No Democracy When Snow Lions Become Lambs - A Story Of Intimidation

[vajratruth]

Is it the Dalai Lama who stands in the way of Tibetan democracy? Read and see what happens when you disagree with the Dalai Lama:

http://www.dorjeshugden.com/all-articles/features/no-democracy-when-snow-lions-become-lambs/

[Big Uncle]

Ooh I find this most interesting. It's funny that the Dalai Lama would want to make sure that he is understood to be supporting the self-autonomy stance instead of independence. Why I find that interesting is because I think that the Dorje Shugden ban that is so harshly enforced is indeed a major stumbling block for the proposal of self-autonomy to China. That is because the ban is basically an enforcement of a religious ban and China, being a socialist state is atheist. Therefore, the enforcement of a religious ban is really counter-productive to the Dalai Lama's proposal to the Chinese government for Tibetan self-autonomy.

I am sure the Chinese are watching the Central Tibetan Administration very seriously. First of all, CTA is thoroughly anti-Chinese via its continual support for independence movement via its lack of criticism of the wave of self-immolations that had happened throughout Tibet. It is pretty clear that the self-immolators committed their act with Tibetan independence in mind and CTA's apparent support of self-immolations does little to align itself with the Dalai Lama's intent of seeking self-autonomy with China.

Besides that, if CTA can so blatantly go against the Dalai Lama's wishes in this manner, I don't see why can't they go against the Dorje Shugden ban. Why be selective? After all, the Dorje Shugden ban does not really render any success or support to the Chinese. Lifting the ban in fact, brings unity and harmony to the Tibetans within India. They can even cite democracy as a reason to lift the ban as all other democracies around the world are totally secular. Hence, everything is in CTA's favour if they lift the ban.

[Ensapa]

You know what is funny? we all know that the Dalai Lama has been pushing for the middle way approach since the 70s, but yet so many Tibetans reject that and want full independence from China, including the current kashag, Lobsang Sanggay. He has been promoting Tibetan independence for sometime now and held conferences for that, but what was funny is the Dalai Lama never once did spoke out about that. Do not forget about all those pro Tibet rallies all around the world that also requests for independence instead of autonomy. If these people really believed in the Dalai Lama, shouldnt they just abandon the idea for independence and go for autonomy instead, because what they are doing now shows very clearly that they do not believe in the Dalai Lama although their words says they do.

[dsiluvu]

Ooh I find this most interesting. It's funny that the Dalai Lama would want to make sure that he is understood to be supporting the self-autonomy stance instead of independence. Why I find that interesting is because I think that the Dorje Shugden ban that is so harshly enforced is indeed a major stumbling block for the proposal of self-autonomy to China. That is because the ban is basically an enforcement of a religious ban and China, being a socialist state is atheist. Therefore, the enforcement of a religious ban is really counter-productive to the Dalai Lama's proposal to the Chinese government for Tibetan self-autonomy.

I am sure the Chinese are watching the Central Tibetan Administration very seriously. First of all, CTA is thoroughly anti-Chinese via its continual support for independence movement via its lack of criticism of the wave of self-immolations that had happened throughout Tibet. It is pretty clear that the self-immolators committed their act with Tibetan independence in mind and CTA's apparent support of self-immolations does little to align itself with the Dalai Lama's intent of seeking self-autonomy with China.

Besides that, if CTA can so blatantly go against the Dalai Lama's wishes in this manner, I don't see why can't they go against the Dorje Shugden ban. Why be selective? After all, the Dorje Shugden ban does not really render any success or support to the Chinese. Lifting the ban in fact, brings unity and harmony to the Tibetans within India. They can even cite democracy as a reason to lift the ban as all other democracies around the world are totally secular. Hence, everything is in CTA's favour if they lift the ban.

