Tibetans rejected by Botswana

Is it time to save the sinking ship that is the Tibetan cause? But wait a minute, the ship has already been sunk for the likes of Mr Ugyen Gyalpo.

It is time for My Gyalpo and other pro-independence activists to seriously wake up from their self-imposed slumber and plan what they can actually do if and when the Dalai Lama gets the green light to go back to Tibet. Do they want to support the Dalai Lama, their spiritual leader? Or will they betray and abandon him?
Time to save the sinking ship of the Tibetan cause
By Ugyen Gyalpo
NEW YORK, US, 28 April 2018
Gone are the days when Tibetan solidarity was demonstrated through inter-organisational unity, and transparency and teamwork were not conundrums. The architects of endemic ideologies, the clash of mighty egos, and our flawed democracy, a system without multiple parties to represent different voices, has our community deeply divided and entrenched on regional grounds.
A short-circuit motherboard, like that which existed on an imaginary level before His Holiness’ devolution of his political role, that managed different flows of energy and controlled frequencies of differential arrays with a single switch, is surely missing in these rather difficult days of our newly-minted, hard-to-understand, infant democracy.
Every organisation or group has different agendas to put forth, even though the supposedly ultimate goal of solving Tibet’s issue for that matter is unequivocally shared by our same moral obligations. Every organisation in itself has become a marshy pond, where viruses of egocentrism are birthed and thrive. Every organisation and everyone leading them has somehow made islands of isolationist groups of like-minded people.
There is a silent battle of ‘creditworthiness’ brewing within our bureaucracy, and a hunger to ‘monetize’ by the many Tibet Support Groups of the cult-like brand Tibet, and His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s name has become detrimental to our cause and to the unity that we critically need.
Furthermore, the millions in American aid has intoxicated our movement and has us habituated to seeking monetary help, while losing sight of our goal. And the supposed leader of the free world in the United States, having lost completely the needle of its moral compass, shoves our greater issues silently under the political rug, while we rejoice in their perennial candy aid. Whilst our elected leader impatiently awaits for applause on the issues of such aid, has only added mileage to the charade that exists. It is ever too clear how wolfishly the world led by the US have sidelined the Tibet issue with the changing dynamic and symbiosis and the dominant political clout of China in its newly-found realm.
Just like Africa remains poor because of the surplus Western food that is dumped as ‘humanitarian aid’ into the market, which in turn debilitates and destroys the local farming there and makes them lazy and cyclically dependent, the Tibetan diaspora’s dependence on Western aid is no different. it has trapped them into the eternal hypocrisy of the West and made them complacent and numbingly patient.
The dynamics of what the West could have done some twenty years ago when China was easy to contain, and the empty promises and hypocrisy that exist now through reaffirmation of their help by way of lobbying and institutionalisation of the Tibetan cause, has got us nowhere but to a cycle of regimental renewal of oaths and vacant promises, and deepening of the pockets of those who exploit our cause.
The long-wished-for occasion of China one day crumbling under the weight of their capitalistic boom, which would hopefully propel uts people to yearn for greater rights and freedom guaranteed on democratic grounds that comes along with flowering seeds of prosperity, seems to be dead on arrival ever since President Xi, who seems to be Mao’s incarnate, rewrote the constitution in his own terms and vowed to rule the country indefinitely as a dictator. The likelihood of the collapse of communist China like the former USSR is far from reality now. And so are the chances of any possibility of coming to an agreement on the call for autonomy that Tibetans have been pushing for decades now.
I am not a political analyst nor an expert pundit on geopolitical changes, but my gut instinct tells me that our struggle for freedom should be waged from India of all other places. As of now realizing through this sad awakening, the Tibetan issue has become a case of the leper that no one wants to touch but only sympathise with. We have had enough of world sympathy, and of countries that once supported Tibet kowtowing to China. We should take matters into our own hands now. What we need more than anything is only our own self-help.
Having said that, the era of dependency on Western help and lobbying is a farce. We need to gather support from our natural and genuine automatic half-brother in India. Through the era of leadership of Modi’s courage, we will be able to stand up against the Chinese might in unison. Tibetans are scattered like broken rosary beads all over the world, but since the thread that brings us together is based in India, it’s but natural to wage our campaigns from there.
These last two decades have transformed not just China but India too. Having grown far from their third-world stigma, and now a leader in an emerging economy, India has become a dominant player in world politics as well. Any or all help from our half-brothers, who have given us refuge along with our religion and our script, is what we should look forward to now. India ranks among the world’s top five armed forces. No matter what, China can’t bully India lest they risk an all-out war that neither would want in the real world.
Tibet has evidently been a thorny issue in China-India bilateral relations ever since His Holiness was given refuge. As of late, the diplomatic fall-out from the slippery tongue of CTA’s President that flashed out covert secretive mission by an emissary to China, inadvertently keeping India out of the loop has caused some mistrust within the Indian politburo. India has much to lose if Tibet is ever given genuine autonomy and if China reclaims all of Tibet based on the McMahon line. As of late, India’s snubbing of Tibet and the Dalai Lama’s related programmes and events is evidence of their intentional withdrawal. The only way we Tibetans can earn back India’s hitherto undeniable moral support and trust is if we vehemently change our political course and steer this sinking ship on chartered waves of reclaiming total independence that will reshape the paradigm of where we stand as refugees in the eyes of the Indian government, and where our ultimate goal lies.
It is time that the CTA should reverse its ideology and go back to its original and genuine aim of reclaiming everything we have lost, to follow the shadow of truth of Tibet being once an independent country and nothing more. The only strong answer to China is the reaffirmation of our calls for complete independence. We must send them a strong message that we are not one of their ethnic minorities, but proud Tibetans who once ruled over their subservience.
https://www.tibetsun.com/opinions/2018/04/28/time-to-save-the-sinking-ship-of-the-tibetan-cause

