The seduction of “Free Tibet”
Just ahead of the Beijing Olympics, a group of white men were discussing Free Tibet in a Thamel pub. Sitting next to me, they seemed to make some interesting points about why Tibet should be free and how China had been violating human rights. I got into a heated debate with one of them, who was a Russian. When I started talking of how Russia had been committing graver crimes in Chechnya and other parts of its neighborhood, his arguments seemed to fade away. He then tried to persuade me, saying that after Tibet, it’s Nepal’s turn to come under Chinese scanner. Well, to be honest many in Nepal fear such moves from India rather than from China- given India’s historical motives with Sikkim and Bhutan (called Sikkimization and Bhutanization in Nepal) and with Nepal itself.
If indeed China has been violating human rights in Tibet, it is condemnable. It should allow free practice of religion, freedom of speech and organization and of dissent since economic progress can’t be a substitute for political progress (and vice versa). At the same time, China has the right to control violence inside it’s territory (Tibetan protests often are very violent, read more, please.), even more so, if Israel and America can deploy army and use excessive forces against a silent population in foreign lands. Tibet is recognized as Chinese territory by almost all of the world, including the United States.
History
Tibet shares a long border with Nepal, over 1200 km long. And many Nepalese from the Northern part have a Tibetan/Mongolian origin- meaning that their religious, cultural and linguistic practices have some similarities.
More than a century ago, Nepalese troops made a couple of attacks on Tibet. (Interestingly, I’ve been to one of the forts of Nepal-Tibet war 
) Often, Chinese troops would also be engaged in those wars. Having defeated Tibet, Nepal used to enjoy huge annual tribute in the form of cash and gold. This continued till 1950, when Tibet came under the direct control of Communist China (Some Indian “analysts” like this wrongly state that Nepal used to pay tributes to China- there’s no record in history to suggest that).
There is a large population holding the idea that Tibet was never free and was always under Chinese control. Almost all of the Chinese population belongs to this group. As I wrote in Slashdot last year, they blame the western media and rulers for all the controversy surrounding Tibet. Similarly, there’s a larger group that believes that Tibet was always free and that’s how it ought to be in the future. Both of them are misled. Tibet and China have a very long history of coexistence and struggle. Tibet was under Chinese control for a large part of its history. Tibet also had annexed parts of the Chinese territory during this time. Incidentally, during Nepal-Tibet wars, Tibet occasionally won over some parts of Nepalese land too.
Most Tibetans practice Buddhism. Sometime in the 16th century, a group of Tibetan aristocrats invented the myth named “Dalai Lama”- who could incarnate and rule over the people; much like the King in Nepal who’s now overthrown. An overwhelming majority of Tibetans (some sources say, 95%) were servants and slaves to the small group of aristocrats represented by the Dalai Lama. Nepalese folklores portray Tibet as a very poor state. In one of the most famous works of Nepali literature- “Muna Madan” by Laxmi Prasad Devkota, the protagonist goes to Tibet (also known as Bhot in Nepal) and suffers a lot. Tibet was known to Nepalese primarily as trading place for salt. Despite such abject poverty and backwardness, the Dalai Lamas lived in big, sophisticated palaces, owned large amounts of gold (there’s a popular Nepali proverb indicating Lhasa-the Tibetan capital’s collection of gold) and ruled unquestioned. From 1950-59, the Chinese allowed Dalai Lama to continue unabated. When Communist China started to make some minor changes, these aristocrats had their privileged stripped, and had enough reasons to revolt. Dalai Lama fled in 1959 and it was only then that China started to implement its policies in a full-fledged way.
Dalai Lama, Free Tibet and Nepal
Free Tibet protestors in Bauddhanath, Kathmandu on 10th March 2009 (Picture:AFP)
Once in India, the Dalai Lama, then a celebrity, started a pseudo Tibetan government and parliament which runs till today. A few years later, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Today, to many people, he represents everything divine. Many Hollywood stars, western leaders and ordinary citizens are his devoted followers and fans. Not surprisingly, many children grow up feeding on the idea that Dalai Lama is the incarnation of god, who believes in Peace and Love while the Chinese government kills his followers in Tibet. On the contrary, after 1960, Tibet has developed in an unbelievable pace. The once despised cities of Tibet have today grown far more prosperous than their Nepalese counterparts. Many Nepalese workers go to Tibet in search of work and Nepal imports a huge supply of goods from Tibet.