So basically no one is really 100% following His Holiness view... they are just pretending they are in front and at the back, they are doing the opposite? Okay so YES why not do the same with the "Ban" of Dorje Shugden? Wouldn't it be smarter to actually garner more Tibetan supporters which the CTA obviously needs to help their campaign of Independence?

On the other hand I am surprised that HHDL makes a decision without any discussion or votes from the parliament. Doesn't sound democratic at all... shame that even within their own people... doubts are forming, trusts are broken... these are not recipes to bring the people together and united in one voice.

So I really do not think anyway is really gonna go... Spiritual autonomy or Independence because already at this level, they are obviously not on the same page! So who is really in-charge here? So confusing!!!   

[vajratruth]

Can it be that the Dalai Lama is losing his grip on his own government in exile? Under ordinary circumstances, when a leader fails to deliver results and live up to his promises, he is usually replaced or elected out of office. The only exceptions are countries which operate under dictatorships and we have observed with the Tibetan case, theocracies. In these situations it is deemed dangerous to be seen to be going against the leader.

Indeed, the question need to be asked if indeed the Dalai Lama has really been ruling his people with the help of the CTA or has His Holiness been relying more on a spirit, Nechung who has been proven to be wrong. If it is Nechung His Holiness has been relying on and not produce results, it would only be natural that the CTA and public would lose confidence but have been too intimidated to speak their mind.

In any case, that Chithue Karma Choephel actually publicly and formally withdrew his support of the Dalai Lama's preferred approach to engaging with China (Middle Way) is a harbinger of changing times and perhaps the Tibetan public and their more responsible representatives in parliament will now begin to challenge questionable policies. This would have to include the Dorje Shugden ban that has done NOTHING good for the Tibetan people nor indeed the Tibetan cause.

The Dalai Lamas have ruled the Tibetans for centuries but as we see time and time again, nothing is permanent, especially an unholy ban on the very enlightened being whom the Tibetan desperately need  .

[Ensapa]

Can it be that the Dalai Lama is losing his grip on his own government in exile? Under ordinary circumstances, when a leader fails to deliver results and live up to his promises, he is usually replaced or elected out of office. The only exceptions are countries which operate under dictatorships and we have observed with the Tibetan case, theocracies. In these situations it is deemed dangerous to be seen to be going against the leader.

Indeed, the question need to be asked if indeed the Dalai Lama has really been ruling his people with the help of the CTA or has His Holiness been relying more on a spirit, Nechung who has been proven to be wrong. If it is Nechung His Holiness has been relying on and not produce results, it would only be natural that the CTA and public would lose confidence but have been too intimidated to speak their mind.

In any case, that Chithue Karma Choephel actually publicly and formally withdrew his support of the Dalai Lama's preferred approach to engaging with China (Middle Way) is a harbinger of changing times and perhaps the Tibetan public and their more responsible representatives in parliament will now begin to challenge questionable policies. This would have to include the Dorje Shugden ban that has done NOTHING good for the Tibetan people nor indeed the Tibetan cause.

The Dalai Lamas have ruled the Tibetans for centuries but as we see time and time again, nothing is permanent, especially an unholy ban on the very enlightened being whom the Tibetan desperately need  .

From the start, the Tibetans wanted independence from China, but the Dalai Lama wants to have autonomy. Most of these people were forced to listen and bend down to the Dalai Lama's will, although they do not really want it. Thus, you see many Tibetans all over protesting for Tibet's independence, completely disregarding the Dalai Lama's wish for autonomy. So in a way, Karma Choepel is doing his job to represent the will and wishes of the Tibetans and that is what members of the parliament should do. Why is it that the Dalai Lama kept quiet about all the pro independent rallies but speak up against Karma Chopel? Why is there this interesting double standard?

[dondrup]

The spiritual world could not understand why HH Dalai Lama had declared the ban on Dorje Shudgen even up till the present.  Now we are hearing that HH Dalai Lama is authoritative and dictatorial?  What had happened to the person whom the World had known as the ambassador of World Peace and the messenger of Kindness and Compassion?  It is already hard to accept that an emanation of Chenrezig would ban an established Dorje Shugden practice.  Now it is harder to know of the resistance from HH Dalai Lama disallowing the Tibetans the freedom of speech or the freedom as enshrined in the democratic political system of the CTA.