The Foreigners Registration Office (FRO) in Dharamsala refusing to accept Tibetan RCs (Registration Certificates) is yet another example of interference by the Central Tibetan Administration. Tibetans need this document to apply for an Indian passport. The CTA does not want to lose its grip on Tibetan refugees, as fewer refugees under their control means less foreign aid. That translates to less money that they can line their own pockets with.

This is not the first time that the CTA has created problems for Tibetans who wish to apply for Indian citizenship. Last July, the CTA ordered all its departments to stop issuing NOC (No Objection Certificates) to Tibetans applying for Indian passports, effectively sabotaging India’s goodwill of offering citizenship to eligible Tibetans. Perhaps that is a reason why many Tibetans are leaving their settlements in India, some of them even returning to Tibet! The CTA’s days as a ‘government’ are numbered, as more and more Tibetans apply for Indian citizenship or leave the CTA’s influence in India altogether.
No obstruction surrendering RC in Dehra Dun: Police
Tibet Sun Newsroom
McLEOD GANJ, India, 27 April 2018
Tibetans living in Dehra Dun can surrender their Registration Certificates (RC) to apply for their passport, according to a communication from the Office of the Superintendent of Police Dehra Dun.
Tibet Sun had learned about Tibetan complaints that the authorities were refusing to accept requests by Tibetans to surrender their RCs, required in order to apply for a passport. Seeking information about the matter, Tibet Sun filed a Right to Information (RTI) application, to which Dehra Dun Superintendent of Police Sarita Dobhal replied refuting the complaints.
The SP said in her reply that they have not refused RC surrender by those Tibetans seeking Indian passport, and they have accepted RCs from seven Tibetans so far.
Tibetans who spoke to Tibet Sun said that the authorities who actually handle the RC surrender at the Foreigners Registration Office (FRO) within the SP Office had told them to bring court orders to be able to surrender their RC.
Following a High Court of Delhi judgment asking the Government of India to issue passport to Tibetans, the Ministry of External Affairs in March 2017 has ordered all passport-issuing authorities to issue passport to those Tibetans who fulfil the requirements as in the Citizenship Act of India.
The RC surrender process has been suspended at the FRO Dharamshala. An official confirmed the same, saying the halt has been in place since two weeks, but didn’t give details as to why they have stopped the process.
He said that it is a temporary matter and that the surrender process will resume soon.
https://www.tibetsun.com/news/2018/04/27/no-obstruction-of-tibetan-rc-surrender-for-passport-dehra-dun-sp

More and more Tibetans are expressing their dissatisfaction with the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA). This even extends to accusing them of ruling without legal precedence. This is a serious matter as their management of funds, administrative procedures, and even their governing constitution are all flawed. From the simple of choice of words used for the translation of a title, the CTA have exposed the way in which they run their “nationless government” in an egotistical and self-serving manner. The CTA simply do things based on their personal agendas and needs, using the title of democracy as a cover.

