the government have not discreetly informed the Office of the Dalai Lama and the CTA, that important visits were due in the coming months (Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and the Prime Minster will soon pay visits to China) and that Delhi did not want any provocation which could trigger a new Doklam when the snows melt.
South Block has a Liaison Office, with a senior officer posted in Dharamsala to communicate with the Dalai Lama and the CTA. The logical approach was to send a message to the Tibetans explaining the situation.
Some have suggested that the objective was to slight the CTA. This is possible and though not verified, it was rumoured that the CTA had gone ahead without coordinating with the Ministry; if true, it would be a slip.

Serious Issues
It has also been said that the November 2017 clandestine visit to China of former Tibetan Prime Minister Prof Samdhong Rinpoche, had irritated South Block. The Chinese government would like the Dalai Lama to accept that Tibet has always been a part of China. That would create serious problems for India as it would mean that the McMahon Line, agreed to by independent Tibet and British India on the side of the Simla Conference in 1914, would have no legal worth. It is however doubtful if the Dalai Lama will ever concede something which is blatantly untrue.
It is also true that the CTA has not always been sensitive to India’s problems. When during the Doklam standoff, Lobsang Sangay unfurled the Tibetan flag on the shores of the Pangong Lake, bordering Tibet in Ladakh, it was not of very helpful to cool the tempers at the trijunction.
In the meantime, deep reforms are taking place in China. For example, the United Front Work Department which deals, amongst other things with Tibet, has been given an increased importance, taking-over the State Council Overseas Office, the National Ethnic Affairs Commission and the State Administration for Religious Affairs. Observers expect that it will translate into a tighter control over religion and ethnic issues, in particular in Tibet and Xinjiang. This has implications for India.
These are serious issues which should be taken as priority by South Block while India’s Tibet policy should discreetly be fine-tuned in coordination with Dharamsala; one party should not embarrass the other.
As for the ‘Thank you India’ program, one way for the Tibetans to ‘thank’ India would be to reassert the Indo-Tibet borders in places such as Demchok, Chumar or Barahoti.
In the meantime, ‘Trumpisation’ will not help anybody …except China.

The Indian government might well be asking, 'what will China do next?'

My article The Indian government might well be asking, 'what will China do next?' appeared in Mail Today/Daily Mail (UK).

Here is the link...

Post-Doklam, many observers, whether in the defence services or government circles, have been thinking “what could China do next to put India’s in its place.”
Of course, Luo Zhaohu, the Chinese Ambassador in India, spoke of ‘turning the page to a new chapter’. Can India believe him?
In an oped in a national newspaper, Luo says that the outcome of the August BRICS Summit in Xiamen (China) went beyond his expectations: “An important consensus has been reached to enhance mutual trust, focus on cooperation, and manage differences.” Luo even quotes the Chinese President: ‘the dragon and elephant should dance together’.
Mr Luo is lucky that the Indian media is Alzheimerish and has already forgotten the nasty words used by Chinese officials against Indian leaders during the Doklam episode, because Delhi did not allow mighty China to build a road on Bhutan’s territory.

Chinese woman
 Incidentally, how could Beijing have engaged in this misadventure without a sort of ‘clearance’ from its man on the spot (in India)?
On its part, China has not forgotten the standoff on the ridge near the trijunction; while the Ambassador speaks of ‘turning a page’, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) cancelled the ceremonial border personnel meetings (BPM) to mark China's National Day on October 1.
Several times every year, the PLA and the Indian Army meet at five designated Border Personnel Meeting (BPM) points along the 3,488-km long Line of Actual Control (LAC); in Ladakh (Chushul and DBO), in Arunachal (Bumla and Kibithoo) and in Nathu-la in Sikkim.
Local commanders (usually the brigade commanders) meet their Chinese counterparts to sort out differences on local issues, but also to get know each other. This is an excellent confidence building measures during which ‘gifts’ such cigarettes, liquors, etc are exchanged. The fact that it was not held on October 1 shows that the PLA is not ready to close the chapter.
India Today commented: “the suspension of scheduled confidence-building measure between the two militaries comes at a time when China appears to be reaching out to India to normalise relations after the Doklam stand-off.”
But that is not all: the annual joint exercise between the Indian Army and the PLA will not be held in 2017.
Called ‘Hand-in-Hand’, it was held in Pune last year. The Indian and Chinese troops simulated counter-terrorism scenarios and worked together during a couple of weeks. Again a good CBM cancelled. In March 2017, Delhi wrote to Beijing to start the initial planning process; no answer from China.
China has also not provided data for the Sutlej and the Yarlung Tsangpo, as per the agreement signed by the two countries. Some vague excuses have been given for not doing so.
In this morose context, an incident took place in Dharamsala, the hometown of the Dalai Lama in Himachal Pradesh.
On October 1 (incidentally, the Chinese National Day), a Chinese woman, a long-term guest in India, holding a US passport, physically assaulted a Tibetan woman “hurling verbal abuses and also vandalizing a part of the photo exhibition set up by our NGO near the Dalai Lama’s Temple, in McLeod Ganj,” according to the Police complaint.

