It is quite improper for a leader to use such descriptive words, more so when he is the Dalai Lama, a Nobel laureate. Since the Dalai Lama imposed the ban on Dorje Shugden practice, some of his words and actions in public are strange and not benefiting that of a statesman nor a spiritual leader. Why? That is a big question.
Samayakeeper,
You forget that the Dalai Lama is also a politician and a very seasoned one at that.
As long as the DL is prepared to take shots at China, he is a useful agent provocateur to those who wish to curb China's rise. If he is too conciliatory towards China, he may lose this usefulness. And so the he plays both sides.
Notice how it is standard operating procedure for the Dalai Lama to always give the impression that he is ready to have meaningful dialogue with China and concurrently demean China in the same breath, thereby removing the incentive for China to come to the table. Add a dash of charisma and good humour and everyone gets spellbound over and over again.
Why antagonise China? Because whilst it is a sincere albeit romantic wish for the Tibetans in exile to regain their homeland, it is an unrealistic wish and the Dalai Lama and CTA know that. However, to move on and give up the 'fight' to regain their independence would entail the Tibetan leadership giving up the only reason for them to exist and to forego the main justification to ask for money and support which they have been receiving for decades. They cannot afford to lose this and so the Dalai Lama must always appear as if he is seeking dialogue with China but never really wanting it to come to fruition.
If the Tibetan exile leadership were to somehow regain their country, not only do they immediately lose financial support and sponsorship from the world community but also they will then have to manage a country with 6 million Tibetan people who have now experienced something other than feudal theocracy, and wrangle with cross-border politics with China and India and the other neighbouring states. Does anyone really believe that the CTA is up to the task when we have seen how abysmally they have performed with a mere 150,000 refugees?
The CTA has failed when there is literally no country to run. How can they succeed when have to set in place a local and foreign economy, an education system, a legal infrastructure, various executive arms and an army? It is pipe dream and not even a real one at that. Being stateless 'victims' is the easiest and most lucrative strategy for the Tibetan leadership in the past and now. Perhaps it was a sincere wish in the beginning but being in exile quickly became a trade. All these is at the expense of the Tibetan people of course, many of whom self-immolated thinking that their sacrifice would aid the Tibetan cause. Nothing can aid the Tibetan cause if the Tibetan leadership does not want to succeed.
You will never see any Tibetan leader engage in serious dialogue about Tibet, tabling reasonable proposals within a workable framework. For a while now, the Tibet issue is nothing but entertainment made so by none other than the leaders themselves. People watch the John Oliver interview and come away thinking how funny it is, not how real the Tibetan issue is.
