| |
Nepal
keeps a wary eye on Tibet
By Dhruba Adhikary
LHASA - As much as Nepal might desire, and benefit from, an independent,
sovereign Tibet across its borders, as is widely advocated in much of the
Western world, the chances of this happening remain poor.
Nepal shares nearly half of Tibet's 2,400-kilometer Himalayan border, which
also touches India, Bhutan, Sikkim and Myanmar. Intensive use of existing
highways and traditional trek-trails through mountain passes are already in
place to boost both commercial and cultural contacts to the advantage of the
people living on either side of Mount Everest, known as Qomolongmo in China,
which has granted Tibet "autonomous region" status.
Politically, too, Nepal is among a few countries that stand to make substantial
gains should Tibet re-emerge as a Vatican-style holy place of Buddhists ruled
by the Dalai Lama, now living in exile. Lhasa, the bustling capital city of
Tibet, has a special place for Nepal, as is visible in the form of a consulate.
No other country has been given permission to open a diplomatic mission in
Lhasa.
Denizens of the Roof of the World, as Tibet is often referred to, have
traditional regard for Nepal because of its possession of Lumbini, the
birthplace of Buddha. Besides, because of its reputation as the victorious
power in the war fought in the 19th century, Nepal enjoyed several extra
territorial concessions in Tibet. Under a treaty signed in 1856, Tibet paid a
yearly tribute (of 10,000 rupees) to Nepal until 1953. "Historically speaking,
we had some suzerainty over Tibet," prime minister B P Koirala said in 1959 -
the year the 14th Dalai Lama fled to India. "We now have to look after two
frontiers," Koirala declared, admitting that Nepal did not have worries about
its northern boundary until the Chinese military advances overwhelmed Tibet in
the 1950s.
Nowadays, some Western leaders appear to be advocating that Tibet become
independent or a territory with a provision for "genuine self-rule". Nepalis,
though, generally do not view this as a realistic proposition.
To be sympathetic to Tibetan refugees - numbering about 30,000 - is one thing,
but to think of helping them to fight a freedom struggle with China from Nepal
is quite another. It is simply inconceivable. The writer of this article, who
recently spent 12 days in Tibet, has not found many Nepalis who support this
idea.
China has consolidated its hold on Tibet in the past five decades through
development of infrastructure and by introducing a series of welfare schemes
for its people. Things have markedly changed since 1951, and especially after
1965, when Tibet was formally declared as a Chinese autonomous region.
However, those who prefer to interpret favorably US President George W Bush's
latest gesture toward the Dalai Lama in the form of a handshake at the White
House last Wednesday may very well find a reason to be optimistic that Tibet
could change. Ostensibly, supporters of the "Free Tibet" campaign can also draw
some solace from the "interest and genuine sympathy" the 14th Dalai Lama found
in Bush and his secretary of state, Colin Powell.
That Washington chose to defy strong Chinese protests against the visiting head
of the Tibetan government-in-exile itself can also be construed as evidence of
a sustained US assurance for a Tibetan cause. The hospitality extended to the
visiting monk is very much in line with the presidential pledge contained in a
report submitted to the US Congress last May; but it remains unclear whether
this US commitment could actually be implemented to produce any tangible
results.
Is, for instance, the Bush administration likely to drop combat troops into
Tibet as it has done in the case of Iraq or Afghanistan? The answer is likely
an emphatic "no" in existing circumstances. Washington's warm words to the
Dalai Lama, therefore, can at best be taken as a morale-booster message.
Nothing more.
Several US presidents - both Democrats and Republicans - have performed this
kind of public relations exercise in the past. Bush himself has done it before.
Like his predecessors, Bush, too, needs to keep influential lawmakers in good
humor, or else he has loses their support, particularly in the senate. Dianne
Feinstein is one such senator, who represents the state of California; and she,
like many fellow legislators, has to look after her constituency. It is a
recorded fact that Feinstein was the leading sponsor of the Tibetan Policy Act
that the president signed on September 30, 2002. And in June this year, it was
Feinstein once again who moved resolutions to punish Nepal for having agreed to
deport 18 illegal Tibetan immigrants at Beijing's behest. Western diplomats
agree - in private conversations - that the case would not have attracted as
much attention in the US had her husband, Richard Blum, honorary consul general
for Nepal in San Francisco, not been in Kathmandu at that time. Blum was in the
Nepali capital apparently to attend the festival organized to commemorate the
50th anniversary of the first ascent on Everest, called Sagarmatha in Nepal.
The deportation incident, which happened at the end of May, ignited a major
diplomatic brawl in Kathmandu, with the US and British embassies on one side
and the Chinese Embassy on the other. Each issued sternly worded statements.
While the US and British statements found it convenient to denounce the Nepali
government, the Chinese statement countered the patronizing Western stand,
defending Nepal's right to expel illegal immigrants from its territory. "We
hold the view that politicizing or adopting double standards will not be
conducive for the proper settlement of the issue of illegal immigrants," argued
the Chinese statement, alluding to the practices applied by the Americans and
British when they handle cases of aliens who enter their lands without valid
travel documents.
