I have read Senge Rabten’s letter to the editor titled “Lukar Jam does it again” from beginning to end, and read it twice again, and once again today this morning. What happens when you read a piece fuelled largely by the coal of loyalty to a personality rather than by careful scrutiny of facts? You want to write a response in the interest of the Tibetan public. And here it goes. This piece will tackle it paragraph by paragraph, and provide an alternative view, so that readers have the right materials to make their own judgements.
Paragraph 1: Yes, it is no secret that Lukar Jam declared, without mincing words, that he was against anyone who does not support independence. He said it, and what’s the big deal about that? Mr Rabten has quietly ignored one word that Lukar Jam mentioned. He did not specify only the Dalai Lama, he also mentioned his father. His actual words are “whether it is the Dalai Lama or my father.” Samdhong Rinpoche once said those who make uncalled-for noises carrying Rangzen on their lips were worse than Chinese communists and Shugden followers. Unfortunately, there’s no hue and cry against Rinpoche’s proclamation, which if pronounced in a free society like America, would have garnered torrents of rebuttals. If analysed impartially, there is nothing to suggest that Lukar Jam’s ‘traitor’ comment is in principle any different from Samdhong Rinpoche’s ‘Chinese communist/Shugden’ comment. You have stated Mr Jam’s comment hurt the sentiment of many Tibetans. But by the same token, don’t you believe Samdhong Rinpoche’s comment has similarly hurt many freedom-loving Tibetans and Tibet supporters alike?
Allow me to digress for a minute on the Umey-Rangen dichotomy? Middle-path was adopted in the Tibetan exile world by a majority of 60% several decades ago. But this referendum has staggering limitations, not in the least because the vote count was less than, by a generous estimate, 100,000 Tibetan exiles. Mr Rabten should contrast this figure to 7,000,000-plus Tibetans inside Tibet, a majority of whom support Independence. No one who self-immolated has called for ‘Genuine Autonomy or Umey’ but changed to ‘Tibetan independence’ while being dragged by flames into the realm of the dead.
Paragraph 2: Yes, Lukar Jam said that late Prof Eliot Sperling should live for 113 years. So what’s the big deal about that? It is reasonable that Lukar Jam would wish his friend to live long enough. There is no relationship of ‘mutual exclusivity’. Person A living for 113 years doesn’t preclude person B from living for 113 years. This relationship applies to the appellation of 17h Karmapa. Increasingly, Tsurphu Labrang is adopting ‘His Holiness the 17th Karmpapa’ title. Does that mean Dalai Lama is not the one to deserve HH the Dalai Lama? This sort of argument leads to absurdity, if stretched to its logical conclusion. So isn’t it fair to say that those who take issue with the ‘113 years’ comment are endeavouring to make mountain out of molehill?
Further, you have insinuated that Lukar Jam wanted Dalai Lama ‘dead’ — Are you serious? You couldn’t be serious. By writing such a bold sweeping statement without foundation, the writer is stoking anger in the public to avenge Lukar Jam, and lo and behold, we’ve all seen the result. Lukar Jam received threats to his life and his car (reportedly donated to his European supporters for his security) was vandalized in March 2017. Is this how we want to treat our freedom fighters who already suffered under the Communist Chinese?
On the question of Shugden, the only voice of reason comes from Lukar Jam, who expressed that the Shugden issue has been elevated to a national level when it is in essence a minor issue, and clearly not worthy of discussion in the highest echelons of Tibetan government. We had no Shugden issue until 1996 when a prominent guru was murdered by Chinese spies who fled to Tibet. Then started the witchhunt against Shugden. Don’t you see that Chinese deliberately wanted to stoke tension by bringing the Shugden issue to the forefront of Tibetan politics? In centuries past, it was nothing more than a peripheral issue and the Tibetan diaspora enjoyed relative stability on the religious front. The way to deal with the Shugden issue is to guarantee freedom of religion to its practitioners and separate it from politics altogether.
Paragraph 3: “Why is Lukar Jam hell-bent on attacking His Holiness the Dalai Lama?” opines Mr Rabten. But what he fails to clarify is the definition of the word ‘attack’. What is the difference between ‘attacking’ the Dalai Lama and ‘criticising’ the Dalai Lama? If he means criticism, then the answer to his anguished puzzlement is easy. He is criticising Dalai Lama because he found reasons to criticise. Show me a single democratic nation where criticism of the leaders is not allowed? I will show you a basketful of states banning criticism of its leaders: North Korea, Sudan, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Syria. You get the idea. Just as apostles of the Middle-path policy have the right to speak, and say Rangzen followers are ‘more dangerous than Chinese Communists’, Independence champions have the equal right to speak, and say Middle-path followers are ‘traitors’. Failing to acknowledge this irony and gap in logic is but an indicator of entrenched narcissism.
On the question of spreading dissension and division, does Mr Rabten long for a group of people who don’t have any personal opinions themselves, but who follow parrot-fashion lists of what to believe and what to say bellowed out from a loudspeaker? Democracy is uncomfortable, because it brings up lots of questions that make us think hard. But lovers of democracy accept it. Tibetans should accept it too.
When Samdhong Rinpoche says “Rangzen people outdo Chinese communists in badness” and tarnish their reputation, it is not spreading dissension and division, but is rather a decree of unfathomable truth. One is compelled to conclude Mr Rabten’s democracy — or rather this democracy with ‘Tibetan characteristics’ — is a mind-boggling, liver-shimmering Utopia of the sort Orwell have envisaged. It is a democracy where “all animals are equal, but some are still more EQUAL than others.”
Para 4: Mr Rabten likens Lukar Jam’s candidacy on the Tibetan Independence platform to an “evil scheme designed to disable CTA’s way of governing and cause all-round frustration in the community.” I seriously challenge Mr Rabten to provide evidence for his declarations. Mr Rabten makes us believe Lukar Jam is the reincarnation of the devil, hell-bent on spreading evil in society. Is this really the case, seriously? Lukar Jam’s support comes from mainland Tibet (Dharamshala-centric refugee population) where he is hailed as a martyr.
Para 5: Yes, the Dalai lama is the most famous Tibetan, and he has rightly garnered many honorary citizenships and praises for his message of non-violence and for his charisma. And of course, people will wish him longevity. But that has nothing to do with Lukar Jam. Lukar Jam’s criticism is not that the Dalai Lama isn’t being a good human being or guru; rather, his criticism is on the political front in relation to ceding sovereignty to China. Surely a leader saying we are not seeking our country back but joining the enemy would hurt someone like Lukar Jam, whose life was dedicated for the very same purpose.
Para 6: The Dalai Lama’s magnanimity and loveable qualities are indeed incontestable. No one is saying that he isn’t a man of peace. Lukar Jam’s point is in the brutal, dog-eat-dog dynamics of the nation-state politics. It is not a man of peace who will defeat the enemy, but a warrior of worldly strategies and ambition that will gain us our freedom.
Para 7: All peace-loving people around the globe celebrate the Dalai Lama’s spiritual wisdom. And let me join the writer in wishing His Holiness long life.
In conclusion, one is driven to feel after reading Mr Rabten’s opinion that while he may have enviable questions such as loyalty in abundance, it is highly recommended that he take up a crash course on Democracy 101. By exerting such pressure on Lukar Jam to self-censor his opinions by condemnation in Parliament and various private spheres, does Lukar Jam really feel his free speech is respected? This is a question that must stir the conscience of all Tibetans.
Students for Lukar Jam
by email
23 April 2017
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are those of the writer and not necessarily that of Tibet Sun
Dear students for Lukar Jam,
I am basically a non political person and do not subscribe to any particular ideology or party. But I am a Tibetan and love my country and its past glorious history.
The institution of Dalai Lama is inseparable part of Tibetan history, and the present Dalai Lama has given us the best possible leadership during the most critical time in our history.
To be honest and fair to all shades of views and opinions, I totally agree that people in democratic society should have right to express their views and disagree with each other over policy matter of government. I really don’t understand who is denying this right to whom and it is useless wasting our time and energy arguing over Lukar’s few lines of poetry which many of us do not like to read at all.
Tibetan people have good knowledge of functional democratic system and understand that no leadership is above criticism. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has propounded this Middle Path policy to save us from extinction or complete obliteration under repressive policy of Communist China. It was a difficult choice for His Holiness and his followers and those who criticize Him today should understand this reality. Mere criticizing the middle path policy without offering Tibetan people other achievable option is simply like building castle in the air.
I appeal all the supporters of Lukar to be careful before commenting on His Holiness the Dalai Lama as nobody can do what His Holiness has done for us. Please stop preaching us on democratic values and rights.
I also feel that when people like Lukar Jam and other Rangzen advocates complain that there is no freedom of expression after saying all they want. And when others speak and counter their views, then they say they are like Talibans. Like wise, the Students (I don’t know how many of them wrote this reply) have said all they want to say. So what’s their problem saying “students are asking the same”. What are they asking when nobody is stopping them from saying or doing anything?