India has been an active center for Free Tibet supporters. Their government and parliament is located there and from where most of their activities are coordinated. Unfortunately, Nepal is also another center for such activities. Spend an evening near the Bauddhanath area in Kathmandu and you will perhaps get to observe the thick of events that go discretely in the city. An year ago, five ministers of Tibetan pseudo-government in India, all carrying Nepalese passports (illegally, of course), accompanied by the French ambassador to Nepal were reportedly meeting the Tibetans at Bauddhanath area. Nepal has been known as a route for ordinary citizens and criminals fleeing to India from Tibet. Apart from that, there are many Tibetan refugees in Nepal itself. Many years ago, the CIA-trained group of armed Tibetan rebels called Khampaas were disarmed by the Nepalese army. Some analysts think that similar armed groups might be on the move in Nepal. It is, therefore, imperative for Nepal’s government to curb any measures that might lead to violence in its neighborhood. China is one of the biggest sponsors of Nepal’s development projects and irking a neighbor as good as China is not in Nepal’s best interests.
Double Standards
So many Americans seem to be oblivious to human rights abuses by their government and allied nations. Debates regarding gross violation of Human Rights by Saudi Arabia and Israel are never allowed to gain mainstream attention. Similarly, suppression of dissident and civil right groups inside America itself through instruments like FBI and NSA (and activities like illegal wiretapping) are easily ignored and of course, Abu-Gharib and Guantanamo Bay don’t deserve much criticism. I have never heard of Americans or Britons protesting against the killings of over 5 million people in Congo in about a decade’s time. Talk of Chechnya, and a Russian cringes. Talk of Lebanon, Afganistan, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Cuba and the rest of Latin America, of Israel and of Saudi Arabia- and you have to consider being anonymous on the internet. But if you talk of Free Tibet, suddenly, you become a freedom fighter, a proponent of a noble cause. In fact, you will have a larger mass that will listen to you – your stance will be hailed.
Many Indians and some Nepalese also back the idea of Free Tibet and subscribe to all the western media’s fodder. Surprisingly, the same people take it as a personal affront when asked about Indian army’s excesses in Kashmir and the North Eastern states like Assam, Manipur and Nagaland. None of them seem to support the decades old Gorkhaland movement (for a state, not independence) by ethnic Nepali-speaking population of Darjeeling, Dooars and Siliguri. There are about a million Nepali-speaking Bhutanese refugees in Nepal- all of them driven away from their country (via India) and demanding to be sent back home. Bhutan is also accused of attempting ethnic cleansing, yet none among the Indian, Nepalese or American establishment seem to pay heed to their completely peaceful struggle.
Why This Post?
It was exactly fifty years ago, on the 10th of March that Dalai Lama fled Tibet. As the day drew closer, authorities in Nepal and China had heightened security around the border. Nepalese police tried to curb anti-China protests in the capital. I don’t see anything wrong with that. I am for even stronger measures against Free Tibet activists working in Nepal- anywhere else is OK, but NO to such activities in Nepal. International refugees don’t have the right to engage in political activities in the host country.
To Free Tibet aspirants of South Asia: I detest China’s crimes in Tibet. I am a strong supporter of freedom, activism and liberties, but such values should not be viewed in absolute terms. The freedom fights in many other parts of the world and in South Asia itself are in need of global attention and support. People there have been subjected to much harsher conditions and prolonged durations of injustice. Human Rights standards should apply equally to all the countries. Ignoring such issues for a propaganda like Free Tibet is a harmful seduction. Free Tibet propaganda is largely artificial and unjustified.
Further Reading:
Noam Chomsky on Tibet and Palestine
Was Tibet a peaceful paradise of spirituality and social order before the Chinese take over or was it just another feudal theocracy for the ordinary people who lived there?