Physical assault
 A Dharamsala-based Tibetan NGO called Gu-Chu-Sum, started by former Tibetan political prisoners, had organized a photo exhibition to mark the 30th anniversary of 1987 Tibetan unrest in Tibet. The exhibition was held at proximity of the main Temple.
According the complaint: “While hundreds of other foreigners, Indian tourists and local people visited the exhibition, this Chinese woman, Ms Zhu Wenqi, 44, objected to the photo exhibition saying that she was angry with these photo exhibits. She was visibly restless and beyond control. Ms Wen shouted verbal abuses against all Tibetans saying that these photos insult China.”
She attacked Namgyal Dolkar Lhagyari, a Member of the Tibetan Parliament and Gu-Chu-Sum president, when the latter tried to pacify her; the correspondent of Voice of America (Tibetan language) who was filming the scene, was hit in the face and thrown on the floor by Zhu.
The NGO told the police “We fear she may unleash more such violent abuses. Her presence in here is clearly a threat to the peace and tranquility of Dharamsala.”
Though there is no proof that the Chinese lady is linked to the regime in Beijing, the attack however raises serious issues.

Troop movement
 First for the Dalai Lama’s security: Zhu recently appeared on a photo with a group of Chinese inside the Cathedral. Are all the followers/students of the Tibetan leader properly screened?
Second, how did Zhu get a five-year visa to ‘study’ in India? Who provided the guarantee for her visa?
Even presuming that she was a genuine ‘student’ at the time of application, is there a way to keep a tab on all ‘Buddhist’ and other seekers gravitating around Dharamsala? How far is the Himachali town infiltrated by the Chinese intelligence? All these questions need to be answered.
For the past fifty-five years, the Tibetan refugee community has been an exemplary and peaceful community in India. This should remain so and the Tibetans should not be disturbed by unwarranted elements.
Whatever the results of the enquiry, Delhi needs to realize that the Chinese ‘answer’ to Doklam may not be visible on a mountain ridge in Arunachal Pradesh or Ladakh, but may be ‘asymmetric’.
Today, it is obvious that the Doklam page has not been turned; for example, as Indian Foreign Secretary landed in Paro to take stock of the relations with Bhutan, there are persistent rumors that the PLA has massed troops in the Chumbi valley, north of Doklam.
Delhi needs to remain fully alert and ready to tackle any situation, military or otherwise.

We are all followers of the same Buddha?

Bhutan's Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay inaugurates the Conference

