An Open Letter to the Dalai Lama

Wow. This article has expressed my deep down feeling. I am a Tibetan and I really appreciate the writer, although, I don't share some of his thoughts.
In my opinion, the two biggest problem we Tibetan are facing right now are China, and Dalai Lama system(Includes all the Reincarnation Lamas and Rinpoche). I mean I don't want the world to restore Dalai Lama God king system to Tibet again. As the writer mentioned, the main reason we lost Tibet was because mixing Religion with Politics. I personally believe Tibetan can believe any religion and it is wrong to include any religion symbol or prayer...into the legislation. Our National anthem, flag,,,,, all of those praise for the control of Dalai Lama. These are the obstacles of the Democracy. I believe in Democratic world,everybody is the same; no His Holiness or Highness. Power belongs to the people.

As from the current situation and condition, Dalai Lama will not give up the power. Those so-called Democracy in Dharamsala is a big joke. They are just using the name of Democracy. They think Democracy is just a voting system, even Chinese communists vote you know?

So called Tibet Prime minister is just a puppet of the Dalai Lama. One word of Dalai Lama can change everthing. The most ridiculous thing about Tibetan exile governemnt staffs is that they still publically claim Dalai Lama is God and whatever he does is the right thing. I saw a video clip of High office of TGIE Tenzing Thakla said that. In my opinion, I don't want those Religious fanatic to rule Tibet, nor Chinese communist.
I am hoping the new Tibetan intellectual can see the problem and lead our country Tibet to a new free Tibet, not the old Tibet.

The solution for Tibet is simple but it is totally hard. I mean asking Dalai Lama to give up his power totally is out of the question. I think he is still hoping to go back to Tibet and live in the potala Palace which is a museum now.

I LOVE TIBET MORE THAN DALAI LAMA.LETS FIGHT FOR A NEW TIBET.

Tshering, I wish one can say that the Dalai Lama, Rinpoche and other Lamas should exit the picture altogether. However, many, if not most Tibetans do want them around, even though a neutral observer may say that they are as much responsible for Tibet's woes as commie China is. By the way, I had no idea that the democracy within the government-in-exile was a sham. I thought it was more substantial. My apologies for the inadequacies and inaccuracies in my article/letter, which is based almost entirely on information gleaned from the media.

What humiliation it must be when 'defender of faith' is rendered defenseless, faithless, exiled, at the sole mercies of handouts from nations that share none of its world view and want no part of it except its figure-head whom they can use to play their own geo-politics.

Does Dalai Lama even realize he has become a pawn in geo-politics of power-brokers?

What is the rationale for independence of Tibet - that because it is Buddhist, that it has divine right to Buddhist monarchy/theocracy, that Dalai Lama is a defender of faith and that scared mandate must be respected and accommodated?

Is Dalai Lama's faith that parasitic that it must ride on somebody else's shoulders to reach to its crown, that it has to rely on the powers that be from the ranks of non-believers to get to its kingdom and crown? That is a caricature of defender of faith who can't even stand on it own. And that is its main character flaw. That it can not stand on its own, defend on its own, survive on its own. Why it arose as a transcending no-god-ism duality against too-many-gods-ism but could not sustain, giving theological space to another transcending duality - one-god-ism. Ever since, it has been hailed as eastern xianity, without the powers that traditionally go with xianity.

Era usually rests with one that can create a transcending duality against an a given duality. One-God-Ism rising as a transcending duality against duality of no-god-ism vs many-gods-ism, theism rising as a transcending force against duality of humanism vs animalism, statism rising as a transcending force against duality of tribalism and despotism, secularism arising as a transcending duality against the duality of theism and statism. What has Dalai Lama, his Budhism has to offer? What gridlocks of duality his Budhism can break, transcend, in China, in the world at large? I see none. He will remain a petty political pawn.

Vinod

"Tibet's right to independence is based on its Tibetan identity and not its Buddhist identity"

Ethnic identities are dime a dozen in China, India and everywhere. In a modern nation-state era, ethnic identity alone does not accord one a right to independence. Tibetan identity has a special merit because of Dalai Lama who is regarded as a defender of Budhist faith by his followers.

Vinod Joseph

I am a Chinese and I call tell you this much:
I don't support Tibet independence but I see Tibetan as my own people (some Tibetans may get offended but so what!). What I see very often is that outside people particularly the westerners like to patronize Tibetan as though they are weak and needs protection. Your article fits that category. Some people such as yourself, just because you can read newspaper and internet blog have the nerve to give Dalai Lama a lecture on religion, Tibetan history, international politics, his success and failure, etc. It's just laughable at best but outright insulting. You need to show some respect when you put your nose into other people's business.

William Huang

Vinod Joseph

I am a Chinese and I call tell you this much:
I don't support Tibet independence but I see Tibetan as my own people (some Tibetans may get offended but so what!). What I see very often is that outside people particularly the westerners like to patronize Tibetan as though they are weak and needs protection. Your article fits that category. Some people such as yourself, just because you can read newspaper and internet blog have the nerve to give Dalai Lama a lecture on religion, Tibetan history, international politics, his success and failure, etc. It's just laughable at best but outright insulting. You need to show some respect when you put your nose into other people's business.

William Huang

William Huang, I'm glad you see Tibetans as your own people. Now we just need to get the Tibetans to see themselves as Chinese. Once we do that, this issue will be solved. I wish I had thought of this earlier!

Tibet's independent identity is without a question. We Tibetan don't need to ask independence from China(Tibet was never part of China) but we need to ask China to give our country back. They invaded Tibet, killed 1.2m people and took it.
I know it is useless to talk the talk, but one day we will get it back. It is just a matter of time. Any empire will collapse one day. Or another empire will take over it. That is the way it is.

Useful detailed information about Tibet:

http://www.skycitygallery.com/japan/tibet.htm

Guest

Thanks for the link. Very informative. Perhaps, it too presents a one-sided view, but it is always good to know both sides of the issue.

I want to clear up the misconception that the democracy within the TGIE is a sham. I am not sure what part of the world Tsering lives in - but everyone outside of occupied Tibet can feel free to voice his or her opinion. That is democracy. As Tibetans we have the right to vote for our elected representatives within the TGIE and our local and national representatives. The people who take the time to vote make can make choices. Much like the rest of the free world. If you don't vote, then don't complain about it. If you do vote and your candidate didn't win, then do your best to campaign for him or her next time. How one can compare voting within the TGIE to voting under communist rule is beyond me.

I love Tibet and His Holiness the Dalai Lama. For me personally, there can be no separation of the two. You have to ask the question, is the Dalai Lama's presence harming Tibet by being a part of it or helping it? To try and divorce His Holiness from Tibet is unacceptable to the majority of Tibetans. I am sure you are aware of that Vinod, as you mentioned in your response to Tsering. If you could take a democratic poll inside Tibet, guess whom the majority of people would vote for as their leader?

I am also Tibetan and I believe that His Holiness has created a genuine path for democracy within our community in Exile. It's not perfect, but who is ever going to be completely happy in a true democracy? Someone is always unhappy with election results. If we as Tibetans are unhappy with the current Prime Minister, then it is our moral duty to vote for someone else who we deem more capable of representing us collectively, in the next election.

I challenge Tsering to take a stand next time and vote for whom he or she believes can best take this Tibetan movement forward? Who at this critical moment in our history can best unify the majority of us (personal faiths aside)? Just how do you envision fighting for a Free Tibet without the Dalai Lama or any other Lamas? Who would you propose as a choice to unify us all strictly for political purposes? I agree we need to fight for a Free Tibet. But please remember this - United we stand Divided we fall.

Respectfully,

Tsering Dolma

To William and all Chinese who feel Tibetans are a part of them,

I believe Tibetans and Chinese can work together to find a solution to our mutual problem. I am sure we are the thorn in the psyche of the Chinese people. You say you see us a part of you. How do you really see us Tibetans? If you feel we are a part of you, then how do you feel about the double standard that exists in Tibet today? How do you feel about the fact that all the money that Beijing is pouring into Tibet's infrastructure only serves to employ Han Chinese? How do you feel about the fact that someone who is a "part of you" is treated like a second-class citizen in the place of his birth? How do you feel about the fact that speaking your mother tongue is considered secondary to speaking the language of newcomers to your area. Does being a "part of you" mean I have to give up my basic human rights? Does being a "part of you" mean I can have no freedom of speech? Does being a "part of you" mean I should feel love and solidarity with you when I am imprisoned for speaking my mind, for practicing my religion? Does being "a part of you" mean I should suffer cattle prods being used on every orifice of my body while I am being "re-educated" for not seeing things the same way you do? Does being "a part of you" mean I should lie down and let you destroy everything that is inherent in me as human being? Why do you think being "a part of you" led to the riots in March? If you really knew me, you'd know that until you stop trying to break my human spirit, until you stop trying to deny me my basic human rights, freedom of speech, religion and the dignity to live in peace next to you, then I could never truly be "a part of you". If you can think about those things, then perhaps we can find a solution to this problem of ours.
Violence never solved anything. Using intimidation and violence to sublimate a people can only serve to be a lesson in futility in the long run. What lessons did we learn from the Cultural Revolution? William if you want to make a difference to people who you say are "a part of you" - be the change that you want to see. Find a way to dialogue with us. Moving more tanks and artillery into Lhasa, Amdo and Kham is definitely not the solution. Let's have a frank discussion about what we both need as people to live together peacefully? When we cry out "Free Tibet" it is for these things we cry out for. If you really were "a part of me" then you would realize I am sick and tired after 50 long years of your attempts to "re-educate" me. If you really feel I am "a part of you", why won't you help me? Why do you continually denigrate me, physically and mentally torture me, and then turn around and call me ungrateful and even a barbarian? If it's a barbarian nature you see in me, then hold a mirror up, for you can only lead by example.
If we reacted with violence in the March riots, it was only because you taught me how violence works. We didn't learn this overnight. It was after 50 long years of being subjected to your particular brand of brutality that led us to this moment.

In peace,

Tsering Dolma
On behalf of all my brothers and sisters in Tibet - who cannot speak out for themselves.

To Tsering Dolma,
My intention for the original comment was not to participate in debate on Tibet issue. I just felt that some respect and curtsey is needed particularly to Dalai Lama. I also think Tibetan people have the right to demand for self determination but I, as individual can agree or disagree. This blog is not my place to express the view. However, I felt obligated to answer your question and it's all just my personal view. I am kind of busy and apologize for any bad grammar and punctuation.
- Yes, I agree with you that Tibetans in Tibet do not enjoy basic human rights as in western democratic countries such as US. But this is true to every Chinese in China. Even people in Hong Kong cannot vote. They couldn't vote either when British was there. Therefore, I should say that Tibetans are not treated differently than Han Chinese in this respect. For example, 1989 bloody crackdown in Tiananmen Square involves only Han Chinese. Also, there is no legalized discrimination against any minority by government.
- I can understand you point that if Tibet is independent all these Han vs. Tibetan issue is irrelevant. But look at reality, no matter who is in power in Chinese government, be democratic or communist, they cannot let Tibet to be independent. Anyone trying will be accused of treason. The reason is simple, overwhelming majority of Chinese people are against independent Tibet. Western's interference won't work either. International politics is based on reality and national interest. All countries behave the same. Human rights in Tibet is just a card for Western power to play with Chinese government and has little to do with any real interest in the well being of Chinese people, Tibetan included.
- You ask me how I think of Tibetan and I call tell you this: I see Tibetans as an ethnic minority group of Chinese, nothing more nothing less. Do I think Han Chinese are better than Tibetan? The answer is no. Is there some Han-Chinese look down on Tibetan? Of course. I'll bet you there are some Tibetans look down on Chinese too. But this is only an ugly part of human nature and it happens everyday and everywhere.
- Yes, Communist has done some terrible thing but that's all past. Even in US, a country proud of human right (all men are created equal...), just 40 years ago and in large part of country, you were not allowed to eat, sit, and go to the school at the same place as white people if the color of your skin is black. This was enforced by law and you could go to jail or killed by mob if you try. I lived in China for 25 years (came to US 27 years ago) and I had never seen any government policy or law that is directed to discriminating any minority. There is no such thing as eating and sitting area for minority. If anything minority sometimes gets preferential treatment. For example, one child policy has been enforced for almost 40 years but only apply to Han Chinese but not minorities. You can argue that the government is using this method to buy the concession from minority but this is not same thing as discriminating against minority. I have a lot of reason to believe that Tibetan people's life are much improved.
- I grant that Chinese government have done a poor job in balance the economic growth for the Tibetans but it has nothing to do with discrimination. It is just a result of incompetence not a part of scheme. Too many accusations are exaggerated. For example, there is no evidence to support that 1.2 million Tibetans killed. The author of this blog also made a claim that Han Chinese in Tibet out number Tibetan. This is obviously a lie. Some of the accusations I read are plain silly. Are these outrage claims really helping Tibetan people's cause?
- I watched a documentary by BBC titled "A year in Tibet" about two families and three monks daily lives. I am very happy to see Tibetan people's life have improved so much. As a comparison, I just visited my hometown (Shanghai) and I stopped at my high school classmate's home. I can tell you this: Tibetans shown in the documentary are living much better than my old classmate. They dress better, living in much large house, and eat better. I hope you have watched this documentary and if not I strongly recommend. I sincerely hope Tibetan issue can come to a peaceful solution.

William Huang
California, USA

Dear William Huang, please tell me, do you consider people of Myanmar (formerly Burma), Thailand and Vietnam to be Chinese minorities? Tibetans are as similar to the Chinese as the people of these countries are.

Vinod Joseph

No, I don't consider Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam to be part of Chinese minorities.

Let me use a question to answer your question differently. Do you consider Republic of Ireland a part of United Kingdom? Irish in Northern Ireland are the same (not just similar) as Irish in Republic of Ireland.

William Huang

The point I was making is that, Tibetans are as different from Han Chinese as Vietnamese, Thais and Myanmarese. If you don't consider Vietnamese, Thais and Myanmarese to be Chinese, you can't consider Tibetans to be Chinese. Do remember, Tibet was an independent country for a very long time.

The Irish are a distinct nationality. However, Northern Ireland has a protestant majority and hence it is part of the UK - the majority of the people there want to be with the UK. The republic of Ireland is largely Catholic and wants to be and is independent.

Vinod #16

That is a big piece of the puzzle - on what grounds one minority would be justified while another minority would not in seeking independence from a nation-state. Is it because of its religious or racial or ideological make-up? There are no easy answers and the fallout within a nation-state and on world stage can be far-reaching when any criteria is accepted as legitimate. Global power brokers understand the power of such minoritism/separatism and make full use of it to subdue nation-states that stand in their way. That makes nation-states very defensive and allergic to negotiations or peaceful solutions.

Vinod Joseph,

Are you saying that there is no clear answer to whether Tibetans have legitimate claim for independence?

William Huang

Tsering Dolmala
I really don't have anything to say if you agree that "Tibet is Dalai Lama."

Tsering Dolmala, please read my message clearfully. I didn't say anything that voting is unfair but I am telling people that VOTING doesn't make sense since we are deeply influnced by religion and Dalai Lama.

As for your response toward William Huang, I think you were almost approving Tibetans are Chinese by following up his "emotional cry." Stop being emotional and start being Rational.

We need to convince the world that Tibet is an independent country through political point of view not through civilian point of view. That is exactly Chinese have been doing by saying "How Tibetans lives are getting better after we take over Tibet"

I personally beleive Tibet belongs to Tibetans in Tibet.You can't say China belongs to Chinese right? Otherwise, Singapore could be called China. Race doesnt play a role as far as Citizenship is concerened.

So what is the purpose of TGIE and the Dalai Lama? I think we should never forget that we are fighting for people in Tibet. We are not fighting for Tibetan diaspora to go back and restore old Dalai Lama God system on them right?

Besides, TGIE have not done a single thing for Tibet cause. Their NON-ACTION method is just wating for others to fight. All the results that we have for these years is because hard work of ICT and SFT and Engi around the world

Also, I have a question for you. Do you beleive Dalai Lama is God?

If you do, then,that is what terrified me the most. Because we are out of touch with reality.
First Check the definition of God what it refers to. Then, think if he is a God or he is a product of "Old fuedel system" when the PRiest controls politics and ruined the europe.

Why wouldn't you want to be part of China ? are you crazy? what could you possibly accomplish in that shithole of yours,soon you'll even run out of yaks to milk.Don't you realise the indian and us govts are just fucking around with you when their real intentions are just to posture with the chinese .The chinese are building you guys roads and raliways you should make the best of this.Why, even the Taiwanese now want to be part of china.

Kela, why don't you make Kottayam a part of China? It'll fit right in!

C'mon I could write a whole blog about the virtues of Kottayam ,its the best part of India,its like the ass of a really hot looking lady..you wouldnt want to give that up

Vinod,on second thoughts yours is a good idea,maybe the chinese can instill some work ethic among the mallus.For a moment i was overcome by nostalgia thinking about all those beautiful coconut and rubber trees but i'm a practical fellow and moreover almost 90% of the kottayamites have already left the place and live outside.Besides i'll also get to eat Peking duck

ok i understand what you mean by fitting right in lol we're the guys winning you all the medals in athletics innit

Vinod Joseph,

I have some questions for you:

1) Isn't true that the Queen of England is both the head of state and also the head of Church of England? Doesn't that make England a theocracy? If this is the case is that okay with you that Dalai Lama can be both the head of religion and the head of government-in-exile?

2) Are majority of protestant in Northern Ireland Irish or non-Irish? If non-Irish are majority, would Irish in Northern Ireland be considered a minority of British people? Is it okay for you say that Irish are British?

3) Your justification for the British occupation in Northern Land is that majority in Northern Land wants to be part of UK. If this is a acceptable justification and according to you, majority of people in Tibet in are Han Chinese, then why you have a problem with Tibet being a part of China?

William Huang

Merriam-Webster defines a theocracy as "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided"

The Queen of England is the nominal head of the UK and of the Church of England, but has no real powers whatsoever in either domain. The Dalai Lama on the other hand used to rule Tibet. If the Dalai Lama were to be merely a nominal head of an independent Tibet with no say in governance, Tibet would not be a theocracy.

Protestants in Northern Ireland are as much Irish as the Catholics there. All the Irish in Northern Ireland are British-Irish, though some Catholics wouldn't want to be British. Transplanting Han Chinese in Tibet and citing their support for keeping Tibet within China is not a good analogy.

Vinod Joseph #26,

1) If Queen of England is not considered divinely guided, then who has chosen her to be the Queen of England? Are you saying she is elected?

2) The President of United State George Bush is well known his practice of divine guidance on all major decisions. Are you saying that US is a theocracy?

3) Dalai Lam is not ruling Tibet today. So you really cannot accuse him of practicing theocracy. If there is a democrat election process for Tibetans in exile, can Dalai Lama run for office? If yes and he wins, is that still theocracy?

4) If you can call Irish in Northern Ireland British-Irish, is it okay for me to call Tibetan in China "Tibetan-Chinese"?

5) It is my understanding that majority of Irish are Catholics while majority of Protestant are non-Irish. In other words, majority of people today in Northern Ireland are NOT Irish. Won't you agree that these English, Scottish, etc. were transplanted by British government? So why this okay for British but not okay with Chinese?

William Huang

William Huang, if you read English history, you will find that the Church of England was created by Henry the VIII for a very selfish reason - so that he could get a divorce and marry his lover. This makes the British sovereign the nominal Head of the Church. The real head of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is also the symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

The US is a secular country. Even secular countries can have religious leaders. It does not make them a theocracy. A state becomes a theocracy when it has an official state religion. Tibet, when it was independent, was officially Buddhist and that made it a theocracy. If after Tibet wins independence the Dalai Lama wins an election and becomes its ruler, independent Tibet will not be a theocracy, unless Buddhism is made the state religion. However, since the Dalai Lama is the Head of Buddhists worldwide, even if Buddhism is not the state religion, Tibet will have shades of theocracy. If Rowan Williams, the current the Archbishop of Canterbury, wins an election to be the British Prime minister, the UK will become a tad theocratic, even if it is officially secular.

The Tibetan Government in Exile is not a proper government. There is no point in trying to label it as theocratic or otherwise.

The British government did at one point (1600s) plant Protestants to Ireland. No one says those actions were justified. That was a period when slavery was legal and colonisation was an honourable thing to do. Despite planting Protestants in Ireland, the British ended up giving independence to Ireland, retaining only the Protestant majority areas. Is that what you want to recommend in this day and age? Do what the British did 400 years ago and later make Han majority areas a part of China? If you do that, would you agree that Tibetan majority areas should be independent?

Vinod Joseph #28,

Appreciate you take time to respond my questions.

Before I answer your questions specifically, I must tell you that I have little problem in discussion the issue with you. The problem is your inconsistency in logic, concepts and arguments. Below are two examples:

1) You asked me if I consider Vietnamese as a Chinese minority. This was a fair question and my answer is a directly "No". In your next comment which I cut and paste here:

"The point I was making is that, Tibetans are as different from Han Chinese as Vietnamese, Thais and Myanmarese. If you don't consider Vietnamese, Thais and Myanmarese to be Chinese, you can't consider Tibetans to be Chinese...."

You have broken the basic rule of logic. In your first sentence, you insert a new concept "Han Chinese" and then in you discard it in your second sentence. Don't you agree there is problem here?

