US Covertly Funds Global Tibet Movement: German Daily
The United Sates is massively funding the International Tibet Support Network as part of its policy of containing China's global political influence, the Munich-based daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported in its Saturday edition.

The private American organization 'National Endowment for Democracy' (NED) which is being subsidized by the US government, paid 45,000 US dollars to the International Tibet Support Network for highly publicized protests ahead of this summer's Olympic Games in China. The International Tibet Support Network played a crucial role in the recent worldwide disruptions in the Olympic torch relay.

The American government funds those Tibetan groups which China views as rebellious. The main link between the US administration and Tibetan insurgents is often the NED. According to the NED, it has donated 293 000 US dollars to Tibetan groups in 2006 which Beijing accuses of having planned the insurgency in Lhasa two months ago.

The NED's financial support for Tibetan groups is politically controversial because it receives a major portion of its money from the US Congress. Thus, the US is funding activities which Beijing sees as destabilizing or at least damaging China's international image. The NED allocated 20 million US dollars for projects inside China in the 1990s, a US Congress report said last year. The US Congress had approved 23 million US dollars for so-called 'democracy programs' in China and Tibet in 2006. Private US organizations like the NED have become an important instrument for American foreign policy, according to the Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

Common in Tibet! Strange in Kerala!

Appu John, Sethu Das and VJ Jose - three Friends of Tibet Campaigners with their new, clean look. We have more heads to offer.

Yesterday's edition of the Times of India has carried an article on Indians off their hair in solidarity with Tibetan people suffering under the Chinese military rule doesn't care a bit about the minorities in Tibet, Manchuria, Inner Mangolia and East Turkestan. This is not just one man's fight against an empire; there are millions scattered all over the World wanting justice to the racial minorities under China's brutal rule. Any way it was that single man before the tanks at Tienanmen Square we remember the most. Do join in protest against the Olympic torch of shame when it passes through your country. Speak against the human rights violations all over the world...Tibet, Iraq, Afghanistan,... the list is long. But as the great Abraham Lincoln said 'Keep pegging on'. This is the soul opportunity that we may get to voice the troubles of another person. So join the action now. If you consider the action against Olympics is unethical here are some of the same events in the past.

• 1908, when Irish athletes, angered at the refusal of Britain to give Ireland its independence, boycotted the Games in London.
  
• Berlin games in 1936 the Nazis drenched the games in propaganda. Boycotted by some Jewish athletes.
• Tokyo in 1964 saw boycotts from Indonesia and North Korea over an argument about their athletes competing in some rival games and South Africa was banned because of its racial policies.
• Mexico's 1968 Games were marked by two very different protests. In the first, students demonstrated against the government about ten days before the Games and were fired on by the Mexican army. More than 200 students were killed.
• The most disastrous games of all, in which protest moved intoviolence, was in Munich in 1972. Gunmen from the Palestinian Black September group got into the Israeli compound, by climbing over an unguarded fence, and by the end eleven Israeli athletes had been murdered. The Games paused for a memorial event - and then went on. Spielberg's film Munich was on its aftereffects.
• Political influence continued in Montreal in 1976, when 26 African countries held a boycott because New Zealand, which had played rugby in South Africa, was allowed to compete. Montreal started another trend in controversy - the cost of the Games. It plagued Athens and is plaguing London.For more information log on to www.frinedsoftibet.org

Negotiation Nightmare
by Jamyang Norbu

I must ask the reader’s forgiveness for my occasional forays into amateur psychology. I wrote about something like this in a previous article but I want to discuss another kind of recurring nightmare, also known to clinical psychiatry, in which the sleeper manages, after a tremendous struggle, to get out of a frightening situation and thinks he has woken up, when he realizes that he is back again in that same nightmare. What if this situation repeated itself seven or eight times in your dream till you began to suspect that perhaps you were stuck in it forever. The following passage is from an article I wrote back in April 1993: “Whenever the Tibetan issue has received any substantial attention in the world, be it with the demonstrations (1987-90) in Lhasa or the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the Dalai Lama, the Chinese have nearly always succeeded in side-tracking international concern by making titillating press announcements soon after the event, declaring their willingness to sit down and talk with the Dalai Lama or his representatives. Those sympathetic to Tibet naturally heave a huge sigh of relief on hearing this, and the situation is then effectively defused.” This March, when the Rangzen Revolution exploded in the international arena, Beijing, ever true to form, did exactly as it had done many times before and invited the Dalai Lama’s envoys for negotiations. Dharamshala, of course, did as it had done many times before, and accepted the invitation in a heartbeat. The IOC board and world leaders (George Bush being one) keen to attend the Beijing Games but being criticized for their attitude heaved a huge collective sigh of relief and the situation was effectively defused. Ministers of ASEAN countries welcomed the negotiations and “restoration of normalcy in Tibet” and “expressed confidence that the Beijing Olympics would be a success”. We can expect other leaders and celebrities to make their announcements soon. We just gave them the moral excuse that they needed. Starting from around 1979 I’ve written about nearly all the attempts by Dharamshala to convince China to sit down to some discussion on “associate status” “one nation two systems” “zone of ahimsa”, “Middle Way Approach”, “real autonomy” and of course “meaningful autonomy. As the years went by I found myself getting jaded with the whole futile exercise, and even caught myself reproducing passages of some previous writing in the latest piece I was writing. On one occasion I tried to treat the issue with a little levity, borrowing a couple of characters from the Charles Schultz’s comic strip, Peanuts. “Once in a while, though, the delegation does actually get to go to Beijing. They invariably return to Dharamshala in a daze, with a look on their faces not unlike that on Charlie Brown’s when he is lying flat on his back, after having been persuaded by Lucy, for the umpteenth time, to take a running kick at a football that she never fails to yank away at the last moment. “Isn’t trust a wonderful thing, Charlie Brown?” This time the chief Tibetan negotiator, (Lodi Gyari,) might have landed on his head when Beijing pulled away the football since the statement he gave to the press in Hong Kong didn’t make sense. “It was a good first step,” he said (What about all the previous talks? What sort of steps were they? Or have we decided to go backwards?) Lodi Gyari continued his briefing on this reassuring note “All very candid. We had very candid discussions,” The New York Times of 5th May citing Xinhua (the official Chinese news agency) reported that the talks, “mostly involved finger wagging (by the Chinese) and a warning that future dialogue would be fruitless unless the Dalai ceased advocating Tibetan Independence. They also urged him to stop disrupting and sabotaging the upcoming Olympics Games.” The Chinese negotiators were two low level officials Zhu Weijun and Sitar, but they weren’t low enough for Chinese netizens who ridiculed the talks saying, “next time it will do just to dispatch a bureau chief,” or “the city management will be able to deal with the issue, do not bother the Chairman and the Prime Minister too much.” The two officials talked down to Lodi Gyari and Kalsang Gyaltsen in the most condescending and arrogant manner, like ministers of ancient China dealing with troublesome barbarian sub-chiefs. They declared that Tibetans had through their evil behavior created obstacles to resuming negotiations but that “the central government still arranged this meeting with great patience and sincerity.” Throughout this period the Chinese press and intelligentsia kept up a continual barrage of incredibly abusive rhetoric against the Dalai Lama, which were reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution according to Woeser. Woeser’s own opinion of the talk was forthright “The Sino-Tibetan talk at present is completely tendentious. It is an effort to satisfy the pressure from the western society and to brag about itself.” I didn’t write anything earlier because I hoped that the envoys might get an opportunity to confront Chinese leaders about their harsh crack-down on Tibetan protesters and at the very least initiate some discussion on the conditions of the Tibetans being arrested and persecuted, and obtain some minimal assurance about the condition of these people. From the little information we are getting it appears that the Chinese are conducting massive crackdowns and reprisals all over Tibet. First of all it is clear that the trial of the thirty protesters in Lhasa, although a travesty in terms of real justice, is also possibly a red herring. The basic idea of the trial seems to have been to create the impression that not many people have been arrested in Tibet. In reality thousands of Tibetans have been arrested and will probably be tried in secret (or not have a trial at all) and be incarcerated or shot. Woeser in her last Tibet Update reports that “thousands of Tibetans have met with the fate of being killed, being arrested, being tortured to confess, being missing, committing suicide or having mental disorder, and this has brought disasters to countless Tibetan families.” I have also heard of many hundreds, maybe even a thousand or so men in rural Amdo and Kham hiding out in the mountains, to avoid police and military crackdowns in their districts. There has been the report of a gunfight between Tibetans and Chinese security personnel. A couple of days ago I received an unconfirmed account of two women in a village in Amdo who were harassed beyond endurance by Chinese policemen about religious images in their home. The women stabbed three policemen to death and were themselves subsequently gunned down. In all likelihood it appears that the situation in Tibet will deteriorate further. The situation is deeply troubling especially since there is little or no information on what is actually happening. No amount of begging, pleading or further negotiating with Beijing will bring any resolution, even a little improvement, to this crisis. I think that Dharamshala has one real option left to deal with this situation. It must act in a way that is bold, dynamic and totally unanticipated by Beijing. The exile government must declare that in light of the sentiments expressed by Tibetan people in the recent protests, and the harshness and implacability of the Chinese government’s response to the expression of their basic human rights, the Tibetan government is compelled to reconsider its Middle Path policy. That the Kashag and the Tibetan parliament will immediately commence joint hearings to review the Middle Path policy and that representatives of Tibetan organizations advocating independence will be invited to offer their testimonies at the proceedings. To His Holiness I would respectfully suggest that he make a public announcement stating that though he had genuinely and unreservedly supported China’s bid to host the Olympic Games, the lives and welfare of the thousands of Tibetans – victims of China’s crackdown – were far more important than a sporting event (even one as major as the Olympics). That unless China agreed to allow international agencies as the Red Cross, the UN or Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, and other such organizations, to send their personnel freely throughout Tibet to verify the conditions of these people and check on their legal situation, he would be compelled to appeal to the world to boycott the Beijing Games. Furthermore he would call on all his subjects, his friends, supporters and disciples worldwide, to engage in non-violent but direct action to disrupt China’s massive ultra-nationalist propaganda exercise, for which the 2008 Olympic Games is being effectively employed. Real negotiations might follow, for the first time.

Comrade Wen Jiabao,
Premier, State Council of the People's Republic of China,
Beijing, China

Dear Mr Premier,
Greetings! You may think that it is presumptuous on my part to send a letter to the premier of one of the most powerful nations of the world, but I was born in the country which invented Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. I hope you will not misinterpret my gesture.

One of the reasons why I have decided to write to you is because you have served under two party general secretaries (Comrade Hu Yaobang and Comrade Zhao Ziyang) for whom I have a lot of respect.

On May 19, 1989, as a director of the General Office of the CPC Central Committee, you walked down with Comrade Zhao Ziyang to meet the youth striking at Tiananmen Square. On that day, your mentor is supposed to have told the students: 'I have to ask you to think carefully about the future.' It is said that he assured them that all issues could be dealt with in a proper manner.

You will remember that one of the recriminations of the students was that their protest had been considered by the party as 'turmoil' and not as a patriotic movement. For the youth on the Square, it made a considerable difference; that it was their motivations which were being questioned. The remarks of Comrade Zhao as well as the recent events in Tibet made me to write to you. Do you not agree that the time has come to 'think carefully about the future' and look deeply into the true nature of the Tibetan 'protest?'

During your press conference at the end of the last National People's Congress in Beijing in March, you stated that you had 'ample facts and plenty of evidence to prove that the recent riot in Lhasa was organised, premeditated, masterminded and incited by the Dalai Lama clique.' You personally attacked the Dalai Lama: 'The constant claims made by the Dalai clique that they pursue no independence but peaceful dialogue are nothing but lies.'

I believe that these are wrong views. First, you have not subsequently presented any proof of the Dalai Lama's involvement in the unrest; second, I think that you are mistaken about the Dalai Lama's own motivation. When you said: 'On March 14, violence involving beating, smashing property, looting and arson broke out in Lhasa, which was aimed to undermine the upcoming Beijing Olympics,' you seemed to equate the deep resentment expressed by the Tibetan people to 'turmoil.'

I was sad when I saw that you yourself used these infamous words: 'I would like to ask, from the appalling incidents in Lhasa to similar turmoil in other parts of China... don't these conducts have nothing to do with the Dalai Lama?'

Like the students in Tiananmen, the Dalai Lama today does not want to split China, but make it a nation where everyone lives in harmony. To use this very pejorative term of 'turmoil' when people have no other recourse but to take to the streets to demonstrate their deep-seated resentment is incorrect. Look at it from the Tibetan point of view (or for that matters from the millions of Chinese who every year take to the streets -- I understand than in one year alone, more than 100,000 protests occurred in China), most of these demonstrations are due to wrong policies of the central or more often of the local government.

Don't you agree?

You said that your government is 'fully capable of maintaining stability and order in Tibet,' but it is not the point. The question is: can your government generate respect and contentment in all? Is that not the true role of any government?

If you and President Hu are really serious about building a harmonious society, you should look at certain facts. Do not commit the mistake of the Elders who decided to send tanks to massacre the students on Tiananmen in June 1989. It did not solve any genuine problem.

Outsiders believe that the Great Han Chauvinism has never been eradicated from China. They are comforted in their opinion, when you declare: 'The door of dialogue still remained open to the Dalai Lama so long as he gives up his position for Tibet independence.'

After six rounds of talks (between 2002 and 2007) with your United Front Department officials, the Dalai Lama's Representatives have repeatedly conveyed the Tibetan position.

In fact, I was told that for the first time during these talks, your people carefully listened (without agreeing) to the Tibetan administration stand. When you are perfectly aware that the Dalai Lama does not seek 'independence' (but only a 'meaningful autonomy') why are you repeating what you said to The Washington Post in 2003: 'We have taken note of the recent remarks by the Dalai Lama but we still need to watch very carefully what he really does.'

More importantly for the future, you said: 'Since the peaceful liberation of and especially the democratic reforms in Tibet, the region has moved forward and become more developed.'

Yes, it is true that Tibet has become 'more developed', but unfortunately no democratic reforms have ever been implemented. Over the years, the status and role of the 'nationalities' has been sidelined and ignored by the central government with the result that deeper and deeper resentment has taken root on the Tibetan plateau.

Chairman Mao had an interesting conversation with Anastas Mikoyan on February 6, 1949 in Moscow. One of the topics discussed was the status of 'national minorities'. Chairman Mao said: 'Once we finish the Civil War and resolve internal political questions inside the country and when the Tibetans feel that we do not threaten them with aggression and treat them equally, then we will solve the subsequent fate of this region. With regard to Tibet we must be careful and patient, taking into account the complex regional mix there and the power of Lamaism.'

You may also know that in 1955, Chairman Mao once advised the Dalai Lama to fly the Tibetan national flag on the guest house where the Tibetan leader was staying in Beijing. Mao even said 'In the future the Communist Party of China could also let Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia have their own flags.' It was a confirmation that Mao was contemplating 'adopting the Soviet Union's model, at least for the three large minority nationalities' remembered Phuntsok Wangyal, Mao's translator and the first Tibetan Communist.

In 1980, you were still posted in Gansu, but you must have heard of the historic visit of the Central Committee's Working Group on Tibet to Lhasa. This was the first working group formed after Comrade Hu Yaobang became the general secretary of the CCP. The Group was presided by Comrade Hu (Comrade Wan Li, then member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo, was also a member).

They symbolically reached the Tibetan capital on the occasion of the 39th anniversary of the signature of the 'Seventeen Points for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet'. In 1951, this was supposed to become 'the governing principle in Tibetan work and policy.'

Though the Agreement gave a large autonomy to the Tibetans, it was never honestly implemented by the Central Government. If Comrade Hu chose this date to arrive in the Tibetan capital, it was probably because he wanted to reiterate the promises of autonomy made to the Tibetan people in 1951.

The visit tended to prove that the central government was ready to settle matters through consultation with the local people. It also showed that the Politburo was keen to get a new start and 'restore the harmonious atmosphere of cooperation which had prevailed in the early 1950s' as a Chinese commentator had put it.

As he arrived, Comrade Hu immediately made his stand clear; he told Phagpala, a senior Tibetan official 'Comrade Phagpala, what is tomorrow?'

I am sure that you have not forgotten that during a party organised to celebrate the 1951 Agreement, Comrade Hu gave a powerful political speech to some 5,000 cadres in Lhasa. The motto was 'Strive to build a united, prosperous and civilised new Tibet'. In the speech Cd Hu listed a few tasks for Tibet:

To exercise nationality autonomy in the region fully -- that is to say, to let Tibetans really be the masters of their own lives.

A commitment by the central government to relieve and reduce burdens of the people...

To make efforts to develop Tibetan science, culture and education, and to prepare for the establishing of the University of Tibet.

To implement the policy on minority nationality cadres correctly, to strengthen the unity between the Han and Tibetan cadres, and to transfer a large quantity of Chinese cadres who had worked in Tibet for many years back to the interior.

Mr Premier, don't you think that this could be a base to start negotiating with the Dalai Lama?

You will also recall the healthy debate on nationalities between the head of the United Front Department, Li Weihan (who wrote a 10,000 character report) and Phunsok Wangyal's 25,000 character reply. Wangyal's point was: 'In socialist States, the majority nationality does not (or should not) oppress the minority nationalities. All should be equal... Nationality unity, therefore, requires not suppression but new policies that provide real equality [between nationalities].'

Wangyal says in his biography that his views were validated by Comrade Hu Yaobang and Comrade Zhao Ziyang in 1984.

My appeal to you, Mr Premier is that you should personally meet the Dalai Lama like Chairman Mao used to meet him in the fifties. You should discuss threadbare all issues related to Tibet and the People's Republic of China. According to me, it is the only way to come out of the impasse and 'think about the future.'

After all, the Tibetan question has been sullying the image of People's Republic for more than 50 years now. The time has come to find a durable solution agreeable to all. I believe it is possible to have a win-win outcome.

The Dalai Lama is a good man, a sincere leader. Do you think that you will be able to find a better interlocutor to bring about a radical change in the relations between Hans and Tibetans?

In fact, I would go one step further: The Dalai Lama is today the only leader who can unite China. If you are able to find a satisfactory solution with him, he is the only person who can convince the Tibetans to work for a harmonious society. This in turn, will be an example for all nationalities.

I do hope, Mr Premier that you will understand my presumptuousness in writing to you. I feel that there is a golden opportunity for China to satisfactorily settle this long-pending issue.

Please meet with the Dalai Lama, it will bring more good to China's image than 1000 Olympic Games.
Yours sincerely
Claude Arpi

PS: I am told that your wife is a practicing Buddhist, I am sure that she will enjoy meeting the Dalai Lama and exchanging views on the Buddha Dharma with him.

"Tibet Of Our Minds: A Journey's End?"
by Vijay Crishna

Photos from "Tibet Of Our Minds: A Journey's End" talk by Vijay Crishna held at the St Andrews College AV Auditorium, Bandra, Bombay on May 04, 2007.

About Vijay Crishna: Vijay Crishna runs light engineering and IT-related businesses in a separate company, Lawkim Ltd, within the Godrej Group, has practised theatre for many years and is a very keen trekker - a person of several facets who has also made several trips to Chinese-occupied Tibet exploring a fascination for the trade that sustained the entire area for centuries. In 1991 he established The Naoroji Godrej Centre for Plant Research at his factory site in Satara district to research and propagate rare and endangered species of medicinal plants endemic to the Western Ghats. 'Tibet Of Our Minds: A Journey's End?' - Vijay Crishna's audio-visual presentation based on his trips to Tibet shares his perspectives of Tibet's ancient and modern history and how these impact us today has been presented across the country.

(Photos: Roy Cletus)

Welcoming Chinese Step in Current Tibet Crisis
(by Dr Ravindra Kumar)

The decision of the Government of the People’s Republic of China to invite representatives of the Dalai Lama to start the process of dialogue with them in the course of current unrest in Tibet in which demands of protection of cultural heritage and identity of the region and restoration of political freedom of the Tibetans are nucleolus, and in which according to the Spokesman of the Tibetan Government-in-exile two hundred three sons of the soil have lost their lives is without a doubt a welcoming step.

In the same manner the Dalai Lama’s positive response to the invitation and sending his two representatives to Beijing for the purpose is also a welcoming step. According to a statement issued on Friday, the 2nd May, 2008, from Dharamshala, [India], by Chhime R. Chhoekyapa, the Official Spokesman of the Tibetan Government-in-exile, “His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s special envoy Lodi Gyaltsen and envoy Keland Gyaltsen will arrive in China on May 3rd for informal talks with representatives of Chinese leadership; [they] during their brief visit will take up the urgent issue of the current crisis in Tibetan areas. They will convey the Dalai Lama’s deep concern about the Chinese authorities’ handling of situation and provide suggestions to bring peace in the region.”

For the last six decades Tibetans, who are peaceful by nature, are fighting for the existence of their cultural identity and political rights with such a mighty nation of the world which wears the mask of Communism and which believes in expansionism. Therefore, Tibetans are eagerly wishing of some positive and concrete result. But, what is the intention of Beijing behind starting this dialogue nothing can be said with certainty at this juncture. Even then, the process of dialogue, which definitely is the first step towards resolving any small or big problem or dispute, started by the People’s Republic of China for the fist time officially with the Tibetan Government-in-exile, should go to the right direction; and through this dialogue of first round both the parties should reach at some mutually acceptable conclusion as Chhime R. Chhoekyapa himself has hoped in his statement by saying further, “Since the Chinese leadership has indicated publicly and in briefings given to foreign governments its position on the continuation of talks, the envoys will raise the matter of moving forward on the process for a mutually satisfactory solution to the Tibet issue [ultimately].”

In case this process of dialogue goes ahead in right direction, definitely it will bring good results. Through it years’ old wounds of Tibetans will be cured; Chinese reputation in the international community will increase, and ultimately the proverb, “what is long in coming will come right” will prove to be correct.

(Dr. Ravindra Kumar is a renowned Gandhian scholar, Indologist and writer. He is the Former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Meerut, India and the Editor-in-Chief of Global Peace International Journal.)

''All autocrats tend to do things that will ultimately boomerang. Who would have thought that two months ago that Tibet would come to the center of the world attention? A relay carrying the theme 'Journey of Harmony', has helped bring host China under international scrutiny. The autocracy's troubles and indeed may only be beginning. This year could prove a watershed. Just as the 1936 Berlin Olympics set the stage for Nazi Germany's collapse, the Beijing Games could end up as a spur to radical change in China. Those who see Tibet as a lost cause forget that history has a way of wreaking vengeance on artificially created empires.''
(from 'China's Tall Claim' by Brahma Chellaney; Times of India edition dated May 1, 2008)

Dr Nirmala Deshpande (1929-2008)

Friends of Tibet is sad to hear the demise of Dr Nirmala Deshpande (1929-2008), a prominent Gandhian who was also a true friend of Tibet. As a social-activist Dr Nirmala Deshpande devoted all her life to serve the marginalised sections of the Indian society and supported causes such as Tibet in whatever way she could. Not so many people are aware of the amount of work she has done in troubled; riot affected areas in this country, as she too believed that ‘peace is no news, but war.’

Our heartfelt condolences. She will remain an inspiration to all of us to continue our struggle for Tibetan independence.

Sethu Das
May 1, 2008

Flying the Flag of Tibet
(By Claude Arpi, April 30, 2008)

The recent unrest in Tibet and its impact elsewhere has generated a healthy debate in India. Some sections of the Indian society, like the Kashmiri Pandits, now view their plight through the Tibetan prism. Unfortunately the Pandits do not have a charismatic leader like the Dalai Lama, though India's ruling family belongs to their community and they have remained a divided lot.

Some others say that we should give time to China to progressively evolve into a democratic system. Probably they are not aware that time is also ticking away against India's interests. Last year alone 3.8 million Chinese 'visited' Tibet using the railway line to Lhasa; many of them decided to stay back on the Roof of the World. By the time we realise that the situation is irreversible, it will be too late. And it is India that will have to suffer.

More than 20 years ago, I had asked the Dalai Lama how Tibet would regain its independence (or autonomy). He had answered, "It does not depend on us Tibetans. Change will come from within China." He was clearly not expecting the United States or India to offer him on a platter the most cherished dream of his people. Since then he has repeatedly said that the people of China will bring about changes in their own country which will give a chance to the people of Tibet to fulfil their aspirations.

This is a far more plausible alternative than any other, including a deadlocked dialogue between Dharamsala and Beijing. In this context, three letters addressed to China's President Hu Jintao by veteran Tibetan Communist leader Phuntsok Wangyal, who had led the Chinese troops into Lhasa in September 1951, could trigger a larger debate in China once the Olympic Games are behind us.

Wangyal (known as 'Phunwang' among Tibetans) mentioned several interesting things in his letters to Mr Hu Jintao. He said the Dalai Lama's demise would only radicalise young Tibetan hardliners frustrated with his 'middle way' approach; he reminded the Chinese President about his own objective of establishing a harmonious society; and that if he would strive for the return of hundreds of thousands of exiled Tibetans, he could turn "confrontation into harmony".

The present debate veers around the role and status of the nationalities within the People's Republic of China. A historical incident about the Tibetan flag gives an indication of the direction in which the question could lead.

In the 1980s, I had interviewed Phuntso Tashi Takla, the Dalai Lama's brother-in-law who was in charge of the Tibetan leader's security when the latter visited China in 1954-55. Takla recalled, "At that time (in 1954) because the Chinese occupation of Tibet was not complete, the Chinese extended full courtesy and cooperation to the Dalai Lama. On some occasions Mao Tse-tung himself came to the Dalai Lama's residence (in Beijing). During one of the several discussions that the Dalai Lama and Mao Tse-tung had, Mao (suddenly) said, 'Don't you have a flag of your own, if you have one, you can hoist it here (on the Guest House)'." Takla was surprised to hear Mao Tse-tung speaking thus.

Personally I did not immediately realise the importance of Mao's point, but when I later read Phunwang's biography, I understood better the incalculable implications of the Chairman's statement. It is worth quoting Phunwang: "One day, Mao unexpectedly came to visit the Dalai Lama at his residence... During their conversation, Mao suddenly said, 'I heard that you have a national flag, do you? They do not want you to carry it, isn't that right'?"

Phunwang further recalled, "Since Mao asked this with no warning that the topic was to be discussed, the Dalai Lama just replied, 'We have an Army flag.' I thought that was a shrewd answer because it didn't say whether Tibet had a national flag. Mao perceived that the Dalai Lama was concerned by his question and immediately told him, 'That is no problem. You may keep your national flag.' Mao definitely said 'national' flag."