A Press Information Bureau (PIB) communiqué reported yesterday that ‘at the invitation of the Minister of Home & Cultural Affairs, Royal Government of Bhutan, Mr. Lyonpo Dawa Gyeltshen, Minister of State for Home Affairs, Shri Kiren Rijiju visited Bhutan from July 2-4, 2016 to attend the International Conference on Tradition and Innovation in Vajrayana Buddhism.”
We are also informed that Rijiju addressed the Closing Session of International Conference on “Vajrayana Buddhism: A Mandala of 21st Century Perspectives” at the Royal Institute for Tourism & Hospitality (RITH) in Thimphu.
A few words about this three-day conference on Vajrayana.
Last year, I wrote on this blog a piece titled, Buddhist Union – Spiritual Confluence or Geo-Politics? 
In another piece, I mentioned: "Prime Minister Modi has been promoting a new term, ‘spiritual neighbourhood’. He used it during his trips to Sri Lanka and more recently to Mongolia to link up with Buddhism. It makes for good diplomacy."
On March 19, 2015 the Dalai Lama had met with a delegation of Sri Lankan Theros (senior monks), to discuss about Vinaya, the Buddhist monastic discipline. It was a rather rare occurrence, as the followers of the Buddha rarely ‘exchange’ their views on their respective interpretations of the Buddha’s words.
The Dalai Lama told his Sri Lankan colleagues: “We are all followers of the same Buddha. At a time when scientific minded people are expressing some doubts about religion, many of them are expressing an interest in aspects of the Buddha’s teachings.”
The Tibetan leader then added: “To think of yourself as different from them, as someone special, is to create distance and a barrier between yourself and others, which can lead to isolation and loneliness.”
I then wrote: “It is unfortunately what has happened between the different Buddhist schools over the years (or perhaps centuries),” and I added: “This religious happening [meeting the Sri Lankan monks] has however some strong political connotation and it is a direct outcome of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Sri Lanka.”

Kiren Rijiju arrives at the Conference

The Thimbu Conference
The Thimbu Conference saw some 300 international participants discussing “continuity and change within both historical and contemporary expressions of Vajrayāna Buddhism.”
Though Vajrayana is often associated to ‘Tibetan Buddhism’, no Tibetan invited in Bhutan.
Why?
The answer can probably be found in the historical antagonism between Tibet and Bhutan, but also (and linked to it), in the sectarian clashes between the Drukpa and Gelukpa schools of Buddhism.
The conference was organized by the Central Monastic Body and the Centre for Bhutan Studies & GNH Research (with inputs from Ian Baker, a Buddhist scholar and board member of the International Society for Bhutan Studies, says the official announcement).
The organizers had announced that the speakers would be world-renowned spiritual leaders as well as prominent scholars and neuroscientists researching the effects of yogic and contemplative practices on the human brain and wellbeing. It sounds similar to the decade-old ‘Mind and Body’ programs of the Dalai Lama.
The announcement explained that the 65 speakers from seventeen different countries were “to share their insights and experiences, and engage in discussion.”
The main theme was “Vajrayāna’s dialogue with 21st century science, medicine, and ethics …and contributions to comprehensive human flourishing.”
The conference was linked to Bhutan’s policy of Gross National Happiness (GNH), “a philosophy based on the premise that true development takes place when material, emotional, spiritual, cultural, and environmental well-being are cultivated in unison and mutually reinforcing.”

Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay while opening the Conference declared: “This conference is not only about what we Bhutanese can share with all of you who have come from across the world to experience Vajrayana Buddhism in its living context. We ourselves will benefit greatly by learning more about the forms that Vajrayana Buddhism has adopted in Mongolia, India, Nepal, Myannmar, Russia, Australia, Brazil, Japan, China, Europe, and the United States.”

Kiren Rijiju participates

No Tibet!
What does it mean?
For Bhutan, it is certainly a unique opportunity to push its ‘Happiness’ USP and promote its cultural and heritage.
The Royal Government should be complimented for this.
For Dharamsala, the time has perhaps come to start an ‘intra-faith dialogue’, it is as important (if not more) as the present ‘inter-faith dialogue’ for the survival of the Tibetan identity.
A lot could be said on this. I leave it for some future posts.