The CIA’s secret war in Tibet
CBC, Canada – Tibet timeline
A Reuters reporter recalls the Dalai Lama’s escape to India
What does Free Tibet mean to you?
Comparing Kashmir with Tibet
Note:
I edited the post after Rob Ashoka’s comment. I moved the line “International refugees don’t have the right to engage in political activities in the host country. from first paragraph to a more proper location.
“
ok, firstly, I do not disagree with your historical overview and also believe that your disdain for the lack of freedom in Tibet is sincere . I also feel that for many Westerners and possibly some in South Asia the romanticism of the Free Tibet campaign, rather than the injustice or hard facts, is what attracts them to the cause.
Having said that some of the article is, in my opinion, incorrect and concerning. In relation to the west / western media not recognizing human rights abuses elsewhere and only picking them up when considering China, from my perspective this is completely untrue. Discussions relating to human rights abuses in middle eastern countries, for example, are omnipresent in western media, with (perhaps) the left leaning press focusing on Israel and the right leaning press focusing on Islamic states. This is true of both the local tabloid press and mainstream international media. Africa too is closely monitored with countries such as Zimbabwe getting vastly more coverage than China or Tibet. Furthermore Latin America is receiving an increasing amount of attention, especially as the relationship between criminal and political actors intensifies. I cannot really comment on the view from South Asia, but both in the media and amongst the general population, in Britain and I imagine Europe / USA, the suppressed ((if they are)) people of Tibet are certainly not empathized with to a greater extent, or seen as a more noble cause, than the people of Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Saudi or anywhere else.
In addition to this it is a great disappointment that you have chosen the easy option of concluding that Americans (or Europeans) are not shamed by Abu-Gharib and Guantanamo Bay. Aside from deciding there is a clear and dominant view found within an immensely diverse country and society, thus perpetuating the simplistic notion of the West being a unified entity on which all wrongs can be blamed, for many 100s of millions of those in the West are truly horrified and shamed by Abu-Gharib and Guantanamo Bay and the absolutely unprecedented level of political, public and media criticism they have received exemplifies the fact that severe human rights abuses by Western countries are exceedingly rare.
Looking specifically at Tibet what the China appears to fail to realize (and in this sense it has a lot in common with the USA) is that to determine media opinion therefore public opinion therefore political opinion it is PR not reality that is of vital importance. The reason the Dali Lama is so highly respected in the West (this I do not deny) is due to his friendly, open, calm and co-operative manner. The Chinese could quite easily reverse international opinion in their favour by learning from his approach rather than going out of their way to present themselves in the exact opposite manner. With it having comparatively little impact, China could simply develop a cordial relationship with Dharamsala, could easily set into action a media campaign to present their perspective on the issue of Tibet, could treat political prisoners humanly and publicize the matter, could allow religious freedoms and open Tibet’s borders to a much greater extent.
Extending this logic, providing limited autonomy would not encourage Tibetan nationalists, rather it would completely quash all international support for such groups. If the argument because not about human rights but rather about self determination Tibetan nationalists would have no stronger argument than those within the Gorkhaland movement and the issue would rapidly disappear from the Western psyche. It is for these reasons that your argument that Nepal should “curb any measures that might lead to violence in its neighborhood” is of great concern. The greatest “propaganda” the Free Tibet movement could ever dream of is scenes of police brutality against Free Tibet protesters in Kathmandu being broadcast on CNN / BBC (as was the case last year). If I had the confidence that the Nepalese government could “curb” potentially violent groups in a fair, just and non-politicized manner, affording such groups their human rights (including the right to protest) I would be more inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately I do not have this confidence.
If it is true that the “Free Tibet propaganda is largely artificial and unjustified” let China be open and transparent with the world and allow the Free Tibet movement to struggle for survival.
rob ashoka
March 11, 2009 at 5:54 am
I am just kinda neutral in the Tibet topic but I really like this post.