Let's say it's a typo, your first sentence still have problem (I think you are aware of that) because the concept of Chinese consists of Han, Manchurian, Hui, etc. (I leave out Tibet for now). So if you remove the word "Han", your logic is equivalent to the following: since vegetable (Vietnamese) is not fruit (Chinese), therefore, apple (Tibetan) is not a fruit. Does it make sense to you?

BY the way, the English word "Chinese" spelled as C-H-I-N-E-S-E has no direct translation in Chinese language. In Mandarin, we call ourselves in literally term, "person of Central Kingdom". The name of country in Chinese (the language) literary means "Central Kingdom". There is no word "Han" is used. We only used it only to distinguish from other minorities.

2) Let me give you more room. Say Chinese only applies to Han Chinese and you statement would have simplified to: "Since you don't say Vietnamese is a Chinese minority therefore you cannot say that Tibetan is a Chinese minority because the ethnicity difference is as much". This statement means you apply a rule (or the criteria for independence) that the legality of the independence is based on the ethnicity difference (let me know if you think I interpreted wrong). In other words, you mean that a country's sovereignty should be based on ethnicity and therefore Chinese has no right to claim Tibet being part of China ( I left out the issue of Tibet being independent for long time out because the same applies to Northern Ireland).

If this rule is the international justice and fairness won't you agree that it should apply to every country? When I ask you about British occupation in Northern Ireland, you first agree that Irish is a distinctive nationality but then without any explanation you insert a religious reason for justification. Religious and ethnicity are two complete different concepts. You think it's fair that you hold one rule for China but a complete different rule for Britain?

In my opinion, you did it because it was convenient for you not because China violated some principle that you hold dearly and you know that if the same rule applies, the British occupation in Northern Ireland is unjustified.

3) The same problem goes to theocracy. England does have the characteristic of theocracy (I will explain later) and this is a commonly acknowledged view. My problem is the same here again. You are holding two sets of rule. One for Tibetan and one for English, and you don't have a compelling argument at all. You want to deny that fact but you have not provided solid evidence.

You first introduce a concept of "nominal head" (I assume you read from somewhere) and then you citing Henry VIII marriage. I don't see any logic connection here. Henry VIII's marriage may have been the initial motive for him to create the Church of England and himself to be the head of church but the motive itself does not change the fact that he created a theocracy. Let me use a simple example here: One couple married because they are in love while another couple for money. However the difference is, it does not change the fact that both couples are married. One is no less married than another. You see my problem here?

If you have written an open letter to, say Queen of England, and recommending her to resign as the head of Church of England. It would buy your argument but you didn't.

Now back to your comments:

A) I agree that for all practical purposes, British monarch has little or no power. However, it does not mean that the form of theocracy is demolished. It is still there. It's like you have car but engine broke down, yes for all practical purposes, you don't have a car. But once you fixed it, you do why the physical car is still there.

For the most part Britain is secular. Part of reason is restriction on monarch power but part is not. It is because but the power of government in general around the world (China included) is reduced due globalization. However, should world turning into isolation and national mood shifts towards control and restriction, there is no saying that King or Queen cannot exercising their both secular and religious power.

This is very different from true democratic system like France, United States and many others where there is no single form of theocracy existed not in any form or shape. Zero. But in England, Bishops of Church of England sits in House of Lords as "Lords Spiritual" while other religious clergymen are excluded. This is by definition an official state religion. By your own definition, it's a theocracy.

B) You say that Dalai Lama is the Head of Buddhists worldwide. This is not correct. Dalai Lama is not even the Head of Buddhists Tibetan-wide (however, he is the secular head). I suggest you research into it. If Dalai Lama wins election, Tibet won't necessary turn into theocracy even the Buddhists is the official state religion. This is not same as in England where king and queen who get their position by birth.

You may not like the incarnation process practiced by Tibetan Buddhists to select next Dalai Lama but it is a selection amongst a group of people and selected by a group of people within a written, strict rules. There is no direct relationship between the current Dalai Lama and his predecessor (Tibetans' believe differently is beside the point).

In other words, he was chosen, not by birth but by a "merit" system to ensure the capable person is to rule country. A group of boy at his age had equal chance. We can debate the merit of this "merit" system but it's more democratic and less religious than the English system. If the next Dalai Lama is selected by the same process, we don't know who will get to that position and Dalai Lama's has no personal gain out of that process. How do you choose next king of England? What's the selection process? What is the contribution that Prince Charles has contributed to British people for him to be the next king of England? Tabloid news? Why don't you write an open letter to him?

C) For your last paragraph, I cut paste it here:

The British government did at one point (1600s) plant Protestants to Ireland. No one says those actions were justified. That was a period when slavery was legal and colonisation was an honourable thing to do. Despite planting Protestants in Ireland, the British ended up giving independence to Ireland, retaining only the Protestant majority areas. Is that what you want to recommend in this day and age? Do what the British did 400 years ago and later make Han majority areas a part of China? If you do that, would you agree that Tibetan majority areas should be independent?

a. I have the same problem as I stated above. You apply religious classification as the criteria to Northern Ireland but ethnicity classification to Tibet. Please let me know which one is which and I can answer your question. Please let's agree that whatever the rule or rules you want to apply, it should be applied to both China and Britain.

b. I am not recommending any of the practice as you stated above nor that it is happened in Tibet. I am only trying to point out the contradiction in your argument. Your point is that the reason Northern Ireland is part of UK because majority of the people (protestant) want to be part of UK. My problem is that since you stated in the open letter that Han Chinese out number Tibetans (which is a lie) in Tibet then why its' okay for Britain not China. You then throw in another argument that the Han Chinese was transplanted. My point is that British government did exactly the same. Now you say it happens 400 years ago. Are you saying that it happened 400 years ago so you should keep it? If I tell you that 400 years ago Tibet was part of China, then it's okay with you?

c. Let me ask you a simple question: How do you know that Han Chinese out number Tibetans in Tibet? Where is your source of reference? Or you just made it up?

d. Now let me answer your question directly. I don't think Tibet should be independent regardless whether majority in Tibet is Tibetan or not.

D) It was not my intention to use this blog to express my view on general Tibet issues and I hope we can end this debate and move on. I let you have the final word unless you insist you should answer it. However, I do have following suggestions:

1) If you feel strongly about something and it's personal, a closed private letter to Dalai Lama should do.

2) You need to do some homework before you make a claim on a fact. Even reputable news organizations make up stories sometimes never mind website.

3) Your line of reasoning and logic is problematic. This is fatal if you want to draw correct conclusion. No matter how good your fact is if your logic and reasoning is incorrect it will lead you to the wrong conclusion.

4) Likewise, if your fact is wrong, no matter how good your logic is, you will draw the wrong conclusion again. If you have both wrong (which is your case), it can be anything. You will end up with most conclusions wrong and even you do manage to get a right one it will be because of wrong reason.

5) I understand that you want to help but your open letter in my opinion because of its poor quality, did just the reverse. Also next time, try to be little bit more respectful.

William Huang

William Huang #29, please we go any further, can you please clarify what you mean by your concluding statement - "Also next time, try to be little bit more respectful." You said something similar # 5 - "You need to show some respect when you put your nose into other people's business." Are you saying I am not respectful towards China? May be you saying that the mere act of commenting on Tibet is a sign of disrespect towards China and the Chinese. If so, I can't help it William. I mean no disrespect to anyone. I admire China for all that it has achieved in the last 20 years, but as a blogger on the internet, I have the freedom to comment on any topic and criticize anyone I like. This right is not available to everyone everywhere, but I have this right and freedom and intend to use it as I please!

At # 13, you said "I just felt that some respect and curtsey is needed particularly to Dalai Lama." That's bit rich, William, coming from you. If you want the Dalai Lama to be respected, please do put in a word with your government. I don't think I have been disrespectful to the Dalai Lama. I haven't praised him to the skies, but I have not been disrespectful either.

I'm not sure why you keep harping on the theocracy issue. It's hardly relevant at this stage whether the Tibetan Government in Exile is theocratic or if the UK is theocratic. I am sure you are familiar with the colour grey, in addition to black and white. The UK may have a tinge of theocracy, but it hardly has any impact on people living here, I assure you. Also, I'd be very happy even if Tibet once again becomes a theocracy after it gets independence, provided it gets its independence.

Vinod Joseph #30

I apologize. I'll try to be more careful for what I say. So let me reply some of your questions and answers below line by line (I hope it's better this time):

(1)
V: Are you saying I am not respectful towards China?
W: No, you are not disrespectful to China. I meant to Dalai Lama.
(2)
V: I have the freedom to comment on any topic and criticize anyone I like. This right is not available to everyone everywhere, but I have this right and freedom and intend to use it as I please!

W: I agree.

(3)
V: At # 13, you said "I just felt that some respect and curtsey is needed particularly to Dalai Lama." That's bit rich, William, coming from you.

W: Why? Because I am Chinese?

(4)
V: If you want the Dalai Lama to be respected, please do put in a word with your government.

W: Disagree with Dalai Lama does not equal to disrespectful. Likewise, my respect for Dalai Lama does not mean I support every decision he makes. Even some Tibetans disagree with him.

However, I do support his decision not to seeking independence and non-violence. At the same time, I don't support every decision Chinese government made. For example, ban on Dalai Lama's picture in Tibet is a violation of basic human right.

(5)
V: I don't think I have been disrespectful to the Dalai Lama.

W: I disagree. My explanation is mixed in following paragraphs.

(6)
V: I'm not sure why you keep harping on the theocracy issue. It's hardly relevant at this stage whether the Tibetan Government in Exile is theocratic or if the UK is theocratic.

W: You brought theocracy issue to Dalai Lama in the open letter not me. I cut and paste here:

"Your Holiness, I believe that the head of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile must not be the Dalai Lama. It must be headed by a secular individual. If you are to head this Government-in-Exile, it becomes a theocracy and there is no place in the modern world for a theocracy."

It would be okay with me if you have take the considerations to: the special circumstances the Tibetans in exile are in, the long way they have come because of the past, their need for leadership, the importance of Dalai Lama being in that position, his wisdom, knowledge, and experience to make key decisions, etc. Do you have any secular candidate in mind to take over the position? If yes, have you considered what consequence would have been to Tibetans in exile?

No, you don't think for a second, you have provided no thoughtful analysis, pros and cons, etc. You just can't stand theocracy in this modern world (well, except England). So you want to get rid of it first.

You basically ask Dalai Lama (man-to-man) to resign as a head of government in exile with no good reason. This is not respectful and that's what bothers me. More than that, you talked like you are in equal term with him when comes to Tibetan government in exile affairs. You treated him as though he just coming out of a time-machine from two centuries ago and you kindly pointed out to him that theocracy is out of date by now. I can assure you when it comes to religion, history, politics, governing, and diplomacy, Dalai Lama knows more than you will ever know.

I dare you to write similar open letter to the Queen of England. Remember, you do have the freedom to speak.

Now, why I keep bring up the problem with UK? Just as they said: you have to clean up your own backyard first before you complain about your neighbor's lawn.

(7)
V: I am sure you are familiar with the colour grey, in addition to black and white. The UK may have a tinge of theocracy, but it hardly has any impact on people living here, I assure you.

W: I believe you but I am little bit curious: if it hardly has any impact on people living there, why don't you guys just abolish the whole monarch? It would have saved millions if no billions of tax payers' hard earned money each year considering the world economy is in crisis right now.

(8)
V: Also, I'd be very happy even if Tibet once again becomes a theocracy after it gets independence, provided it gets its independence.

W: I will be very happy too if Northern Ireland is reunited with the Republic of Ireland.

William Huang

One point: the current economic crisis, if anything, has strengthened the Chinese and weakened the Free Tibet cause. The recent recognition of the full Chinese sovereignty over Tibet by the UK is a good indication of things to come. With many Western backer crippled by the current economic turmoil and China so flush with money, Tibet is being pushed even further down the list of issues. USA, UK, and others are realists. They can live without Tibet, but they cannot live without China. I think it is time for the Dalai Lama and free Tibet supporters to realize that.

One point: the current economic crisis, if anything, has strengthened the Chinese and weakened the Free Tibet cause. The recent recognition of the full Chinese sovereignty over Tibet by the UK is a good indication of things to come. With many Western backer crippled by the current economic turmoil and China so flush with money, Tibet is being pushed even further down the list of issues. USA, UK, and others are realists. They can live without Tibet, but they cannot live without China. I think it is time for the Dalai Lama and free Tibet supporters to realize that.

I have to say that any rational discussion on Tibet issue is good until Chinese or Tibetan join in because their hostility overcomes their rationality. I hail Vinod Joseph. Too bad he will be hated by both side, even though he sees the reality.

The last 50 years of Tibet is such a black joke. On Tibet side, Dalai Lama could not figure out when and where Chinese started to invade his country - remember his government changed the date of invasion from 1959 to 1949 - otherwise,the invasion of Tibet would have been launched from Tibetan land. Besides, with all the honors, blessing or even all the adulation the Western World could offer, what he can do is only keep getting more honors, blessing and adulation.

On Chinese side, with a population over 1.3 billion, after 50 years, they still leave Tibetan the majority in Tibet. How long did it take American to flood California once they acquired it? And how many people did they need to achieve that? Just Sichuan province itself has a population which is over 30 times that of Tibet. And yet, Chinese still seems to have difficulty to populate their own land.

Conclusion:
Tibetans are the dumbest freedom fighters ever, whereas Chinese are the dumbest colonizers ever.

Vespasianvs - "How long did it take American to flood California once they acquired it?"

It didn't stop at just flooding California, it also went hand-in-hand with mass-scale murders of native populations (some to the point of extermination).

The same happened in S America, and also in their own backyard in Europe (where both Jews and gypsies of Indian descent were murdered by whites there en masse).

Isn't it ironical that the whites always seem to take the moral high ground when it comes to human rights these days?

Ledzius,

You are right.
I just feel puzzled that American Whites could flood almost every corner of their huge land with a much smaller population, while being a human-right-chanting and love-giving democracy, whereas Chinese, with a way much larger population, while being a ruthless, blood-sucking and genocidal Fascist autocracy, cannot digest a much smaller land of Tibet. It is very obvious that Chinese are much a dumber nation than American. I also noticed, from the very DAY ONE they acquired Tibet, their propaganda machines started indoctrinating their people with the idea that Chinese and Tibetan are in deep fraternal love. American white also chant the fraternal love between all their ethnics, but they were smart enough to only do that after they relocated Native Indians and educated the Blacks so that most of them could rap only in English. Most Chinese, even nowadays, still believe Tibet is nothing more than a beautiful place to tour. "Are they dumb or stupid?"

Russians, Brits and Spaniards, in the bottom of their hearts, are laughing their pants off at Chinese handling of Tibet. If they had a population of 1.3 billion, they would have kept their empires or let no parts disintegrate without their aboriginal minoritized.

If Chinese has learnt how, with a much smaller population, Russian rule his gigantic lands, Brits created US, Canada and Australia, and Spanish & Portuguese created the Latin America, they would have the case of Tibet done and sealed long time ago.

From Wikipedia, Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, "16% of the population are immigrants, including 30,000 Bangladeshi and Chakma expatriates, and migrants from other parts of India, notably Assam and Nagaland." I guess Dalai Lama must call them people who ENRICH Tibetan culture then. If so, I wish he could say the same to Han Chinese who are just around 3% in Tibet province (many of whom don't even have the Certificate for Permanent residence) and at least keep saying that until they reach 16%. If they go over 16%, he can then go ahead and call them "diluting Tibetan Culture".

... even though, I don't know how 16%(say if one day Chinese reaches 16%) could dilute the other 84%...I don't know what is difference between "condensed" Tibetan culture and the "diluted" one. If "diluted" means "speaking a second language" and "abandoning traditional culture", then no culture in this world is not "diluted".

Besides, if you review the people in history who said they wanted the culture of their nation to be "Pure and Even Purer", you will find they were not very decent ones.

Bo#32 - Tibet has never had Western government backers. These governments are now weaker, but then governments all over the capitalist world (including China) are weaker. Tibet has received backing from individuals in the Western world. The Dalai Lama and his supports wrote off the possibility of getting independence many decades ago. They have only been asking for greater autonomy.

Vespasianvs # 34 and Ledzius# 35, It should be remembered that Tibet is not as hospitable a place as California. Oxygen starved and unsuitable for cultivation, it cannot support a very large population, except in some of the main population centres. Till a couple of years ago, the only way to get there from mainland China was to fly. Now there is a railway line that goes all the way to Lhasa. There have been various media reports that the number of Han Chinese in Tibet exceeds the number of Tibetans. Here are a few:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/07/01/westerners_protest_beijing_tibet_rail/

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/09/16/tibet.go.west/index.html

It should be stated that China has never claimed Tibet is its colony, though they do treat it as one. They have never claimed that Tibetans are savages to be exterminated/cilivised/hidden away (as the Europeans did in Australia or the Americas), though they have always considered the Tibetans to be very backward and feudal (with some justification) . If the Tibetans are willing to give up their identity as Tibetans (forget Tibetan, speak Mandarin, forget the Dalai Lama) they can (and many do) live in peace and relative prosperity in Tibet.

Vespasianvs #34

Few points for you:

1) Dalai Lama's government never changed date on 1949 and 1959. They are referring to two different events. The problem is your reading. I suggest you go read it again or ask someone who can help you to understand.

2) You are little too harsh on Americans. If it wasn't for them, India would still be ruled by Britain and Indian people would still be the second class citizen to British. If you study history of WWII, you will find out. At the crucial moment, when British were desperate for the battleships and weapons from America, the US government made them to sign an agreement (with a time table!) giving up all the colonies after the war. President Franklin Roosevelt was then able to use this agreement to convince US Congress to allocate found, and arm production/transportation for Britain. That agreement spelled the collapse of British Empire and Winston Churchill never forgave US for this. Today, the credit all goes to Mohammed Gandhi but it's just all show not because this nonviolent movement has any magic to it. At the best of my knowledge, India never expressed the gratitude.

3) You are also little too harsh on Tibetans. Tibetans have made India look good on few occasions. For example, Tenzing Norgay is a Tibetan and the one of the first (with Edmund Hillary) reached the top of Mont Everest. Because he was on paper an Indian resident and also, India never had anything to show for in sports (unfortunately even today), hailed him a national hero. It was major boost on India's national self-esteem.

William Huang

Thanks, William and Joseph. You post very knowledgeable replies.

My comment on the date of invasion was wrong. But it is true that the date of invasion was fixed as 1949 in 1980s. Before that, there are various version depending on how Dalai Lama thought there boundary of his kingdom was.

William, you are also too harsh on Brits. Briton abolished slavery before American and supported North during American Civil War.

India cannot overtly support Tibetan Independence because of the worry that Chinese might in return support Muslim Separatists in North India. Anyway, Dalai Lama's peaceful generosity of giving India Arunachal Pradesh should win him a second Nobel Peace Price.

Han Chinese certainly outnumber Tibetan if you count in almost 1/3 of Sichuan province which is currently the third most populous province of China, over 80 million. When Tibetan-in-exile talks about Tibet, they always think beyond the boundaries.

Vinod, after reading your last sentence, I just want to ask: do you think Tibet is issue about that people should find a way to live together or somebody should just get out?

One more point for Vinod,

Tibet cannot support a large population is mainly because of its backwardness, instead of its environment. Tibet is actually very suitable for cultivation because of its long and cloudless Sunshine and abundant water resource (plus, I think most plants don't care about thin oxygen. Check how photosynthesis works) The only problem is just Tibetan are never so adept in agriculture and irrigation projects as Chinese. Besides, Tibet still have very high birth fatality because of its bad medical condition and hash tradition of mistreating pregnant women - Tibetan women traditionally are supposed to full-load the days just before and just after giving birth. A tough beauty it might seem as, but it does kill a lot women along with their Child. Han Chinese woman on the other hand knows to at least know to ask a month off work for giving birth.

Although it requires a certain level of health and amount of time to adapt to the thin air, once the infrastructure in Tibet is developed, it will be quite a pleasant place to live, especially for Han Chinese who are escaping from their over-crowded homelands and are proved to have the enormous ability to "eat bitterness".

William and Vinod, do you think the influx of Han Chinese create more jobs for Tibetans or deprive more jobs from them?

One more point for Vinod,

Tibet cannot support a large population is mainly because of its backwardness, instead of its environment. Tibet is actually very suitable for cultivation because of its long and cloudless Sunshine and abundant water resource (plus, I think most plants don't care about thin oxygen. Check how photosynthesis works) The only problem is just Tibetan are never so adept in agriculture and irrigation projects as Chinese. Besides, Tibet still have very high birth fatality because of its bad medical condition and hash tradition of mistreating pregnant women - Tibetan women traditionally are supposed to full-load the days just before and just after giving birth. A tough beauty it might seem as, but it does kill a lot women along with their Child. Han Chinese woman on the other hand knows to at least know to ask a month off work for giving birth.

Although it requires a certain level of health and amount of time to adapt to the thin air, once the infrastructure in Tibet is developed, it will be quite a pleasant place to live, especially for Han Chinese who are escaping from their over-crowded homelands and are proved to have the enormous ability to "eat bitterness".

William and Vinod, do you think the influx of Han Chinese creates more jobs for Tibetans or deprives more jobs from them?

Sorry for the typos

Tibetan women are traditionally supposed to work full-load the days just before and just after giving birth. A tough beauty it might seem as, but it does kill a lot women along with their children.

