In
recent times, unity has become the buzzword of our movement. This renewed emphasis
on Chikde and Thundrel originally
came from within Tibet in the aftermath of the 2008 pan-Tibetan uprising. And
later as we know, it featured, among other things, in the troika of slogans under which the
incumbent Sikyong ran his successful election
campaign in 2010-11. But of late, I get the feeling that the word unity, and
the sentiments associated with it, are being overused and often wrongly invoked
in a bid to silence alternative views and dissent within our exile movement,
and, most importantly, to brush under the carpet certain issues, which we as a
nation need to seriously reflect upon.
The
Tibetan Parliament and parts of our exile leadership have publicly and
repeatedly condemned, what they believe to be, a handful of ill intentioned and
misinformed individuals for trying to stir up disharmony and unrest within our
community. They have often justified such public condemnations by citing the
distress such individuals and their partisan views are causing to Kundun and by
repetitively stressing the need for unity in our community.
I
think our representatives in Dharamsala would be doing a great disservice to
our cause if, in the name of upholding community cohesion and unity, they keep issuing,
what are in essence, emotionally couched gagging orders and continue employing
measures, subtle and otherwise, to stifle alternative views and narratives. I
say this for two important reasons. Firstly, such pronouncements and measures
on the part of the CTA, no matter how paternalistic, have the unintended
consequence of negating all the headway that we, as a democratic society, have made
in the past 50 years. They tarnish the CTA’s projected image of a genuinely
democratic entity and give ammunition to our critics who are always scouring
for pretexts to depict our exile democracy as a sham engineered by the “Dalai
Clique”.
Secondly,
such decrees and official strategies almost invariably have the contrary effect
of creating more rifts and fault lines in our society, which, to be honest, has
already more than its fair share of regional and sectarian divides to contend
with. This is because a majority of Tibetans in exile, whether by design or
accident, are subservient conformists for whom every official word coming from
Dharamsala is a command from which no one must digress. This conformist
majority, though, is not always content with being conformist itself; buoyed by
a warped sense of loyalty and patriotism, a section of it often feels the urge
to pressure and coerce non-conformist minorities in to following suit. And when
those belonging to these minorities persist with their original belief/thought
and refuse to conform, they are turned into social pariahs and outcasts in
their own community. The result is usually further compartmentalization and
division of our society, and that too at a very high cost to our cause.
Our
leadership frequently encourages dialogue and engagement with Chinese scholars
and students; many of who persistently regurgitate the party line on Tibet and
downplay the grievances of our people from the very word go. No matter how
frustrating the entire exercise often turns out to be, we soldier on with this
engagement project for we hope that doing so will help build bridges between
the two nations, and win support for our cause. This is all well and good, but
what aggrieves me is that our frequently extoled virtues of patience and
tolerance that we extravagantly display vis-à-vis our Chinese brothers and
sisters somehow completely dissipate when it comes to individuals and groups in
our own community who subscribe to alternative beliefs and ideologies. Our
efforts at reconciliation with our Chinese brethren seem to know no bounds but sadly
mending crumbling fences within our community does not even feature in our list
of priorities.
This
dispassionate attitude towards our own people has resulted in at least one
religious splinter group losing its entire stake in our exile movement. It is
true that some of its prominent members have subsequently cozied up to the
Chinese government to further their selfish ends, but I am quite sure that there
are many innocent and morally upright Tibetans within this subgroup who have no
involvement whatsoever with the Chinese state, yet their fate hangs in balance just
because they are unable to give up on their beliefs- beliefs which we deem
regressive while conveniently forgetting a multitude of inane rituals and
superstitions that we ourselves engage in on a daily basis.
The
sad reality is that people wielding influence within such splinter groups
always emerge unscathed, sometimes even better off as a result of such rifts in
our community. Historically, leaders of similar dissenting religious factions and
their entourages have often turned east to whatever regime ruling China at the
time for support and benefaction; most of them have unabashedly compromised
Tibet’s sovereignty and independence for personal gains, riches and meagre luxuries,
and left in their wake thousands of ordinary Tibetans with split loyalties and
confused mindsets.
Whilst
I do not condone the traitorous activities of some of the Tibetans belonging to
the aforementioned religious faction, a part of me believes that if we as a
society had dealt with the entire issue rationally to start with, with our long
term national interest in mind, and guaranteed these Tibetans ample space to
practice their private beliefs, notwithstanding their absurdity, in the spirit
of mutual respect and tolerance instead of alienating and boycotting them, then
perhaps things could have been different. This was/is a sad affair and lessons
must be learnt from it or else our community will disintegrate further into groups
and factions that do not see eye to eye and avoid engaging with one another
within our existing democratic institutions.