[Ensapa]

The spiritual world could not understand why HH Dalai Lama had declared the ban on Dorje Shudgen even up till the present.  Now we are hearing that HH Dalai Lama is authoritative and dictatorial?  What had happened to the person whom the World had known as the ambassador of World Peace and the messenger of Kindness and Compassion?  It is already hard to accept that an emanation of Chenrezig would ban an established Dorje Shugden practice.  Now it is harder to know of the resistance from HH Dalai Lama disallowing the Tibetans the freedom of speech or the freedom as enshrined in the democratic political system of the CTA.

The Dalai Lama has been authoritative and dictatorial from the start. It is just that nobody questions him. HHDL is not happy with the statement because it makes him look like a liar and he is a monk. To call a monk a liar is very bad in more ways than one and it questions and damages HHDL's credibility as a monk, amongst others so it is understandable that the Dalai Lama is very displeased with the actions of Karma Chopel, but one thing good about Karma is that he really speaks up for the Tibetans who want independence, although personally, I am not sure how many people in Tibet proper would want independence as some seem to be complacent with China's rule.

[Ensapa]

Interestingly, this is Jamyang Norbu's version of this event, published in Phayul:

RANGZEN IN YOUR HEART? By Jamyang Norbu
Phayul[Friday, June 07, 2013 09:21]
By Jamyang Norbu

During the Dalai Lama’s recent visit to the United States he met a group of Tibetan students in Madison, Wisconsin. One of them asked a question that, to put it mildly, made him very upset. The student stumbled over his words and was generally so awkward that it seemed to me he had been set-up by someone (probably older, definitely a politician) to pose this loaded question. But I could be wrong. The question concerned a member of the exile parliament, who the questioner said he would not name.

The student, who really didn’t seem to know what he was talking about, asked His Holiness why the Tibetan MP had stated that the Dalai Lama was not only advocating the Middle Way Approach but was also advocating for full Independence, and why was such a major mistake (contradiction?) like this allowed to happen?

His Holiness in His usual straightforward way cut to the chase. He said that it was not necessary to hide the name of the MP and mentioned his name, Karma Chophel. His Holiness also corrected the student’s mistake. His Holiness said that Karma Chophel had claimed that though the Dalai Lama spoke about autonomy from His mouth, in His heart the Dalai Lama was advocating Independence.

Karma Chophel la didn’t actually say anything quite so bluntly, and what he did say he couched in a much more polite and respectful way. He declared that he had absolute faith in the Dalai Lama as his spiritual leader. He said he no longer supported the Dalai Lama’s Middle Way Approach (MWA) because it was not working. Yet he firmly believed the Dalai Lama had implemented this policy because of the urgency of the present situation in Tibet, but that in His heart, the Dalai Lama knew that the Tibetan people wanted independence. This is just my summary. The actual statement on video with an English translation is on Rangzen.net.

In this piece I have not used the literal translation for the Tibetan word sem (mind) used by Karma Chophel and others, and have instead substituted the word “heart” since in English having something “in or on your mind” does not convey the element of “cherishing” or “holding dear”, that the Tibetan phrase “sem nang yod pa” does.

His Holiness then went to declare quite heatedly, that Karma Chophel had made Him, the Dalai Lama, into a liar when he said that the Dalai Lama spoke about autonomy from His mouth, while in deep in His heart He advocated Independence. His Holiness asked “Is there any purpose in making me into a liar?” His Holiness also emphasized that in his dealing with people internationally he had always been absolutely honest and straightforward on this issue.

