Desicritics Category: Politics: China

All Visitors are Gods, But Some Visitors are Higher Gods

Vinod Joseph — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:23:23 EDT

Recently, an Indian I know suffered verbal abuse of a racist nature at a public place in the UK. Commiserations from friends and well-wishers flowed in. Amidst all the support and handholding, which were all on the usual lines (not every Brit is racist, it’s the recession which makes people so nasty, don’t let a sicko disrupt your life), one comment stood out and set me thinking: ‘We (Indians) treat these people so well when they come to India.’

My initial reaction was to agree with that comment. I could think of so many instances when I used to work in Mumbai or study in Bangalore when I have gone out of my way to help foreign visitors. I have taken detours so that I could walk visitors to destinations they had trouble finding. I have spent valuable minutes answering questions in painstaking detail, questions on everything ranging from why Indians defecate in public to why Indian trains are usually late.

My initial reaction was buttressed by this blog post by Peter Foster, one-time Telegraph reporter based in Delhi who has very recently moved to Beijing with his family. In his post, Foster tells us of a recent experience in Beijing where an old man saved his life (from his kids) by doing some carpentry work for free. Foster goes on to wonder if he would be just as helpful to a newly arrived Chinese immigrant in London asking him for help in broken English.

So, on the fact of it, one gets the impression that Indians and other Asians and possibly even Africans are very helpful and friendly towards foreign visitors whilst nasty westerners are not. But is this true? Is this the full story, the whole truth?

How do Indians treat illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in India? You might well say that an illegal immigrant does not deserve any respect or warmth. Fine (though throwing them out of the country without even the semblance of a trial is not, in my opinion, the right thing to do), let’s look at the case of Nepalis in India. How do we treat them? I have known restaurants in Colaba (Mumbai) which has a small floating population of working class Africans, treat poor African customers shabbily (the treatment Indians reserve for servants) and at peak times, even turn them away. African students in India are frequent targets of racist abuse as are people from India’s north-east.

Arabs are legendary for their hospitality, (force) feeding their guests even after they say No, even when they don’t have enough food for themselves. Hospitality is supposed to be a duty and a matter of honour. However, this hospitality rarely extended towards the hundreds of thousands of Indian, Pakistani, Nepalese, Filipino and African workers in Arab lands.

In short, the fabled Indian or Arab hospitality is restricted to prosperous, white Western visitors. This phenomenon can be seen throughout Asia.

Bhutan is a country which strives for Gross National Happiness rather than GDP. However, it has always treated its Nepali-speaking population as second class citizens even though Nepali migration to Bhutan started in the beginning of the 20th century at the invitation of Bhutan’s rulers. Many Nepalese have been forced to leave Bhutan for refugee camps in eastern Nepal.

After the Chinese revolution, the Chinese government gave scholarships to African students to study in China. As elaborated in this article, the Chinese government’s enthusiasm for Chinese students was not shared by the Chinese populace. African students in China were frequent targets of racist abuse. Hatred towards African students was the focal point which helped galvanise Chinese students into organising themselves, which ultimately led to the student demonstration at Tienanmen Square.

Foster is right in saying that if a Chinese immigrant speaking broken English looks for help in London, he is unlikely to receive the sort of assistance which Foster (speaking broken Mandarin) received in Beijing. However, an African immigrant in China is unlikely to get more any help than a Chinese or Indian immigrant in London.

Prosperous Singapore, Hong Kong or Japan are no better than their poorer Asian neighbours in this regard.

I am not for a moment saying that a coloured person in the West who is the victim of racism doesn’t have the right to protest. However, Asians treating White people so well and treating other Asian minorities and Africans so shabbily, is a manifestation of the racism that is so deeply entrenched in the Asian psyche. In my opinion, if Asians can learn to treat all their visitors with respect and dignity, (rather than treating a few select ones as Gods and feeding them till they burst), if Asians can bury their prejudices and work with poor African countries in improving their common lot, they will be able to deal a death blow to racism.

Two Intelligent Men

Vinod Joseph — Sat, 7 Feb 2009 10:11:55 EST

Avid blog-readers would have noticed the presence of two very intelligent men in the blogosphere for some time.

One of them, Mr. Bahukutumbi Raman (Mr. B. Raman for short), has been writing columns for various magazines (especially Outlook) for some years now. Mr. B. Raman used to be with the Research and Analysis Wing, India’s external intelligence agency, where he headed its counter-terrorism division for more than a decade till his retirement in 1994. Presently Mr. B. Raman is the Director of the Institute For Topical Studies in Chennai. Mr. B. Raman’s blog can be found here.

The other ‘intelligent’ gentleman is Colonel Hariharan. Col. Hariharan’s blog informs us that he is a retired military intelligence professional with nearly three decades of experience in South Asian countries. Colonel Hariharan tells us in this very touching post of the time he spent in Sri Lanka as part of the IPKF.

Colonel Hariharan’s blog can be found here.

Mr. B. Raman’s articles tend to be very factual, with an abundance of information of the sort that is not usually available to lay persons. In that sense, they are a delight to read. For example, this article on the situation in Tibet is filled with facts with very little of Mr. B. Raman’s own opinions. However, there are other posts which contain Mr. B. Raman’s opinions and views. For example, in this post, he says that there is an urgent need to tighten Sonia Gandhi’s security due to threats from the LTTE.

Col. Hariharan’s posts are very different from Mr. B. Raman’s. They don’t contain as many facts, (other than what’s available in the public domain) and focus instead on conveying Col. Hariharan’s opinions on various issues. I can assure you that they are a delight to read. Here, you’ll find Col. Hariharan lamenting the fact that red tapism prevented the Defence Ministry from utilising its budget to the full, with the result that it had to surrender sixteen thousand crore rupees (that’s US dollars three hundred and twenty million) as unutilised money.