Our scorn and contempt are now increasingly directed towards those few
Tibetans who pursue political goals contrary to the mainstream, and especially
towards those who employ their critical faculties to initiate open debate on various
issues and events affecting our nation. Despite the constant barrage of
criticism they have faced over the years, what I find admirable is that these
individuals have remained true to their stated mission. They are often the
first to point out the flaws and failings of our political elite, and also the
first to prompt clarifications from the latter. We do no have a party system in
exile but I think these individuals, together with organizations like the
Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC) and the Students for a Free Tibet (SFT), play a
role analogous to the opposition in various liberal democracies. Naturally, our
political elite and a vocal section of the conformist majority in exile consider
them a nuisance, for they are the ones keeping our leaders on their toes all
the time. One might not agree with all their insinuations but one must
acknowledge their contribution, however small, in fortifying our fledging democracy.
As
I write this piece, debates and discussions touching upon various current
issues and events in the Tibetan world are occurring all over the Internet and
popular social media sites. We must concede that many such online discussions
turn downright malicious and end up becoming overtly acrimonious but then again
an increasing number of them also feature valuable insights and opinions from
Tibetans of varying political creed and persuasion. The Internet has provided
an avenue for unprecedented and unfettered freedom of expression for ordinary
Tibetans, which, in my opinion, can only be good for our cause. It has spawned a
free market of diverse ideas and views in our community, and is helping create
a generation of politically cognizant and articulate Tibetans.
But
this has, as expected, ruffled a few feathers in our conservative society. A
section of it has now come to believe that certain elements of “western”
democracy that we aspire to like, for instance, the freedom to question
anything and anyone are at odds with our “Tibetan values”. There are individuals
among us who now profess the view that the democracy we embrace should be
configured in a manner which conforms to our traditional norms and cultural
sensibilities. Someone has even coined the term “Democracy with Tibetan
Characteristics” (an ironic spin-off of the euphemism “Socialism with Chinese
Characteristics” that the CCP employs to mask its ideological bankruptcy) to
describe a Tibetanized version of democracy, wherein certain subject matters
are held sacrosanct and considered off limits for debate and criticism.
Invariably, these subject matters turn out to be precisely the ones, which
require collective introspection since they often have far-reaching national
implications.
The
line of argument proffered is strikingly similarly to the one adduced to by the
PRC and some South East Asian states to justify their authoritarian governance
and to challenge the universality of human rights and individual freedoms.
Leaders of these countries frequently seek to defend their blatant disregard
for civil and political liberties by insisting that they are somehow
incompatible with their “Asian Values”, and unsuited to the ethos of societies
they represent.
What
is unsettling is that we, as Tibetans, almost instinctively swear by the
inviolability of the “western” notions of rights and freedoms when it comes to
challenging Chinese occupation of Tibet and remonstrating against the
continuing repression of our compatriots back home, yet we have no qualms
whatsoever thinking about tinkering with these same notions within our exile
community- a community which our leaders boisterously tout as being a “perfect
democracy” (Mangtso Yangdhakpa). It
is not difficult to see the hypocrisy inherent in such an enterprise.
The
fact that the ideas of human rights and democracy originated in the West is no
more than a historical coincidence. Given the right socio-political and
economic circumstances, these ideas could have taken root anywhere in the
World, for they represent those basic human aspirations, which are universal
and common across all cultures and civilizations. One does not have to go too
far back in history to grasp this; Arab Spring, which swept across the Middle
East (a region previously perceived to be ill-disposed to democratic movements)
from 2010-2011 onwards, makes it sufficiently clear.
What
I am trying to say is that citing the foreign origin of notions of democracy
and human rights to chip away at their inalienable core is tantamount to taking
the first step on a very slippery slope to a majoritarian tyranny. It would, no
doubt, be a highly paternalistic and a relatively benign tyranny in our case,
but it would be a tyranny nevertheless.
Thus,
in the interest of our democratic ideals, I think our exile administration
should stop partaking in futile and often counterproductive exercises to induce
Tibetan netizens to limit their online parleys. Not even the most powerful
states in the world are managing to regulate the Internet and what people get
up to on it; so Dharamsala should not put its largely positive international
reputation at peril by venturing into that murky territory. Besides, despite
the carefully worded disapprovals from our exile administration, I am quite
certain that most of those Tibetans who use the Internet to make their views
public will keep doing so, and now with more vigour than ever.
I
share the concern that many of us have about people abusing the freedom afforded
to them by the Internet for rabble-rousing and sensationalising issues beyond
their pale, but I also think that such few instances must be tolerated as a necessary
evil of instituting a genuine and meaningful democracy. What is reassuring is
that whilst the Internet can be employed to spread misinformation and to make
unsubstantiated claims, it, being a great leveller, can also be used to
earnestly challenge them through rebuttals containing verifiable evidence to
the contrary. Young Tibetans frequenting social media sites and blogs are doing
so more often than we care to imagine.