Don’t rock the boat

In November 1949, the Tibetan Cabinet in Lhasa wrote to the American Secretary of State, requesting the US’ support for Tibet’s admission to the UN: “As Tibet being an independent state, we have no dangers from other foreign countries but in view of the spread of communism and their successes in China, there is now an imminent danger of Communist aggression towards Tibet.”
Lhasa was advised by the Americans not to ‘rock the boat’.
Later, an officer of the Ministry of External Affairs told Loy Henderson, the US Ambassador to India: “[India] feels that making issue of Tibetan question at present might precipitate Communist decision invade pursuant their declared intention liberating country.”
Around the same time, a cable from Henderson to Dean Acheson, the US Secretary of State stated, “during the conversation, Mr. Graves [of the UK High Commission in Delhi] showed me a Hansard report [verbatim report of proceedings of the British Houses] of December 14, 1949,” to which was attached a 1943 memorandum mentioning the British position with respect to Tibet; the memorandum stated the Tibet was a ‘de facto independent’ country.
However the British too did not want to ‘rock the boat’.
This came back to mind, when the controversy erupted regarding the cancellation of a ‘tourist visa’ for Dolkun Isa, Executive Chairman of the Munich-based World Uyghur Congress. Isa was to attend a ‘conference’ at Dharamsala in Himachal Pradesh.
The media immediately took up the issue: why was the visa suddenly revoked without reason? Soon the Modi Sarkar was accused of behaving like its predecessors.
Most observers saw a retaliation against China’s decision to put a hold India’s request to add Masood Azhar, head of the Pakistani-based group Jaish-e-Mohammad, to the UN’s blacklist.
On the Isa issue, China was quick to respond: the Chinese Foreign Ministry said that the Uyghur leader was under a ‘red-corner’ Interpol notice and should be arrested as he was a terrorist.
The restive province of Xinjiang is an extremely sensitive issue for China, as Beijing believes that Islamist militants and Uyghur dissidents are colluding to establish an independent state, Eastern Turkestan.
Though the Ministry of External Affairs was apparently not aware of the Conference and the visa given to Isa, most observers first thought that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was finally decided to ‘rock the boat’.
It may not be that simple.
First, could Isa have attended the ‘conference’ on a tourist visa (or e-visa)?
Whoever has organized this type of event in India, knows that foreign participants need a ‘conference visa’ which is not easy to obtain.
Further, the Dharamsala ‘conference’ was bound to be controversial; it was organized by the US-based Citizen Power for China, a group led by Yang Jianli, one of the protagonists of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests (incidentally Yang was present in Dharamsala).
Granting Isa an electronic visa made it easier to cancel the permission to visit Dharamsala at short notice. The MEA could show its ignorance of the event.
Cancelling the visa while still holding the meet, even in camera, indicates that the Indian Government was keen to convey the message to Beijing, ‘don’t play with fire concerning terrorism’, and at the same time, allowed Delhi a strategic retreat.
Delhi wanted to ‘rock the boat’ to a certain extent only. It is why visas granted to other Chinese dissidents like Lu Jinghua and Ray Wong were also cancelled.
Lu, also a participant in Tiananmen protests, figures on a Chinese list of ‘major criminals’. She learnt of the withdrawal of her visa only after reaching JFK to enplane for India on April 25. The visa for Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Ray was also reportedly withdrawn around the same time.
Delhi later said that Lu’s visa was withdrawn because her documents were ‘ineligible’ and there was an ‘inconsistency’ about the purpose of her visit. Obviously, she was not going to Himachal for ‘tourism’.
According to the Chinese website of Radio Free Asia, several other activists were banned from the meet, in particular five individuals associated with the World Uyghur Congress.
Hong Kong activist Alex Chow, who co-organized the pro-democracy Umbrella Movement in 2014, told Quartz that he too was denied a visa.
But it is not the point; the important point is that the gathering took place.
One may well ask: has Delhi become an adept of Sun Tzu’s Art of War?
The Chinese Master in one of the 13 chapters of the book, writes about ‘Variations and Adaptability’, emphasizing on flexibility during a conflict.
Mao himself explained: “People may ask if there is contradiction to abandon a territory gained by heroic battle. This is to put the wrong question. Does one eat to no purpose simply because he relieves himself later?”
Delhi needed to use flexibility after the high profile visits of Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval to China (and before President Prabab Mukherjee’s trip to Beijing later this month).
To cancel a ‘tourist visa’ was abandoning a bit of territory, but the main ‘battle’ was won; the ‘conference’ was held, though informally and amidst media blackout.
And before that, 60 participants were granted a two-hour audience with the Dalai Lama to discuss …China and democracy.
Edward Leung Tin-kei of Hong Kong Indigenous was one of them.
Hong Kong radical activist described the encounter with the Tibetan leader as a ‘rare opportunity’: “I’ve never thought I could meet Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader. This doesn’t happen every day,” Leung told The South China Morning Post.
Chow Hang-tung, working for an Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China was another Hongkonger attending the closed-door meet. “It was very inspiring”, Chow said.
Ursula Gauthier, the French correspondent of L’Obs, who was recently expelled from China for questioning China’s interpretation of ‘terrorism’ and Anastasia Lin, Miss World Canada, were also present.
In the meantime, Beijing is nervous about the democratization of the Tibetan society. The Global Times commented on the recent Tibetan elections for a Prime Minister and Deputies: “Although the [Tibetans] resorted to ‘democratization’ after fleeing, this did not mean they would give up their original characteristics. …After all, feudal serfdom under theocracy has long been abandoned by Western countries.”
Who takes this Cold War language seriously today?
Participating in the 5th Moscow Conference on International Security, China’s Defense Minister Chang Wanquan also lectured on terrorism: “a comprehensive approach should be taken through political, diplomatic, economic and cultural means in order to eliminate the root of terror.”
General Chang obviously forgot ‘democratic means’ in his list.
Though the perception in India was that the Modi Sarkar had retreated, it may not be the case. Beijing has got the message loud and clear: India can do it again and the next time, with proper ‘conference visas’.
Beijing knows this.