I think it is wonderful that Mr. B. Raman and Col. Hariharan have started blogging since their articles give lay persons access to expert analysis. So far, I think I have read every article written by each of these gentlemen. I don’t have any disagreement with anything that Col. Hariharan has written. I can’t say the same for Mr. B. Raman. In this article Mr. B. Raman argues that it would be in India's interest to help Sri Lanka destroy the LTTE's military capability, but not its political strength. Mr. B. Raman says that the current crop of LTTE cadres had no role in Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. He argues that India should make a distinction between the ones involved in Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination and the others. This is in line with his view expressed in this post calling on the Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora and the LTTE cadres to overthrow Prabhakaran.

I don’t agree with Mr. B. Raman’s views. The LTTE is not the only Tamil movement in the picture even now. Leaders like Douglas Devananda of the Eelam People's Democratic Party and S. Thondaiman of the Ceylon Workers Congress are around. The Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal formed by Colonel Karuna is a political force in the East. Further, if Prabhakaran were to be captured or killed, the LTTE will cease to exist. The LTTE is centred on the cult of a supreme leader and without Prabhakaran, the LTTE cannot survive. I really don’t see why India should try and save the LTTE even if only as a political movement. Mr. B. Raman goes on to say in the same post that the ‘Indian political class never understands the importance of identifying and preserving our strategic assets in the neighbourhood. Jawaharlal Nehru let go our strategic assets in Tibet. I.K.Gujral, who was the Prime Minister in 1997, unwisely and in a moment of misplaced generosity let go our strategic assets in Pakistan. Manmohan Singh, the present Prime Minister, has let go our strategic assets in Nepal and Sri Lanka. It could be a great tragedy.’

What does Mr. B. Raman mean by ‘strategic assets’? Does he mean assets which give India the ability to cause trouble in a neighbouring country? For example, if the LTTE were to survive (on India’s patronage), greatly weakened, but with the potential to be re-armed, and Sri Lanka were to do something that is not to India’s liking, say, it were to cosy up to China, India could rattle sabres by threatening to re-arm the LTTE.

Is that what Mr. B. Raman has in mind? But it is exactly this attitude and approach that created the Sri Lankan mess in the first place! No country, however small or weak it may be, likes to be at the mercy of another country. India will not have a single friend in its neighbourhood if it follows this approach and tries to create ‘strategic assets’ in neighbouring countries! Mr. B. Raman says Nehru let go of India’s assets in Tibet. I don’t claim to have Mr. B. Raman’s expertise or knowledge, but I don’t think Nehru did anything of that sort. Under Nehru, India did not give much importance to defence and cut defence spending, as a result of which, we were unprepared for the Chinese assault in 1962.

I believe that during I.K. Gujral’s time, India stopped arming Baluchi militants. Were they a strategic asset for India? If India were still doing that, could India have used them as a stick to beat Pakistan with? Could we have told Pakistan, ‘you stop causing trouble in Kashmir, we will stop causing trouble in Baluchistan?’ I doubt if it would have worked, since the trouble in Kashmir is caused by militants outside Pakistan’s control. On the contrary, the enormous sympathy which Indian received after the Mumbai attacks wouldn’t have materialised if the international community believed that India was causing trouble in Baluchistan.

As for Nepal, the average Nepali doesn’t have much love for India since India continued to prop up the monarchy long after it lost the people’s support. India stopped supporting the monarchy only after its downfall became inevitable. It cannot be said that India voluntarily gave up its assets (the monarchy) in Nepal. Having said all that, I do hope that Mr. B. Raman continues to blog and write articles and express his views which are very interesting, whether one agrees with them or not.

China's Emergence and the Case Against Collectivism

K. M. — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:44:42 EST

In an analysis of a newspaper article by David Brooks on China and collectivism, Mark writes

When we consider criticisms of Collectivism, we almost automatically associate it with the past experiences of Communism, Socialism, and Fascism, and how the societies based on these collectivist systems we’ve seen have either failed or stagnated.…Taleb calls history a fallacy and history is the only case against Collectivism.…In my previous post I mentioned that the critics of Collectivism and Individualism seem to have a common fear: that of society degenerating to serve the interests of a minority. This suggests that both lines of thought are capable of creating that horror.…Thankfully, what David’s article shows is that just as importantly: both lines of thought are just as possibly capable of creating a better world instead.(Empasis mine, links added)

I will write on collectivism later. This post is about the role of history in evaluating it.

Consider my knowledge of the history of the Soviet Union. I learnt a little about Lenin and the 1917 revolution in school. I read a few Russian stories in my childhood. I read some references to the Soviet Union in some American novels. I picked up information about its political collapse and disintegration in newspapers and by hearing my parents talk about it (I was far too young to understand much of it at the time). I read a few entries in Wikipedia during my college years. I also must have picked up some information from several assorted sources which I do not remember now. Note that none of this knowledge is first hand. I believe that most of it is true because any given concrete fact is “verifiable” in principle. More importantly, however, most (almost all) of my knowledge involves written records made by someone else. Even if I do not doubt the veracity of these records, the records are selective - selected by someone’s judgement of what is significant and what is not. Any historical knowledge (especially about events that occurred long ago) is at best a selective record created by several peoples’ perception and judgement. And history in itelf does not help me to reach any firm conclusions. For that, I have to integrate the historical record with a relevant theory of cause and effect. At best history can serve as part of the empirical observations that lead to a such a theory.