We
must understand that debates and discussions that occur within a society are rarely
contests between out-and-out truths and blatant lies; the situation is usually
far more complicated. Therefore, as
renowned British political philosopher John Stuart Mill has argued, there must
be an unlimited freedom of expression and discussion in a society because a
silenced opinion, no matter how erroneous it appears on the face of it, “…may,
and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth, and since the general or
prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is
only by the collision of adverse opinions, that the remainder of the truth has
any chance of being supplied.” In other words, most claims contain at the very
least a sliver of truth, and since no one has an absolute monopoly over the
whole truth, suppressing them is akin to denying the masses an important
“fragment of wisdom”.
Thus,
if the current Kashag is truly
committed to transparency and accountability in the governance that it seeks to
provide (which I believe it is), and if our Parliament takes its foremost duty
to prevent executive excesses and abuse of power (if and when they occur) in
all its seriousness, then both these premiere institutions of our exile
democracy should constructively (and regularly) engage with dissenting voices
among us and strive to entertain criticisms of all shades, including those
emanating from online debates and discussions. A democratic society, as they
say, is only as free as its fiercest critics. So, instead of viewing criticisms
as threats, the CTA should rather perceive them as opportunities to enhance its
democratic credentials, and, most importantly, to bridge the widening gap
between itself and certain segments of our society.
As
far as I am concerned, if the Kashag
fails to issue timely clarifications and rationales for statements and actions
on its part, which raise eyebrows in our community, and if our Chitues do not take the former to task
for that, then our establishment is as much, if not more, responsible for the
resulting confusion and festering disharmony in our community as those
individuals who, in the first instance, present embellished accounts and
speculative critiques of those seemingly dubious statements and actions.
Of course, some ideological differences are inevitable since the official policy pursued by the CTA remains a major flashpoint within our exile
community. But, despite the
contentious nature of debate on this issue, even the most vocal critic of this
policy will concede that if a referendum were to be conducted in exile today,
an overwhelming majority will vote in favour of its continuance. (Obviously,
the verdict from inside Tibet is impossible to predict; Judging by the eclectic
tone of testimonies that many of the self-immolators have left, it looks like
it could go either way.) Additionally, the Tibetan Parliament has, in the
recent past, endorsed the current policy through at least two unanimously
passed resolutions, and it continues to support it.
The
point I am trying to make is that the only way individuals and groups espousing
alternative political goals and visions can hope to inflict any realistic
change in the current policy of our exile administration is by making judicious
use of our existing democratic institutions. This will entail working with and
from within the CTA, not against it as they seem to be doing most of the time. Just
having yearly conferences and gatherings, and episodically crying foul from the
sidelines will not suffice. If these individuals and organizations are genuine
in their quest, they must, sooner rather than later, start grooming their own Chitue candidates, who, in turn, should seek
direct democratic mandate from the people for the political vision they
champion. Like any other probable candidate, they must make their case before
their constituents at the grass root levels and run for the Parliament. Only if
and when their candidates are elected as Chitues
can they have any realistic influence over important policy deliberations.
Correspondingly,
we as a society must ensure that these individuals and groups continue to have
an equivalent stake in our CTA-led exile movement. Rather than deliberately
alienating them like we have so often done with nonconformists amidst us and,
thus, undermining the integrity of our freedom movement, we must at the very
least furnish them with proportionate space in the public domain to air their
views without any fear of popular backlash. And they must in turn strive to accomplish
their ends within our existing democratic institutions rather than habitually
operating outside them. I say this because these CTA institutions and democratic
ideals they represent are the only potent tools we have in our struggle against
the might of the Chinese state. And if they keep going unused and unexplored,
our movement might soon lose the impetus currently being provided by the
central authority in the form of the CTA, or worse break off into various
lesser movements with a mishmash of goals and agendas before completely fizzling
out. Such an eventuality would indeed be very unfortunate.
“But
what about the all-important unity of our exile movement?” I hear you ask. The
answer to this question, I think, depends largely upon how we define unity. If
by unity we mean unanimity, homogeneity and absolute conformity of thoughts and
actions then that kind of unity will never exist in our community; it never did.
In fact, I do not think such unity exists anywhere outside North Korea today. But
if we describe unity in terms of our Tibetanness, in terms of our absolute
adherence to non-violence in our struggle, in terms of our unbreakable
spiritual and/or emotional connection with the ultimate symbol of our nation
i.e. His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and most importantly in terms of our common sentiment
of sadness and solidarity for our compatriots enduring unspeakable suffering back
home, then I can say with utmost confidence that that kind of unity not only
exists in our community amidst all the ancillary differences that I have
touched upon, but is growing in strength with each passing year.
One
only needs to make a slight change in ones perspective to see that things are
not as apocalyptic as some may have us believe. Unity of the latter type does
and can definitely coexist alongside dissenting views on various issues within our
exile movement.
