Lobsang Sangay
After reading Elliot Sperling’s assertion that I may not have read Ma Rong’s paper, at first I felt it would be a waste of time to respond. However, the fact he could make such an unsubstantiated allegation prompted me to suspect that Sperling’s claim that Dharamsala does not know anything about China was made without substantiation as well. Unfortunately this turns out to be true. For this reason, I decided that it would be useful for me to respond to his claims.
First of all, let me make it clear that not only had I read Ma Rong’s paper, but I also knew about the debate first-hand. Several people engaged in the debate are friends who both previewed and reviewed the debate. Sperling, on the other hand, indicated that he learned of it only through secondary sources (Woeser’s blog). Given our past contact and association, Sperling should have known that I do keep close tabs on China and Tibet through my friends from Lhasa to Beijing.
Sperling in his first column stated, “The debate that Ma Rong opened up in April is of critical importance to China’s Tibet policy. But no one in Dharamsala seems to have noticed.”(emphasis added). Sperling made this the central point in his argument and projected Dharamsala to be in the dark ages, that both the Tibetan government and NGOs have no clue about developments in China.
Given the seriousness of this allegation, I talked to people in Dharamsala and, lo and behold, Sperling seems to have used his imagination to reach such an outlandish conclusion.
People with whom I talked include Tsegyam Ngaba (Private Office), Dawa Tsering (Taiwan Office), Tsering Wangchuk and Tashi Gyamtso (Kashag), Kelsang Gyaltsen (MP, Tibetan Parliament), Phurbya Tsering (Research and Analysis, Security), Kunga Tashi (Office of Tibet, NY) and Sangay Kyap (China Desk, DIIR).
After discussions with each of these talented Tibetans, the following details emerged:
1) They all have read Ma Rong’s paper, and continue to follow the ongoing debate about nationalities in China. In fact they have insightful documents authored by scholars inside and outside China, critiquing Ma Rong. They all disagree with Ma Rong’s argument that the right of minorities is the problem; rather, these Tibetans believe that the lack of implementation is a cause of resentment and all of them see assimilation as one of the main factors for uprisings in Tibet.
2) Yes, each of these Tibetans do monitor developments in China on a daily basis and compile documents and data which they and others have been doing for a long time.
3) They were trained in the Chinese education system and are well versed in Chinese language and Chinese politics and policies. Additionally, they are supported by more than twenty staff.
4) Except for one, none of them knows Elliot Sperling.
5) Sperling did not meet with or discuss Ma Rong’s paper with any one of them, except Sangay Kyap, with whom Elliot had a brief encounter– but not about Ma Rong.
Every knowledgeable person in Dharamsala knows these people to be the main contacts/experts/staff on China and Chinese literature. Without meeting any one of them, for Sperling to allege that “no one in Dharamsala seems to have noticed” (Ma Rong’s paper and debate) is simply mind boggling.
Is Sperling so condescending that he didn’t think it worthwhile to talk to these dedicated Tibetans?
I agree with Sperling that not knowing about Ma Rong’s paper and the debate would be a poor commentary on any employee of the TGIE or activist, as the debate was summarized by Woeser on her blog in Chinese and also through her weekly program in RFA with Tenzin Dolkar la, and in English in the must-read website http://www.highpeakspureearth.com/ In addition, NGOs in Dharamsala and outside also provide Tibetan and English translations of important literature published in Chinese, including Ma Rong’s paper.
I have refrained from responding to Sperling’s comments on the envoys because that is not my area of engagement. My earlier rejoinder was to criticize Elliot for bundling me with the envoys, and for his condescending attitude towards Tibetans in Dharamsala. Personally, I respect Sperling as a historian and accordingly, I have invited him several times to speak about history at my conferences at Harvard. Criticism is always welcome as it helps any government or movement become stronger, provided it is constructive, substantial and substantiated.
[OPINION-DISCLAIMER]
