BANGALORE, India, 8 November 2019
Below is a fictional conversation between Penpa Tsering (PT) and Lobsang Sangay (LS). Tsering brought a defamation case against Sangay in the Tibetan Supreme Justice Commission in Dharamshala. The court gave its verdict on 14 October 2019.
PT: You yourself advised me to go to court! Remember what you said that day, 10th March!
LS: But why did you really go to court, just because I told you so?
PT: You meant, I was not supposed to go to court actually?
LS: Of course not! Who would run to court like that just because someone told them to go?
PT: Then why did you tell me to go to court at first?
LS: I said so to win trust and support from people, using an important occasion, 10th March — hoping that it will put an end to that boiling protest which is otherwise difficult to control. But your actual going to court ruined all my plan. You should have some common sense, at least realise that I didn’t mean it literally!
PT: But I thought “Go to Court” means “Go to Court”, literally! So I went.
LS: Then also, I did tell you to go to court. But who told you to win the case? When did I tell you to win the case?
PT: Oh! You mean… it’s just going to court only, but not winning the case ..??
LS: Yes, very much! That’s why my cabinet sent a direction amid the proceedings, ordering the court to withdraw the case. Because, you know what … wining the case is disastrous to six million Tibetans, including you and me.
PT: How is that?
LS: Winning the case is disastrous to me, because now I have been decreed to offer a public apology. From where I should get that Public Apology? It’s disastrous to you, because now I won’t easily offer that “Public Apology”. And it is disastrous to Tibetan people, because they won’t stop fighting (internally) unless I offer the “Public Apology.”
PT: What’s the big deal about the apology? It’s just easy! You can do it.
LS: No. No! Apology alone is, of course, easy. Not a problem. I can do it texting you through What’s up, Wechat, SMS etc. “Public” is the problem, having to do it in front of all.
PT: But now our court, Supreme Justice Commission (SJC), the ultimate authority, has already pronounced the verdict, and we as a law-abiding citizen should obey it.
LS: But SJC verdict doesn’t run accordance with the law of Karma. My cabinet representatives have already briefed during a media conference. How can I, being a Buddhist, acknowledge such a Karma-conflicting verdict?
PT: How does it conflict with the Karma? Terminating me for no reason, and subsequently slapping 10 baseless allegations upon me, was the “Karma of CAUSE”. And court having ruled totally in my favour, is the “Karma of EFFECT”. It is very much in accordance with the law of Karma! You, a great scientist who proved “KARMA” scientifically! No scientist could do that till date!
LS: No. Not in that context. You know … SJC (the court) and the Law of Karma are childhood friends! And me and my cabinet paid their tuition fees. From that angle, the verdict totally contravenes the Law of Karma.
PT: But, whatever, it’s all because of your baseless 10-point allegations which you and your cabinet constructed, out of nothing, against me by spending one whole night in the office. And that too, post my dismissal.
LS: Yes … that’s the beauty of my leadership, which shows how far we are ahead of China when it comes to democracy! Everything is so advanced! Your termination decision came before the 10-point reasons for your termination! Did you ever see any other democratic country where the decision precedes the reason for that decision? None! Not even the USA for that sake. That’s my invention, a small contribution to democracy! In fact, a big one! Why not? If Abraham Lincoln was alive today, he would have definitely appreciated me for this great advance.
PT: But your logic doesn’t accord to Lincoln’s fundamental principles of democracy: “Of the people; for the people; by the people.”
LS: How doesn’t it? Indeed, it very much conforms to Lincoln’s principles of democracy: “OFF THE PEOPLE; FAR THE PEOPLE; BUY THE PEOPLE”, which I diligently practiced ever since I assumed office to serve the people. Perhaps you got Lincoln wrong here!
PT: But that’s very weird. It is contradictory to science and logic. Cause always precedes effect actually. How come the effect (termination) precedes the cause (10-point allegations) in the case of my dismissal.
LS: Forget science. We are Buddhist. Buddha preached the two noble truths of effects (truth of suffering and truth of cessation) first and then preached the other two truths of causes (truth of suffering and path) later. Always effect first!
PT: Okay. Let’s agree for the sake of agreeing. But what about self-reliance? Your one other agenda, out of three, in the election campaign.
LS: Self-reliance? Can’t you see that my just one-page ten points of allegations have produced a more than thousand-page order sheet, in turn? This 1,000-page order sheet will be a book, a best-selling publication, which will fetch millions of dollars of revenue back to CTA!
PT: But I must tell your practice of regionalism is really hurting our unity a lot. And that’s indefensible.
LS: No. You are wrong again! Don’t you see that my witnesses are from all three provinces, not just Kham? How can you charge me of being a regionalist then? And unity also is there among them a lot. They unitedly disapproved all 10 points of my allegation against you successfully in the court of law.
. . . . . . . . . .
Holy Karma…! Save Tibet! Save Me!
About the author
Kunchok Gyatso is a Sr Legal Associate for Exigent Group Limited, Bangalore, India.
More articles by Kunchok Gyatso on Tibet Sun.