Consider an evaluation of communism. To reach a conclusion about whether communism is a proper political system, I first need a vision of what a proper political system should look like - what sort of relationships between men it should enable and what sort it should prohibit. Note that any such vision necessarily has a moral aspect to it. What sort of relationships between men I regard as proper depends on the moral values I want to achieve. My political vision of liberty is inextricably tied to my moral values of rationality and independence. And moral values are not derived from history. Given that my political vision is liberty, I don’t need any knowledge of the history of the Soviet Union to decide if communism “works”. Even if the Soviet Union had succeeded in creating an economically egalitarian system at gunpoint, it wouldn’t “work” for me. I remember David Brooks writing something to the effect that “Communism failed because people stopped believing in it.” While there is much that I disagree with in that statement, it has an important element of truth. The mass poverty, the Gulags, the brutal suppression of all dissent, the famines, the economic failures don’t count as failure. If they did, communism probably failed in its first five years. The Soviet Union dictators and the communists who helped them stay in power were not deterred by these. They considered these things as necessities to achieve their ideals. As long as a sufficient number of people still held these ideals as absolute, the Soviet Union didn’t “fail”. The element of truth in Brooks statement is: Moral ideals shape history - not the other way round. What the statement does not acknowledge is: Moral ideals are not arbitrary. Some are impossible to achieve, no matter how strongly one believes in them. Communism would fail irrespective of what anyone believed about it.

The point is that political ideals are based not on history but on morality. A choice of political ideals cannot be made by some kind of a cost-benefit analysis of historical records. Consider an analogy in software. The industry has reached a consensus that there are great benefits to creating web-enabled software and spends a lot of resources in achieving it. Making complex software web-enabled is no easy task but the costs do not deter anyone since the end is desirable. The desirability of the end is independent of the costs. It is the same with politics. If the end (say egalitarianism) is seen as desirable, all the costs (in human life and liberty) can be easily shrugged off. But David Brooks and Mark seem to have no clear political vision. They have probably inherited the values of rights and privacy from the Western culture. And they have also inherited the altruist and egalitarian ideals that are ubiquitous today without realizing that these values are mutually exclusive. And that is where the emergence of China gives rise to cognitive dissonance. All this while they have been secure in the knowledge that a nominally capitalist and confused individualist political system (such as the ones in the West) is the best way to achieve their mixed bag of ideals. After all they have seen that consistent collectivist political systems do not “work”. They had history behind them. Now that China with a nominally communist and confused collectivist political system has achieved some economic success, their sense of security is lost. History now gives them no guidance. Their acknowledgement of cognitive dissonance is a confession of collectivism. Why do I call it a confession? Because they don’t like it themselves. Note the last line in Brooke’s article “It’s [Collectivism] certainly a useful ideology for aspiring autocrats.”

The struggle between collectivism and individualism is primarily a moral one. The case against collectivism (atleast my case) is not based on history. What is it based on? I will present that in my next post.

LTTE-China or LTTE-Pakistan Partnership Possible?

Kalugu — Mon, 5 Jan 2009 06:42:11 EST

"Your enemy's enemy is your friend," is a popular saying. The recent setback the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka have been facing is largely credited to the clandestine support extended to the Sri Lankan government by India, mostly against popular public opinion of India's citizens from the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu is home to 80 million ethnic Tamils who have integrated very well with India and have a thriving economy.

Results of recent surveys conducted in Tamil Nadu - India by two different press groups Indian Express and Kumudam have revealed very interesting opinions.

"Majority Tamil Nadu is pro-LTTE" : 81 percent said that LTTE is good for India's security. Over 55 percent favoured a separate Tamil homeland for Sri Lankan Tamils as the only solution for the conflict in the island.

A student group belonging to Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, demanded the unconditional declaration of ceasefire from the Sri Lanka government and a stop to the genocide of Tamils. Based on Marxist-Leninist principles of self-determination, it called for supporting Eezham Tamil independence.

The Tamil Tigers were banned in India 17 years ago and despite several protests from various political and nonpolitical groups, the Congress government of Indian headed by Mr. Manmohan Singh has refused to lift the ban on the Tamil Rebels. Several politicians from the Tamil Nadu state are questioning the validity of this ban and are questioning the removal of the ban on RSS - a Hindu group that assassinated Mahatma Gandhi and was subsequently banned for only two years after the assassination.

In recent times, the Sri Lankan military has made very impressive progress, including the capture of Kilinochchi - the symbolic capital of the Tamil Eelam territory. However, Sri Lanka scored several negative points with respect to human rights.

A 400+page model indictment charging Sri Lanka officials for genocide against Tamils has been prepared by a US-based Tamil group. This group is represented by Mr. Bruce Fein, a lawyer in the United States who specializes in constitutional and international law. Under President Ronald Reagan, Fein served as an associate deputy attorney general and as general counsel to the Federal Communications Commission. The indictment will be ready to be submitted to the U.S. Justice Department this first week of January. With the new President-elect Barack Obama assuming office in January the case is being closely monitored by Sri Lankans worldwide.

The genocidal acts Bruce Fein has chronicled in the draft indictment surpasses by far the genocidal evidence in the charges against former Bosnian leader Radovan Karadzic.

Further, this week New York-based Genocide Prevention Project has included Sri Lanka as one of the eight "red alert" countries where genocide and other mass atrocities are underway or risk breaking out.

While the Tamil Rebels have made several attempts to establish a friendly relationship with India, the calls have been rejected or rather neglected by India. While the Tigers were solely relying on India alone for strategic partnership, Sri Lanka went ahead and established relationships with China, Pakistan and Iran.

China and Pakistan have a strategic interest in Sri Lanka as a presence here allows them unprecedented geographic advantage over reaching strategic and economic centers of India. Both LTTE and Sri Lanka can be valuable partners to China and Pakistan. More than Sri Lanka, which has much less influence over India, LTTE can be a more attractive and valuable partner due to its strong ethnic and religious ties with India. A strong relation with the Tamil Tigers will give these countries unprecedented inroads into southern India. However, the Tamil Tigers do not seem to have taken benefit of this unique advantage they possess.