Prajwal Tuladhar
March 11, 2009 at 7:03 am
nice analytic article!!!
kailash
March 11, 2009 at 9:16 am
Dear Rob,
Thanks for the nice comment. I agree when you say “let China be open and transparent with the world and allow the Free Tibet movement to struggle for survival.” I believe, the Communist paranoia and fear of exploitation of the situation by CIA might have prevented it from doing so. But at all other aspects of Chinese society having turned more capitalist than communist, I see no other than these on why flow of information and dissident has to be curbed.
I think you misunderstood me when I talked of the West. I appreciate the activism and hard work of civil rights groups, libertarians and other activists against human right abuses by their governments. But what I am talking about is the mainstream media and the establishment. See, I go to a newsstand- all I can read is what “mainstream media” tells me, I watch television- same there. Newsweek, Time, Wall Street Journal, CNN, BBC, Fox, NBC – you think they publish fair and unbiased – complete news? Condemning Iraq war isn’t enough my friend- enough Barack Obama has done so – no American mainstream press or establishment leader has expressed moral responsibility for the damage and apologized. Obama just says that, Iraq was a “strategic mistake.” Now, c’mon, how different is that from Madeline Albright saying that kids in Iraq deserve to die for the sake of regime change ?? And you tell me that the press talks of Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Bolivia. Why only talk of states whose governments dislike America? I want them to talk of the excesses done by American contras and CIA in the Nicaragua, in Panama, in Iran and so on. I want the American Congress to openly discuss the bill on Saudi Arabia’s human rights records. Tell me if I am wrong in expecting these. I want American mainstream media to tell the truth in Gaza and Lebanon. It wasn’t a move of self-defence, it was outright aggression and war-crime by Israel.
And I am not alone in fearing that America will be left with only right-wing media as the mainstream media: http://consortiumnews.com/2009/021909.html
I agree with on how China should have handled the issue. But many things are also determined by the way the Big Brother of us all behaves. However, Nepal has to do everything it can to prevent violence inside and around its borders. Curbing Free Tibet dissident is important for Nepal. And why do CNN and BBC broadcast Free Tibet news only and not a word about Bhutanese refugee, that is more burning, genuine and important? I disagree with you in that the refugees have a right to protest. I have edited my post to include a line that says that international refugees have no right of political activism in the host country.
Cheers !
Bibek
Bibek Paudel
March 11, 2009 at 11:41 am
Hi Bibek,
A really detailed outlay of the current of affairs around Tibet.
Being unaware of Tibetian history and the armed voilence, I am gravely shocked. I detest terrorism in any form, for any cause.
Would like to discuss a lot of stuff over this with you, a comment suddenly feels not so complete. But I am blown away by the research man, great stuff.
Cheers
LA
Lokesh
March 11, 2009 at 8:56 pm
very article indeed. We nepalese are self responsible for what is going on as “free tibet” campaign in Nepal, lack of fair judgement and lack of vision on the government appraoch to handle the campaign, though till now Nepal’s stand seems ok, but its not enough. Evil minds get sharper than any other minds, so progressive steps have to taken into account to curb the movement before it takes the form of Bhutanese refugees.
kumarpaudel
March 12, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Hi Bibek,
Firstly I understand your view and appreciate there really is no right and wrong here, just a lot of complicated issues and people in positions of power misreading and misunderstanding the decisions and attitudes of other actors.
Media
Where civil rights groups are concerned yes I agree they rather than the establishment and mainstream are responsible for practical action for the ground, work and for working hard to expose and highlight human rights abuses. However again I completely disagree where the mainstream media is concerned.
The idea of neutrality is somewhat futile in this situation. Every news organization is going to be influenced by their background, their personnel, their ownership, the environment in which they operate etc. Not that you are doing this, but it is very easy for groups or individuals of all persuasions to claim the media is not being evenhanded because they are not supportive of their viewpoint. From my point of view it is possible to discuss matters in general terms or form opinions based on anecdotal evidence but it is only possible to gain purposeful answers by looking at specifics.
(( I will skip the more complicated printed press. )) As I am sure you know FOX is an absolute laughing stock in Europe and is completely biased, its only purpose being to gain audiences through creating and distorting “news” in anyways that will make people watch. Believe me when Europeans watch FOX for the first time they are truly shocked. If all Western media was like this I would entirely agree with you. CNN and BBC however are completely different. These organizations are criticized as harshly by those on the right in the West as they are by those outside the traditional West who are supporting what we would consider a left wing view point. This leads me to conclude that whilst they cannot be objective they can and generally are balanced (as is Al Jazeera).
