西藏之水救中国，谁来救西藏？

王力雄：

2007年04月25日

2006年春，中共中央办公厅给中共政治局推荐的阅读书目中，一位中国军队作家写的《西藏之水救中国》列在第一。香港亚洲周刊透露，中共总书记胡锦涛、总理温家宝都读了该书，温家宝还作了批示。

《西藏之水救中国》一书极力鼓吹的，是一个中国民间水利专家构想的“大西线调水工程”方案——从雅鲁藏布江的朔玛滩到天津之间开一条运河，把相当于四条黄河年流量的两千亿立方米的水从西藏引到中国西北、华北和东北。

这一工程的主体是在青藏高原。先在朔玛滩筑坝抬高水位，然后打隧洞引水到林芝工布江达的尼洋河，建水库回水至巴松湖，再打隧洞引水入易贡藏布，再筑坝建水库，回水沿霞曲上溯，再打隧洞引水到边坝进入怒江。在朔瓦巴筑怒江大坝提高水位，打隧洞至恩达，在昌都的澜沧江支流紫曲、昂曲和干流扎曲分别建连环水库，开隧洞引水到江达，入金沙江支流藏曲，导水入四川白玉赠曲，过分水岭到甘孜入雅砻江，再筑水库提高水位，引水入达曲，打隧洞到翁达，入大渡河的支流色曲和杜柯河，在两河口筑坝成库，再提水位，溯杜柯河过壤塘到南木达，入麻尔柯河。筑坝再提水位，回水到阿坝麦尔玛，过分水岭进贾曲，向北流入拉加峡的黄河大水库。

上面列出的引水线路，都是在藏区进行。即使不懂水利，也想象得出那么多筑坝、打洞和水库蓄水，会强烈地改变藏区地貌和生态，人民生活也不可能不受影响。暂且不说工程是否会带来所设想的效果，首先需要质疑之处，就是工程议论了十几年，国家正式考察，江泽民当政时亲自过问，现在胡、温也给予关注，全国人大会议和政协会议已有正式提案，118位将军和七百多位专家学者对此力挺，然而将受这一工程直接影响和冲击的藏人，却几乎没人听说过这个工程，更不要说被征求意见。

在考虑“西藏之水救中国”时，该不该问一下西藏人的意见呢？如果根本不在意西藏之水的主人——西藏人怎么想，那就不得不让人怀疑，救中国的代价会不会是牺牲西藏呢？而当西藏之水救了中国，谁又来救西藏？

中共与达赖强硬扛上了 与达赖亲密合影成云烟

万维读者网 2007-08-04


万维读者网记者燕鸣综合报道：中共当局与目前在全球声誉日隆的达赖喇嘛再度强硬扛上了——一批西藏人由于要求释放一名公开呼吁让达赖喇嘛返回西藏的藏人而遭警方扣留。此前，中国出台建国后首部藏传佛教活佛转世规范管理法规──《藏传佛教活佛转世管理办法》。根据这部将于9月1日施行的法规规定，流亡国外的达赖如果不能放弃固有立场，而是继续在境外从事分裂国家的活动，其在境外的转世将不被中央认可。


出台管理办法 转世活佛需层层审批

据新京报记者徐春柳报道，近日，国家宗教事务局颁布《藏传佛教活佛转世管理办法》(以下简称《办法》)，办法规定了活佛转世必须具备三个条件，转世活佛的审批权限分四级。

《办法》共14条，包括转世原则、转世条件、审批程序、违法处罚等方面内容。《办法》以部门规章形式颁布，将活佛转世管理具体化，标志着我国对藏传佛教活佛转世管理进一步法制化。

《办法》第三条规定活佛转世必须具备三个条件，一是当地多数信教群众和寺庙管理组织要求转世；其次转世系统真实并传承至今；第三，申请活佛转世的寺庙系拟转世活佛僧籍所在寺，并为依法登记的藏传佛教活动场所，且具备培养和供养转世活佛的能力。

《办法》规定，根据活佛影响的大小，转世活佛的审批权限分四级，即省、自治区人民政府宗教事务部门；省、自治区人民政府；国家宗教事务局；国务院。未经相应的人民政府或宗教事务部门审批的所谓转世活佛，都是非法的和无效的。

“按照管理办法的规定，转世活佛应该有众多的信众，而且，其所在的寺院必须具备培养和供养转世活佛的能力，但是，这两条流亡国外的达赖都不具备，因此，他如果一意孤行，继续在境外从事分裂活动，其将来在境外的转世将不符合历史定制，也不合法规，将不被中央认可。”国家宗教事务局政策法规司司长陈宗荣表示。

