I just wanted to make a few clarifications:

1. I don’t think that China is on the right side. China is not a saint-nation, and has committed aggressions against its own citizens, Tibetans, Mongolians, Burmese, Indians, Pakistanis, Nepalese and others. Can we please keep Nepal out of this (except for Nepal-China problems)?

2. Sikkimization might not be a real threat now, but it was in the 1970s. Being a small country, Nepal is repeatedly harassed by both of its neighbors, more often by India. Yes, Nepalese themselves have a lot to blame in this, but that doesn’t discount the aggressions of other nations. Maybe small countries should learn to live with it (deal with it).

3. My post was less about trying to justify the claims against Tibet movement (the motives of tibetans might be genuine, but the motives of anti-china protesters in Nepal are not), than it was about asking to keep Nepal out of this. Moreover, refugees don’t have a right of political freedom inside the shelter country. International and Nepal’s laws say so.

Thanks,
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.

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

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!

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

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

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