I do not think that Karma Chophel la needs any defending. He is a seasoned parliamentarian, one who had even been an effective Speaker some years before, and his decision to come out openly and withdraw his earlier support for the Middle Way policy was an admirably gutsy one. Especially in light of the dismal fact that not a single other member of the Tibetan parliament has even called for a discussion of this urgent and critical issue.

But before the religious-right rabble in Dharamshala start pouring out in the streets howling for Karma la’s blood, as they surely will now that they have the convenient excuse that Karma la made His Holiness angry” (gyalwa rimpoche ghi gongpa trukpa ray), I think it is incumbent on me to point out a crucial fact to His Holiness, that if anyone has made His Holiness into a liar, it is actually all of His Middle Way faithful who claim, on a regular basis, that not only does the Dalai Lama have “Rangzen in His heart”, but that in fact all Middle Way followers have “Rangzen in their hearts” as well.

In every discussion or argument I have had with MWA followers – and I have had many, even public debates with such luminaries of the MWA faith as Sikyong Lobsang Sangay, Speaker Penpa Tsering and the Dalai Lama’s Representative in New York, Lobsang Nyendrak – invariably at one point or another during the discussion the claim will unfailingly be made by the MWA discussant that though he or she absolutely supports the Dalai Lama’s Middle Way Approach, that he or she also absolutely has Rangzen “in his or her heart”, as do all Tibetan people. The MWA discussant will then go on to explain that the Dalai Lama implemented the MWA policy only because the very survival of the Tibetan people was being threatened, and that it was the only option we had, and that the Dalai Lama, without question, still had Rangzen in his heart, as all MWA faithful did, only they were much more practical and realistic about it, unlike “the full independence” (Rangzen tsangma) crowd who were just emotional and fanatical.

The inherent contradiction in this bizarre semantic concoction is obvious. Yet no matter how seemingly ridiculous, it can be seen as an all too human response to an impossible dilemma. An extreme case of living in political denial. People love (or fear the Dalai Lama) very much, and believe that it is an enormous sin to disobey him, yet at the same time they are unable to completely give up an ideal and a dream for which they had struggled and sacrificed for many decades in exile. But bizarre as it may seem the “Rangzen in Your Heart” argument is a widespread phenomenon, so much so that Sikyong Lobsang Sangay la reworked it into his campaign platform as “U-Rang” claiming that he supported both the Middle Way (Umay Lam) and Rangzen, and it helped him win the elections!

Though I respectfully (but absolutely) disagree with His Holiness on the whole MWA issue, I think He was correct to reject something so patently ridiculous and even dishonest as the “Rangzen in My Heart” argument to prop up the validity of his signature policy. I am sure He realizes that it is one of fundamental reasons why the Chinese have consistently rejected his overtures. Beijing has openly declared that the Dalai Lama’s proposal of “Genuine Autonomy’ concealed a secret “splittist” (Rangzen) agenda. It did not help that the Dalai Lama’s youngest brother once made an even more direct statement undermining the Dalai Lamas’ MWA policy. Wang Li Xiong in his “Tibet: China’s 21st-Century Underbelly” cites an interview of the Dalai Lama’s brother Danzeng Qujia (Tenzin Chogyal) by the French reporter Pierre-Antoine Donnet, where Chogyal declared that autonomy was only a first step to gain independence.

The Dalai Lama is naturally frustrated at China’s skepticism and rejection of his Middle Way Approach. But he should understand that China’s distrust has not been caused by Rangzen activists. China clearly knows that Rangzen activists are openly and absolutely opposed to Chinese rule in Tibet. The question of trust doesn’t even arise. China’s suspicions about the MWA are, on the other hand, provoked by the Dalai Lama’s own loyal MWA followers who claim to have given up the goal of Tibetan independence, yet go around declaring that they have “Rangzen in their hearts”, and furthermore that the Dalai Lama does as well. His Holiness should direct his anger at his own MWA faithful who are unintentionally sabotaging his efforts, and instruct them on exactly what to say in the future when they defend his policy.