Several analysts do not understand the reason behind LTTE's un-staunched alignment and dependence on India and the reason behind ignoring China or Pakistan as strategic partners. LTTE for some reason has ignored the safety of its very own people it represents over a friendly relation with India.

Will the Tamil Tigers realign and save themselves from further humiliation by the Sri Lankan army?

An Open Letter to the Dalai Lama

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:49:38 EST

Your Holiness,

I hope this letter finds you in good health. You must be very busy right now, Your Holiness, preparing to attend the six day meet you have convened for members of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile in Dharamshala from 17 November 2008 to discuss the future course of action for Tibet. I assume you are not in the best of spirits, Your Holiness. You underwent a surgery for removal of a gall bladder stone last month. You have publicly stated that you have lost hope of reaching a settlement with China through dialogue. Ever since March 1959 when you left Tibet and went to India, you have been trying to obtain a better deal for Tibet and its people. You have not only always stuck to the path of non-violence, but you have also insisted that your followers do the same. All of this is admirable until one realises that, as you recently admitted, you have not managed to wring a single compromise out of China.

Your Holiness, are you worried that history will judge you harshly for not having achieved anything much for the people of Tibet, despite struggling for almost 50 years? I don’t have an answer to that, Your Holiness. Before we respond to that question, why don’t we take a quick look at Tibet’s history?

The Tibetan language belongs to the Tibeto-Burman branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Tibetan is as much distinct from Mandarin as Burmese is. Tibet has always been an independent country. In the early 9th century, Buddhism reached Tibet after a Tibetan king invited Buddhist preachers and artisans from India. There have been occasions when Tibetan kings have defeated Chinese rulers in battle. From the 13th century onwards, Tibet was under the control of the Mongols who also controlled vast stretches of China. It was when the Mongols controlled Tibet that Buddhism spread to Mongolia. In the seventeenth century, the fifth Dalai Lama became the spiritual and temporal head of the whole of Tibet. Tibet has had wars with the kingdoms of Ladakh, Bhutan and Nepal, losing many battles and winning a few.

Since the early eighteen century, the Manchu rulers of China have made claims on Tibet. However, China went into a period of decline after that and Tibet managed to assert its independence. In the early 20th century, the British led a few expeditions into Tibet in order to prevent any Russian influence in the region. The British forced the Tibetans to sign a trade treaty which opened Tibet’s borders to British India. In 1907, Britain also entered into a treaty with Russia which recognised Chinese suzerainty over Tibet.

After China was defeated by Japan in a series of battles in the early twentieth century, Chinese control over Tibet waned. Britain, Tibet and China held negotiations in Simla in 1913 and 1914 to resolve the boundaries between India, China and Tibet. The negotiations broke down and Henry McMahon, the then British Indian foreign secretary and the chief British negotiator, unilaterally demarcated the Indo-Tibetan border. Approximately 9,000 square kilometres of traditional Tibetan territory in southern Tibet (the Tawang region) was given to India (which now forms the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh). McMahon also recognised Chinese suzerainty over Tibet and affirmed that Tibet was a part of China. China did not agree to this Simla convention and hence, this treaty became a bilateral agreement between India and Tibet.

Immediately after the communist takeover of China, the communists took over parts of eastern Tibet and initiated a process of land reforms. Landlords were publicly humiliated and at times executed. However, the traditional Tibetan aristocracy was allowed to remain in place till public unrest in eastern Tibet led to a military crackdown, which in turn led to the Lhasa uprising. It was at that time, Your Holiness, that you fled to India.

Your Holiness, at the time of the communist takeover of Tibet, Tibet was a corrupt and undemocratic theocracy. Monks held all the powers and abused them. The peasants were oppressed and lived in extreme poverty. One of the reasons the Chinese were able to takeover Tibet so easily was because it was a backward, feudal and theocratic state. The blame for this should lie primarily on the Buddhist clergy which kept Tibet in the dark ages. Your Holiness and your predecessors were always at the helm of such a state of affairs.

After Your Holiness came over to India, you set up a Government-in-Exile consisting of a legislative assembly (the Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies), an executive (the Kashag), and a judiciary (the Tibetan Supreme Justice Commission). You have categorised the Government-in-Exile as a constitutional monarchy. Elections were held and exiled Tibetans voted. You have gone into semi-retirement and if rumours are correct, you would like to retire permanently. Considering the fact that prior to the Chinese take-over Tibet was a full-fledged theocracy, I feel that you have done an admirable job in injecting a decent dose of democracy into the Tibetan community. Since almost all Tibetans are Buddhists, not many Tibetans have objected to having you, the Dalai Lama, a living incarnation of the Lord Buddha, as the head of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. This would mean there is a shade of theocracy in the Government-in-Exile, but I feel this was inevitable.

Your Holiness, your emphasis on non-violence and peaceful negotiations won you not only many admirers all over the world, but also the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989. Until you threw in the towel last week, you have always stated that you would be happy with greater autonomy under Chinese authority (on par with what Hong Kong has) and would not press for independence. However, it cannot be said Your Holiness, that all Tibetans have been happy with your approach. Organisations such as the Tibetan Independence Movement, the Students For a Free Tibet led by exiled Tibetans and supported by celebrities like Richard Gere have insisted that Tibet should be independent. They have rightly said that China has been diluting Tibetan culture by flooding Tibet with Han Chinese. Tibet’s natural wealth, especially its forest wealth, has been eviscerated. Most importantly, they say that Tibet has historically been an independent state.

Your Holiness, it must not be forgotten that Chinese rule has brought some benefits for Tibet. There are a lot more roads and railways and industries, though it can be argued that all these developments further Chinese exploitation of Tibet and facilitate Han Chinese expansion into Tibet. We all know that sadly, in Tibet, the Han Chinese outnumber the Tibetans.

Your Holiness, even though you have won international acclaim and admiration, you have not been able to persuade a single country to take concrete measures for Tibet’s independence. Measures such as imposing sanctions against China and not trading with China. Please don’t laugh at me, Your Holiness. I do realise that the mere thought of not trading with China sounds silly. Who can afford to not trade with China? It is not only nation states who can’t afford to antagonise China. A few months ago, the London Metropolitan University awarded Your Holiness a doctorate in recognition of your outstanding achievements in promoting global peace. The threat of a boycott by Chinese students forced this British university to express regret for any offence caused to the Chinese government.

Were things always like this Your Holiness? No, Your Holiness. It is only in the last ten years that China became so powerful. Twenty five years ago, China was an unknown country, tolerated because it was a counterweight to the Soviet Union. Your Holiness, for a couple of decade after you went over to India, there were many armed groups of Tibetans carrying out guerrilla operations against China. These were not on a very large scale and were funded by the CIA. However, they slowly died down due to various reasons. One of the reasons was that India slowly distanced itself from the USA and became friendly with the USSR, which meant that the CIA could no longer use India as a base for attacks on China. Your Holiness, I wonder if your insistence on non-violence as the only option has been mainly because you’ve known that neither the USA nor India would provide the quantum of commitment and support that would make it feasible for Tibetans to fight China.

Your Holiness, even during the period when China was yet to become an economic powerhouse, you could not persuade Buddhist majority countries like Thailand or Sri Lanka to boycott China. Even though Buddhists believe that you are a living incarnation of Lord Buddha, you have not been able to build up any following within the Buddhists among the Han Chinese.

Your Holiness, would things have been different if you have played a less key role right from the time you went over to India? I doubt it Your Holiness. Your personality and charisma gave the Tibetan cause the sort of publicity and respectability that no secular leader could have obtained. It is tempting to speculate on what could have been achieved if a secular person who believed in using all options had headed the Tibetan Government-in-Exile right from day one. At a time when China was fighting the USSR, could such a person have obtained independence for Tibet through armed action? I doubt it, Your Holiness, but we will never know.

Your Holiness, I believe that the head of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile must not be the Dalai Lama. It must be headed by a secular individual. If you are to head this Government-in-Exile, it becomes a theocracy and there is no place in the modern world for a theocracy. However, the Tibetan movement still needs your help. You must not retire completely, though you have expressed your wish to do so. You must work with the Tibetan Government-in-Exile in order to keep the Tibetan cause in the limelight. History has been unkind to Tibet and its people. You have, in my opinion, performed a stellar role in fighting for their rights. I don’t think history will judge you harshly.

Where do we go from here, Your Holiness? I don’t believe that there is a magic solution to the Tibetan issue. I wonder what advice you will give your fellow delegates at the forthcoming conference.

There will be some hotheads who will want armed action against China. Around eight months ago, in March 2008 there were orchestrated riots in Tibet. Nothing much was achieved, but it did scare the Chinese government a lot, since it was so close to the Olympics. Next time your followers try something like that, the Chinese government might not be as restrained, since the Olympics are now over and the Chinese couldn’t give two hoots about public opinion.

I assume muscular lobbying is an option. The Tibetan cause has supporters and well-wishers all over the world. Your Holiness, things can change very quickly. If the current economic recession were to continue, China will not be able to provide employment for many of its restless millions. If economic unrest were to spread in China, which now has a vast rich-poor divide, the Tibetan Government-in-Exile might be able to bargain a certain degree of autonomy for itself. There might even be a fortuitous turn of events which enables Tibetans to get their country back.

I wish Your Holiness and the people of Tibet all the best for the future.

With warm and sincere regards

A blogger from the World Wide Web

Book Review: Amitav Ghosh's Sea of Poppies

Vinod Joseph — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:36:29 EDT

Amitav Ghosh's latest offering has made it to the Booker Prize short list. It’s a big book, slightly bigger than his recent books, the Hungry Tide and the Glass Palace, and is the first of a trilogy of books revolving around the Opium Wars.

The Opium Wars took place between Great Britain and China in the mid 19th century when Britain insisted on the right to export opium to China. Like the Glass Palace, it is a roving tale and its scope ranges from the opium fields of the upper Ganges to an opium factory to the South China Sea to an ex-slave ship, the Ibis, which sails from Calcutta with its hold-full of indentured labourers for the sugar plantations of Mareech (Mauritius).

Taking a cue from the likes of Vikram Chandra, Ghosh has littered his book with words from Bhojjpuri, Anglo-Indian slang and seamen's jargon without bothering to add a glossary. One gets to hear words such as Shaitan, Hurremzad, Kismet, Jadoo, BeeBee, Dufter, Afeemkhor, Cubber (Khabbar) quite often. A native of the sub-continent would understand these without much difficulty, but I am not sure how easily a non-native would. I read a review in the Guardian where the reviewer says he doesn't know where the ship is headed to, though Ghosh tells us on many occasions, right from the beginning, that the Ibis is headed to Mareech (Mauritius).

Once in a while, the vernacular is accompanied with the translation in English. When a Bhojpuri speaker says 'malik, paroséka gaōse áwat bani,' it is accompanied by 'From a nearby village.' I guess Ghosh doesn't expect many of his readers to know Bhojpuri. In any event, the net effect wasn't too bad, at least for me. One does get a feel of places and people better with all this vernacular and slang.

Ghosh's story involves many a 'white' character and whenever one writes about people other than one’s own, there’s a good possibility that someone will cry ‘Stereotype’. There's Zachary Reid, a mullato (who looks almost Kosher White) from Baltimore, Benjamin Barham, an unscrupulous British merchant and many others. I thought Ghosh has done a decent job in portraying these characters, but I read a few reviews which suggested otherwise.