With regard to Lukar Jam, I feel that he has crossed the line. I agree with Tenzin Gonpo that there is a line where your freedom of expression ends. If you don’t see that line, then you are on “My way”, not on high way where you have to be careful and go by rules.
And the point about open minded, is Tashi Ngodup saying that be open minded and accept what Lukar Jam has said? I think those who have opposed Lukar Jam are very clear and reasonable in their views. It’s the matter of being responsible and not to get stuck in their ego.
Students for Lukar Jam: you are all students. It’s time to learn. What I mean is it’s better to read more. Trying to be experts after reading a few democracy books and Tibetan history books are not enough. HH the Dalai Lama and people like Senge Rabten la have lived their lives practicing/doing/working democracy and all that you think are democracy, freedom and justice.
The point is not about Lukar Jam can’t express. Of course he can, like anybody else. But with rights, there are also duties. One can’t just say things that are not true about others. You cannot defame someone for no reason. How does HH becomes a traitor when he says that he is not disputing Tibetan independence. All he is asking is autonomy to save Tibet and Tibetans from disappearing from the face of the earth. He has always welcomed those who want to go for independence. The sad part is they seemed to have no clue what they are doing to achieve that.
People like you misinterpret and misuse the sacrifices of the self-immolators. It’s true that few have shown Rangzen written on their body before they immolate. How many of the self-immolators have done that. The most obvious one was by nun Sangay Dolma. She was only 17. Let’s not question if she really understands the politics of Rangzen and autonomy, and she believed in independence and she gave the sacrifice irrespective of independence happening. We know she is too young to make that judgement. Now tell us, how many others self-immolators have called for independence. However, almost all the self-immolators have called for the return of His Holiness.
Now let’s talk about Tibetans in Tibet and Lukar Jam’s remarks about 113 years and Dalai Lama being a traitor. Show us any evidence of any Tibetan supporting Lukar’s views. Let’s do a simple exercise. Ask any Tibetan in Tibet (who visit India for example) if they support what Lukar Jam has said.
I feel said that there are many Tibetans with little modern education are showing no respect for His Holiness, what he stands for, and what he has done for the Tibetan cause. They are unthankful, and not able to understand his visions, which is beyond their school books and the western pop culture.
I hope I have the freedom of expression too, and the Student’s for Lukar and the likes will not liken me for a hardliner and right-winger. I am not asking you to stop expressing your views. All I am asking is to understand right and duties, try to make sense. To the Students, may be you can wait till you become mature enough to tackle and talk politics.
” I hope i have the freedom of expression too,”
I think the students are asking for the same.
“and the students for Lukar and the likes will not liken me for a hardliner and right winger.”
The students and Lukar Jam are more likely to be labelled as hardliner where nationalism and Tibet is concerned. Lukar Jam cannot contain his passion for Tibet and freedom. Isn’t that the whole issue of the problem. Why would they call you a hardliner?
“Students for Lukar Jam: You’re all students. its time to learn.”
Sometimes we can unlearn some things. Senge Rapten and you don’t have the monopoly over truth and wisdom. All I want to say is try to be more open minded.
I am glad that the piece I wrote on Lukar Jam has prompted the students of LJ to respond and I want to thank them for it because it has in some ways rekindled my loyalty and faith in His Holiness the Dalai Lama to even greater heights. I am proud and grateful to him for having shaped me into being a reasonable human being over the last 60 odd years.
Lets get down to some business now. First of all, let me say that LJ’s father must have been a great dad just like any other father but who in the world knows him except for LJ himself. His Holiness on the other hand is well known all over the world and that’s why it was well worth mentioning him.
I will talk about the U-mey Lam a little later but first let me tell you that I meant what I said about LJ wanting the Dalai Lama ‘dead’. I said it without mincing my words but LJ meant the same thing using an eulogy. The impact of the meaning is the reason why Sikyong Lobsang Sangay chose the 10th of March occasion to denounce LJ’s remarks. It is the same reason why there were heated discussions in the Chithue about the remarks. In any case, even if I said it “what’s the big deal?” Likewise, what’s the big deal if I said LJ’s evil scheme “designed to disable CTA’s way of governing and cause all-round frustration in the community.” I meant what I said and you will see why I said it when I did. I don’t know if you guys remember but during the campaign, LJ vowed that the first thing he would do if elected Sikyong is to change the name of CTA to Tibetan Govt-in-Exile because he thought that is how it should be. Remember, we did have that name before. Why did we change it? We had to change it because the Foreign Ministry of the host government put in a formal request/demand to His Holiness that we change it due to political reasons. Now do you see why I said it and why it is worthwhile saying it? Just imagine the impact it would have on our brothers and sisters living in India if we were to do something foolish that would leave the Indian government no choice but to take punitive action. They can do it if they want to. No doubt about that. LJ does not have a clue what it is like having to live in a country where you are bound by the rules and regulations of the land. We have to understand this and respect it.