据介绍，“活佛”，意为“幻化”或“化身”。公元十三世纪，西藏成为元朝中央政府直接管辖下的一个行政区域。忽必烈封萨迦派教主八思巴为“西天佛子，化身佛陀”。此后，人们开始称西藏高僧为“活佛”。

达赖认定的转世班禅在西藏上高中

据新华网西藏频道报道，西藏自治区副主席尼玛次仁日前在拉萨接受驻京外国记者进藏采访团采访时说，达赖认定的“班禅”是无效的、非法的，中央政府不予承认。

尼玛次仁在回答英国广播公司记者提问时表示，目前，达赖认定的“班禅”目前在西藏茁壮成长，他本人今年上高中，他的兄弟姐妹有的在上学，有的已经工作。

尼玛次仁说：“按照他本人的要求，不希望扰乱正常的生活，为此，我们尊重他的意见。他本人是爱国的，我们按照他的意愿，尊重他的生活。”

尼玛次仁在接受采访时还表示，中央政府与达赖之间的谈话通道一直是畅通的。他说：“达赖首先是政客，而不仅仅是宗教人士。旧西藏政教合一的最高领袖就是达赖，我们现在批判的是达赖和他所从事的分裂祖国的行径，而不是批判宗教。”

尼玛次仁说，从1979年至今，先后有20批达赖的私人代表团来到西藏或其他藏区。关键在于达赖本人能否彻底放弃“藏独”的立场和破坏活动。这涉及到中国国家安全，如果不放弃“藏独”立场，谈判就没有前提和基础。

他说：“达赖要求高度自治、大藏区等，实际上只是策略上的调整，本质上没有变化，没有看出放弃‘藏独’的立场，如果他真要放弃‘藏独’，就会有实际行动，但是至今没有看到行动。”

尼玛次仁还说，反对分裂，维护祖国统一，维护民族团结关系到西藏的根本利益。目前，西藏的绝大多数各族群众都拥护共产党的领导，但是，西藏也有个别人妄想恢复封建农奴制度，他们打着民族和宗教的旗帜，利用达赖的剩余价值，进行颠覆社会主义的活动，对此，我们坚决反对。

他说：“西藏人民像珍惜自己的眼睛一样，珍惜今天的幸福生活。”

藏人要求达赖回藏被扣留

另据BBC中文网，一批西藏人由于要求释放一名公开呼吁让达赖喇嘛返回西藏的藏人而遭警方扣留。

据美国自由亚洲电台和国际声援西藏运动组织周二(2日)引述当地消息指出，来自四川甘孜藏族自治州理塘县的一名50多岁的藏民，周三(1日)在当地一个赛马节举行的时候，发表要求达赖喇嘛返回西藏的言论。

报道说，这名藏人先走往台上向理塘寺院的主持奉上哈达，其后拿了扩音器对着群众说: “如果我们不能让达赖喇嘛返回西藏，我们不会有宗教自由和快乐。”

他又被指大喊“释放班禅喇嘛”等口号，他还要求族人停止就水源土地互相斗争。

报道又表示，这名藏人下台后，随即走到一名积极参与当地爱国教育活动的僧侣面前，公开指责他在处理宗教事务上持双重标准，随后继续高喊口号，其后被当地警方带走。

其后有藏人到达当地公安局要求放人。有消息表示曾经在当地扣留所附近听见枪声。

自由亚洲电台的报道又说，有20多名藏民被扣留，后来更多的藏人在扣留所外抗议，并指出后来共有200多名藏人被扣留。

美联社曾经致电理塘县公安局，一名接听电话的女士承认发生抗议后便挂线。

Repression continues in Inner Mongolia under China

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Repression in Inner Mongolia continues as jailed journalist is mistreated and websites closed

Reporters Without Borders has renewed an appeal for the release of journalist, Hada [one name], a Mongolian political prisoner since 1995, whose family says he has recently been maltreated, and also condemned the denial of free expression online to the Mongolian minority.

"The slogan for the Beijing Olympics, ‘One World, One Dream’, leaves a bitter taste for China’s minorities," the worldwide press freedom organisation said. "Despite denials by the authorities, human rights violations are frequent against inhabitants of the occupied regions, Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia."

Hada, editor of The Voice of the Southern Mongolia, is regularly ill-treated in Chifeng jail where he is serving a 15-year prison sentence. His wife, Xinna, recently exposed the abuse which has been inflicted on him and said that his health was deteriorating as a result.

