Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

On Tibet

The two articles “Tibet in the time of high economic growth” (July 3) and “The politics of Tibet: a 2007 reality check” (July 5) by N. Ram were very illuminating. No country, outside China, will be happier than India if a rapprochement between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese government comes about. While the delay in solving the Tibet issue was largely because of the intransigence of the Dalai Lama on the question of independence, the inflexible approach of the pre-Deng Xiaoping Chinese governments also contributed to it.

Apparently, the residual areas of conflict, as listed by Mr. Ram, are two — Dalai Lama’s wish to have more autonomy than other autonomous regions and his demand for a Greater Tibet. Dealing with the first, if China can successfully live with the orthodox capitalism of Hong Kong and Macao, it can surely find a compromise for a system for Tibet, somewhat different from that of other autonomous regions. Coming to the second point, once multi-party democracy is granted, a re-organisation of Tibet, not confining it to its traditional boundaries, will work to the advantage of the Central government. Here again India’s experience comes to mind. With re-organisation of States on linguistic basis, any dormant separatist intent in former princely states was effectively squelched.

Group Captain P.V. Iyer (retd.),

San Jose, California

There is no doubt that Lhasa is now a modern city with exquisite malls, well-laid out roads , and well maintained monasteries. But a visit to the old city of Lhasa (Barkor Street and near Jokhang Monastery) would reveal the existence of two societies — one that is rich and the other that is deprived of economic progress. Most Tibetans have been left behind in the economic and social progress of Tibet.

The Dalai Lama is seeking true autonomy which means the right to manage the affairs relating to his religion, culture, education, health, and environment. He has never asked for the return of mainland settlers; he is only pleading for a stop to the policy of transfer of the Han population so that Tibetans do not become a minority in their own land.

Col. Virendra Sahai Verma (retd.),

New Delhi

The two articles are indeed brave efforts to present an impartial account of the developments in Tibet. But nothing can hide the fact that both India and China have betrayed an ancient culture and tradition in a land where neither has any right to be.

A. Krishnamurthy,

Chennai

Although exceptionally well researched, the reality check on Tibet is totally biased in favour of the Chinese establishment without any consideration for the interests of the Tibetan people.

Mihir Nayak,

Bad Hofgastein, Austria The economic development taking place in Tibet is not meant to benefit the Tibetans. It is the immigrant Chinese who reap the benefit. And the infrastructure development is targeted to extract the natural resources of Tibet. We cannot support, at least morally, the Chinese occupation of Tibet just because there is development in Tibet, thanks to China. There would have been greater development in India had the British still been ruling us.

Tibet, historically, has been a sovereign country and has a unique culture entirely different from that of China. We are firm in our ‘one China policy’ due to political reasons. At least let us not make a mockery of the Dalai Lama’s peaceful efforts.

R. Subramaniyan,

New Delhi

The article on Tibet’s political situation is flagrantly one sided. Tibet was an Indian protectorate and we abandoned our responsibility. One has to remember that the Chinese invasion of India followed our silence on Tibet.

Santhosh Rajagopal,

Madurai

India’s stand on Tibet is flawed and undermines the principle of sovereignty, freedom, and democracy. Its policy on Tibet under Nehru was the same as it is now. India never wanted confrontation with China.

Threat to freedom anywhere is threat to sovereignty everywhere. The world should ascertain the views of Tibetans on whether they want to be independent or accede to China.

Shakeel Anjum,

New Delhi The article has glorified China’s Tibet policy. What it has forgotten to mention or chosen not to mention is the human rights abuse of the Tibetans in that region by those who govern.

Tsering Ladol,

Leh, Ladakh

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Resilience amidst a few worries
Making road safety work
Where does the Palestinian cause stand?
Migration and development
Sarkozy is not quite Napoleon
Hope for the alien hunters
The unaccountable few
Corrections and clarifications
Glasgow bid
Illustrious leader
On Tibet

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu