Norbu Tsering
TORONTO, Canada, 23 March 2021
This question is becoming more and more relevant as we observe the proceedings of the Parliament. Those MPs who favour Rangzen dismiss the Middle-Way policy as a failed policy of unnecessarily appeasing China. No matter the subject of discussion at hand in any session of the Parliament, they make it a point to drag in the Middle Way for battering. In parliamentary meetings, the Sikyong, ominously, has challenged the Middle-Way-supporting MPs by asking what would they do if the Middle-Way policy is revisited for parliamentary discussion and is defeated. He was hinting that if the Middle Way is discussed again in the Parliament, it might fail to win majority support. The implication is that he does not want the Middle-Way policy to be discussed in the Parliament to save it from the ignominy of defeat.
An impression is sought to be created in the Parliament that is expected to promote the thinking that except for the MPs standing by the Middle Way, the Tibetan people in general prefer setting Rangzen as the goal of our struggle. Middle-Way-supporting MPs are made to feel guilty. All the people who watch the live telecast of the parliamentary sessions can easily predict what a particular MP who stands up to speak will talk about. It is very clear to people who is Rangzen-supporting MP and who is the Middle-Way MP. There are only a few MPs who still hold their cards close to their chest. This segregation of the MPs make our Parliament a platform for battling it out for one-upmanship.
I am at a loss to understand what is holding back our Rangzen-supporting MPs from moving at least a private member’s bill proposing review of the Middle-Way policy. When a Gelug monk MP in the Parliament can say that he does not believe in the Middle Way, he can’t trust the Middle Way, and that he does not want to talk about it, what is stopping him from formally asking the Parliament to discuss the Middle-Way policy for review? He can’t fool the people by differentiating between His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s Middle Way and other people’s Middle Way. There is only one Middle-Way policy.
People can’t be misled to regard those who support Rangzen struggle as patriotic and those who agree with the Middle Way as less patriotic. People need to be reminded that nowhere in the Middle-Way policy statement is it stated that Tibet was not an independent country. When China asked His Holiness to accept Tibet as historically a part of China as a condition for moving the Middle-Way negotiations forward, he said that he didn’t want to look stupid by attempting to change the facts of history. The Middle-Way policy is suggested on the premise that Tibet was an independent country, and that we can choose a different future based on the present circumstances.
For setting the Middle Way record straight, for ascertaining people’s wishes after this long breakdown in the Middle Way dialogue, and for enabling the MPs have a clear idea about where the Middle Way stands so far as people’s support is concerned, the MPs who stand for Rangzen need to raise the issue of their disenchantment with the Middle-Way policy and the need for reviewing this policy. If they expect the Middle-Way-supporting MPs to move a motion for revisiting the Middle Way out of a feeling of desperation and helplessness induced by constant criticism of the Middle Way, this may not happen. The established practice in democratic functioning is for those who oppose a policy to sponsor a bill to change it.
It is becoming clearer with each passing session of the Parliament that unless the Middle-Way policy is included as an item for parliamentary business, there are always going to be confrontations. The initiative has to come from those who do not accept the Middle Way. Once the Parliament discusses this, there would be a clear picture of whether the Middle Way still enjoys majority support in the Parliament. This should, then, go to the people for their approval or otherwise. This criticism from a section of the MPs of the Middle Way all the time needs to be put to rest for the sake of peace, unity, and fraternity in our society. It needs to be made clear whether the impression of Rangzen having the support of the majority of the people that some MPs seek to create in the Parliament has real basis or not. If this is true, we have to respect people’s will. If they support Rangzen, so be it. We not only have to say that we are a democratic society, we have to practice it too.
We have to save our Parliament from unnecessary polemical pitfalls. In all probability, MPs condemning the Middle Way will be returned to the next Parliament. This is clear from the final list of candidates for the coming Chithue elections. Let Rangzen-supporting MPs in the next Parliament bring to the table a motion asking for the review of the Middle Way, and then refer it to the larger public for their opinion. The monk MPs who are the staunchest opponents of the Middle Way should spearhead putting on the table of the Parliament a motion to review the Middle-Way policy. Just badmouthing it will not take them anywhere.
About the author
Norbu Tsering worked at Central Institute of Buddhist Studies, Leh, Ladakh, as an English Lecturer and then at TCV School, Ladakh, as the School Principal. He currently lives in Toronto, Canada.
More articles by Norbu Tsering on Tibet Sun.
Title suggested: “How Lobsang Sangay Failed the Public-mandated MW Policy.”
After the referendum and public petitions, TPIE unanimously adopted MW as the state negotiation policy. Nine rounds of talks were held and dozen’s of literature specifying our demands were handed to PRC. After lack of +ve response, HH/SR discontinued the talk.
Then came LS. A non-CTA actor with no prior experience. He lied. To the general public, he touted the MW policy. To the Rangzen activist, he sang a different tune. After his victory, the likes of Dhondrup Lhadar and some imbeciles, misused TYC’s good reputation to misrepresent how LS was a relief from HH’s and SR’s “restrictive stance.”
Ten years on, LS had not a single Sino-Tibetan negotiation. Ten years on, Rangzen activists had not a single substantive Sino-Tibetan development.
Instead, we had a new bunch of swindling, blunco publicists in the guise of Rangzen activists in people like Dhondup Lhadar, Lukar Jam, and Tseten Lhagya. Just by participating in a fasting or a peace march that all Tibetans do, these publicists acted entitled to talk down on others and hijack TYC’s presence. Unlike Jamyang and Lhasang, who were loud but highly educated and knowledgeable, these new folks are unripe, low-life publicists.
All that these Nautankis do is to perform publicity stunt in the Tibetan circle. They have made fasting a road to US Visa and Lhakar Dancing a path to Rangzen leadership. Their traditionalist poise intended to hide their lack of western education have denied platform for young Tibetan TYC Rangzen activist in the West.
LOBSANG SANGAY FAILED THE MIDDLE WAY. HE ALSO MISERABLY FAILED THE RANGZEN ACTIVISM. What a sorry state of exile leadership!
The big mouth MP really don’t know what he is really talking about. He criticised Umey lam going by his feelings not by his intellectual thinking that as a geshe, he must master. He don’t have humility and the courage to accept his fault. Rather, he created two middle way story, one that of His Holiness and the other of a people which is absolutely absurd. For all Tibetans there is only one Umey lam that is the one proposed by the great 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet. But this chithue purposely created confusion in society so that he can easily run away from people accusing him of bad mouthing Umey lam. Such a pity on him.
But parliament can change stance by majority to rangzen. Depends on how many chithues vote for it.
Does the president have right to chance policy to rangzen? I don’t thiks so.
Cta policy can be Rangzen but open to dialogue via mid way. No contradiction there.
You give up claim for independence in return for genuine autonomy. Both side concede something and gain something.
There’s nothing to lose by CTA adopting independence policy. Donations will keep flowing, support will keep coming.
One rumour is that foreign trips of president and dalai lama will be impossible on rangzen approach. This has no substance. President can say “we stand for rangzen. But I am here to explore mid way option if Chinese side wishes to resolve the conflict.”
Imagine – whats the worst thing that could happen if Cta policy is rangzen? Also you can climb down to mid way any time. But you cannot climb up when dalai lama is gone. CTA should put rangzen back on the table while he is alive so that our president has something to concede in future.
It is very unfortunate that present exile administration has failed to protect and safeguard and stand firmly with Umaylam policy. Instead they create a lot of confusion in Tibetan Parliament session by not standing firmly on their democratically adopted policy. As a result Umaylam was badly trolled by some MPs in recent ongoing parliament session.