This brings us finally to the question of why we had to leave our own country and take refuge in other countries. As I have said in my earlier post, the Chinese are responsible for our situation and therefore we must and should confront them in every possible way. Those of you who support and favour independence should use all of your English language and democratic skills to challenge the Chinese and demand that they meet your requirements. It is just not enough to sit comfortably in a foreign country and harp on the ideals of independence and democracy only when you feel comfortable to speak about them. If you are this concerned about independence then you should go meet with the Chinese and make your demands. Go knock on the doors of the Chinese embassies around the world and engage in some serious actions, I mean serious actions. Not just hand over your written demands and come back. In this respect, I truly admire our brothers and sisters in Tibet who are truly the heroes and heroins of our country. I cannot even begin to imagine how I can thank them for such brave actions. All I can say is that I am so proud of them. So, again if you are so passionate about independence and criticise His Holiness for ceding sovereignty to China, what other alternative plans do you guys have? We would love to hear them. We have heard so much about Rangzen which, by the way, is our right no doubt and we don’t disagree with you on that. But how do you guys plan to achieve Rangzen? Unless you guys have something up your sleeves which you would like to reveal right at the end, we would love to hear your plans. Otherwise simply talking repeatedly about Rangzen without mentioning how you would achieve it is just “empty vessels making a lot of noise.”
You say that LJ had reasons to criticize His Holines and I know what he is critical about.
I’ve been following the Tibet genocide since my first audience with H.H. in 1972. H.H. is clearly the most popular figure in today’s world except of course for the PRC and PLA.
H.H. since his “Discovery” as a boy has been worshipped and praised his entire life all over the planet. But he should not be above criticism. While he has enjoyed a hugely successful life, best selling books, editorial praise, luxurious travel, and world personalities and powerful friends, he has abandoned the Tibetans in Tibet, and bragged about his middle path approach that won him the Nobel Prize and the indulgence but no real support from anyone including my United States.
He should be honored for his good words but criticized for refusal to support a boycott of the China olympics, his criticism of the Tibetan guerrillas willing to fight and die for freedom in Tibet (and guard H.H. while he ran away in 1959), insist on negotiation with China for decades before recognizing that is an illusion, “outing” and condemning the Panchen Lama he selected, and refusing to return to Tibet in spite of the anguished call for his return especially from the tips of those self-immolators.
Will impartial historians detect the hypocrisy of his advice to his fellow Tibetans to love your enemy and return to Tibet to save the culture when he himself refuses to do so .
Mr. Alan Nichols needs to read and understand the Tibetan situation better before writing anything on paper.
Let me make some clarifications for him. His Holiness never abandoned his people in Tibet. Period. Rather than being captured by the Chinese and kept under house arrest in some remote region of China for the rest of his life, His Holiness made the decision to escape after careful consultations with his immediate inner circle and with the expressed desire and determination to inform the world of the plight of the Tibetan people.
From March 1959 to this present day, the world has witnessed the timeless efforts His Holiness has made to promote the cause of Tibet. It is highly unlikely that a leader who abandons his people would commit his life to represent and speak for them in the face of such difficulties.
The Middle Path approach of which Mr. Nichols mentions is the most coherent and practical solution to the Tibet issue. It has the support not only of the majority of the Tibetan population and many other nations but also has the support of many Chinese thinkers, scholars, professors and students. Because the Middle Path promotes a spirit of dialogue based on international respect for one another, the Chinese government is reluctant to be a part of it because of its own shameful failures on issues of Human Rights.
Mr. Nichols should take the time off to watch the video taken during the conferment of the Congressional Medal of Honor awarded to the Dalai Lama by the President and the Congress of the United States of America on October 17th 2007. This should give him an idea of how the United States of America feels about His Holiness.
Some very strange slants and obvious discrediting flaws in the odd and inconsistent letter above by ‘Alan Nichols’ including (to choose just one) the bizarre and inaccurate statement about the Panchen Lama. Someone posing as a friend is not hiding clear disrespect contempt and efforts to create dissent. Perhaps most insidious are the China-like accusations, thinly veiled as acknowledgement.