Governor of Inner Mongolia, Yang Jing, denied the accusations when questioned by Reuters news agency on 25 July. He rejected the possibility of Hada being released on the eve of the Beijing Olympics.

"He has been tried according to the law and we cannot interfere in the judicial process. China has its own laws and we act in accordance with them", he said. China, in 1988, ratified the UN Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

The European Parliament passed a resolution in September 1996, calling on the Chinese government to reopen the trial of Hada, in the presence of international observers, a request that the Chinese authorities ignored.

As well as editing The Voice of the Southern Mongolia, Hada was involved in the Southern Mongolian Democracy Alliance (SMDA), a human rights organisation campaigning for the rights of the minority in Inner Mongolia, which led to his sentence of 15 years for "separatism" and "espionage" in 1996.

The popular discussion forum Mongolian Youth Forum (www.mglzaluus.com/bbs) was closed by the authorities on 12 July. According to the Southern Mongolian Human Rights Information Centre (SMHRIC), which contacted one of the site’s administrators, Elsen, the forum was censored because it was operating without permission. According to Elsen, the real problem was linked to frequent discussions it hosted about "ethnic problems" in the Chinese province.

The discussion forum, Nutuge, was earlier closed, in February 2004, on the orders of the Public Security Bureau after it posted a message considered to be "illegal". The forum, created in 2002, had become one of the most popular in Inner Mongolia and mainly dealt with Mongolian culture and history. It did not deal with "sensitive" political and religious questions.

Five other websites have reportedly been closed or blocked in recent months, according to the SMHRIC, for posting "separatist content" or "discussion of ethnic problems".

These were: Mongolian Landscape Forum- http://brgd.91x.net/bbs/, The New Tribe- http://www.huhe1121.com/php/index.php, Children of Grassland- www.minimongol.com, The Home of Mongols- http://ehoron.com/bbs/index.asp, and The Steppe-h ttp://www.talnutug.com.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) defends imprisoned journalists and press freedom throughout the world. It has nine national sections (Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland). It has representatives in Bangkok, London, New York, Tokyo and Washington. And it has more than 120 correspondents worldwide.

Tibet Airlines Company operates first flight - www.phayul.com

Tibet Airlines Company operates first flight - www.phayul.com

Free Tibet.

中共对内蒙古的镇压继续延续

发布者：内蒙古人民党 - 7月27日

Repression continues in Inner Mongolia under China

July 26, 2007 ]

Repression in Inner Mongolia continues as jailed journalist is mistreated and websites closed

Reporters Without Borders has renewed an appeal for the release of journalist, Hada [one name], a Mongolian political prisoner since 1995, whose family says he has recently been maltreated, and also condemned the denial of free expression online to the Mongolian minority.

"The slogan for the Beijing Olympics, ‘One World, One Dream’, leaves a bitter taste for China’s minorities," the worldwide press freedom organisation said. "Despite denials by the authorities, human rights violations are frequent against inhabitants of the occupied regions, Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia."

Hada, editor of The Voice of the Southern Mongolia, is regularly ill-treated in Chifeng jail where he is serving a 15-year prison sentence. His wife, Xinna, recently exposed the abuse which has been inflicted on him and said that his health was deteriorating as a result.

Governor of Inner Mongolia, Yang Jing, denied the accusations when questioned by Reuters news agency on 25 July. He rejected the possibility of Hada being released on the eve of the Beijing Olympics.

"He has been tried according to the law and we cannot interfere in the judicial process. China has its own laws and we act in accordance with them", he said. China, in 1988, ratified the UN Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

The European Parliament passed a resolution in September 1996, calling on the Chinese government to reopen the trial of Hada, in the presence of international observers, a request that the Chinese authorities ignored.

As well as editing The Voice of the Southern Mongolia, Hada was involved in the Southern Mongolian Democracy Alliance (SMDA), a human rights organisation campaigning for the rights of the minority in Inner Mongolia, which led to his sentence of 15 years for "separatism" and "espionage" in 1996.

The popular discussion forum Mongolian Youth Forum (www.mglzaluus.com/bbs) was closed by the authorities on 12 July. According to the Southern Mongolian Human Rights Information Centre (SMHRIC), which contacted one of the site’s administrators, Elsen, the forum was censored because it was operating without permission. According to Elsen, the real problem was linked to frequent discussions it hosted about "ethnic problems" in the Chinese province.