Mao added that in the future the Communist Party of China could also let Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia have their own flags. He then asked the Dalai Lama if it would be fine for him to hoist the national flag of the People's Republic of China in addition to the Tibetan flag. Phunwang says that the young Lama nodded his head and said yes. "This was the most important thing that Mao told the Dalai Lama, and I was amazed to hear it," Phunwang later wrote.

His mind immediately started racing. He was not sure if Mao had discussed this with other leaders in the Politburo or if it was his own idea: "As I had always paid great attention to the Soviet Union's nationality model, I was excited because I took Mao's comment that Tibet could use its own flag to mean that China was contemplating adopting the Soviet Union's 'Republic' model, at least for these three large minority nationalities." Phunwang realised that the innocuous remark of the 'Great Helmsman' had far reaching consequences for the future of China and particularly for the Tibetans.

Unfortunately, Phuwang was arrested in April 1958 as he 'needed to cleanse his thinking'. He spent the following 18 years in solitary confinement. This gave him time to ponder over Mao's remarks on the flag and the 'nationalities' issue and their place in the People's Republic of China. His study of Marxism had led him to believe that the relationship between nationalities in a multi-ethnic state should be one of complete equality.

He wrote, "In socialist states, the majority nationality does not (or should not) oppress the minority nationalities. All should be equal, and there should be complete unity and cooperation among nationalities."

Most of the problems faced by China today are due to the great Han chauvinism. The state (or Central Government) was supposed to guarantee equality among nationalities - for instance, by not imposing Chinese language over a 'nationality language' such as Tibetan.

Phunwang was finally rehabilitated at the end of the 1970s. In the early-1980s he managed to send a 25,000-character memo to senior party leaders such as Deng Xiaoping, Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang. He stressed that the outcome of a debate on the question of nationality would have a huge impact on future work in 'minority nationality areas' such Tibet.

After Hu Yaobang and Deng Xiaoping instructed officials not to remove him as a member of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, his stand seems vindicated.

In May 1980, a delegation headed by Hu Yaobang, then General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, visited Lhasa. Hu Yaobang was shocked to see the level of poverty in Tibet. During a meeting with the party cadre, he asked "whether all the money Beijing had poured into Tibet over the previous years had been thrown into the Yarlung Tsangpo (Brahmaputra) river". He said the situation reminded him of colonialism. Soon hundreds of Chinese Han cadre were transferred back to China and Tibetan language rehabilitated. Tibet witnessed a few years of glasnost.

The debate started by Mao's remark more than 50 years ago and reignited by Phunwang 20 years later, is still on. Will Mr Hu Jintao and his colleagues listen to Phunwang's point on the issue of nationalities? Or will great Han chauvinism continue to prevail?

Imaginary Homeland
(By Shreevatsa Nevatia | The Hindustan Times | April 29, 2008)

Earlier this month, 63-year-old Dadar resident Asha Pai-Dhungat found a leaflet with her morning newspaper. Impassioned by what she had read, she called up the Friends of Tibet (FoT) and pledged her support.

"I cannot leave the house, but I can motivate all the people I meet or talk to," she said. "When Tibet was first taken over by China, the impression one got was that they would at least have cultural autonomy But now even that autonomy has been . taken away by Chinese rule. It is wrong to put people down by force." Pai-Dhungat has also donated $25 to avaaz.org, a global online movement Tibetan freedom which seeks "to close the gap between the world we have, and the world most people everywhere want".

The senior citizen from Dadar is among a swelling tribe of Mumbaikars who are discovering, through recent TV and newspaper reportage, the story of blood and tears of a land ensconced in the mighty Himalayas and occupied by the seemingly mightier Chinese. People in their offices are taking time off preparing their powerpoint presentations to sign online campaigns, housewives are calling up the Friends of Tibet, and youngsters are graduating from campus elections to street protests, that too for a cause that has its epicentre 2,200 km away .

In May, protestors are going to organise seminars and talks at city colleges. On June 4, a big rally is planned to protest the Tiananmen Square massacre in which about 2,000 people were reportedly killed when the Chinese police cracked down on pro-democracy students in Beijing.

Since the March 10 Tibetan uprising, 8,000 Mumbaiites have signed up for various petitions of the Friends of Tibet, an organisation founded in Mumbai. Hundreds have joined rallies, strikes, marches and quaint candlelight vigils, falling out of the urban humdrum. Avaaz, a global online movement, has gathered about 15,000 signatures from India, a sizeable number estimated from Mumbai.

Photographer Shilpa Suchak, for instance, used to be remotely curious about Tibet for all these years. The 31-year-old rarely misses a Tibetan rally now.

"Now I try to make it to as many rallies as my time permits. I am just one person and whatever difference that can make it does," she said, adding that there was very little awareness about Tibet in the city. "We need to go deeper than Save Tibet Free Tibet sloganeering. The roots of the problem needs to be understood correctly for there to be any significant impact." Olympics, the stage Even though she did not join Tibetan Youth Congress activists in their protest outside the Chinese consulate early April, Tenzin Methok visited the Marine Drive police station later to show solidarity with fellow Tibetans.

Pursuing a Bachelor's degree in Management Studies, 19-year-old Methok has recently completed her first year at St. Xavier's College. "With all the media coverage that the Olympics is getting, some attention is finally being focussed on Tibet. In a country and a world where people don't know what and where Tibet is, this is obviously a good thing," she said. In the one year that she has spent in the city, Methok has become an active participant in events organised by the Friends of Tibet.

"Granting China the right to hold the Olympics has in a sense been a blessing to Tibetans and all other areas that suffer under Chinese brutality. Some are at least listening," said Founding President of Friends of Tibet Sethu Das.

There are many who blame Das and other Tibetan activists for trying to mix sport and politics. Lobsang, who won't give his full name fearing Chinese backlash on his family which still lives in Lhasa, finds this accusation absurd. "Politics and sport have always been interlinked. The agenda of the Beijing 2008 Olympics is simple: China wants to show its might. We are against that, not the Olympics," said the 25-year-old.

Just three months in Mumbai, and Lobsang is a vital number of the 50-member strong Tibetan community here. Most of them are in their twenties and early thirties. They all revere the Dalai Lama and want to give peace another chance, and are busy breaking away from the Tibetan cook stereotype. Who am I? Homeopath Dolkar Lhamo (31) was born and brought up in Mumbai. Her manner is distinctly Indian. "My relatives often com ment on this but I have always felt that being a Tibetan is my identity, my soul and spirit. It is like I have two mothers - Tibet and India - one who has given me birth and the other has nurtured me," she said, who lives in Navjeevan Society near Mumbai Central station.

Tenzin Bhuthi (23) lives out much the same duality The software engineer with . one of Asia's leading software companies was born and raised in Kalimpong and hence her Tibetan is tinged with Nepali. When she interacts with the Tibetan sweater-sellers who pass through the city every winter, she finds that she is not fully accepted.

"They don't really treat us as Tibetans because our command over Tibetan is not as good as theirs," said Bhuthi, who refers to herself as ‘Indo-Tibetan'. Home longings Born in Lhasa, Lobsang was 10 when he trekked through the Himalayan range for 27 days to get to India. He left behind his parents, siblings and friends, all of whom he has not seen for 14 years.

"I cannot wait to go back to a free Tibet and see again all that I had been forced to leave behind for a better education," he said. And though Methok has spent all her life in the country, she is still registered as a Tibetan refugee and has chosen not to take up an Indian citizenship. "There are generations of Tibetans who have been waiting for freedom. Beginning to live in our country - that is something we should all stand up for," she said.

Others, however, are not so enthusiastic about a permanent return. "I worry that if I talk to Tibetans about Travel & Living, Kurosawa, aubergines and plays, they wouldn't know what I was talking about," said Bhuthi, who added that she often yearns to return to Tibet when she is walking down a Mumbai streets and somebody cries, "Hey chinky."

People's War Group ideologue Varavara Rao tells Harinder Baweja of Tehelka that Maoists in India and Nepal don't have a common agenda.

Q: While commenting on the Maoist victory, Sitaram Yechury said that if you stick to the path of democracy, you can ride to power.
Rao: How does Sitaram Yechury define democracy? If he thinks parliamentary democracy is democracy, why does his party carry the slogan of People's democracy? That means there is a difference between parliamentary democracy and people's democracy. Why is CPM using an axiom called people's democracy? Since he joined parliamentary politics, Yechury can say anything. There is no difference between the Congress, the BJP and the CPM now, particularly after the Nandigram and Singur.

K Haridas in Conversation with Sethu Das
(Malayalam Weekly of The Indian Express, April 14, 2008)

Sethu Das addressing a hunger strike organised by Tibetan Youth Congress in New Delhi in April 2008 to protest the Chinese aggression on Tibet.

Friends of Tibet is a people’s movement for an Independent Tibet. Sethu Das who is a Malayali is the president of this organization as well as one of the founding members. When this writer contacted him he was in Dharamshala. From a telephone interview with Sethu Das:

K Haridas: Is it just coincidental that the protests happen with the Olympic Games?
Sethu Das: Lets at first look at China. From a statement of the Foreign Affairs minister of China thousands of protests took place in China and in other occupied areas during the last two years. Many separatist movements have taken birth inside mainland China. There are many boiling problems going on and on. We should see the current protests along with them. It’s true that the Olympic Torch passes on through Tibet. But one should not see Tibet protests in isolation. There were protests not only in Lhasa but also in other different parts of occupied-Tibet and in north-west Xinjiang. The situation is pathetic. Mobile pictures and emails reveal the same desperate situation.