But clearly the damage has already been done and just re-working MWA slogans is not going to convince China of the Dalai Lama’s sincerity. As a Rangzen man it is not my business to offer suggestions in this matter, but I cannot help but notice that something much much more substantial, even dramatic, needs to be undertaken by the MWA crowd to demonstrate to China the sincerity of the Dalai Lama’s policy.

My suggestion is that at least one thousand MWA followers, to start with, should return to Tibet (or the PRC if you like), in order to live there and work with the Chinese authorities to create the atmosphere of trust and mutual respect that will ensure the success of MWA. This first contingent should be led by someone well versed in the arcana of MWA doctrine, so that he could clarify the all-important details to the Chinese authorities, and opportunity arising, even expound on it to the Chinese masses. I can think of no one more suitable than Professor Samdong Rimpoche, who has set himself up as the grand ideologue of the MWA doctrine. Another indispensable person to lead this contingent is Doctor Sikyong Lobsang Sangay (formerly of Harvard Law) who has stated, time and again, that China’s constitution has provisions to allow the implementation of MWA. Now he will have a hands-on opportunity to develop and prove his theory.

Of course, none of this can be done from exile. The mere fact of your living in exile demonstrates your distrust of China. It is a slap in the face for China’s leaders. Living in exile is a statement of opposition to the regime who exiled you in the first place. So, for Rangzen people exile is just the right place to be, till an opportunity arises where they can return to Tibet to overthrow Chinese rule. But for MWA followers who want China’s leaders to trust and accept the Middle Way Approach what more suitable action can they take but voluntarily return to the “Great Motherland” – the motherland that they want Tibet to become part of.

Of course, His Holiness cannot go back. Yes, MWA may be His signature policy, but above everything the Dalai Lama is the living symbol of Tibetan freedom and independence, and Rangzen people have paid too heavy a price in lives and suffering, to allow him to once again walk into anything that remotely smells of a Chinese trap. The recent announcement of the Dalai Lama’s proposed visit to Hong Kong is something that all Rangzen people have to be vigilant about. But this calls for a thorough inquiry in a future discussion.

To return to the discussion on hand, I think I have clearly managed to demonstrate that all Middle Way People, especially those returning to live under Chinese rule, absolutely must give up their “Rangzen in my heart” emotional pacifier or security blanket. They’ve got learn to suck it up and embrace the totality of the Middle Way Approach, even if that means giving up Rangzen (in your heart) and furthermore giving up freedom and democracy, and preparing themselves to live under a Communist political system, as the Sikyong has, in a recent policy speech in Washington, DC, made very clear must be done. While they’re at it, the MWA faithful might as well start practicing their Chinese phrases, as our Sikyong appears to have have been doing – and which he skillfully demonstrated at the DC conference. Some linguistic proficiency will no doubt help everyone concerned to ease themselves into the coming transition: “Xie Xie”.

The views expressed in this piece are that of the author and the publication of the piece on this website does not necessarily reflect their endorsement by the website.

[Rinchen]

I feel that Jamyang Norbu's version is a version to make it sound as though that the Tibetans have to make a strong choice although they would not like the choice that is made.

It just sounds fishy to me as the article just gives me the feeling that they are trying to do some propaganda.

[Ensapa]

I feel that Jamyang Norbu's version is a version to make it sound as though that the Tibetans have to make a strong choice although they would not like the choice that is made.

It just sounds fishy to me as the article just gives me the feeling that they are trying to do some propaganda.

Jamyang Norbu is trying very hard to change the mentality of the Tibetans. That is his passion and his job. He was very outspoken about consulting Nechung if you do remember, and he has also critiqued the Dorje Shugden ban and the blind and unquestioned devotion to the Dalai lama where everyone should have the right to question his decisions and command, like a real government should. I doubt Jamyang Norbu is the type that would write propaganda, but it was more of what he was led to believe following the series of events.