The discussion forum, Nutuge, was earlier closed, in February 2004, on the orders of the Public Security Bureau after it posted a message considered to be "illegal". The forum, created in 2002, had become one of the most popular in Inner Mongolia and mainly dealt with Mongolian culture and history. It did not deal with "sensitive" political and religious questions.

Five other websites have reportedly been closed or blocked in recent months, according to the SMHRIC, for posting "separatist content" or "discussion of ethnic problems".

These were: Mongolian Landscape Forum- http://brgd.91x.net/bbs/, The New Tribe- http://www.huhe1121.com/php/index.php, Children of Grassland- www.minimongol.com, The Home of Mongols- http://ehoron.com/bbs/index.asp, and The Steppe-h ttp://www.talnutug.com.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) defends imprisoned journalists and press freedom throughout the world. It has nine national sections (Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland). It has representatives in Bangkok, London, New York, Tokyo and Washington. And it has more than 120 correspondents worldwide.

Nepal Supreme Court decides in favor of Tibetan Refugees

By Mikel Dunham

July 14, 2011




The Supreme Court of Nepal has ordered the release of a group of 12 Tibetans after finding that their 20 days in detention was “without reasonable explanation… and that said detention is illegal,” according to court documents obtained by the International Campaign for Tibet.

The 12 were ordered released on July 10 and is the second instance in little over a year in which the Supreme Court of Nepal has ordered the release of a group of Tibetans detained in Kathmandu on political grounds. On March 22, 2010, the Supreme Court ordered the release of three young Tibetan men, Sherap Dhondup, Sonam Dhondup and Kelsang Dhondup, who were detained in Boudhanath neighborhood of Kathmandu on March 9 and accused of “posing a threat to Nepal-China relations,” with the police also claiming they found weapons on the Tibetans, an allegation that the Tibetans denied while talking to reporters, saying it was “totally fabricated” (ICT report).

“The Nepal Supreme Court’s ruling clearly points to the political nature of these detentions, highlighting the precarious situation Tibetans face in Nepal,” said Mary Beth Markey, President of the International Campaign for Tibet. “This is an encouraging indication of the independence of the judicial system in Nepal despite Beijing’s pressure on Nepal to crackdown on activities it deems to be ‘anti-China.’ Given the blatant disregard for the law as demonstrated by the police, the Chief District Officer and other officials involved in favor of political enforcement, it seems the only way for Tibetans to avoid detention over the specter of ‘anti-China’ activities is for Tibetans to renounce their very identity,” said Markey.

The 12 Tibetans ordered released on July 10 had been detained since June 21 following their participation in a candlelight vigil in the Boudhanath neighborhood of Kathmandu to express solidarity with Tibetan demonstrators in Kardze (Chinese: Ganzi) Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in Sichuan province who are currently under an intense security crackdown (ICT report). The prosecutor’s office accused the Tibetans of organizing an “anti-China” activity “harmful to China-Nepal foreign relations,” according to an ICT monitor in Kathmandu. The Nepal Supreme Court chastised the Boudhanath police, the Chief District Officer and the prosecutor’s office involved in the detention for failing to provide a written explanation to the court for the Tibetans’ detention and for failing to issue arrest warrants for the Tibetans, according to the court documents.

ABUSE IN DETENTION

Also, according to the ICT report, among the 12 Tibetans recently released was a 39-year old Tibetan man, who was beaten with a bamboo baton and accused of being the main organizer of “anti-China” activities in Kathmandu. In addition to physical abuse, he was coerced into signing a confession and then locked overnight without drinking water in a bathroom at the Boudhanath police station. He told ICT that the DSP (Deputy Superintendent of Police) of the Boudhanath police station called him to his office, where there were another six or seven police officers, and accused him of organizing the candlelight vigil that evening. The Tibetan told him that he took part in the vigil, but that he wasn’t the organizer. The DSP then got angry and slapped him in the face several times, dragged him by the hair onto the office floor, and accused him of being the main “Free Tibet” activist in Kathmandu. Other police officers recorded the questioning and beating on video. He told ICT: “Even though I was not an organizer of the vigil, he [the DSP] told me: ‘If you don’t confess, I will kill you tonight.’ Then he beat me with a bamboo stick. He hit me all over my body, but mostly on my legs. Then the DSP hit my knees and my stomach a few times while pulling my hair. I thought he was going to kill me and then I confessed and said I was the organizer. Then he punched my mouth and locked me in the toilet with no drinking water or anything until 8am the next day.”

You can help to fight injustice toward Tibetan refugees in Nepal by supporting my new book, Caught in Nepal: Tibetan Refugees photographing Tibetan Refugees.