K Haridas: Can we think that the Tibetan condition was worse after the corporate capitalist policies of the Chinese Communist Party after the death of Mao?
Sethu Das: China’s greatest paradox today is the present condition of open economy and closed society. In my opinion no country can open up its economy while keeping its society closed. What China does today is this. They have opened their economy with a great speed. The society still remains closed. Even now the Chinese society is banned from knowing certain truths. Many websites and blogs are banned in China. The Chinese population is unaware of what is happening inside their own land. The situation is some what similar in America too.

Once I asked one of my American friends to get a copy of the book ‘People’s History of the United States’ by Howard Zinn. He gave me the book only after a time lapse of two weeks. When I enquired about the delay, he replied: “I was afraid whether you would ever speak to me again after reading this book!” What the white man did to the Red Indians was that cruel. Let’s think that all these happened in the olden times. Even today does the average American citizen know about the atrocities it has committed in Iraq? So every government has the same way of hiding information from its own people in varying amounts. For the Chinese they don’t have any problem in massacring their own people. In reality what they intend is the land in Tibet. It’s with the hidden agenda of China to place them geographically near to India and is not out of any love for the Tibetans.

K Haridas: What is your opinion on the criticism as Tibet becoming the global waste dump due to the recent policies and plans?
Sethu Das: Let’s look at Tibet trough the eyes of the Tibetans. Environmental studies have shown that Tibet is literally becoming a dumping ground for toxic waste. Recently I had the opportunity to talk to some of the former political prisoners from Tibet. They have treaded a long way through these waste heaps. They don’t know whether those waste dumps are nuclear or not. There is a possibility. Certainly this is not only the specialty of the Chinese government. Isn’t the situation somewhat similar in Kerala too?

Another environmental problem which is going to happen is the plan to divert certain rivers by the Chinese government. The ultimate aim behind diversion is to bring water to Beijing, thus improving the luxuries of cities. This has become the basic policy of Chinese policy makers. I recently met a young monk who lived in a village which was in the outskirts of the capital city Lhasa. He told me that there was still no electricity in his village. All the electricity was sent Beijing!

But, Lhasa city too has a part. Big shopping malls, bars and brothels have come up there. A railway has been built from Beijing to Lhasa. It is said to be one of the greatest engineering wonders in the world. But how many Tibetans have the luxury to travel in such trains? Isn't like Rajdhani Express or Palace on Wheels? Certainly these are not the specialties of a single country.

K Haridas: Isn’t the movement headed by the Dalai Lama voicing mainly the problems of religion and are keeping quiet in the most important economic matters concerning the nation?
Sethu Das: There is an exile government headed by the Dalai Lama functioning from India. They are handling all these matters including the issues concerning the religion and of Buddhist monasteries. But it is true that the major share is for religious freedom.

K Haridas: The Dalai Lama asks for self governance and not independence. What is the stand of your organization the ‘Friends of Tibet’ has on this topic?
Sethu Das: See, Friends of Tibet has no responsibility to make Tibet a part of China. Tibet is already a part of People’s Republic of China. The need is for separation. But sometimes I feel that the ‘Genuine Autonomy’ His Holiness the Dalai Lama is demanding is much beyond independence. The autonomy that Dalai Lama demands for are the rights for a separate nation itself.

K Haridas: Aren’t the non-violent measures of the Dalai Lama starting to give unhappy end in his followers?
Sethu Das: I don’t think so. I think his supporters are still the same at large. The slogan of the protesters in the recent protests inside Tibet is: ‘The return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet and the freedom of Tibet’!

K Haridas: Isn’t the Dalai Lama who is supposed to speak on all atrocious acts; keeping quiet on the mass killings which America does in Iraq?
Sethu Das: Never. He has severely criticized the United States on the issue. He has given much criticism on the subject even though he maintains good relations. Probably he is the only spiritual leader who opposed capital punishment and called for amnesty for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

K Haridas: Doesn’t the Dalai Lama receive financial aid from the global powers like America?
Sethu Das: See, the problem with the Dalai Lama is that he does see people like Saddam Hussein and George Bush alike. He does not see a difference. He sees men as equals. In the past I have discussed the issue of ‘foreign funds’ with Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche, Kalon Tripa de facto the Prime Minister of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. My opinion is that the financial aid that Tibet receives from the United States and the European Union is to be seen only from the critics’ angle. I have asked Prof Rinpoche the logic behind accepting funds from the foreign powers which continue to invade smaller nations. The freedom Tibet is going to achieve with help of those powers will not be permanent. Take the case of Poland. After securing freedom with the help of the international community, Poland was among the first to send its army to Iraq to help the coalition forces engaged in the invasion of Iraq.

K Haridas: Has the Chinese Communist Party made Chinese settlements in Tibet to solve the problems of nationality?
Sethu Das: Population transfer is a popular methodology of China. In Lhasa alone there are more Han Chinese than native Tibetans. A former minister of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile told me that if you travel by the border areas of Tibet you will hardly see a Tibetan face there.

K Haridas: Isn’t there a chance for a suppression of the protests as in the Tiananmen Square?
Sethu Das: That’s our fear. What had happened in Myanmar could happen in Tibet also. In Myanmar there is a long silence after a sudden outburst. The Chinese regime could suppress all sorts of protests like the one in Tiananmen Square. Then the people will forget all these. These are serious concerns. The greatest threat the Tibetan people is now facing is to keep the spirit of protest alive and going.

K Haridas: In the end, how did you get in this society called the ‘Friends of Tibet’?
Sethu Das: In 1995 when I was working with The Economic Times, I had an opportunity to be at Dharamshala. The unforgettable sights and the unbelievable facts affected me greatly. I saw many who had lost their limbs in the tortures. Later I became a regular visitor there. Thus that became a way of befriending with the Tibet. Now the Friends of Tibet has 21 national and seven international chapters.

Tibet and the Politics of Olympics
(By Appu Jacob John of Friends of Tibet (Kerala) / appu.john@friendsoftibet.org)

Today Tibet is known as the most problematic geographical area in the whole Asian continent. The Tibetan plateau which has an area of over 2.5 million kilometers is today under the hegemonic rule of the Chinese government. This has become a spark plug for many controversies which have even rocked international politics. Major nations of the World in the right - left wings and the central organizations like the UN have closed their eyes deliberately on the human rights violation of this land. The NGOs who do independent work are often doubted as receiving foreign aid and this has in fact affected in their true mission. Those political organizations who speak loudly for Iraq and Afghan have deliberately forgotten the troubles of Tibet. Here the ordinary people should wake up. Independent thought should arise. But even the independent thought of people is being banned by the government claiming on the policies of diplomacy and securities. People’s response to such bans is a topic of study. It is interesting to note that such a discourse has come up at the time of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

The Olympic torch relay was blocked by the ‘Tibetan separatists’ (official notion) at many places. It is to be assumed that the protests will continue and in doubled strength. In this juncture it should be thought that the title of this essay too is confusing. As known or heard in the common sphere it should have been ‘Tibetan Politics and the Olympics’ and most of the times it’s like that too. The transfer of the torch relay from Mumbai to Delhi; the reduction of the relay path from nine kilometers to three kilometers; the eight feet high safety fencing of the Rajpath and associated security setups; the hacking of the servers of the External Affairs Ministry are all matters along with this. The Tibetan issue which is being known from 1949-59 was debated in many occasions and we got many new realizations on the topic. But this problem once again surfaced during the 2008 Beijing Olympics. The media celebrated it. The discussions helped to understand Tibet in today’s light of events. It was at this juncture that the Captain of the Indian football team Baichung Bhutia announced that he is backing off from the Olympic torch relay. This was a great instance in the Indian athletic history. This has caused the non-sports personnel like Kiran Bedi to back off and Aamir Khan to publicly announce his support for Tibet. But almost the whole of the Athletic world was against it. The majority of the sports personnel suggested that sports and politics cannot be mixed. But it should be understood that sports has a universal political dimension above mere cheap sectarian politics. The athletic world assures a higher brotherhood. This ‘higher brotherhood’ is also the aim of Olympics.

Has the modern Olympics successful in achieving these goals? One has to check this question as the modern Olympics has passed a hundred years of existence. The Olympic movement has strong political undercurrents then and now. The decision on who, where, when and what way to play is done in political circles. The chairman of the Indian Olympic Association Suresh Kalmadi was the minister for sports in the former NDA ministry. The chairman of the Indian Cricket Board Sharad Pawar is the minister for agriculture in the current UPA ministry. The more sports politicians than sports personnel. This is because the present sports field is a million, billion and even a trillion dollar business. A seven star market! Even otherwise why sportstars are known in the name of their country? Even if this is a classification for easy conduct of the games; then why on the prize distribution ceremony the national flag and national anthem of the winner are used? Why the individual achievements like gold, silver and bronze medals are counted under the credit of the country? This political classification helps most of the athletes to get acceptance and honors from ones own land. It can also be thought that this desire for acceptance and political pressure are the cause for many a doping incidents. Thus the notion that sports is above all politics becomes a joke! If brotherhood and friendship was the aim there will be no place for competitions and records?! Perhaps the intentions of the French Baron Pier de Coubertin in starting the modern Olympics based on the ancient Olympics would have been political too!