There are a few things about this book that I did not like. At the beginning of the book, Deeti, a poor opium farmer's wife has a vision of the Ibis that would later take her to Mareech. I find that too farfetched for a book of this nature. Towards the end, one of the indentured men is being flogged on the Ibis and this victim (a low caste ex-wrestler of colossal strength) manages to snatch the whip and hit his assailant with a blow that rips off his head. Who does Ghosh think he is? Forget Hollywood, even a Bollywood stunt director would blush with embarrassment if asked to manufacture such a scene.

For me, the drawback in this book was that it had too much crammed into it. At many places in this book I got the feeling of being rushed along much faster than I wanted to be. If Ghosh had to do justice to all that he had covered in this book, he would have required twice as much space, but he might have produced something similar to A Suitable Boy which I think is the best ever book written by an Indian. But no, Ghosh doesn't have the time. He has collected a fair amount of research material which can’t be wasted and has to be crammed into the Sea of Poppies. Despite all this, Sea of Poppies is a good book. A very good book. But it falls short of being superb or brilliant.

Book Review: When We Were Orphans

Shantanu Dutta — Sun, 7 Sep 2008 11:43:49 EDT

“When we were orphans” is a book that oozes gloom and depression like many others by Kasuo Ishigro. The book, which is set in the third decade of the twentieth century hops between Shanghai and London. And is set in the inter war years between World War I and II. It captures the pomp of imperialism as well as the decline of the British Empire very well. The elite Europeans live in the international settlement – a plush, secluded neighborhood while the Chinese live in crowded ghettos and work in the factories so that the rich live their comfortable lives.

At one level, it is the story of a successful detective, Christopher Banks and his quest to discover his roots and solve a case from his own life. Banks had grown up in Shanghai where his father was an officer with a British company dealing with opium – importing it from India and selling it in China. Christopher’s mother is an avid anti opium campaigner who passionately believes that her husband’s company is involved in enslaving the Chinese people by abetting their addiction to the drug and they often have domestic arguments on the issue. In fact for those of us, who have read about the opium wars only in history books, the book offers some interesting insights and background. Christopher has a best friend – a Japanese boy growing up next door by the name of Akura.

One morning his father disappeared from home and never returned back. Shortly thereafter, his mother disappeared too. After the police enquiries turned up nothing, it was arranged for Christopher to return back to England to be brought up by a wealthy aunt. There he goes to a proper public school, trains to be a detective and becomes famous. But as his fame increases and he becomes one of the movers and shakers of London society, he is tormented by the guilt of the unresolved mystery of his parent’s disappearance.

Most of the book is dominated by this over arching theme of Christopher returning to Shanghai, many years later in a world that is rapidly changing – British imperialism is already on its wane and in Shanghai, soldiers of the Japanese Army, the Kuomintang and the communist guerillas as the British and the French watch by nonchalantly from their cosy clubs and hutments in the tony “international settlement” which was parceled out between the various European powers with a base in China. The evening entertainment is punctuated by Japanese bombs falling over the city and imparting it with an other worldly luminescence even as the band plays and the elite waltz in the ballroom.

The concluding chapters of the book will haunt the reader for long. Christopher has for long believed that his father and mother’s disappearance has something to do with his mother’s long crusade against opium trade and his father eventual y beginning to take a stand about this. In fact, he as a detective has built his investigation around this very hypothesis. It therefore stings when it is revealed to him near the end of the film that the reason his father disappeared was that he ran off with his mistress and that his mother allowed herself to be sold as an concubine to a Chinese warlord who in turn paid for Christopher’s schooling expenses.

Kazuo Ishiguro, who has won the Booker and been awarded an OBE conveys the atmosphere of a brooding sense of foreboding right through the opening pages of the book and captures the atmosphere and mood of imperialism at its peak as well as in its decaying days. When we were Orphans” is in spite of the many melancholic themes it addresses through out its pages, still a page turner and that makes it an eminently readable book.

What I Learned in China

smallsquirrel — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:09:26 EDT

Watching the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Beijing brought back a lot of memories for me. Long ago, in what seems like another lifetime, I was once engaged to a Chinese man. All those endless rows of Chinese men beating their drums in perfect synchronization, tireless, faces showing what seemed like rehearsed emotion, reminded me of my strange adventures with that culture.

I met this man, we'll call him Zhong, in graduate school. We were peers. We dated and eventually planned to marry. During our relationship I tried very hard to understand his culture. He was from Beijing. Both parents were very successful. What I knew about China then I could fit in a single paragraph.

We eventually traveled to China so I could meet his family. I remember once Zhong had stringently told me that foot binding was a myth. It was "made up by the stupid Americans to shame China." So imagine my shock when his aunty answered the door to the family home tottering on teensy nubs. I learned later from a family friend with a penchant for chatter that she had been married off as a young girl to a successful Army man. As a symbol of his wealth, so that she would be forever reliant on servants, her feet were broken after the marriage, folded over on themselves and bound tightly in cloth. Not two months after they were wed, the aunty's husband was killed and she was shipped back to her family... crippled. When I tried to ask Zhong about the aunt, he ignored me. When I persisted, he wheeled around and hissed at me that we would never speak of it again.

This was my baptism into China.

China is an amazing place, full of beauty and preternatural grace. Walking through the streets of Beijing I felt as if I was in a movie. But just under the surface something was lurking. It made me uneasy. Now this was thirteen years ago, and I am sure that some things have changed. But I cannot imagine that the strict structure that girds that culture has shifted much at all.

I noticed that everything in China seemed to have a purpose. Nothing was random. No one said anything in an offhand manner. Words were measured. Even emotions seemed calculated. I started to be able to place a finger on what was causing the nagging doubts I had been feeling about my engagement. I wondered, also, when I would be given the script so I could at least play my part competently. It never came.

