To me the prohibition on the practice of Dorje Shugden by the Dalai Lama’s Office and CTA is neither a ban in its strict sense, or a campaign by the CTA that is advisory in nature.
The CTA and Dalai Lama’s Office cannot officially impose a ban on the practice because that would itself constitute a breach of the Tibetan Constitution (not the mention the Indian Constitution and the United Nation’s Universal Declaration Of Human Rights) that guarantees freedom of religion. What happened to the Dorje Shugden “ban” did not follow a democratic process common in any free country because it would not have survived the fairness and logic tests.
On the contrary the way the “ban” was instituted can be likened to a kingpin imposing his will in a gangster state with the only “authority” being the threat of violence and harm coming upon those who choose not to abide by it. In imposing the prohibition, it seemed the Dalai Lama relied on neither the process of the law nor the executive arm of the law but instead took advantage of, and out rightly abused the traditional perception of a Dalai Lama as a god-king. To go against His Holiness's will tantamount to either going against the will of heaven (which is sinful and yields terrible consequences) or treason against a monarch, which is punishable by death. The way the “ban” was presented was such that continuing in the practice is by implication, wanting His Holiness to be dead. It is nothing more than cheap blackmailing that only works because the victims have deep love, affection and respect for the perpetrator. That is a fact although i concede that we know nothing of the Dalai Lama's real motive.
And this is not the only time the Dalai Lama has enforced his will upon the people without due regard to their opinion, wishes and welfare. Another example of such hegemonic behavior was when he unilaterally gave away the independence of Tibet. If there was any hope of an independent Tibet, it was given up for dead at that point, by one person.
Neither was the “ban” a friendly advice from an elderly and well-meaning person looking out for those in his care. If it were, then the advice should not accompany silent but active threats of social marginalization, exclusion from consideration for civic posts, expulsion from monastic universities, denial of basic human rights and even worse, threats of bodily harm. Here is an excerpt of a speech made by the Tibetan exiled government’s own Prime Minister in 20101:
“Inside and outside of Tibet Shugden followers are opponents of his Holiness Dalai Lama. They are trying to divide Tibetan community and make it against Dalai Lama, so, for example, here, in exile in India, we almost completely won and demolished Shugden followers who used to be very strong in Delhi, but not any more because we, Tibetan people, acted bravely and without hesitation against Shugden followers. But some of the roots are still left, and the Shugden followers on the way stop by in Delhi and carry out some activities. Now, without fear and hesitation, we, Tibetans, must fight and destroy Shugden followers. I am urging you to act against hesitation and fear, but of course, I will not blame you if you fear – they will fight back fearlessly and may beat some of us or kill, but if you fear and do nothing that means Shugden followers are winning. Even though you may die or face beating you must fight – it I very important”.[/b]
[/color][/color]
With language like that, does it sound like a friendly advice?
As for Tibetans applying for Indian citizenship, here is a an excerpt from a report by the Tibet Justice Centre (“Tibet’s Stateless Nationals II”) dated 2011 in which the TJC writes:
“Pursuant to longstanding executive policy of India’s national government, for a Tibetan to acquire citizenship by birth, he or she must obtain and submit a “no objection” certificate from the CTA, as the custodian and representative of Tibetans in exile”
How likely is it for the CTA to grant a “no objection” certificate to Shugden practitioners? Regardless, how likely is it for the CTA to encourage a process that can only lead to the dwindling of its already small exiled population especially when it is still calling for the numbers to rally behind its demand for independence or autonomy or whatever the Tibetan Cause is now. So long as a Tibetan in exile remains a refugee, he or she comes under the jurisdiction of the CTA. There was a legal case where a Tibetan refugee have sued for and won her right to apply for citizenship but the Indian Courts have yet to establish that case as a precedent (and in any case the Court limited the right to Tibetans born in India ‘after the 26th January 1950 but before the 1st day of July 1987’) And therefore every Tibetan wishing to challenge for their rights in courts must be able to afford the lengthy and expensive legal fees.
The Tibetan Shugden practitioners cannot escape the "ban" and therefore it is very much up to us, whom the ban cannot touch to create awareness of how such a religious persecution is taking place today and to do the necessary to bring the ban down.