It’s not much different in the individual side too. The cause for the well known Ranji player from Kerala Ananada Padmanabhan didn’t get place in the Indian team and the reason for why many other athletics teams don’t get even the basic requirements when seen against the Indian cricket team is not much different. They are all the real life examples of political intervention on sports. Much of the talented athletes have been thrown out in the selection stage itself. When Rajyavardhan Singh Rathode; India’s one and only Olympic silver medal; received Pathma Sree and Arjuna Award in the same year; many senior athletes were just not even mentioned. These sports stars are not nonentities in the field of sports; they have achieved their goals by hard work. The only difference here is in saying that sports have no relation with politics.

The common man has to suffer many changes as sports and games are held and related construction works are being undertaken. A very good example is the preparation for the 2011 Delhi Commonwealth Games. Though the 1982 Delhi Asian Games village had turned into a vast residential complex; there is a new games village and stages are being built on the banks of the great river Jamuna. If another games comes in the only option will be to build lodging and staging facility. Nobody looks into future and builds a permanent fixture. There is no fixed stage to host all types of games and there is no fixed village to include even the greatest of the athletes. The nation’s resources are being carefully wasted on here! More people mean more facilities. But since the facilities are few; it’s being robbed from the ‘have-nots’ and is being reallocated to the ‘haves’. This paradox happens in the same country where there are people living far under the poverty line. More people, more facilities, more vehicles - what ever is above the proper mark in the modern society makes an even greater problem in the society - pollution! Thus the associated activities of the sports field cause health hazards to ordinary people. The shop sealing controversy in which the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court YK Sabarwal was involved too was much the same. Prior to the 2011 games the ordinary auto, taxi and bus drivers in Delhi are going to lose their jobs. They have to seek for better vehicles according to the government norms. Nothing more should be said about the migrant workers who come in search of work. Here also with each associated work in the sports field those who are thrown out are the poor and wandering; in order to create better facilities for the middle class society. The story of the Indian Premier League too is not different. We have seen the IPL and the related auction of the players involving millions of rupees. The media presents a number of advertisements which are far more against the so called ‘thousands of years of Indian tradition’. They speak of a situation where one is deliberately attacking another for not supporting his team. There to Baron Coubertin says; “What matters is not victory or defeat: what is more important is participation.” Then why should the participation be like a preparation for war?

One can see international politics in the International Olympic Committee (IOC) which organizes the Olympics. The IOC chairman is selected based on the decisions of nations - especially the mighty ones. The decisions of the IOC too are for the mighty ones. The leader in the boycotting of the 1980 Moscow Olympics was the then American backed IOC president. It was not just as coincidence that the next Olympics got staged in Los Angeles. None other than a European white male has become the chairman of the IOC. It hasn’t come out of the male chauvinistic attitude. There is no participation for women in policy making ventures. So there exists a big political play going on in there. Every Olympics is being selected by the mighty powers. The venue is being auctioned and the one which gets more support from the mighty nations will get the Olympics. This has started bribery for the support of nations and it was a great scandal in the 2004 Olympics. The reason for not holding Olympics in an African or an Arab nation or any where in Latin America except Mexico or only in the metro cities of Asia like Moscow, Seoul, Tokyo and now in Beijing in Asia and the selection of the European and the North American cities is none other than the above mentioned. This is also because of the Euro centered race-color-nationality politics of the IOC. The so-called motto of the Olympics ‘faster, higher, stronger’ is now a days only a market strategy. More than any sports event Olympics has become a celebrity item. The game is now controlled by the global market giants!

The Olympics today is another face of the global market. Sports and games are marketed based on the wishes of the market. This is the reason why global giants sponsor events or individuals. Under pleasant names of brand ambassador and official sponsor they have made sports into a market and the aid to make money. In all the relationships between the athletes, athletes and the government, athletes and the people all money and its transactions has become an important factor. The betting controversy in an earlier India South Africa cricket series; involving former South African skipper, the late Hansie Cronje with team mate Herschel Gibbs and the former Indian skipper Mohammed Azharuddin and team mate Ajay Jadeja is a good example for this. The Olympics also tells none different from these. All the objects sold in the name of the Olympics will be a memorabilia and will be treasured by the owner. It won’t be used for ordinary consumption. Thus even ordinary things can be sold of at high prices. Thus in almost all the locations associated with sports - especially the Olympics, the Asiad, the Commonwealth Games, the World Cup and all - becomes a stage for the global market. Here money flows freely without any constrain. This is a situation that has started from the 1976 Montréal Olympics from whence the expenditure for the Olympic Games has steadily increased. In short it is none other than a glorified bazaar. The justice rendered here is of the mighty ones. The modern world faces a situation where everything is being purposefully worked for the market. The response of the western nations towards this market based setup after the 9/11 disaster is to be studied in detail. They will bring in all sorts of tricks to get hold of this trillion dollar market space.

Ideologies are simply objects for sale in this market place. Thus human rights too become a subject for the market strategies. They simply forget the human rights violations they conduct in and around their country and start to speak about the violations in other countries. Even when blocking the import of goods from such alleged countries is being prevented by the state they never seize to stop their own exports to that country. This is the politics of the mighty. Hence with such techniques they get an unopposed market. If ordinary advertisements are two dimensional there is third dimension of ‘close understanding of the products’ in the athletic and non-athletic festivities. The profit is shared by the producer, supplier and mediator (applicable only for global trade monopolies) in this game.

All these things are unknown only to the IOC which keeps on saying that its aim is ‘world peace’. Not even the great Baron Coubertin criticized the First World War! The same was with the Second World War and the games were banned for two consecutive terms in 1940 and 1944. This was not a political subject for the sports personnel because they were fighting in different political sides. The 1980 Moscow Olympics was boycotted by the Western countries alleging that the Soviet Union had invaded Iraq. Immediately on the next issue in 1984 Los Angeles Olympics the whole Eastern block refused take part in the games owing to the chauvinistic approach of the United States. They even organized an alternate Olympics called Friendship Games too. Thus the argument that only the games which are held in Socialist (?) - Communist countries are boycotted is invalid. Here the game played by President Jimmy Carter and President Yuri Andropov are none other than politics. It’s even noted that Carter was the most popular president of the modern United States. This time other than that national politics since commercial politics comes in ‘the (mighty) World Leaders’ will only boycott the inaugural ceremony only and they will be in all other occasions. This conclusion is to be seen in the light of the current visits of the French president Nicholas Sarkozy to China after the disrupted Olympic torch relay. Another thing to be remembered is that none of these nations wishes to have an adversary rising up as global power. To prevent this they will even dress up as Tibetans and extinguish the torch. The real innocent ones are viewed under suspicion and they are blamed for all the problems while the real culprits’ sit happily in the pavilion. There are those who have succeeded fighting against all these odds like the legendary Jesse Owens (1936 Berlin Olympics) and the great Bob Bemoan (1968 Mexico Olympics). It is recorded in history that Owens came up with strong protest against Carter on the boycotting of the 1980 Moscow Olympics. Like wise ‘the whole concept of friendship above politics’ is a result of many political power plays.

‘Can the Olympic Games be boycotted?’ is the next political riddle to be answered. Here also the sports personnel comment is the same; that it cannot be done. The boycott of the political personnel is set only on the achievement of political goals. But Olympics was boycotted by athletes themselves too. The first of such boycotts happened a hundred years back. The 1908 London Olympics was boycotted by the freedom loving Irish athletes. The Jewish population as a whole boycotted the 1936 Berlin Olympics which was part of the Nazi state’s propagandist policy. The 1964 Tokyo Olympics banned South Africa from participating and at the same time it was boycotted by Indonesia and North Korea. The 1968 Mexican Olympic Games was opened with the brutal massacre of two hundred odd Mexican students by the Mexican militia. The 1972 Munich Olympic was the cruelest of all. Eleven Israeli athletes were shot dead by the Palestine supporting ‘Black September’ terrorist outfit. The same story is reiterated in Spielberg’s famous film Munich (2007). The 1976 Montréal Olympics was boycotted by about twenty six African countries on a disputed rugby match between South Africa and New Zealand earlier in the same year. In the end of it all here in 2008 Beijing Olympics the Tibetan activists are protesting.