The First Days in Exile: a Letter from the Dalai Lama to Nehru

Tibetan road workers in the Himalaya

A few months ago, I posted on this blog, the report from the Government of India about the first days of the Dalai Lama in India in March/April 1959.
During the following months, the Tibetan leader was followed in exile by thousands of Tibetan refugees.
The situation soon became difficult to handle for the Indian Government as well as for the Dalai Lama's administration.
I am posting here extracts from Freedom in Exile: The Autobiography of The Dalai Lama. It shows the situation as the Dalai Lama saw it evolving at the end of 1959 and early 1960.
A letter from the Tibetan leader to Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister is also posted.
Eventually, the Dalai Lama shifted to his new quarters in Dharamsala in April 1960.

From Freedom in Exile: The Autobiography of The Dalai Lama

In December, I made the six-hour journey down to Delhi once more, this time as the first leg of a new pilgrimage. I wanted to spend more time at the places I had visited at the beginning of I957. On my way I called on the Prime Minister once more. I was somewhat anxious of what he might have to say to me on account of the UN resolution and I half expected him to be annoyed. In fact, he congratulated me warmly. I began to see that, despite his occasional heavy-handedness, he was a man of great magnanimity. And once again, I was reminded of the meaning of the word 'democracy'. Even though I had rejected his opinion, there was no change whatever in his attitude towards the Tibetans. As a result, I felt more disposed than ever to listen to him. This was exactly contrary to my experience in China. Nehru did not smile much. He would sit quietly listening with that tremulous lower lip protruding slightly, before making his reply, which would always be frank and honest. Above all, he gave me complete freedom to follow my own conscience. The Chinese, on the other hand, had always been full of smiles and deceit.
…From Delhi I proceeded to Bodh Gaya. Whilst there, I received a deputation of sixty or more Tibetan refugees who were also making a pilgrimage. A very moving moment followed when their leaders came to me and pledged their lives in the continuing struggle for a free Tibet.
…Shortly after returning to Mussoorie, I learned that the Indian Government had plans to move me to permanent accommodation at a place called Dharamsala. This was unexpected news and quite alarming. I found Dharamsala on the map and discovered that it was another hill station, like Mussoorie, but in a considerably more remote location.
…In the meantime, I made the first of many-visits to the northern provinces, where thousands of my people were now engaged on road building. I was heartbroken when I saw them. Children, women and men were all working side by side in gangs: former nuns, farmers, monks, officials, all thrown together. They had to endure a full day's hard physical toil under a mighty sun, followed by nights crammed into tiny tents. Nobody was yet properly acclimatised to the conditions and even though it was a bit cooler than in the transit camps, heat and humidity still exacted a frightening toll. The air was fetid and thick with mosquitoes. As a result, sickness was universal and often fatal, thanks to the already weakened state of people's constitutions. Worse still, the work itself was quite risky. Much of it was done on steep mountain-sides and the dynamite they used claimed its own share of casualties.
...Even today, quite a few old people carry scars from this terrible labour and are maimed and crippled. And although now the fruit of their labours is clearly visible, at the time there were moments when the whole venture seemed pointless. It took only one fierce downpour of rain to wash away their efforts in a slick of red mud. Yet for all this, despite their desperate situation, the refugees showed me deep, personal respect and listened closely when I said that it was vital for us to remain optimistic. I was very moved.
...These first visits to the road camps made me aware of a new problem, however. The children of the roadworkers were suffering badly from malnutrition and their mortality rate was very high. So I contacted the Indian Government, which hurriedly organised a new transit camp dedicated specifically to their needs. At the same time, an initial batch of fifty children was sent to Mussoorie, where the first of our schools had been set up.