Hi Vinod, I wish Dalai Lama could see your letter. The King needs to know he is not wearing his clothes.(He has been lost in Hollywood) I think Dalai Lama should resign from politics totally and so called TGIE(Mostly run by Aristocrats and Rinpochays) should be dismissed.

Tibetans need to pick a new leader who is willing to take action(non-violence or violence) and lead our newer generation. Otherwise, there will be no hope forever. Dalai Lama's non-violence is bogus "Begging for help" Otherwise, all the Beggars have become rich.

It is time for Tibetan to fight back. We should work close with Taiwanese, East Turkishtan, India, Bhutan, Mongolia(Mongolian people really hate China) and Chinese who are eager for democratic China.

Vinod Thank you so much for your effort.
Shukriya.
Tsering

Dear Vinod, Kela and others
I want to remind you that this is Desi Critics commenting about Indian affairs ( I hope so, that makes sense) why the hell bother about Tibet and China when we have so many unsettled issues in our own country, atleast that will be useful for us????

#44 Tsering,

It is a great idea to form a coalition against Chinese. I remember Dalai Lama actually demanded the independence for Uygur, Mongolian and Tibetan altogether in 1989. I don't know why he later abandoned this promising way.

William Huang # 39, yes the Americans did put pressure on the British to leave India, but I don't that was the main reason for the British leaving. They had had enough of India and anyway didn't have the manpower after two world wars to hold India.

I've never heard of a Mohammed Gandhi. Who's he?

Tenzing Norgay is a Sherpa from Nepal. Sherpas have traditionally worked as porters and have helped mountaineers climb the Himalayas.

Vespasianvs#40, I would never ask any community to compromise on their culture and identity for the sake of economic growth. Chinese rule has made Tibet more prosperous. If the Tibetans give up their culture and turn 'Chinese' they will be able to live in peace. However, I would never ask or expect the Tibetans to do that.

Tsering #44, I agree and empathise with you. The Dalai Lama is an admirable man, but Tibetans need someone else at the helm. Unfortunately, most Tibetans can't live without the Lamas or the Rinpoche, though they are part of the Tibetan problem.

GB #45, Life would be very boring if we talked only about India.

Vinod Joseph #38.

You are one of the very few people have the knowledge to point out Tibet climate and living condition. People who never lived in high attitude have hard time to live there for sustained period of time. Tibetans biological compositions are much better suited for that. So the question is what's the attraction for Han Chinese migrating there?

I checked your source on two websites (CNN and Boston Goble). CNN article has no reference at all. It is written by a journalist and it's not a reference for statistics. The second article does reference to a source but it comes from Samdhog Rinpoche, the Prime Minister of Tibetan government in-exile. Well, I am not sure you can call it a reliable source either.

Let me give you a example, Patrick French who was the direct of Free Tibet Campaign in London went to Dharamsala where the government is located for research on his book about Tibet. He wants to check the accuracy of the number on so called 1.2 million Tibetan killed for past 50 years. Because his records as free Tibet supporter, the government in exile let him see the evidence, guess what he found, many data are bogus and he couldn't even have an idea what actual number should be let alone 1.2 million. However, Dalai Lama himself used this number in his Noble Peace Prize acceptance speech. I can understand that they need to exaggerate the number to get support but you can't use it in any meaningful discussion.

Vespasianvs #42

First point, I agree that in China, Han Chinese out number Tibetan. My problem is the statement that Han Chinese output number Tibetan in Tibet. This is such a far fetch the claim that it has no bases at all.

To answer your question, I don't think the influx of Han Chinese creates more jobs for Tibetans not deprives from them. The influx of Han Chinese can be divided into two kinds:

1) Professionals sent by government - These jobs are what Tibetans essentially need but cannot be filled by Tibetans alone. For example, teachers/professors, doctors, and engineers. Most of them are under government contracts for typical of 3-5 years period with higher pay than their hometown. These people usually compete their term and leave Tibet.

2) Entrepreneurs - These people went there to start business. A new frontier for them. Many of them lost their job in their home places (majority of them from Sichuan province). Some don't make it. Those who made it are in small business. Because they are desperate and can speak Mandarin (to get trade from other part of China), they become successful in metropolitan area like Lhasa. However, there is still some restrictions apply to migrants in Lhasa. For example, Taxi driver license is only issued to local Tibetan and Han Chinese are not allowed. You can still see some Han Chinese driving cars and carry passengers but it's illegal and they often got caught and fined.

Workers migration happens everywhere. There is a huge influx of India software engineers into US and created resentment too. But nobody accuses US government committing culture genocide. Moscow for example, has high number of influx of Chinese workers too, particularly the construction workers because the lack of skill pool. No body is accusing Russian government either.

The western world is in a state of low self-esteem troubled by terrorist attack, Iraq war, bad economy, etc. They are in need for some moral boost. So this China, the villain, Tibet, the victim is a good story to tell by the media. Everybody is blood thirsty for the sensation. More outrageous the news, better they fell so they can march on the street to vent their angers. Fighting for human rights is boring let's go for the big one and get independence.They are more aimed at "Vilain" and have little interest in the "victim". They just want to see China gets screwed even it means Tibetan gets screwed in the process. You can see the sentiment as expressed in the last sentence of Vinod #30.

It's really not so much of International support for free Tibet but more of let's get together and bashing China. Japan went through the same thing in 1980's. It was called Japan bashing. Not that Japanese did anything wrong, they are just being successful but not having blond hair and blue eye. So every thing Japanese did were criticized again and again, the war crime, the way they treat their women, the unfair competition, the price dumping scheme, the industrial espionage, etc.

But something happend on the day of 2008 Olympic opening ceremony, the Western governments wake up and realize that they didn't screw anybody but they got screwed. That day, Georgia and Russia had a war over South Ossetia. Now Russia supports South Ossetia and Abkhazia independence. That is a big bear choke on the European's oil supply. Note that 40% of the West Europe oil import is coming from former Soviet Union countries including Russia.

Western has to support Georgia in order to push back Russia. So suddenly, country sovereignty is a sacred thing and has to be protected at all cost. So here goes the Britain's recognition of China's sovereignty over Tibet two weeks ago. It has nothing to do with economic relationship with China.

Today, the world is still dominance by the Western power (US, UK, Germany, and France) but it is threatened by the new raising power. The leaders are Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC). These four countries have developed close relationship and intend to be equal to the western power. They are all formidable countries with growing economy. They all have very large territory, rich in natural resources and raw materials. They are self-sufficient and have huge population. China and Russia used to have territorial dispute but they worked out a permanent deal few years ago. That's why India government is also working closely with China to work out the deal but it will take time.

No Chinese government, democratic or not, will ever let the Tibet independence to happen. Just look at what happened in Soviet Union, you let one go, then everybody wants to go. Russian never recovered from that. If US didn't fight Civil War for the unity, US won't be the superpower as we know today. Chinese leadership knows too well the history.

Dalai Lama knows too. He knows he will never get the independence so he is asking for Autonomy. The Chinese government actually never changed their position. It is always about Dalai Lama, the person and never was about the Tibetan government in exile. Even in July talk, Chinese government actually proposed a symbolic position for Dalai Lama in Beijing and he rejected. His problem is these people in exile particularly, those who left Tibet with him. The Chinese government will never give these guys any real government position.