Now it’s the Olympic Torch relay that is targeted by the protesters. The 1928 Antwerp Olympics was the venue where it was decided to have an Olympic Lamp. The Olympic torch relay became part of the Olympic Games only with the 1936 Berlin Olympics. It was planned by Goebels, who was Hitler’s propaganda minister; to show off the development of Germany under the Nazi rule. From then on to 2000 Sidney Olympics the torch was lighted at the temple of the Greek goddess Hera and was brought to the Olympics venue. These are all market strategies claiming their origin to the ancient Olympic Games; just like the lavish opening and closing ceremonies. In any way isn’t there a stench of Politics creeping from the ritualistic performance of the Greek actresses dressed as priestesses of Hera in lighting the lamp from solar mirrors; the switching on and off of the ‘great’ Olympic torch by the authorities (2008 Paris protests) and in the consideration of the games as politics free! The Olympic torch and its global journey started with the 2004 Olympics aiming at the global market. In the meantime the IOC has come up with a new logo called ‘One Dream, One World’. One dream and one world for globalization! Every games village is the miniature representation of the global village (of the selected few) and it’s also the representation of a ‘use and throw’ living system. Here too the sports world sung the same old song as this journey cannot be missed due to its centuries of tradition. The IOC too backed this argument. There was also politics in it as many of the athletic/non athletic participants were selected by the earlier mentioned global market monopolies. The torch bearers were just contract laborers and once you break the contact it’s the end of your tenure.

Finally we live in a highly political world. Nation, race, language, customs are all the criterions through which we are politically stratified. In such a situation it is totally ridiculous to claim that a single subject has no relationship with politics. Thus our sports world ought to think in a more open manner. Accept what should be accepted; deny what is to be denied; participate or not tell your opinion to the whole outside world. It is not at all good to keep on muttering that politics and sports have relation with each other. Can’t you just put up a very small protest or opinion for the millions of ordinary sports lovers and the non-sports lovers with a strong back bone? Perhaps it is because of this same inability that will draw the athletes to oblivion in the days of their old age! When I am righting this too there is the controversy hot in the air. The new sports minister MS Gill has said that the Olympic torch is to be carried by sports personnel only. Many like Milkha Singh has agreed to this and the IOC disagree with it. In the meantime the rehearsal is disrupted by the protesters. The ‘people’s torch’ is held away from the people of Delhi. States like West Bengal bans the protesters and states like Kerala taking part with Olympic Torch solidarity pledges while some others protest against it. Don’t you smell the dirty stink of politics?

People Power
A Candle Light Vigil organised by Friends of Tibet, Design & People, Human Rights Law Network (Kerala), Periyar Riverkeeper, Kashi Art Gallery and World Tibet Day at Ernakulam, Kerala on April 17, 2008. (Photo by Johnson Chirayathu of Madhyaman daily)

'The Open Door' by Pico Iyer

Raghavan N Iyer, who had befriended the Dalai Lama soon after the latter arrived in India, published a book The Glass Curtain in the 1960s about the spiritual and social distance between Asia and Europe.

Its foreword was written by the Dalai Lama, who had fled the Chinese occupation of Tibet and set up base in India as the spiritual and temporal leader of the exiled Tibetans. ‘The book was dedicated,’ writes Raghavan Iyer’s son Pico Iyer in his new book The Open Door ‘to a little boy called Pico and to those of his generation for whom there will be no curtain.’ In his masterly look at one of the towering religious figures of our time, Pico Iyer, best known for books like Falling off the Map, discusses a world where there are too many curtains, and how these curtains do not destroy the pragmatic hope the Dalai Lama has for a better world—and a better deal for the Tibetans, even under Chinese rule. The Open Door is Pico Iyer’s effort to investigate a complex yet charming man; the secondary title of the book, The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, indicates the breadth of the book. Iyer, who has known the Dalai Lama for decades, confesses in his book that he has been ‘intrigued by the quiet revolution he was promulgating, challenging us to see politics, globalism, celebrity itself, in a larger and more spacious light.’

The writer discussed his new book with Rediff India Abroad Managing Editor (Features) Arthur J Pais in New York recently.

You have a lively anecdote early in your book that says a lot about the Dalai Lama.

This was in a book published some years ago and it was actually a French businessman, a CEO, who had conducted a series of discussions with the Dalai Lama and then published them in French. I read the translated version of it. I could tell that he was a very sincere, well-intentioned man who was clearly trying to get ideas to better the world. At one point he asked the Dalai Lama, ‘Are you more similar to John Lennon or Mahatma Gandhi?’

I’m guessing the Dalai Lama hadn’t heard of John Lennon and if he had, wouldn’t be so concerned about him. His answer, in the translated version I read, was transcribed as “?!”

So this man actually handed over to the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of the Tibetans, the full lyricsof John Lennon’s song, Imagine. So, in the translated edition that I had consulted, we have the Dalai Lama reading out aloud the song. Asked again and again what single role he chooses for himself, the Dalai Lama says, ‘I don’t know.’

You can tell from the very title, John Lennon’s song is about imagining a better world and dreaming a better world. And, although the Dalai Lama speaks very forcefully about the importance of imagining a better world, he is such a realist!

His life has not allowed him to sit on the mountain top and entertain dreams or romantic fantasies. He’s having to deal, day in and day out, with the Chinese leadership, Tibetan exiles and many other things. I think this whole question seems very remote to his experience. And, yet the questioner, the Frenchman, has many questions, probably as I have done over the years, and keeps pressing him. The Dalai Lama still doesn’t understand and the questioner explains to him a little bit about John Lennon and his vision. Suddenly, the Dalai Lama almost breaks into a digression, and says something like, ‘All I’m doing is trying very hard to help my people and they come to me with all their suffering. Sometimes, it seems almost impossible and all I can do is try but it’s very sad.’ Suddenly, in the midst of this dialogue of miscommunication, the Dalai Lama is being nothing but human and poignant. As I interpreted it, he is saying, ‘I’m just a human being, but trying my best.’

A large theme of my book is who the Dalai Lama really is. The book is also about the projections we push on to him, all of us, I think: the various roles that we wish or need for him to play; so much so, I think, we obscure from ourselves who the man is. The tangle of ideas we have... that he is another worldly figure or a God; or among the Chinese government that he is a devil and a trickster. All these ideas have nothing to do with this very straightforward man.

Tell us about him, particularly in the present context of the Chinese government blaming him as the instigator of the unrest in Tibet and provoking protests worldwide against Chinese rule in Tibet. He’s the most transparent person I have ever met; which is to say I have been investigating him and talking to him for 33 years, and when I began this book (five years ago), I assumed that I held him in high regard. ’It is tragic that the Chinese have always called the Dalai Lama a splitist’ April 21, 2008 But when you look closely at almost any person, you begin to find shadows or inconsistencies. In this case, I find no smudges on him; and in some ways, I see more than ever how the private person and the public person, of what he says and what he thinks, are entirely of one piece. And, he’s straightforward, in the sense that he is not pushing an agenda but always presents himself just as a human being, as we are, on the same level.

And so, in that context, it is ironic and tragic in a way that the Chinese have always called him a splitist. His main thesis is inter-dependence, that we are all intertwined; that is part of the Buddhist way of approaching the world. It is exactly the opposite
of splitist. The Chinese call him an enemy of the Tibetan people, though they have watched him work day and night helping the Tibetan people. He does not believe in enmity; he actually says that if you think somebody’s your enemy, that is the product of your thinking. And that means we can change our attitude and try to turn the enemy into a good person. So you have this poignant situation, especially vivid in recent weeks: The Dalai Lama extends the hand of dialogue and says, ‘I think of the Chinese as friends and brothers and sisters and neighbours.’ But the Chinese call him ‘a jackal in a monk’s robe... an evil spirit with the face of a human and the heart of a beast.’

So, you have this situation where one party is extending a hand, and the other party is picking on him, and all he can do is to keep extending the hand and hope they come to their senses. My reading of the Tibetan situation is that in any situation in our lives, if one person is suspicious he or she projects that distrust onto others; the slippery person sees everyone as a slippery person and the honest person sees everyone as an honest person; there’s nothing the honest person can do except just remain himself fully. And that’s what the Dalai Lama has done consistently.

You also talk about how the Dalai Lama serves two constituencies: His own people and the world. In the context of your question, probably what I am saying is that the world wants and needs him almost to be a global, spiritual godfather, somebody who travels around the world ministering to our needs. The metaphor that I use throughout the book, you know, is that of a physician. I think of him really as a doctor, making house calls, asking people in New York, Tokyo, Delhi, wherever, what ails them and trying to offer whatever he can without saying that that it will be effective. He has become over the years an ecumenical, enlightened, far-sighted spiritual figure traveling around the world and tending to us and giving us what he can. But he is also trying to speak for the 6 million Tibetans who are trapped in Chinese occupied Tibet. He speaks to me very forcefully when I’m in Dharamsala, where thousands of foreigners meet for his annual teaching in late February and March and sit in freezing cold. It is a very uncomfortable situation where 6,000 to 8,000 people are cramped into a little courtyard.

But many foreigners endure that day after day and on March 10, every year, the Dalai Lama comes into that courtyard and delivers something of a State of the Nation address, a political message to his people. One way or another, the Western audience happens, traditionally, not to show much concern for his political message. The political and the spiritual are in contradiction to each other, they think. But I think the large part of the power in him is that his political message comes 100 percent out of his spiritual principles. And that’s what makes him such a liberating and interesting figure on the global stage. Isn’t it true that many young Tibetans consider the Dalai Lama as being too benign, too soft, and they are very impatient with his conciliatory attitude towards Beijing?

Yes, that’s very pronounced in Dharamsala. I think Tibetan people are in some ways divided, because within the Tibetan system he is a God; the incarnation of the God of compassion; they instantly and always defer to him. I almost never heard a Tibetan say anything against the Dalai Lama; but they speak more and more against his policy, his principles of forbearance and tolerance towards the Chinese. The younger Tibetans who are criticising the Dalai Lama and who are impatient with him have not seen Tibet, whereas the Dalai Lama has been working very hard and negotiating with China for 58 years. He spent a whole year traveling across China in 1954, and apart from any other thing, I think, he has a much keener sense of who the Chinese are and how to deal with them to lead his people out of exile. I think his heart bleeds as mine does when I hear those cries of frustration. It’s completely understandable: the impatience of all the Tibetans in exile who think, how can we sit by while our country is being destroyed, piece by piece, and while our cousins are being imprisoned and our loved ones being suppressed? He feels exactly the same thing but he understands more deeply, I think, that if you were to confront China or engage in any kind of violence against China, it will only bring much more suffering to the Tibetans—and the Tibetans have suffered so much already.

He knows that China does not take well to advice from outside and will retaliate. He knows it from his own experience. He’s trying very, very hard to protect the Tibetan people from what he knows will happen if they make gestures that the Chinese will suppress. The Dalai Lama is a great admirer of Mahatma Gandhi -- and younger Tibetans want the Dalai Lama to be a rebel and bring down the Chinese as Gandhi brought down the British...

In recent times, I’ve been actually thinking of Mahatma Gandhi, one of his great pillars and role models. And, of course, Mahatma Gandhi was able to lead the Salt March and non-violent protests against the British. One advantage that Gandhi had over the British was the force of numbers. Britain, during the Raj, controlled India but there were just a few thousand British in India. When many, many people went on strike or made protest marches as Gandhiji recommended, they could severely throw off the economy of the Raj and the way the Raj functioned.

Whereas within the Tibetan situation, you have 6 million Tibetans in a country of 1.2 billion Chinese. And the Tibetans are surrounded by the Chinese. In Tibet itself there are millions of non-Tibetans now. If the Tibetans lead a strike or boycott or protest or whatever, none of that is going to dent or affect the Chinese government at all. So, there’s no sense in following a Gandhian model in that way. It’s not going to work in such different circumstances.

I think the Dalai Lama is the most far-sighted and the most realistic politician that I’ve met. But, at the same time, if I were a Tibetan, I can understand why they feel that terrible sense of helplessness, watching from afar that their country is almost obliterated. I think, once a Tibetan in exile goes to Tibet and once he sees it closely and spends a lot of time among the Chinese, he may come out with a perspective that could be realistic and may be worth considering; but not until then.

Does he think of his death—and what could happen after he passes away? He is very realistic in that way, too, and I cite in my book a conversation that I had with him about three years ago in which I ask him exactly that question. He said that when he dies, about 60 to 70 percent of people support his non-violent policy but that leaves 30 to 40 percent who don’t. There’s nothing he can do to protect the Tibetan people against attack. Very interestingly, the first thing he mentioned was India, his responsibility to India as the very generous host to Tibetans for almost 50 years now. He reminded me that India has so graciously extended itself to the Tibetans as a displaced spiritual people. When the Tibetan people in India become politically agitated, that makes problems for India as well as for the Tibetans in China.

Often, the Dalai Lama puts India into his thinking and makes sure he doesn’t do anything bring complications to India. At the same time, one of the striking things about him is that for four decades, he has been working very carefully, laying the foundation as to what will happen after his death. And he knows certainly that the Chinese will anoint a little boy as the next Dalai Lama, perhaps the child of Communist parents. This Dalai Lama has done all kinds of things to preempt that possibility. For example he is saying that the definition of the 15^th Dalai Lama is somebody who entirely may not follow the course of the 14^th Dalai Lama; he has also been saying that the next Dalai Lama may be born outside Tibet and China. Or there may not be a 15^th Dalai Lama at all. He has really thought it through carefully, how to protect his people and the world from that choice. I am confident he has set in place, in ways I don’t know, some things for the succession and the continuation of his policy. He is in a bit of conundrum because he has been setting up a democratic constitution for the Tibetans that they never had before.

Now, there is a democratically elected government in exile, with its own parliament and a prime minister. The fact of the matter is, customarily the Tibetans only listen to the Dalai Lama. His prime minister is a monk too and a wonderful gentle spirit, a real devotee of Gandhi. Whatever he says now, the Tibetans will listen to him, but not the way they listen to the Dalai Lama. He has to find a way to appoint or find somebody that the Tibetan will listen to as they listen to him. I am sure he has found a way to do it. It is a conundrum. He has also been trying hard to topple himself (EM>chuckles). How, and why? He is the rare leader in the world trying to depose himself. For years he has been telling his people, please take responsibilities for yourselves, please exercise democracy. He tells them, I want to give power to you, and they say, no, no, we must give power to the Dalai Lama. Every time he holds a vote for a new leader, they say, oh, no, no. We want our leader for ever to be the Dalai Lama. Your book paints him as a realist, and also a very shrewd person. Many people may think he is a great spiritual being but naive politically, or they may look at him as an unworldly monk who is out of his depth in politics. And one of the things I remind readers is that he is the single most seasoned political leader in the world. He has been leading his people for 67 years, longer than Fidel Castro or Queen Elizabeth or anybody. And as I mentioned earlier, he was dealing with Mao Tse Tung and Chou En Lai and he was receiving messages from FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, America’s president from 1932 to 1945), serious tactical requests during World War II. The Dalai Lama has seen a civil war erupt around Lhasa when he was 11 years old. Since the time he was an infant really, he has to deal with, day in and day out, political challenges within the Tibetan community, and, of course, across the world. I would say he is very shrewd and very, very practical and looks at the situation clearly and objectively and tries to come out with a very good response. And that is one reason why the Chinese keep insulting him, because they don’t have a legitimate grievance to bring against him. I think they are fearful.

What mandate did you give yourself when you started to write this book? I wanted objectively to investigate his many positions and bring all the challenges to him that I could, philosophically, politically, culturally and otherwise. One thing that struck me most was the Dalai Lama’s favourite words: Investigate, analyse, research and explore. That is one reason he calls himself a scientist, and that is what he is doing with everything. In response to recent demonstrations by the Tibetans he said, let us investigate, I want to see the reality, I don’t want to hear more opinions, let us know clearly what is going on. And in his school of Buddhism, the most famous practice is ritual debating where one monk puts forth one position and the other monk puts forth another, and they engage in this dialectical exchange.

I noticed that this habit is very strong in the Dalai Lama. He loves being challenged and he talks to people who come at him with challenges, and some other points of view, whether they are scientists or Catholics or Buddhists or atheists. So I thought the best service I could do to the readers in some ways was that I could take to him his own ideas, see if they can be challenged. I was not going to give them a free ride. People know at this point that the Dalai Lama is a warm, kind and charismatic person. Sometimes that very warmth and charisma prevent us from really thinking about what he is saying. In this book, I decided that I did not really want to get into his personality or biography much, for it is covered very well in Hollywood movies.

I wanted to see what lay behind him and beneath him in the way of his ideas. And in my own case, 20 years ago when I would go to listen to the Dalai Lama speak, I would often come out and say, what a great sense of humour he has, or what a kind and attentive person he is—how very unselfconscious he is. All that is true. But I would not really digest at that time what he was really saying in a practical and philosophical way. So I thought this time, that is what is more important about him. He is a mortal being, he is not going to be around for ever. But his ideas could stay on. And there is one chapter in my book, called The Politician, which is really the description of the events the whole world has been following in the last few weeks. These events are about a call for dialogue with the Chinese and with the people who are calling for confrontation with the Chinese. And they are also about the Dalai Lama talking about patience and forbearance. While he believes that the confrontation with the Chinese will not bring Tibetans any good, he seeks out dialogue with the Chinese leaders in the hope that perhaps one of them would understand the plight of the Tibetans and do something about them. Having a global dialogue is very important to him, and he travels across the world making connections with people and discussing a wide range of topics from the Tibetan issue to metaphysics and ecology.

I write in the book of how shrewdly he has made friends in Hollywood, and how people like Richard Gere are helping his message get to a global audience better than any national politician could. Philosophers, scientists and religious people across the world, the Dalai Lama discovered over three decades ago, could talk to people in the far corners of the world and enjoy real dialoguers and exchanges, even as governments were constrained by their wish not to antagonise the richest market in the world. Despite your long acquaintance with him, what surprised you about the Dalai Lama while you were working on this book? How deep and precise his words are in English. Sometimes he sounds so simple, some people take his words to be simplistic. Take for example the declaration he made over 20 years ago: I am a simple Buddhist monk. Some people may think he