BY SHARCHOK KHUKTA
1. Backgrounder on Sangay’s Cabinet
As the second session of the 15th Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile came to a close, the commentaries of political pundits across Tibetan media have started weighing in on how the new Kashag had managed to withstand [the scrutiny of] parliament. When I discussed the same with my friends in the US, Europe and Taiwan, all of them had their own variety of opinions depending upon the prevailing political atmosphere in those countries. In order to gauge the future prospects of Sangay’s cabinet, we can begin by evaluating individually the competency and acumen of the Kalon Tripa and his cabinet of Kalons.
Sangay’s ascent to the throne of Kalon Tripa may have been beyond the grasp of even his own imagination. The political buffs however do not view his meteoric rise as a saga of dream coming to life. Even those who have been closely associated with him have yet to acknowledge whether he ever had such a dream (of becoming the Kalon Tripa). On the contrary, some describe his successful election as a classic case of a casual excursion turning into a full-blown reality, while others have dismissed it as a stroke of good luck. From the time when he launched his election hustings, he has been chanting the mantra of his main three cardinal policies. He not only benefited tremendously from his decision to publicly nominate Kalon Ngodup Dongchung as one of his kalons, [his election promise to form a broad-based cabinet of Kalons, with adequate representation of women and people from all three regions of Tibet, also helped in tilting the balance in his favor]. The way Sangay constituted his cabinet in actuality had therefore left the politicians completely dumbfounded. They could, to put it simply, calibrate the worth of Sangay’s cabinet from the stern visage and regal posture of Kalon Ngodup Dongchung and Kalon Tsering Dhondup.
As far as the recent refugees from Tibet are concerned, there is not even a single person, whether young or elderly, who has not waded through the eyes and ears of the incumbent Security Kalon. Particularly, those who have worked for the cause in Tibet, each and every one of them, have at one time or another approached or met with the Security Kalon. His finesse in conversing in accordance with the humour and attitude of the people, the sagacity of his decision making, when you consider all such qualities attributed to Ngodup Dongchung, he comes out as a genuine, non-partisan leader of the people. Due to his many years of service in the exile administration, the level of respect that he commands from the Tibetan civil servants surpasses even that of the incumbent Kalon Tripa. In fact, many of our powers-that-be are reduced to trembling in their awe and reverence of Security Kalon. Ngodup Dongchung is therefore undoubtedly the greatest asset in the incumbent Kashag’s arsenal of internal and external leverage.
Similarly, Kalon Tsering Dhondup is beholden to no one when it comes to the wisdom of running the affairs of Tibetan administration. Particularly, in terms of steadfast tenacity, both Ngodup Dongchung and Tsering Dhondup have displayed similar traits. Both of them also project an aura of confidence and reliability. In exile circles, they are as such seen as the bedrock of the new administration, like a safety anchor guarding the administration against straying off course.
Whereas, all the new Kalons—including Pema Chonjor, who is puffed out under the weight of old age, and Dolma Gyari, with her “tears of altruism”—are not worthy of any analysis for now. Only with the benefit of time we can judge their true place.
2. Analyzing the Action Plan of Sangay’s Kashag
Moving forward, what’s the new Kashag’s course of action? Every Tibetan, whether young or old, can by now recite the three slogans of Sangay: “unity, innovation and self-reliance”. These slogans reflect Sangay’s deep interest in international politics. For the young generation, Sangay’s slogans convey the promise of a new movement. They have been keeping their eyes and ears wide open for any new pronouncement, beginning from his speech after taking the oath of office, up until his address on the floor of the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile. Sangay, however, is given to speaking passionately, but extemporaneously, after scribbling down all his random thoughts on the spur of the moment. Without taking so much as a fleeting glance on the past references, Sangay had delivered a series of public speeches, including his statements on the oath-taking ceremony, democracy day and the conference of religious heads, as well as those made on the floor of the parliament.
Given the fact that most parliamentarians had found Sangay’s statement in the parliament quite disappointing, the parliament speaker, in his concluding address, had expressed his hope that the Kashag could improve on the quality of its communication in the parliament. He further insinuated that it needs to exercise more caution over its public utterances and actions that must be driven by conceptually sound principles.
Sangay’s statement in the parliament did not elaborate much on the concrete details of his action plans: inception of a think tank, establishing ties between Tibetans in India with those based in foreign countries, producing 10,000/100,000 [professionals], facilitating the return [of the Dalai Lama to Tibet] and on his (new) education policy. It is therefore extremely hard to ascertain the popular expectations in exile circles. This, in my opinion, reflects on the real depth of Sangay’s erudition. His inability to design an effective policy framework for the implementation of his action plans raises profound reservations about the quality of his doctorate credentials.
Take for instance the project of creating sister relationship between Tibetans in India with those based in the foreign countries. The resettlement of Tibetans in Canada also serves as an ideal case in point. The project as of now is reduced to a case of sponsoring the education of one student. Similarly, the inception of a new think-tank or research centre ultimately boils down to building infrastructure worth a few hundred thousand rupees. As far as the modalities of recruiting researchers are concerned, the Kalon Tripa had uttered not even a single word. This however may have been due to lack of commitment from competent people.
Irrespective of whether the so-called “10,000/100,000 professionals” will turn out to be the proverbial rabbit horn, the project has already received a hearty applause from the Dalai Lama. And although some people may get hoodwinked by the manipulation of the Dalai Lama’s commendation, there is a point in the idea proposed by some of our most erudite parliamentarians: Geshe Monlam Tharchin’s proposition that the Kashag should initially focus on producing in exile 500 professionals based on Tibetan language appears to be far more realistic. Otherwise, why is the duration of this campaign period 20 years? Is it feasible even in 20 years? Leave aside Tibet, even in exile, from where will all those professionals come? Sangay gave no clear answer. This issue of 20 years could very well serve as the grounds for the election of his next five-year term.
Regarding the issue of the Dalai Lama’s return to Tibet, [China] has already stepped up its efforts to woe those working in the exile administration through various ways, particularly by exerting pressure on their family members in Tibet. Without the consent of China, an ordinary Tibetan cannot return to Tibet. Even an ordinary, mediocre staff/activist like myself are also being warned by the Chinese authorities to quit our current activities if we ever wish to return to Tibet. The truth of the matter therefore is that Sangay’s politicization of the aspiration of Tibetan people is entirely wrong. If possible, he should be speaking far less about the issue of the Dalai Lama’s return to Tibet. That the Dalai Lama will not assume any political responsibility in future free Tibet has already been enshrined in the Charter. Furthermore, he has completely devolved all his political and administrative responsibilities. There is as such no need to raise the individual case of the Dalai Lama’s return to Tibet separately. Given the importance of sending a clear message that the Dalai Lama is not seeking to restore feudalism in Tibet, the question of the Dalai Lama’s return to Tibet has not much relevance in the political arena of Tibetan freedom movement. In fact, the issue of the Dalai Lama’s return to Tibet should be handled by the Gaden Phodrang, as a non-political entity, and it should be resolved by liaising with the religious bureau of China. This issue therefore has no relevance to the responsibility of Kalon Tripa.
Regarding education policy, there is a great deal of positive impression among the people that the Kalon Tripa will treat education as a priority. Although I am not aware of the popular opinion on the issue of why a person with inadequate grasp of Tibetan language, which is the foundation of Tibetan cultural heritage, is now occupying the position of Education Kalon, the responsibilities of education department certainly cannot be fulfilled merely by the principles and theories of administrative management.
Addressing the parliament, the Kalon Tripa enthusiastically said that his Kashag is currently in the process of formulating new unprecedented plans on education. There is however a danger of contradiction here [when compared with his previous statements]. Besides, we can calibrate the level of his commitment to education (based on Tibetan language) from [his fluency in] reading out the Kashag’s statement (in Tibetan) on the forthcoming anniversary of the conferment of Nobel Peace Prize to the Dalai Lama.
So, what exactly is the popular impression about these new plans and policies of the Kashag?
3. Future of Tibet Issue
As we are analyzing the plans of the new Kashag, a movement of series of self-immolation has already erupted in Tibet. If the new Kashag is committed to following the Middle-Way policy, it needs to clarify certain issues related with the so-called “memorandum” that the previous Kashag has presented to “the central government” of People’s Republic of China. Since the current movement of self-immolation is historically unprecedented, shouldn’t the terms of that “memorandum” be reviewed afresh? Does that “memorandum” adequately represent the real aspirations of the current movement in Tibet? How is the new Kashag planning to follow up on the [dialogue process after] the presentation of memorandum? Just merely saying that the door to dialogue is always open is simply not done.
After the recent amendments in the political powers of the institution of Gaden Phodrang, there has been, particularly since 10 March, a renewed global attention [on the Tibet issue]. If his claims of having had extensive interactions with Chinese scholars and intellectuals are true, Sangay should invite Chinese people from across the globe to Dharamshala and organise a special conference to mobilize their support for free Tibet. Sangay should clarify whether the presentation of “memorandum” and the support of international community had yielded any positive outcome on the Tibet issue. If the present situation is still in a state of limbo, we should not keep waiting for the Chinese response on [the question of] their proper interpretation and implementation of the terms and provisions of their own constitution. Should the new Kashag fail to clarify them within the first two years of its tenure, Sangay’s innovation on maintaining contacts with China will not only become the proverbial rabbit horn, but also a political gimmick of historic proportion that will turn Sangay’s “three cardinal principles” into his “three scandals”.
If there is no development in the current state of contacts between Beijing and Dharamshala, the Kalon Tripa should employ all mediums of communication in promoting new innovative ways of facilitating cultural interactions between Tibetans in and outside Tibet, and as well as between Tibetans and Chinese peoples. He should campaign for loosening up restrictions on traveling to and from Tibet, and thereafter formulate a realistically feasible action plan based on non-political issues about which there are no disagreements. And if China still refuses to reciprocate on such a movement of promoting harmonious, friendly relations between the peoples, the principle of non-violence as the means of our freedom struggle would become comparable to a zombie. Similarly, our pursuit of justice will also turn putrefied. At that time, without even a slightest hint of doubt or regret, we must [be ready to] sacrifice our lives and properties and march forward resolutely onto the path of do or die. If any Tibetan dies at that time, their life and death will become meaningful and glorious. The Tibetans in exile should then initiate a peace march to Tibet and sacrifice their lives. The exile administration should instruct the Tibetans in Tibet on the ways of undertaking peaceful movements. If, at that time, as many as 100,000 Tibetans sacrifice their lives, we will attain freedom very shortly.
Writing under the pseudonym SHARCHOK KHUKTA, the writer is a Dharamshala based former staff of the Central Tibetan Administration.
[OPINION-DISCLAIMER]