Clearly, there is no system of governance for what the CTA do and how they spend the money they gain from people sympathetic to the Tibetan plight, aid from their host and donors from around the world. Since law is at the core of any administration, their underhanded tactic of finding loopholes and bending the rules to suit their individual needs has failed the Tibetan people. As an ex-Senior Fellow of Harvard Law School and a self-proclaimed expert in international human rights law, Sangay deters people’s faith in the integrity of a leader and the legal system, instead of upholding the cause of justice. After the public apology during his swearing in ceremony in 2016 and his firm pledge not to repeat his misconduct, it looks like Sangay is at it again.

The title “President” for Sikyong is not legal
By Sharchok Khukta
McLEOD GANJ, India, 14 May 2018
Since there have been many who have put forth questions regarding the usage of the title “President” in English for “Sikyong”, I will answer in one presentation for all.
It would become a long talk to give answer as regards this. Nonetheless, because, to keep the public in the dark is objected to in a democratic system, I will try to present insight that is complete and not mistaken.
Initially, the exile Tibetan Parliament had established through general consensus that the title “Sikyong” is to be used instead of “Kalon Tripa”. In connection with that a resolution was passed by the members of the 15th Tibetan Parliament-in-exile during the fourth sitting of the second session on 21 September 2012, that “Sikyong” solely is to be used in writing, as phonetically, without the need for using the translation “Political Leader”.
The first stage of this process took place with the publication in 2015 of a compilation of rules and regulations of the exile Tibetan administration by the office of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Tibetan people’s deputies, where it appears on page 181 in Appendix 8 [Zur-hzar nya], of sub-section 3 of article 66 of the electoral rules of the exile Tibetans.
Then, on 26 April 2016, the exile Tibetan administration made the announcement on its official website tibet.net that “when the term ‘sikyong’ is to be translated into English it should be written as “president”, and that has been used up to the present day.
It is the honourable Kashag which says that “it was established [formally decided] that ‘president’ is to be the term to be used,” and the honourable Kashag claim that they had decided thus on the advice of His Holiness Dalai Lama. The Kashag had cited many other reasons, but I will not refer to them at this time. Everyone knows that at that time there was much expression of displeasure regarding this from the public.
In the second stage, as regards the usage “President” there was guidance by His Holiness the Dalai Lama at the reception ceremony accorded to the high-level Representatives’ Committee of the United States, at Tsuklagkhang Temple on 10 May 2017.
The third stage is that the Kashag have, both orally and in writing, said insistently that such guidance by His Holiness the Dalai Lama was as per the provision of Article 1 of the Charter of the Tibetans in exile. I am not able to know whether His Holiness the Dalai Lama has advised thus as the intent of Article 1 of the Charter. I do not consider that to be case, because if there had been the guidance advising “President” to be appropriate for the title of Sikyong, as per Article 1, then even after 25 famous amendments to the Charter such a guidance would have a procedure of discussion in the Parliament, as in the past, a procedure that has been clearly laid out.
It has been laid out in the sub-section 1 and 2 of Article 17 of clause 6 of the rules for procedure of meeting and carrying out of works by the the deputies of the Tibetan Parliament. For example, to cite the sub-section 1: “As per the sub-section 2 of Article 1 of the charter, the Speaker, in discussion with Sikyong, is to set aside time for discussion on the suggestion of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.” But, without going through any recommendation from the Parliament or legal process, the Kashag said that the title in English as “President” has been decided on and designated as such, and they continue to use this title. As such that title has not became legal title. That is stage three.
Then, the fourth stage is that it may be assumed that the Sikyong and the Kashag continue to do so as it is known clearly only by most government service personnel, former and present, and People’s Deputies, former and present. Yet since the public do not know the details, when we put forth questions on the this issue in the Parliament it may be conjectured that it is an electoral grudge. Besides, when the honourable Sikyong also talks of it to the public by attaching it to electoral grudge, we are not able to have at the matter a valid rule by law. Instead everything is stirred here and there into dirty politics, so that eventually when there is too much dwelling on personal name and prestige, the common administration incurs losses.
If things go on like this there is the danger of the collapse of rule by law. From that point of view, for this issue to be clearly sorted out, the Secretaries of Gadhen Phodang must make it clear whether or not that guidance — as per Article 1 of the Charter — was given by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. If it was, since it would be related with the rules, the messages, advice, notice and so on be bestowed to the Parliament, and then whatever is to be established (passed as resolution) by the Parliament when implemented by all the central and regional branches of the administration, it would become concordant with the law.
So that is the issue if explained clearly.
In the end, nowadays at Gangchen Kyishong the administration relies upon one person and makes changes to the Rules; while there are able staff members in all sorts of appointments, through equal qualifications and pledges, and so on; such instances are taking place many times, not just once. In such a situation it appears that there is not sufficient supervision and watching, by the public and writers, of whether or not this Administration — set up with such effort by His Holiness the Dalai Lama — is being administered by rule of law.
I request all to put more effort and power as regarding this issue.
https://www.tibetsun.com/opinions/2018/05/14/the-title-president-for-sikyong-is-not-legal