I did come to learn that everything in China revolves around appearances. I finally understood that I would need to ask Zhong to brief me on how to act before every meeting with a family friend or relative. The instructions would go something like: "Wear something conservative. Mention your Master's degree but only after he mentions his PhD, so he knows so are inferior to him. And make sure you look down when you talk to him. Also tell him that you like to garden and other simplistic tasks." Um, I hate gardening. No matter? Oh right, I have to create an image.

At one point we had to go visit an old friend of Zhong's father. I found out on the way there that he was a former ambassador. He would be serving us a certain kind of tea, which I despise, but I was to drink it. I was to drink two cups, actually, and praise it. I was to say the bare minimum, and I was to answer all the ambassador's questions in a deferential manner. Under no circumstances should I talk plainly with the man, and I should not mention my degree in Political Science. My hands should remain folded in my lap.

We got to the ambassador's house, and it all went wrong from the start. I am a terrible liar, and so when the ambassador asked me what my undergraduate degree was, in I stumbled. As a result he came to know I was a student of politics. Even though he seemed very friendly and eager for honest discussion, I tried to keep my views very benign. Then I excused myself to use the restroom, as I had begun to feel quite sick.

As soon as I was done spilling my guts into the toilet and tried to gracefully recover, I realized that the toilet would not flush. I was horrified. I stood in silent panic for what seemed like eons. I tried it again, begging it "please please please flush, dammit!" but nothing was happening. Finally I peeped my head out the door and whispered for Zhong. He could not hear me. But the ambassador saw me, and came to my aid.

"Oh!" he said jovially "the flush is broken, you must do this..." and began to fill a bucket with water. Zhong glared at me as if I had done this all purposefully. I stood by in horror as the ambassador worked to flush my vomit down the toilet, all with the same demeanor as he had when we had earlier been discussing the former Soviet Union.

In the taxi on the way home the only words that were spoken to me were: "Do you have any idea how much you have shamed me? My family? I cannot look at you. Do not speak. I asked you very simple things and you cannot even do that much."

Later I did not even bother to argue when his parents insisted that the whole "Tienanmen Square fiasco" was mostly invented by the American media. Interesting view, considering that the family's apartment was close enough to the Square that they would have heard the whole "misunderstanding" clearly. They actually would have been stuck inside because of police barricades in that whole area. Never mind that we all saw it live on TV. But we never spoke of that again, either.

The list of things I was never to speak of grew to epic proportions that month. Human rights, alternate sexuality, my views on democracy, my views on anything, really, except scholarly insights into neutral topics like linguistics. I was not even allowed to have an opinion on cooking, since each time I ventured into the kitchen I made terrible blunders. For example, once when chopping vegetables to help with the evening meal, I was met with strange sideways glances from Zhong's mother. When I was done, I noticed that she shooed me out, and threw the carrots away. When I asked Zhong what had happened he informed me that "everyone knows that the carrots for that chicken dish must be julienned. You made slices. And they were uneven."

When we returned home I broke the engagement. It was better for everyone. I simply do not know how to beat my drum exactly in rhythm with 2007 other people.

Interview: Michael Levin - The Next Great Clash

Desh — Mon, 5 May 2008 09:38:50 EDT

I very rarely find a book that I cannot keep down, specially when it comes to politics. The Next Great Clash: China and Russia vs. The United States by Michael Levin is a revelation. Not many analysts really do serious research before writing. Levin is different. He is a serious analyst who has had long stints in Soviet Union/Russia and China and he is currently Executive-in-Residence at the Thunderbird School of Global Management.

The introduction to the book starts in the most thoughtful manner. It is so gripping that you start believing in the power of book introductions once again - an art that had long vanished! He discusses his tough childhood and fight with disease as well as his struggle to learn about Russia and his success after some aimless times.

I love Levin's expression as it is profound, although it talks of some mundane things like global politics. Like he says:

"Reading is the collecting of intellectual income, writing is the spreading of it."

He uses a lot of research and the models of other researchers to test his conclusions that are based on his experience and knowledge.

Overall, a great book to read! Here is my interview with Michael Levin, the author.

1. You have talked of "One Radical Imbalance (American Debt) sustains another (Asian Surplus)". Just as the "rich" in the US are betting, foolishly, on a never ending stream of debt; aren't the Chinese, again foolishly, betting on unending stream of export wealth? And while talking of the aging US (and Western) population, we forget the same trend for China as well. So two questions:

(a) Is this a game of "who blinks first?" between the US and China and - in that sense - a repeat of the Star Wars tactic to destroy Soviet Union under its own weight?
(b) Is the Chinese "surplus" a notional surplus since it's invested in an instrument that it can best see ride down as the clash with the US increases?

LEVIN: Two things to keep in mind: if there is an economic break between the US and China, China has an ace in the hole: it can divert its attention to satisfying the demand of its domestic consumers as a replacement for export-led growth. The US seems to be at a disadvantage - it does not have an ace in the hole.

Second: You are right - both countries face demographic imbalances that will pose challenges in the future. It seems that America's advantage is its ability to absorb immigrants - recent protectionist sentiments aside. China also has some advantages: its social structure dictates that children take care of parents; it is a private, family matter - so the state is not, thus far, burdened with pension plans.

Imagine the additional wealth that China will have at its disposal as it implements pension schemes.

2. For the clash to tangibly occur as a military confrontation, a complete decoupling between China and US economies needs to occur. What will be that mechanism? Is it possible for either to voluntarily decouple from each other?

If there is outright war, the decoupling will be a byproduct. The whole global economy will go haywire.

But China is developing asymmetric capabilities that exploit US weaknesses. If China is able to prevent the US from protecting Taiwan during a military confrontation - it has won.

By the way - I would like to emphasize: I hope I am all wrong about the next great clash. As you see though, the evidence is quite compelling.