"Small Nepal is often placed under great pressures by powerful countries," said
Kapil Kafley, editor of Raajdhaani, a major Nepali-language newspaper published
in Kathmandu. "Even leaders of the Tibetan community have little understanding
of Nepal's difficult geopolitical situation. Insensitive remarks made by
Wangchuk Tsering, the Dalai Lama's representative to Nepal, are a case in
point," Kafley added, citing Tsering's comments published in the San Francisco
Chronicle of November 14, 2002. Apart from Tibetans, Nepal is home to about
100,000 Bhutanese refugees. And the presence in the country of the refugee
agency, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has been of a help -
but it has been seen more often than not that they become active only when
there are high-profile cases of Tibetans - as was evident in May.
Critics of Tibetan campaigners based in foreign comfort zones now include
non-Nepali writers and journalists. Daniel Lak, a Canadian journalist working
for the British Broadcasting Corp (BBC), expressed dissenting views in a
newspaper article he recently wrote to review Patrick French's book Tibet,
Tibet. "People in San Francisco find it very easy to be self-righteous
about causes far away," said Lak. French, who spent 20 years fighting for the
Tibetan freedom movement in Britain, is of the opinion that Tibet will never
again be a sovereign state, at least not in the lifetime of anyone living now.
Adds Lak, "It is time for Westerners to move on, and allow Tibetans to find
their own solutions to their own problems."
Why has French, an acclaimed historian and author, begun to question the
usefulness of the external support to the people of Tibet? While the activities
of some Tibetan collaborators with the Chinese, as well as the "contradictory
affairs" of the Tibetan government-in-exile in Dharmasala, India, might have
prompted the author to think the way he is thinking now, it cannot be an
exaggeration to anticipate that the changing approach to life among the younger
generation of Tibetans, who are growing up in a modern and rapidly urbanized
atmosphere, also influenced the Western author. As visitors to Lhasa can
witness for themselves, most of the young boys and girls in the city of about
300,000 inhabitants wear trendy expensive clothes, and are to be found
frequenting nightclubs, the number of which is swiftly going up.
Few among these adolescents can be expected to lead a life of saffron-clad
monks, making rounds in Jokhang, Sera or Ramoche monasteries. Similarly, it
would be a mistake to presume that all native visitors to Potala and Norbulinka
palaces, both associated with the Dalai Lama, are there to seek spiritual
contentment. More often, it is the curiosity to know about the comforts the
head lamas enjoyed during their times that attracts the attention of modern-day
Tibetans. To them, these places are already like museums, and are important
only from the historical point of view. Very few among these people genuinely
expect the return of pre-1959 days with the Dalai Lama at the helm of affairs.
The Chinese authorities, though they are against the idea of restoring the old
feudal order, do not seem to be creating problems for those Tibetans who want
to spend their time in religious activities. Sights of large numbers of elderly
men and women flocking to shrines with prayer wheels in their hands are too
visible to be ignored. As can be seen around famous Buddhist temples, shops
selling images of Buddha are doing good business. Traders dealing in butter-fed
lamps are busy catering to the demands of devout Buddhists.
Nyi Ma Tesring, 37, one of the monks assigned to escort visitors inside Jokhang
temple, does not hesitate in responding to the questions, including ones on the
14th Dalai Lama, put forward by inquisitive visitors. During a conversation
with the writer, he openly spoke of the damage inflicted on shrines when the
Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966-76) was at its height. But this is something
that affected the whole of China, and Beijing has publicly admitted that
excesses were committed during that period.
"During the Cultural Revolution, freedom of religious beliefs was seriously
violated in Tibet, as elsewhere in the nation," says an official publication
released in 2001. China subsequently spent large sums of money for repair and
renovation works across the country. Jokhang Temple, which is on the United
Nations Educational and Scientific Organization heritage list, is among the
1,700-odd Buddhist pilgrimage centers now in Tibet. There are also four mosques
for Muslims, and a church for Catholics. Muslims are conspicuous with their
flat white caps - some of them are seen busy selling dried fruit at the main
entrance of Potala.
Sights in Shigatse, about 300 kilometers to the west, are not different either.
People are seen rushing to the main monastery to pay their respects to Chamba
Lhakang (future Buddha) with offerings of scarves, incense sticks and currency
notes and coins. Like Lhasa, Shigatse offers itself as a hub of Buddhist
festivals and cultural activities.
A tour of these important holy places in the region leads visitors to conclude
that media reports claiming the absence of religious freedom in Tibet are not
true. The case of the Dalai Lama and the Buddhist clergy that form the basis of
his support is different - it is a political matter related to someone whose
interest is to retain his status as the god-king of Tibet.
The Tibetan language receives priority all over Tibet. Signboards in
marketplaces and signposts on the highways are glaring evidence - Tibetan
letters are printed on the upper side of the signboard and Chinese characters
can be seen on the lower side of it. Needless to say, Tibetan calligraphy looks
distinct and attractive. Authorities in Beijing have adopted policies to exempt
Tibet from restrictive measures approved by the central government for the rest
of China. The one-child policy, for example, is not strictly applied in Tibet.
And the marriageable age is 20 for men and 18 for women in Tibet, whereas it is
22 and 20 for other parts of China. There are social-security schemes to cover
health costs, and care of the aging population.
Of the population of Tibet, which was 2.6 million at the end of the year 2000,
and is registering growth of 1.3 percent annually, more than 92 percent are of
Tibetan stock. "Compared to Nepal, Bhutan or other Indian Himalayan areas,"
wrote India's left-leaning politician Sitaram Yechury after a recent visit,
"the Tibet region is witness to unprecedented economic and other consequent
social developments."
Tibet continues to be a land of mystery for people living in distant lands. It
wears a look that is different from mainland China. Chengdu, the nearest point
in the mainland, is two hours away from Lhasa by air - an hour more than it
takes to fly to Kathmandu. In fact, Tibet already possesses the characteristics
that Bush referred to in the White House statement issued last week: "The
president reiterated the strong commitment of the United States to the
preservation of Tibet's unique religious, cultural and linguistic identity and
the protection of human rights of all Tibetans."
The issue related to human rights - from the West's standpoint - is not
something Tibet alone is confronting - the whole of China deserves attention,
if at all. And it is this US policy of paying special attention to Tibet that
irritates China. Beijing considers this an interference in China's internal
affairs. Chinese analysts express surprise that the United States, which
recognizes Tibet as a part of China (and has refrained thus far from
establishing diplomatic relations with the self-proclaimed Tibetan
government-in-exile), is implying that Beijing cannot represent the interests
of Tibetans. "Who is the real representative of the interests enjoyed by the
Tibetan people?" wondered analyst Hua Zi in a recent edition of a bi-monthly
publication named China's Tibet. "This should be a question," Hua continued,
"with answers clear to the United States, a country self-styled as the pioneer
of 'democratic politics'."
China's move into Tibet in 1951 was based on an agreement signed in May that
year. But the Chinese claim historical records and evidence to prove their
country's sovereignty over Tibet since the 13th century. Documents on Nepal's
checkered relations with Tibet (also known as Bhot), too, endorse the Chinese
contention. The pre-1949 China, which was an empire, had allowed the Buddhist
clergy to exercise functional autonomy in Tibet. That India explicitly accepted
Tibet as a part of Chinese territory as recently as this June has significantly
contributed to embolden Beijing on its assertion on the issue. Washington,
however, does not seem to have fully understood the implications of Indian
Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's decision to oblige China even as India
plays host to the Dalai Lama and more than 100,000 Tibetan refugees.
Beijing's protests to Washington are based on a long-standing Chinese
perception that the Dalai Lama is an insincere and unreliable man who swings
between two extremes - from demands for Tibetan autonomy to calls for an
independent Tibet. "The Dalai Lama is not simply a religious figure, he is a
political figure living in exile who has long been committed to separatist
activities and to undermining national unity," said spokesman Kong Quan of the
Foreign Ministry in Beijing shortly before Bush welcomed the Dalai Lama at the
White House.
If events of this kind in the past are anything to go by, China is likely to
take the White House meeting as a provocative act. In June 1996, China
unilaterally canceled a scheduled visit of German foreign minister Klaus Kinkel
and shut down the Beijing office of Friedrich Naumann Stiftung, a political
foundation, immediately after it organized a pro-Tibet international conference
in Bonn. Chancellor Helmut Kohl, however, thought it wise to dissociate his
government from the conference, which included the Dalai Lama and members of
his government-in-exile.
Unlike Western diplomats, their Chinese counterparts based in Kathmandu do not
regularly comment on seemingly sensitive matters. What they do, however, from
time to time is to draw public attention to past incidents and relevant Chinese
positions thereon. It is in this context that Nepal's senior military and
civilian officers often recall being reminded of the 1974 operation to disarm
Tibetan rebels, called Khampas, who were discovered to be carrying out
cross-border insurgency from remote Nepali hills into Tibet, with weapons - and
training - clandestinely received from the US Central Intelligence Agency. The
commander of the insurgency, Wangdi, was killed together with several other
rebels. Those who survived surrendered, and the Royal Nepal Army put up a
public exhibition in Kathmandu of the seized weapons and equipment that the
insurgents used to attack targets in Tibet.
China and India, despite their entanglement since the armed conflict of 1962
and resultant border disputes, may agree to work in tandem if they see a need
to protect their common interests - to keep the Americans at bay. And this
could be a setback for Nepal's fragile government, which has agreed to receive
US and British military assistance (in addition to India's) to counter the
seven-year old Maoist insurgency that has already claimed nearly 8,000 Nepali
lives.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact
content@atimes.com for information on our
sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