Things are going to be very different for Tibetans in India from now on as Sino-Indian relations get warmer by the day. India has vowed to firmly adhere to the one-China policy and ensure Tibet-related issues are handled ‘properly’. This means India will tighten her grip on all Tibetan-related activities. So, the trouble-making Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) better watch themselves and not create further problems that may antagonise China. This is something India will no longer tolerate.

China, India Vow To Strengthen Ties
China and India have extensive common interests and they have far more consensus than differences, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said.
All India | Indo-Asian News Service | Updated: June 06, 2018 17:05 IST
PRETORIA: China and India working together will accelerate their common development and contribute to the progress of human civilization, Chinese State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said.
Mr Wang made the remarks on Monday in South Africa’s capital Pretoria during a meeting with Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj on the sidelines of the formal meeting of the BRICS Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Xinhua news agency reported on Wednesday.
China and India have extensive common interests and they have far more consensus than differences, Mr Wang said.
The two sides should take bilateral relations and people’s fundamental interests as a starting point at all times, properly handle problems and differences and prevent the interests of one party from affecting the overall interest, Mr Wang said.
The two sides should earnestly safeguard peace and tranquillity in the border areas in accordance with the consensus reached by their leaders and avoid taking actions that might complicate and aggravate the situation, Mr Wang said.
China and India should strengthen coordination and play a constructive role in promoting the development of BRICS cooperation, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and other multilateral mechanisms, he said.
Sushma Swaraj said the informal Wuhan meeting between the leaders of India and China enhanced mutual trust between the two countries, strengthened cooperation, made the parties more comfortable with each other and achieved unprecedented success.
She said India will firmly adhere to the one-China policy and properly handle issues involving the core interests of China such asTaiwan and Tibet-related issues.
India and China, as the two largest emerging markets and developing countries, share a common position in safeguarding the international political and economic order and promoting the improvement of global governance, the Indian Minister said.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/china-india-vow-to-strengthen-ties-1863429

The Dalai Lama has emerged as the biggest talking point during informal Sino-Indian bilateral talks during 2018, such as the Wuhan Summit. This is all due to concerns related to the Dalai Lama’s health. China wants the Dalai Lama to travel to Tibet, knowing that it would most probably be a one-way ticket. India on the other hand initiated the talks, shunning the Dalai Lama and kowtowed to China’s rising power. Their aim was to strike a deal to resolve border issues.