Troubling T-Shirts in Holy Times: The Impropriety of Being Political

By Topden Tsering

If you thought it’s only in China-occupied Tibet that perils can be brought upon your head for asserting your Tibetanness, think again!
Last week, at the Dalai Lama’s Kalachakra transmission venue in Washington D.C., Kalden Lodoe, President of Capital Area Tibetan Association (CATA), also one of the event’s organizers, threw out Tsewang Rigzin, President of Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC), over the sale of T-shirts bearing the words, “Tibetan Government-in-Exile.” The neighboring Students for a Free Tibet (SFT)-stall was also forced to close down. The ejected activist-leader later took to his Facebook page; he wrote he’d been told the wording on the merchandise was too political, and that Mr. Lodoe had threatened to call security on him. Subsequently, at a TYC Centrex-called press conference in Dharamsala, Mr. Lodoe was condemned for his “appalling behavior” and urged to tender a public apology.
A cursory review of the incident might paint the debacle as issuing from one man’s act of sheer tactlessness, which, given the hallowed magnitude of the prevailing ceremony, serve best being swept under the carpet, as an isolated unfortunate occurrence. A little “Akha kha,” and onward with the more pressing dalliance with the divinity: that sudden upswing of faith, those many vows. However, a closer inspection of the episode reveals truths that go beyond mere approximation of the Tibetan free speech. It shines light, following the recent Tibetan administration name-change, on the murky misappropriation that has entered measured discussions about Tibetan democracy and the Tibetan freedom movement.
To be fair to CATA board members, by most accounts, the organizing committee has done a commendable job in pulling off this momentous gathering. Upon enquiry by this author, Kalden Lodoe told me that both TYC and Students for a Free Tibet (SFT) had been given free booths outside the Verizon Center for the groups to sell their merchandise. At one point, for a day, TYC was allocated a table inside, along with SFT, although it had been barred from bringing in its “Tibetan Youth Congress Kalachakra Souvenir T-shirts” banner. The furor unfolded the next morning when Mr. Lodoe sent Mr. Rigzin and his TYC stall packing, on the ground that the Tibetan Government-in-Exile message on the T-shirts was too political. Few hours later, the SFT booth was also kicked out; Tenzin Dorjee, the organization's executive director, was not present then. In his explanation to this author, Mr. Lodoe made, what appeared like, a slip that he and Tsewang Rigzin had had a tense relationship to begin with. Even if the possibility of private score-settling, and by turn abuse of one’s public position, were to be only marginally deduced, the disturbing ramifications it attaches to the issue remain undisputedly worrisome. That however shall not be a focus of this analysis.
What is of note is Mr. Lodoe’s disapproval, in a tone strikingly discordant with the event’s World Peace theme, of the T-shirts’ message as being too political. A torrent of abuses was hurled; thick-bodied, weapons-carrying security personnel were hinted at. A witness (a seasoned activist whose name has been withheld on request) likened Mr. Lodoe’s behavior to that of a tyrant; he said Mr. Rigzin was subjected to public humiliation. In fairness, a certain set of circumstances would have made understandable, excusable even, such response, namely, if Mr. Rigzin had overstepped the limit of basic courtesy, by doing such things as disrespecting his hosts, or fueling confrontation. That absenting, it translates that Mr. Lodoe’s action was an assault not only on the person of Mr. Rigzin, but also on TYC, an organization which has, for the last four decades, embodied the spirit of Tibetan resistance to China’s occupation. In as much as the forced closure was equally an insult to SFT, whose activism record is unparalleled. Amid the crumbling edifice of the larger official universe, the two groups' remain that rare voice which not only acts a litmus test to Free Speech but underpins the very integrity of exile Tibetan existence, which is to keep aloft the struggle for a Free Tibet.
Too Political
The “too political” reference by Mr. Lodoe, who’s by profession a newscaster for Radio Free Asia Tibetan Service, warrants scrutiny. It is safe to assume that the organizing committee had known all along the nature of merchandise TYC had on display, both when it was tabled outside the Verizon Center, and briefly inside. As such the question arises as to when exactly did the organizing committee — if the eviction was a collective decision, as Mr. Lodoe claims — wake up to its realization that the Tibetan Government-in-Exile as an expression, if only on T-shirts, deserved nothing short of censorship. What changed that particular day? More urgently, at which exact point in place, during the slogan’s journey, past the location ground, through its several doors, from the exterior to the interior, did it become political beyond tolerance?
Mr. Lodoe told me, early on, the committee had agreed that nothing political would be allowed inside the venue. The fact that there were tables for Free Panchen Lama, as well as International Campaign for Tibet (ICT), with their flyers and pamphlets which called attention to a problem inside Tibet that was essentially political in nature, makes the explanation flimsy. So while literature which extolled freedom aspirations of Tibetan people, reverberating with echoes of a land ravaged and a people enslaved, were okay, a phrase that had, until two months ago, proudly graced the plaque of every administration office in Dharamsala was not? A name that had been interchangeable with the Dalai Lama; a name now half banned, half preserved; killed before its time; destined for purgatory ahead of (if the signs are any indication) its cousin slogans such as “Free Tibet” and symbols such as our flag, our national anthem?
The nomenclature retrofitting had happened abruptly, seemingly unconstitutionally. As a proposed charter amendment, some 400 Tibetan representatives at a hurriedly-convened Second National General Meeting in May had unanimously rejected the idea; still it got passed in the Tibetan parliament without a fuss. What was earlier Tibetan Government-in-Exile had been changed to Institution of Tibetan People. Prior to this, in English and in official rendering, the administration had identified itself as Central Tibetan Administration (CTA). Its appearance, in Tibetan, as “Tibetan Government-in-Exile,” had underscored its truer purpose, while the language’s exclusivity providing it impunity from legal stringencies; like many things Tibetan in our dislocated reality, this exercise in the vague had so far worked without much, if not any, casualty. By way of explanation, the outgoing Chief of Cabinet, Samdhong Rinpoche, referred to some pending cases in the Himachal Pradesh court, several negative reports in newspapers in south India, and cuts in Frederick Norman Foundation funds. He was also quick to add it was only the form that had changed, the content remained the same; “the legitimate government of Tibet established since 1642 has absolutely not been dissolved.”
Consequently, it should follow that if not on a signboard outside a Tibetan office, at least on a T-shirt front, “Tibetan Government-in-Exile” could be allowed to live. If not in Tibet, if not in India, at least in the capital of the United States of America, that citadel of the American First Amendment which renders inviolable one’s right to freedom of expression, where T-shirts occupy an almost hallowed sanctum ─ as a popular cultural wall on which to post one’s political, intellectual and religious beliefs, or counter-beliefs, however radical, however ludicrous.
The Dalai Lama Connection
It is not unlikely that when Mr. Lodoe made the “too political” reference, he made it with respect to the Dalai Lama (presuming the pronouncement was not made in deference to the Chinese government, which implication is usually first to come to mind when one hears the words, “too political”). Explaining the name change in March, the Dalai Lama had said he had exercised his unique prerogative, from his standpoint of the fourteenth in the line, rescinding the traditional system of Tibetan government, Bhod Zhung Gadhen Phodrang Choklei Namgyal, as had been instituted by his predecessor, the Great Fifth Dalai Lama. This abnegation of traditional theocracy, despite its apparent congruity with Tibetan democratization process, seemingly warranting accolades from secularization proponents, considering its timing and intent, both expressed and otherwise, however bear ramifications not too dissimilar from the Dalai Lama’s 1988 Strasbourg Proposal, which many regard as the first of His Holiness’ series of capitulation to the Chinese government in hopes of securing greater freedom for Tibet; given that Beijing has so far demonstrated no reciprocation, given its ever-hardening stance on Tibet, this could also well be the one most damaging to Tibetan national identity, to the Tibetan freedom struggle.
It requires little emphasis that the Tibetan national identity derives its legitimacy from the four hundred year-old Bhod Zhung Gadhen Phodrang, as had been established by the Great Fifth Dalai Lama, credited with unifying the Tibetan heartland, with aid from Gushi Khan, a powerful Mongol chieftain, whose association was subsequently uninvolved. It marked not only the first pan-Tibetan civil administration, but also lent an unprecedented political, also international some might argue, personality to Tibetan nation that persisted to the day when the current Dalai Lama escaped to India, as the legitimate head of a country which China had militarily occupied, up until the present time of His Holiness’ announcement. This government served the basis for Tibetan denunciation of Chinese occupation, later echoed in such international legal validation as the 1961 United Nations resolution backing Tibetan self-determination. And it was this government which thus far provided credence to Tibetan outrage against Chinese atrocities as a systematic annihilation of a people, of a culture, of a way of life.
It is against this backdrop that the progressive Tibetan call for separation of politics from religion finds accompaniment in the shared conviction that it is in Tibet’s interest for His Holiness to remain a ceremonial head of state. Precedents for such arrangements can be found in the monarchy systems of the United Kingdom, Spain and Japan, to name a few; Charles de Gaulle, considered the most influential leader in modern French history, described the head of state as embodying “the spirit of the nation” for the nation itself and the world.
The Inherent Pitfalls
Viewed from the perspective of Middle Way policy supporters, it can be argued that the Dalai Lama’s dismantling of the traditional Tibetan governance followed His Holiness’ endeavor to earn Beijing’s trust; after all, China has time and again accused the Dalai Lama of harboring separatist impulses, pointing to the inconsistencies of a national leader asking for genuine autonomy, in which framework Chinese political dominion is accepted without question. However, the ground realities inside Tibet, China’s policies on the issue, diplomatic international conversations surrounding them, all confirm, what Elliot Sperling has recently concluded in his article, “The Tibetan Movement Pulls the Plug on Itself: Advantage China,” that, “there is no imaginable reason for China to abandon a strategy which, though intransigent, achieves its aims. China fully understands that its rise as a world power has sharply diminished the need to placate international critics on an issue that is not a vital interest to other powers.”
Conversely, if, by a long shot, the Chinese government were to positively respond to the Dalai Lama’s negotiations efforts, pursuant to its conditions, His Holiness will be treated as a private citizen, with no legal clout on behalf of Tibetan people. The question then arises, again by a long shot, should a discussion over the Dalai Lama’s return to Tibet materializes tomorrow, will His Holiness be making the trip solely as a spiritual leader, whose top priorities being, as one interview in a foreign newspaper enumerated, to champion global peace, to propagate Tibetan Buddhism, and to foster inter-faith harmony, the betterment of the Tibetan fate appearing only as a footnote. In such a scenario, His Holiness’ repeated utterances that the Tibet issue is not about his person, but the fate of six million Tibetans will be rendered moot.
The Dalai Lama’s cancellation of the Tibetan government, rather hastily, goes beyond such innate contradictions; it lays bare the inextricable nature of politics and religion in the Tibetan context which if injudiciously dispensed with portends the absolute hara-kiri of the Tibetan hope for greater freedom, from the conservatives’ standpoint, and the independence struggle, from the viewpoint of Rangzen advocates. Furthermore, considering inherent to Tibetan evocation of freedom are the Tibetan national flag and the Tibetan national anthem, both of which bear mixed vocabulary of spiritual and political, even granting their appearances only in the early and mid 20th century respectively, it might appear they too risk being banned. Already, Samdhong Rinpoche and the Kashag have previously issued circulars discouraging Free Tibet protests, against which backdrop it might not seem far-fetched if one day “Free Tibet” as a slogan also came under similar attack.
In light of these evaluations one hopes that the Tibetan administration restores the government core of its identity, and that, in reflection of real separation of politics from religion, His Holiness remains a ceremonial head of state, the entire political decision-making devolved, not just in name but in the true sense of the word, to the newly-elect Kalon Tripa, Dr. Lobsang Sangay, and the exile parliament.
Only then will be possible a sound basis for the realization of the twin objectives as widely iterated by Dr. Sangay, namely, reinstatement of His Holiness on his throne in the Potala Palace, and freedom for Tibet. Because minus the political impetus, minus the historical association, the Potala will be just a hollowed structure, crowded with deities and depopulated of humans, an imagery which had often troubled His Holiness when a mere boy. Reduced to another place of worship whose walls one’s forehead to touch against, its centrality in the larger scheme of Tibetan identity, cultural or political, will be irrevocably lost. Just as the goal of freedom for Tibet will be rendered ambiguous in the absence of a reference such as a government which had once embodied the country as an independent nation, free of external oppression or influence.
Given these realities, one can understand why TYC had made T-shirts which explicitly declared, “Tibetan Government-in-Exile.” At the heart of the organization’s avowed goal, which is independence for Tibet, is the unflappable conviction that Tibet was once independent; therefore, it would have been inconsistent for TYC not to have designed those T-shirts, just as, where it had always sold political message-laden merchandise at other Kalachakra sites, the organization would have been remiss not to do the same at the Washington D.C. venue. It is against this light that one has to recognize the expressed outrage by those who point to the indiscretion of the T-shirts’ appearance at the Dalai Lama’s “Wheel of Time” teaching as nothing but missing the wood for the trees.
If, as elucidated in Ronald D. Schwarz’s “Circle of Protest: Political Ritual in the Tibetan Uprising,” a book about the Tibetan revolt from 1987 through 1992, in the monks’ spearheading of the uprising for Tibet’s freedom they had incorporated religious rituals, such as lighting offering lamps before a protest or circling the Jokhang temple before heading toward Chinese offices, it goes without saying that the same inter-dependence could be allowed expression at a hazard-free occasion such as a Kalachakra transmission in the United States. After all, it was not a defamatory slogan against the Dalai Lama that the T-shirts addressed, but the very aspirations for which Tibetans inside Tibet laid down their lives, which they continue to do even today.
The Kalden Lodoe Factor
Curiously, while justifying the abnegation of the traditional Tibetan government, His Holiness, in his address to the Tibetans at the Kalachakra event, asserted that, despite the name-change, the administration had not eschewed its responsibility to represent the oppressed Tibetans inside China-occupied Tibet. He too affirmed that in content, more than just in form, the Tibetan government endured.
Given the above clarification, the effrontery by Kalden Lodoe confirms his position as that of a tyrant, one who’s bent on censorship. His effort to silence is not the first instance of a Tibetan association head in the United States bearing its weight against an activist group such as Tibetan Youth Congress. Often in the past, the group’s regional chapters, be it in Portland, be it in San Francisco, or elsewhere, have felt stifled in their activism endeavors, courtesy the circulars, discouraging Free Tibet protests, issued by Shamdhong Rinpoche and Kashag; the pronouncements by Rinpoche likening the Tibetan Youth Congress activists to Chinese government and Shugden propitiators call for a separate discussion.
In the case of Kalden Lodoe, it will be wise for him to submit an apology to Tsewang Rigzin as well as TYC, not only to absolve himself, but also CATA and the Kalachakra Organizing Committee, whose good works his personal misjudgment threatens to derail. Such admission of wrongdoing will also help safeguard the integrity of Tibetan freedom struggle, which cannot be perceived in any other way than political, and protect those who uphold their right to asserting their Tibetanness, above all else, from undemocratic censorship.

达赖喇嘛指中国领导人愚蠢、孩子气

美国之音
记者: 叶兵 | 华盛顿


西藏流亡精神领袖达赖喇嘛表示，中国领导人尖锐斥责他，并对他进行妖魔化的言词显示了他们很孩子气，而且很愚蠢。

达赖喇嘛最近在接受美国的滚石杂志专访时说，中国的统治者们希望让藏人和中国人都相信他是个百分之百的负面力量，所以才使用那些言词。达赖喇嘛说，中国领导人“实际上在侮辱他们自己。”他说：“我的意思是，孩子气，非常愚蠢，没人相信他们。”

北京指责达赖喇嘛是分裂分子。美国总统奥巴马上星期在白宫再次会见达赖喇嘛之后，引起了北京的强烈不满。

藏人不断抗议是处于被逼

洛桑森格：

西藏之声

7月21日报导

新当选的西藏流亡政府首席部长洛桑森格于本周二（19日）在纽约亚洲协会发言时强调，藏人对中共政府的高压统治深感不满，人们处于被逼无奈，才陆续开展各种抗议活动。

据新唐人电视消息，即将在8月份上任的西藏流亡政府首席部长洛桑森格在纽约亚洲协会谈到，如果中共政府能按照已有的法律行事，藏人就获得自治。洛桑森格在座谈中再次阐明，藏人要求的不是独立，而是自治。
他说：（录音）“藏人代表送给北京有关藏人寻求名副其实自治的建议中写明，如果中国政府执行自己的法律和宪法，包括1984年的民族区域自治法，把从前保证的都兑现，这就算给藏人自治了。”

洛桑森格还表示，过去在拉萨大昭寺，人们去朝拜文成公主从中国带去的佛像。而今天的大昭寺布满持枪军警、便衣，屋顶有狙击手、监视器。中共占领西藏60年后，习进平在层层军警的严密把持下进藏参加庆祝活动，不许游客进入，其实是变相戒严。说明中共对西藏的政策是失败的。

洛桑桑格说：（录音）“人们对压迫相当不满。上街抗议，成百成百的人被关押。200多人被杀。”

洛桑森格表示，在中国进行抗议被打死的风险是很高的。之所以还有接连不断的抗议，是因为人们没有出路。

洛桑森格说：（录音）“信仰是心的归宿和一种信念。作为藏人，我们的心和信念和达赖喇嘛在一起。”

至于西藏流亡政府的称呼问题上，洛桑森格表示，他本人不能这么称呼，因为有政治与法律敏感度。但是，他又强调藏人行政中央具备政府职能，有7个部门，467 位官员，与其它的政府没有不同。