So we are looking at two separate issues:-
Firstly, does the Western media / establishment give greater respect and focus to the Tibetan independence movement (and conversely afford greater attention to Chinese human rights abuses) than other to similar situations?
I would answer absolutely not – the 50 year anniversary past with a tiny amount of coverage. During the Olympics last year the issue of human rights was completely forgotten after the games started and the impression of China left in the minds of the Western public was almost entirely positive.
Where other countries are concerned – in a general sense – it is no simple co-incidence that the countries who have the worst human rights records are those who dislike the US — it is because they fundamentally disagree with the values of the US – values of freedom and respect – it is due to their attitude to human rights that the US doesn’t like them and therefore they don’t like the US —- so therefore these countries get the most attention from the Western press because they are the worst abusers.
The issues of Nicaragua, Panana Iran etc are not currently massively potent issues et the moment however to say they have been completely ignored by the press is incorrect and their coverage is only limited by a lack of information and access not a lack of desire to report the truth. Where abuses by Western soldiers take place, for example, Abu Ghraib, they are reported extensively because they have let their country down, this is one of the worst crimes possible and for this they are exposed and punished very publicly.
On the issue of Bhutanese refugees – they have received some coverage but I grant you not too much simply because it does not tap into any particular significant geo-political issue so whilst it is still interesting. The issue of the human rights record of what will be the world’s most influential country in years to come – China – is simply more important to most people than the issue of Bhutanese refugees. The issue of Tibetan refugees in Nepal is related to this and therefore covered. This is nothing to do with bias or Western sympathies with Tibetans.
Secondly is the Western media sufficiently critical of the Iraq war and the foreign affairs decisions / relationship the US and its partners make / pursue? (making the assumption the Iraq war support of Israel etc are things for which the US and its partners should be criticized for)
I would say yes. During the recent Israel / Palestine conflict (?) the BBC and CNN reported almost entirely from inside Palestine for days on end. With stories of innocent families being destroyed, children mutilated and hell on earth landscapes being at the forefront of news bulletins again and again. The Israeli viewpoint was provided to maintain balance but the empathy was clearly with the Palestinians. Both news organizations consistently suggested that the “war” was driven by the forthcoming Israeli elections, as I believe was the case.
The complete acceptance across public opinion in the UK and Europe that the Iraq war was a mistake is almost entirely due to the Western news media and investigative press exposing the mistakes of their governments. If the entire news media was like FOX then this viewpoint would not be prevalent. It is because the news media in the US is split between FOX CNN NBC etc in the US that public opinion in relation to the war is split rather than entirely critical as it is in Europe. In recent weeks the possibly that the UK has in some small way sanctioned US torture in Guantanamo has been given a massive amount of attention in the UK media, similarly earlier in the year concerns over arms deals with Saudi were covered extensively in the UK press. In the US, NBC was as almost critical of George Bush and his policies as FOX were supportive (with CNN sitting in the middle if not to the left as well).
Please believe me when I say that, whilst there are examples of the media being controlled by the establishment in the West this is absolutely not the norm.
US Politics
By stating things like “Madeline Albright saying that kids in Iraq deserve to die for the sake of regime change” you are as guilty as any tabloid newspaper headline writer who tries to attract readers by vastly exaggerating the threat from Islamic terrorists. Is this exactly what she said? Or have you re-interpreted her statement to fit your purpose, just like the most biased members of the media. Even if it was exactly what she said do you truly believe that is what she meant? If you had quoted Cheney then maybe but an internationally respected, and respectful, democratic ex sec. of state? As you well know the point she was trying to express was clearly that there may be civilian casualties but if regime change means that civilian casualties will be vastly reduced for decades to come then, as unfortunate as they are, such casualties may be seen historically as understandable. This is hardly controversial. Surely much more terrible would be to allow mass murder to continue for many years and to turn your back.
Where Obama is concerned, so rather than saying “strategic mistake” he could say the Iraq war was “ a disaster” “a disgrace” “a terrible period in our history”. Considering the standing of the military in US society, had he done that, he would have, in all likelihood, never been elected. So now we would have John McCain in charge, fine. So following your logic, Obama speaks in much stronger terms about Iraq, McCain takes over and the US is more open about its activities in Iraq and its relations with countries who abuse human rights? I think not.
(If you feel Obama should condemn the war more strongly having been elected again I completely disagree, this would vastly decrease his public support and would thus significantly restrict his capacity for change (for want of a better word lol))
–
What I found most interesting about your reply was that you suggest that refugees should not have the right to protest. This is extremely insightful.
To most Westerners, at least those in the UK, rightly or wrongly, the right to free speech and therefore the right to protest is an absolutely fundamental human right. This applies equally to refugees and citizens and helps form our opinions, attitudes and decision-making.
Reflecting on this point I think what most Western politicians fail to realize is that people from around the world do not have exactly the same priorities and values as “us”. There is no right or wrong here. Unless you grow up and live within a culture it is impossible to know all the specifics and intricacies of that culture’s value system. This is why I watch BBC and think it is balanced and maybe you watch it and think it is biased. This is why regime change will only be successful from within and not imposed from outside.
I hope that Mr Obama and friends will keep this in mind when conducting his foreign affairs.
Best wishes
rob
rob ashoka
March 13, 2009 at 6:15 am
I feel most of us (including Bibek) oppose forced regime changes/military interventions by external elements.It is fine if citizens themselves opt for and create such alterations (as we did with Nepalese monarchy).
But Tibet was (is being) invaded by China (on all aspects).Fine Dalai Lama was an aristocrat but he was never thrown into exile by any sort of popular uprising of the Tibetans.China did it.The people who were leading normal lives were forced to languish in the refugee camps just for their faith.
As observers we may say , fine what has happened has happened;lets close this chapter once for all in the pages of history.But it’s going on;the invasion is still alive.
If I were one forced out of my homeland in similar circumstances,I would definitely dream for freedom and long for my actual life back home.
So Free Tibet is not an artificial propaganda,it’s the truth.It’s not a seduction but a salvation for the freedom-seekers.
biswas
March 19, 2009 at 8:31 pm
The article is a good one albeit a very opinionated view of the writer himself. When I read the article, I remembered myself. I was just like the writer around 2-3 years back when I was angry about every act of aggression by the Americans, Russians, Israelis, et al. but supported China against Tibetans. The reason was to of course out of the belief that Chinese were the right side in this. How can the writer say this movement is a propaganda? He is implying that Iraq war was unjust, trying to topple a autocrat and replace him with your crony to bring freedom to the land is wrong. That’s what Mao’s army did with Tibet and in this case took over the land itself. Yes Chinese has indeed developed some parts of Tibet but is it mostly for the good of the local Tibetans of the immigrant Hans? And is some economic development the substitute for your freedom? Isn’t it funny that your article itself will be banned in china? I don’t blame the Chinese people for being angry against west because all the news and views they receive are strictly controlled. Its just like Saudi Arabia with relatively more freedom especially to the women. But from the myriad of examples writer tries to show, how can he not agree that freedom can’t be exported to Tibet as well? As @biswas pointed, the Tibetan people didn’t revolted against the dalai lama, it was the chinese who came with their superior military and subjected them to the communist rule by saying tibet was a part of china. As the writer himself implied, tibet has been independent and under chinese suzerainty throughout history. There is no nation on earth whose political boundaries has remained intact since it the idea of political boundary came to exist. And in any case, all the Dalai lama is asking is for the tibetan people to have autonomy under china itself. The writer talks about double standards, I wonder when chinese can agree on one nation two system with hong kong and almost surely with taiwan, why not with tibet?