Why the Dalai Lama is becoming the biggest bone of contention between India and China
The real reason why Modi met Xi Jinping in Wuhan is now out.
Politics | 5-minute read | 26-06-2018
RAJEEV SHARMA
Forget the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Chinese president Xi Jinping’s dream infrastructure project to link China not only with neighbourhood but also such faraway lands as Europe and Africa.
Forget the Pakistan-based India-centric terror fountainheads such as Masood Azhar and others, a topic that has long been a bone of contention between India and China.
Forget the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), an international body where China has steadfastly opposed India’s entry.
Also forget the stapled visa issue wherein China has been short-changing India for years by denying proper visas to Indians domiciled in Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh and giving them only stapled visas while China has been giving regular visas to residents of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK), a glaring example of China taking sides in the India-Pakistan dispute at the cost of India.
Yes, these have been the biggest red rags in India-China parleys, official as well as the backchannel ones. But none of these issues have engaged the two Asian giants as much as some other issues. Any guesses? Well, the answer is the fourteenth Dalai Lama, the supreme Tibetan spiritual leader whom China has riled for decades as a “separatist”. Informatively, China has used many more disparaging words and expletives to describe the 82-year-old Dalai Lama who fled Tibet and crossed over to India 59 years ago.
The Dalai Lama has emerged as the biggest talking point in the India-China bilateral affairs through the back channels and informal parleys in 2018. The Dalai Lama was the central issue discussed between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping at their first-ever Wuhan Summit (April 27-28). In fact, it won’t be an exaggeration to say that when President Xi travelled to Wuhan to meet PM Modi for his second informal summit ever with any foreign leader outside Beijing — and both times only for PM Modi — his main talking point this time was l’affaire Dalai Lama.
Never before the issue of the Dalai Lama had come centre stage like this between India and China. Never before the Dragon and the Elephant had discussed the Dalai Lama issue at highest levels with a laser beam focus as Xi and Modi did at Wuhan for eight hours in six separate outings together.
But that’s what the Wuhan informal summit was by and large about, though, of course, all other contentious bilateral issues were discussed. The reason for such a deep focus of informal talks between Xi and Modi was because of the health concerns about the Dalai Lama.
No Indian prime minister ever discussed the Dalai Lama issue with top Chinese leadership so intensely as PM Modi has done. This is not without a pragmatic rationale.
When on February 22, 2018, foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale sent a note to cabinet secretary PK Sinha asking “senior leaders” and “government functionaries” of the Centre and states to stay away from events planned for March-end and early April by the “Tibetan leadership in India” to mark the start of 60 years in exile of the Dalai Lama, the real reason for this unprecedented move was a mystery.
But the real cause was intelligence information that the Dalai Lama is suffering from terminal-stage prostate cancer. First only New Delhi got to know of this but later on Beijing too got wind of it. That’s how the two sides came to discuss the Dalai Lama-centric issues at Wuhan.
The Modi government, which became aware of this development over a year ago, turned attention to this only in the beginning of this year as it started checking its diplomatic toolbox vis-à-vis China. A policy decision was taken at the highest levels by the Modi government in February as the fear of Doklam II started haunting it. At that time the Modi government was nearing completion of four years or 80 per cent of its tenure.
More importantly, disturbing news had started pouring from Doklam, the site of a 73-day-long standoff between Indian and Chinese militaries. On March 5, 2018, defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman informed the Lok Sabha that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China has undertaken “construction of some infrastructure, including sentry posts, trenches and helipads” near the face-off site between Indian and Chinese troops at Doklam in the Sikkim-Bhutan-Tibet tri-junction area.
Sitharaman’s reply to a question in the Lok Sabha had come after media reports that the PLA had constructed military infrastructure and helipads and deployed around 1,600 troops in north Doklam throughout the winter for the first time.
From Modi government’s perspective, time was running out to send a conciliatory message to China and prevent a Doklam II which would have been politically disastrous for it, months ahead of the general elections. It was time for some out of the box thinking. It was time for the Modi government to extend a CBM (Confidence Building Measure) which would appeal the most to China.
This was the time when the Modi government turned its attention to intelligence reports about the Dalai Lama’s health. All these inputs were enough to lead the Modi government on to an unusual diplomatic expedition vis-à-vis China and try to please the Chinese by disassociating government functionaries from the Dalai Lama’s programmes, at least for some time.
However, there is a downside for the Modi government in this episode. As the Chinese government is fully updated about the Dalai Lama’s health, it obviously means that they can see through the tactics of the Modi government!
It’s here that the wheels-within-wheels kind of diplomacy kicks in. Apparently, China wants the Dalai Lama to travel to Tibet. But will India allow it, knowing full well that it may be a one-way ticket for the Dalai Lama?
Can India take such a decision vis-à-vis the supreme Tibetan spiritual leader who has been India’s guest for last 59 years and is a major pivotal figure and a rallying point against China for the US-led Western world?
There are no answers to these questions as of now. But the drift I get is that India won’t be obliging China in this regard. Not now, not ever.
https://www.dailyo.in/politics/dalai-lama-india-china-ties-doklam-crisis-xi-jinping-narendra-modi-pok-kashmir-belt-and-road-initiative/story/1/25113.html

Here is another article that gives a bleak assessment of the situation regarding the Dalai Lama and of the Tibetan cause. It mentions clearly how Tibet is losing out to China and why. It also explains why Lobsang Sangay is feebly respected by the Tibetan diaspora. The articles does not foretell good news for the Tibetan diaspora, in fact it does not even give a possible outcome for what is going to happen to them. It shows how the Dalai Lama is losing influence over world leaders from countries like the Netherlands to the United States. Such articles are becoming increasingly common because they reflect the situation for the Tibetans in-exile and their leaders.