For this I have very high respect for him because he is not trying to just take care of himself. I think he is caught up between the rock and hard place and he is sick of people trying to tell him what to do. I have no doubt that he knows what's going on in Georgia and what these development means to him and his government. I think that's why he is very frustrated.

Tibet independence is a pipedream not a reality. It has always been this way. China has taken control on Tibet for over 50 years by now and what has changed to make it possible toiday? If anything it's only less likely. I don't understand why some Tibetans don't see that. The sad part is that they are not helping themselves let alone people in Tibet. To use violence is like throwing an egg to a rock.

I think they made it too much a big deal out of it. Many of them are not born in Tibet and living in a refuge life. Some of them are confusing citizenship with ethnic pride. They believe if they tell enough sad stories, somehow the world will make their dream come true.

The world doesn't work this way. Innocent people die everyday for no good reason and most people don't care at all. Just look at Iraq war, how many innocent women and children killed and how many severely injured by their "liberators"? And for what? What they have done to anybody? They were just being at the wrong place and wrong time. Who speak for them and fight for their justice?

William Huang

William, you ask a very pertinent question when you say:

"People who never lived in high attitude have hard time to live there for sustained period of time. Tibetans biological compositions are much better suited for that. So the question is what's the attraction for Han Chinese migrating there?"

The answer is, there isn't much attraction to migrate to Tibet. A few professionals go there willingly since they are paid more than what they would make in China. A few businessmen who have gone broke in China go there to try their luck. Otherwise, Tibet is not exactly the sort of place immigrants flock to. Which is why the Chinese government has not been able to swamp Tibet with Han Chinese as much as it would like to. There are news reports that with a lot of effort, the Chinese goverment has managed to relocate enough Han Chinese in Tibet to outnumber the Tibetans. I believe these reports are true, but in the absence of easy access to Tibet, it is not possible to produce real proof.

I agree that there are many people in the West out to find fault with China and, to a lesser extent, with India. This however does not mean that there are no faults with China or India.

Vinold #49.

I agree that there is no easy access to Tibet on the accurate number without help with Chinese government. However, you don't need a precise number to derivate the conclusion just like you don't need ruler to know who is taller and who is shorter. I would have accepted someone's written report based on simple statistics with reasonable and logical conclusion.

You say Chinese government has not been able to swamp Tibet with Han Chinese as much as it would like to. What's the purpose of swamp Tibet with Han Chinese?

Patrick French's made this claim (in his book "Tibet, Tibet" and New York Times Ed-Op column) that 1.2 million Tibetans killed was a fabrication. To my best of knowledge, nobody, including Tibetan Government in exile, Tibet support organizations, Tibet scholars, individuals, etc has ever provided any evidence to refute this claim.

Do you believe 1.2 million Tibetans were killed? If yes, do you have anything to provide to contradict Patrick French's claim? Or you just believe it?

William Huang

William, the purpose of swamping Tibet with Han Chinese is to create a solid support group for China from among the residents of Tibet. If a mojority of Tibetans supported Chinese rule, this would not have been necessary. I believe something similar has been done in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (East Tukistan).

I have never said 1.2 million Tibetans were killed. I just wouldn't know. If you were to go through my article and my various comments made, you will see that this figure of 1.2 million has not cropped up even once. I think Tsering mentioned this first. May be he is right. May be his is not. It doesn't really matter, does it? Many Tibetans have been killed for protesting against Chinese occupation of their country.

By the way, all that I am saying with regard to numbers is that there are now more Chinese in Tibet than Tibetans. I don't have perfect proof for this, but since China has been planting Chinese in Tibet for a long time and because this is a reasonable objective for a coloniser, and because the railway line to Tibet has been functional for 2 years now, I belive this to be true.

I heard that a renowned Chinese pro-Tibet writer recently wrote an article called "The Road Map for Tibet Independence".

Vinod #51.

This is my last comment on this blog and I let you have the last word.

So called Han-Chinese out number Tibetan is a lie made up by Tibetan government-in-exile. The method they use includes way beound Tibet. The exile government called "Great Tibet" which includes historical Tibet (TAR today) and large part of near by provinces where Tibetans migrated to. This is a joke even Tibet sympathizers thought it ridiculous. For example, Patrick French (a former director of Free Tibet in London) wrote in his New York Times Ed-Op column (3/22/08) and I quote him below:

"....He (Dalai Lam) should have publicly renounced the claim to a so-called Greater Tibet, which demands territory that was never under the control of the Lhasa government".

Why Tibetan migrate to other part of China? Climates and land are better. For example, Sichuan, a Chinese providence is rich in land and had nick name of "Province Abundance". Laerg number of Tibetan migrated to there over the years. 2008 big Sichuan earthquake (80K died). The county where the epicenter of the earthquake is located (Wenchuan county) alone, 51% are Tibetans. That area including the capital (Chengdu) and Dijiangyuan (a UNESCO world heritage site) is a place where Han Chinese have been living there for thousands years before even the Tibetan as an ethnic group even existed.

As you pointed out, Tibet is Oxygen starved and unsuitable for cultivation. So won't be natural for Tibetans to migrate out? If you agree, then, why would Han-Chinese let them in if Tibetans are considered foreigners? Why Chinese didn't build Great Wall over there to stop Tibetans?

Dalai Lama himself, as a matter of fact was born outside of Tibet. His parents are Tibetans but speak Mandarin and that's why Dalai Lama himself speaks very fluent Mandarin. Many government-in-exile officials speak Mandarin very well too (why?). I give you another example, Dawa Tsering, the Tibetan "government-in-exile" representative to the U.S., had an interview with a French radio in March this year. You can hear it on Youtube and guess what he speak very fluent Mandarin too.

This "Great Tibet" covers about a quarter of China's territory way pass the Tibet itslef and that's how they count the Tibetan vs. Han-Chinese ratio. This is like if you are Indian and you emigrate to England. You are out numbered by British. Whose fault is that?

Dalai Lam's explanation is this: It is about well being of all Tibetan people and all Tibetans shall be governed under his government. Therefore the territory where Tibetans lives by definition is a part of Tibet. If this is the rule, Singapore, the northeast part of San Francisco and southeast part of New York City all should be part of China. Does this make any sense to you?

William Huang

William, the holes, if any, in Patrick French's statement cannot take away the legitimacy of the Tibetan right to be independent. Also, just because Tibetans have migrated to other parts of China, they don't cease to be a nation in their own right. We could argue about this till kingdom come and we'll get nowhere. So, let's stop with this. I do appreciate the stand you have taken (though I don't agree with it) and I have enjoyed this argument. Xie xie. Zaijian.

William you never been to Tibet I can tell from you statement. So stop making any false claim. Please visit Tibet first and come here to chat. I was born in Tibet and lived there till 20 years old. I went to Chinese University and I joined the protest in 87. The government put me into jail and one of the officer told me " We raised you educated you.Why are you betraying us? I told them, "You killed my parents and you raised me to betray my own country Tibet, I can't do that"

Tsering #55,

How long did they imprison you? What was the charge?

The charge was joining the protest.7 months only. Of course, they were expecting me to work for them again.I just ran away.

Were you tortured in the prison?