I agree being a small nation that rely on alot of chinese support, we cant let free tibet movement go uncontrolled, and as he said neither can the tibetans in Nepal put our government in a difficult situation but as we are a free nation which has freedom of speech and democracy, the Tibetans must have the right to let their voices heard although it must be in a civilised manner. If as the writer says, we must curb any anti china matter no matter how peaceful, democratic just cause the Chinese wants to, then what is the point of shouting that we are a sovereign nation!
niraj
March 30, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Bibek, Excellent post. Loved your writing. Not convincing but truly provocative.
I have mixed feeling about the article and comments that follow.
My views:
1. Bhutanese Refugee issues were never given major attention by any media, eastern or western.
This could be for various reasons. Very few people were affected and the news would be of low value to the mass. There are slightly more than 0.1 million Bhutanese refugees in Nepal (you have mistakenly mentioned as 1 million). Bhutan’s total population is believed to be less than 1 million (Bhutan govt.’s official sources say, its around 1.5 million).
It is also because we have bigger issues at home and surrounding. Sri Lankan LTTE crisis, Assam Ulfa, Gorkhaland movement in Darjeeling, Maoist and the following Madhesi crisis were affecting bigger population.
2. Somewhat agree CNN and BBC carry some propaganda.
I am a big fan of both of these companies. But yes, I do have seen instances of them either carrying some agenda or being used by few power centers to their advantage.
Let me show some examples. BBC keept an discussion on whether Nepal should merge with India. This is against the sovereign and patriotic feeling of Nepalese.
Second example is of Military Analysts giving interview in CNN who were sponsored or trained by the Pentagon. This was reported by NY Times few months ago.
Third is BBC reporting on the presence of WMD in Iraq before Iraq invasion. Totally false and baseless.
3. Don’t agree on your thought that Regufees don’t have right to protest in host country.
Violent protest is ofcourse not allowed; but peaceful protest right has to be there. If it is not allowed by the constitution of Nepal, I suggest our law makers to amend it this time and ensure the basic human rights of the refugees.
4. Agree with Rob that all Westerns are not same but there are division in political thoughts. Obama’s rise happened because of that. He is against the Bush’s line of WAR ON TERROR and pre-emptic strikes. This could well be because of their internal realization of a defeat; but for whatever reasons I am happy Obama is making America more sensitive to humanity.
5. Again agree with Rob when he says, Tibet issues is related to one of the most powerful nations of the World and it is of importance. China needs to be more answerable to Human rights abuses, so does US. It is natural that China related stuffs are talked more in any Media; and for that reason only you have chosen to write an article in Tibetian issue and not on LTTE, ULFA, Gurkhaland, Tharuhat or Bhutanese Refugees.I cant take it as propaganda but take it as natural tendency.
6. Dont agree when you say Nepalese need to fear Indians and not Chinese. India has a clean history of not waging any war against any country but only defending its country from Pakistan and China. Sikkim has a different history and I have read papers with varying views. Few say it was division between Nepalis and Lepchas; other say it was Indian game. I lack expertise to comment here.
Sri Lankan Sinhalese took the first ethnic cleansing activity in South Asia and Bhutan took second. These were from their own govts, and India put a blind eye while it happened.
India is a continent and not a country if you look closely. It has states bigger than many European countries. It is fighting against all odds to remain united and they have gain momentum of growth now. Bad people are plenty but good people are many more.
Most Indians take Nepalese like themselves. They have religious sentiment and that connected to their fight with the Islamics and Christians over centuries. Many Indians have little or no knowledge of Nepal, and whoever know they love Nepal and Nepalese. They see Nepalese people as hardworking and honest people on the planet; and welcome in Indian Armed Forces too. Remember any revolution within the internal armed forces is far more dangerous.
7. I support Nepal Govts steps to curb on Tibetian Uprising; but Nepal Govt needs to be answerable to Human Rights abuses. They should allow peaceful protests.
Tibetians in Nepal need to respect our stance. They should not do anything taking law in their hands and attacking Chinese people or Chinese property. If they dont do, then it will force Nepal Govt to get strict against their struggle.
I see most of these Freedom Movements as a struggle of the individual. Tibetians have almost lost this struggle.
My suggestion for them would be to learn from the Jews Community in US. Work hard, earn money and reputation wherever you live and then play a much more powerful war, if ever you want to win. Win the Chinese in the Economic War than Political. Political war is never won; its always lost. You lose your loved and dear ones, you lose human lives; and even though you get the victory, you are a loser!
Tibetians inside China should try to Win the Chinese
like the Japanese won Americans economically; and outside people follow what Jews did in US.
My don’t support the Tibetian cause; but wish them all the very best. World needs peace. Lets all certain it.
Bhupendra
Bhupendra
April 3, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Hi Bibek,
Nice article, quite incisive on some of the aspects surrounding the movement on Tibet. However, going through some of the thoughts as made out by you and some that I have often seeing repeated in various Nepalese publications are a fear of what you call a Sikkimization of Nepal. I find this fear quite far-fetched, and some what made out for the home audience of Nepal to score brownie points. I am a Sikkimese Nepali, and I wanted to reach out to some of the sections of Nepalese population who fall for this political gimmick against India.
For starters as much as it is dependent on its neighbors for trade and commerce, Nepal is a distinct political identity in the International affairs, something Sikkim never was. Sikkim at various points of time had lost its sovereignty to the British, and the only way it could retain its independent status before India’s independence was because of its ruler’s close relationship with the British elite. Sikkim was an economically insignificant feudal identity in which the British were never interested; except in keeping an eye on Tibet and its commerce. What changed with the Independence of India and the changed geo-political situation of the Sub-continent subsequent to the Indo-China war was that now this insignificant little piece of land, gave India the opportunity to place themselves in between three distinctly independent nations, and monitor them independently. The merger of Sikkim also gave India the strategic breathing space in the vital Chicken neck area of India which linked the North East with the rest of India.
If we look at Nepal and Bhutan, they give India that very breathing space by acting as a buffer between itself and its enemy, and thus avoiding huge economic drain on its exchequer and its military in physically manning these frontiers in an inhospitable terrain such as in Kashmir. Thus, the importance of an Independent Nepal and Bhutan is far more to India then can be ascertained. Moreover, the theory that Nepal can be merged with India is far more preposterous, considering India is already grapping with heavy insurgency in the North East and Kashmir, even though these regions were inherited by India at its independence. We cannot even start to think how difficult it would be for any military or Government to enforce its writ on a land as inhospitable as that in the Himalayas.
Lastly the merger of Sikkim into India has helped more than anyone else, the majority Nepali population of Sikkim. Before independence, it was a closed feudal society controlled by the Tibetan origin Bhutia elite, who along with the indeginous lepchas made up of no more than 20% of the population but controlled all the powers there. They denied the majority Nepalis even the basic democratic principles such as “One man One Vote”, hence it was these Nepali political leaders who mostly welcomed India an supported it, for it was India which brought true freedom and democracy to the majority Nepali population of Sikkim, something denied by the Monarchy.
Regarding “Gorkhaland” again, the denial of a separate state has more to do with the size, population, demographic composition and the economic viability of the demand, which has worked against it in India. As much as the leaders of the Movement claim that they have been wronged by the state and nation as a community, the truth is that the leaders have used artificially inflated theories to create a political space for themselves in the region while the truth is the issues are more socio-economic rather than ethnically driven. While this is not to demoralize or criticize the movement in any way, the call for Gorkhas in India being wronged again is too far-fetched to believe. The fact is India today already has a Gorkha/Nepali majority state in Sikkim with a Nepali/Gorkha Chief Minister, the government there in the past have to a large extent been able to secure the rights of the millions of Indian Nepalis/Gorkhas in India. If only the leaders on both Sikkim and Darjeeling would be willing to give up some political space, both these regions could have been one single political entity with a majority Nepali population to make a difference.
This was just to give you a perspective of an Indian Nepali, on the subject of Sikkimization of Nepal, hope you will take it in the right spirit.
Anant.
Anant
April 6, 2009 at 4:26 pm
The Dalai Lama has been working for Bill, Hillary and Ed Kennedy since 1993 in the harassment of Barry Titus. He has been probably used for this purpose by CIA since he arrived in US.since his telepathy is non evidence leaving and sometimes not noticed by the victim.
Barry Titus
May 2, 2009 at 9:17 pm