Has Tibet finally lost out to China?
Beijing’s pressure on world leaders to ignore Tibet is now overwhelming. Even No. 10 declares: ‘We have turned the page on the Dalai Lama’
Jonathan Mirsky
Blessings from Beijing will inform readers who know little about Tibet, and those who know a great deal will discover more. Both groups will be surprised. The newcomers especially will be disabused of any belief that Tibetans were always non-violent, deeply spiritual and unworldly.
Tibetanists and advanced students will learn that, decades after the Chinese conquest of Tibet in 1950 and the escape of the Dalai Lama in 1959, the diaspora of about 130,000 Tibetan refugees, battered by decades of Chinese oppression and ‘soft’ propaganda, is riven by confusion. Some cling to their hope that Tibet will again be sovereign and they will be able to return to their homeland.
Greg Bruno, modestly described on the book’s flyleaf as a journalist, is actually an expert on many aspects of Tibet’s history, Chinese oppression and persecution — ironically termed ‘blessings’ by the Dalai Lama — and most of all the conditions of the Tibetan diaspora and the deepening despair that rends it. ‘Many Tibetan refugees, pushed away by time, boredom, globalisation and a soft-power war with China, are moving on.’
Bruno has never visited Tibet in the many years he has been concentrating on the ‘blessings’ and the diaspora, but he has travelled around its borders and throughout the world to discover the condition of the refugees and to listen to their opinions and the judgments of their leaders, including the Dalai Lama. One of his most striking characteristics is his modesty; he never claims to know a thing about Tibet and the refugees that he has not learned first-hand. What he knows and what he suspects are kept distinct. But he sums up brilliantly: ‘The Communist party of China is the source of the Tibetan malaise; but Tibetans’ self-inflicted wounds have made China’s strategy more effective.’ From 2010, for example, Beijing blocked escape routes from Tibet except for Tibetans rich enough to fly out, and the Nepalese king denied them settlement.
Bruno tellingly describes and details China’s centuries of relations with Tibet, reaching back to the seventh, when a powerful Tibetan ruler captured a major Chinese city, forcing the emperor to present a royal princess to Lhasa as a placatory gesture. Over the years, depending on China’s power, there were sometimes Chinese officials stationed in Lhasa; but up to 1911 the Chinese emperors and the Dalai Lamas — the present one is the 14th — existed as temporal and spiritual equals. From 1911 to 1950, Tibet was essentially independent; and even after Mao took power, he treated Tibet with some respect for a time, and even negotiated with the young Dalai — whose personal account of those contacts is fascinating — before suggesting, almost off-handedly, that of course Buddhism would haveto be abolished.
Indeed, as Bruno makes plain, religion remains at the heart of Beijing’s determination to subdue and transform Tibet. For Tibetans, what makes their society and culture special and unequalled is the selection and enthronement of tulkus, ‘reincarnated’ lamas. This ceremony, with all its implications, is now being taken over by Beijing. The most spectacular example occurred in 1995, when the 10th Panchen Lama, the second most important religious figure in Tibet, died. The Dalai Lama announced that his successor was a six-year-old boy. Beijing declared this to be spurious: the boy and his family have vanished, and Beijing installed its own Panchen with full traditional religious honours. He has been declared the senior religious leader in Tibet — where Tibetans ignore him.
Of course Beijing will name its own 15th Dalai Lama when the present one dies, although he has claimed (even to me) that his doctors at Harvard predict he will live well past his 100th birthday. But although he has retired as Tibet’s leading political and religious figure, his successor, a Harvard graduate, is only feebly respected; and as Bruno painstakingly shows, many Tibetans, already in some despair, fear their struggle to exist as a special people will alter or cease when this Dalai Lama is gone.
What has changed in recent years, Bruno writes, and has so deeply undermined the confidence of Tibetans with Tibet and abroad, is the nature of China’s ‘blessings’ — which I saw in bloodthirsty force in the 1980s. Such violence — always in reserve in case of a sudden uprising in Tibetan territories, where many devout and patriotic Buddhists have burned themselves to death — is now overshadowed by the effective Chinese pressure on world leaders and poor countries either to ignore the Dalai Lama and his champions or lose economic ties with Beijing. From Norway to Washington to the Vatican the Dalai Lama can make no high-level contacts. No. 10 declares: ‘We have turned the page on the Dalai Lama.’ Blessings indeed.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/has-tibet-finally-lost-out-to-china/