While he was in pilgrimage in Bodh Gaya, the Dalai Lama sent a detailed letter about the terrible situation of the refugees.
Apparently, the Indian Government acted immediately on the Tibetan leader suggestions/demands: on February 1, 1960, the first refugees were resettled in Bylakuppe (Karnataka).

A letter from the Dalai Lama to Jawaharlal Nehru about the rehabilitation of Tibet refugees in India as published in the Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru (Series II, Volume 57)

SECRET/PERSONAL

Bodhgaya
January 30, 1960.

Your Excellency,
I hope that you are enjoying good health, in spite of your heavy and arduous duties of State. I am sorry to encroach upon your precious time but knowing your great sympathy for myself and my people, I venture to do so without further delay.

2. It is now almost a year since I came to India for asylum, and several thousand Tibetans followed me. You personally, and the Indian Government and people, have all shown us the greatest sympathy and regard during the time of our travail, and have given invaluable help in looking after such a large number of refugees despite their preoccupations with a multitude of other important and pressing problems. I need not say how deeply grateful myself and my followers have been to yourself and the Government and people of India for their sympathy and great assistance.

3. It is, however, my fervent desire that the bulk of the Tibetan refugees in India should not remain a permanent burden on the Government of India, nor on the various relief committees who have been helping them in various ways so far. I feel that since the stay of these refugees in India would now unfortunately seem likely to be for an indefinite period, steps should be initiated without further loss of time for their permanent rehabilitation so that as many of them as possible may within a short period be able to become self-supporting. A few thousand Tibetans are already doing road work in Sikkim and perhaps some more may be receiving opportunities for manual work elsewhere. While this has no doubt helped somewhat to relieve the problem of those Tibetan refugees for the time being, I feel that merely engaging these refugees on manual work against wages in Governmental construction projects may not fulfil the ultimate need for their permanent or semi-permanent resettlement.

4. In the case of monks, I am extremely grateful for the kind decision made by the Government of India to establish two camps at Buxa and Dalhousie and to support them in order that they may continue their religious studies and practices for the sake of keeping the Tibetan faith and culture alive in friendly India even if, as seems to be unfortunately the possibility, it should be destroyed under the onslaught of Chinese Communism in my own country.

5. What I say below would apply to the vast majority of Tibetan refugees who are laymen, or not high lamas, who should be enabled to stand on their own feet through some modern vocations.

6. Among the Tibetan refugees are many who had engaged themselves in pastoral activities in their own country. They would feel at home in similar work in India. The cultivators, I suggest, may be settled on agricultural land. There are several for whom sheep or horse-breeding can prove to be useful and customary vocations. Quite a number can do forest work.
I earnestly trust that India with its vast area may be able to provide some opportunities for all these categories of Tibetan refugees, by allotting to them some agricultural land and some facilities for breeding sheep and horses in suitable places. Some virgin forest land would also be very helpful for the settlement of some of the refugees who can initially clear the forests and simultaneously do some timber business, and later on cultivate the cleared areas. A number of Tibetans are good at handicrafts or small-scale industries, and may be enabled to utilise their skill to advantage. There are yet others for whom trade has been a traditional occupation. Some encouragement in this field, for example the grant of special licences, opportunities to invest whatever money some of them may possess, etc., would greatly benefit these persons and render them self-supporting.

7. As far as I know, there are at present approximately 13,000 Tibetan refugees who came to India since March last year. Besides, there are about 8000 Tibetans of the poorer classes who had been in India earlier in the usual course but who could not return to Tibet due to the changed conditions there, and now have become destitutes and refugees. Thus there may be about 21,000 Tibetans altogether at present in India, who are in great need of some opportunities for semi-permanent rehabilitation. I give below a rough breakdown of this total number of refugees, categorised broadly under different vocations which may be suitable for them:-
Total number of refugees: 21,000 approx.

Deduct

1.    Monks and others whom the Govt. of India have already kindly agreed to support:-

(a) Monks at Buxa    1500
(b) Monks at Dalhousie    300 appr.
(c) Aged monks and aged laymen at Dalhousie    700 appr.

2. Self-supporting    500 appr.

Total    3000

Remaining number: 18,000 approx.
Categorisation:

(a) For vocational training    2000 appr.
(b) Young persons (below 20 years of age) for school, etc. education    2000 appr.
(c) Able bodied persons who can be suitably settled as:   
Cultivators    9000 appr. Herdmen (including horse and sheep breeding work)    3000 appr. Forest Workers  2000 appr.

Total    18000

(These are only very approximate figures, intended to serve as a working basis for consideration of rehabilitation schemes. The exact figures would have to be determined after a census is completed and also with reference to the extent of the facilities which it may be possible for the Government of India kindly to provide-under the various categories.)    

8. In addition, I understand that some 4,000 to 5,000 Tibetans who had entered Nepal are wanting to come to India and settle in this country. I would request that they may kindly be allowed to do so if they ask for facilities to stay in India and be resettled.

9. After careful deliberation, I am convinced that the time has come when I must request you for your help in offering these several thousand refugees some opportunities to settle down semi-permanently in India and live more or less like a community with some regular occupations. The places where they are so settled might as far as possible be near to one another.

10. I do sincerely hope that you would very kindly consider my request sympathetically, so that permanent or semi-permanent rehabilitation measures can commence at an early date. I have only indicated the broad lines along- which I would request you to consider this rehabilitation problem. I shall be most grateful if the details could be worked out by competent authorities in the Government of India, for the purpose of implementation. I shall be able to nominate some experienced officers of mine, to assist the Government of India in this matter, since their services will be of help to all concerned.

11. I have had fairly long discussions on this subject with Shri Apa. B. Pant, Political Officer in Sikkim, who was kind enough to visit me at Varanasi. I found that his views in regard to the need for rehabilitation of these refugees are not at variance with my own, which I have tried to indicate above. I do not wish to burden you with too long a letter and have, therefore, taken the liberty of requesting the Political Officer to explain to you and to the officers concerned in the Government of India, in greater detail, the rehabilitation needs as I have tried to visualise from the point of view of the Tibetans. The greatest need, I-venture to suggest, is to settle these refugees as early as possible in a manner that would enable them to live like a community and to earn their living through normal work.

12. Until such time as permanent measures can be implemented, I hope that the Government of India and the Central Relief Committee would continue the kind assistance they have been giving. I would also request that the question of rehabilitating the 8,000 Tibetans referred to in pare 7 above, (they are mostly in the Darjeeling/Kalimpong area) may kindly be sympathetically taken up at an early date. These Tibetans are in a dire plight and I understand many of them have been begging for their living.

13. During my recent stay at Sarnath and Bodh Gaya, I have come to know that there are some one thousand or more Tibetans at present in these two places, 'who are in an extremely pitiable condition, and trying to live by begging. These persons had come from Western Tibet, through Nepal, and did not go to any refugee camp. I fear that in the summer season they will suffer badly unless settled in a suitable place. May I request that the problem of settling these Tibetans may also kindly be considered urgently?
With apologies for having to trouble you with my woes, and with my profound regards and best wishes,

Yours sincerely,
DALAI LAMA