3. Like you said very well, Europe learnt to use the "Human Rights Imperialism" with telling effect. It is very true that all the major powers use a Utopian ideal to create surrogates and followers. Again, as you have very rightly said - the US has considerably weakened two major alliances (UN and NATO) in recent years (probably the worst foreign affairs folly of the last 8 years despite Iraq). So, the US has lost that romantic "Moral Imperialistic Ideal" that inspired other people in its "mission". China, on the other hand, has embraced capitalism and has also weakened its position in its strongest "base" - the Communists and Marxists! Predictably, China has also lost its "Moral Imperialistic Ideal". How will these two powers gather vassals and followers?

Not really. The Chinese have demonstrated that they are successful communists - unlike their Soviet brethren. The Beijing consensus of economic development seems to have more adherents than the current Washington consensus. And the Chinese have very skillfully honed their image (although the recent disturbances in Tibet have upset China's "charm offensive") in the Muslim world, in Africa, and in Latin America.

4. India's "fascination" for the USSR and Russia is mainly because of a consistent and uninterrupted arms flow as opposed to wavering US positions. In the last one and a half decades, India has sent more professional immigrants to the US than all the other countries put together (every year, Indians get 40-50% of all H1B visas). That creates an intellectual ripple effect over two generations that moves out to influence minds as opposed to lobbyists. At the same time, with the highest percentage of younger population in the major economies, English education, and an education system that is privately owned so it can adjust to the demand rapidly, India is positioned to become the provider of world's management and executive talent over the next few years. How does that change the dynamics of the world's economies in the coming centuries? (PS: Rajat Gupta, the CEO of McKinsey, for example was instrumental in opening a world class business school in India - ISB - and also has expanded McKinsey's presence in India. Same goes for the PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi).

You know way more about India than I ever will.

5. Does India's business elite have a great deal of influence within the corridors of political power, or are they simply one more lobby to contend with? It seems that India's leaders rise through political parties/families - they do not come from business circles. Also, the Indian business community in Russia is highly organized and very wealthy. I would imagine that they are very involved with the Congress party, whereas Indian business elites in the U.S. might identify more with the BJP. What do you think?

Undoubtedly India has a great competitive advantage in its English-language capability - but the Chinese are very determined and hard-working. And they seem to be much better organized politically and so could easily launch a national English-language campaign (Incidentally, there is a fascinating article about this in the most recent New Yorker).

6. Despite its earlier start and higher percentage rise in GDP over last 3 decades, China has less than half the number of billionaires (official wealth counted) than India. Does that tell a tale? Is China's economy a government-sponsored musical chairs of using money where it sees the best returns and forcing its decisions into enterprise-led initiatives? With rising paper surpluses and a challenge from the US and a private-government combine of Indian economy* apart from a slowly awaking Japanese military power, does the Chinese economy appear to you as a "House of Cards"?

(PS: the Kazakhastan deal for oil was greatly influenced by the Lakshmi Mittal - who owns large steel plants in that country and has a JV with ONGC - in India's favor against the Chinese bids.)

China's economy does have many weak points - chief amongst them, its high percentage of non-performing bank loans (which you point out elsewhere). But China also has many strengths that are not captured by statistics and economic data - such as its ability to mobilize the population and a fervent belief that their time has come. The Chinese are also used to deprivation and sacrifice - something that most westerners are not familiar with.

Regarding the number of billionaires - some thoughts: Do these statistics take into account the number of overseas Chinese who are billionaires?

Also, in China, political connections are more important than wealth (although that may start to change). It would seem that the massive levels of corruption also distort the wealth statistics.

In a sense, all of the members of the central committee (approximately 300) are billionaires of power. And they are not wanting for material comforts.

7. In World War II, the US was an Aaly of Western Europe for the most part. It did not START any war until the end, which many believe it ended in an immoral way. Since then, there have been very few, if any, wars which the US has started and won. Does the US have the ability to attract allies that can forge its position? China has created its vassal states like Pakistan and North Korea to fight its wars that it does not want to fight itself. It has chosen to use the poverty of these vassal states while arming them and providing them with a sense of self-esteem in the absence of actual wealth (a policy very fruitfully used by the British with Indian kings during colonial rule) to create a vast strong set of "allies". How do these two strategies (or otherwise) of the US and China in the recent decades affect the future dynamics?

No one likes a bully - all the kids gang up on the bully as soon as he is down. George Bush/the US is perceived as the bully, and China is skillfully exploiting this, but recent events in Tibet are a great threat to China's strategy of seeking a more "multipolar" world.

8. Finally, a rather small detail: You said that you would sell expensive editions of the Koran in Russia - where your contacts were "refuseniks" (Jews refused immigration to Israel) to earn money. Why were these Jews buying the Koran, and not the Torah?

Please note: i did not sell the Korans - i gave them to the refuseniks, who in turn sold them on the black market to muslims. Access to the Torah was not a problem.

Tibet - The Myth of Shangri-La

C R Sridhar — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:46:42 EDT

‘We ought not suffer ourselves to be deluded by unfounded theory or specious argument.’ -Abbe Felice Fontana.

The recent uprising in Tibet, which was crushed by China, reopened old wounds of the Tibetan struggle for independence from China. The international media was quick to highlight the traumatic events of the Chinese crackdown in 1959 in Tibet, which led to the exile of Dalai Lama to India. The international condemnation of the tough action taken on the Tibetan protesters was embarrassing to China as she was to play the host in the Beijing 2008 Olympics. The bad publicity came at an inopportune time and blunted the PR exercise mounted by China as an emerging Super Power.

The international coverage of the uprising was to a large extent uniform expressing moral outrage at the Chinese oppression but simplified the complex historical events of the Sino-Tibetan struggle. In the simplification lay the romantic notion that the Lamas (the priestly class) ruled wisely and with compassion. As the Dalai Lama himself stated that "the pervasive influence of Buddhism" in Tibet, "amid the wide open spaces of an unspoiled environment resulted in a society dedicated to peace and harmony. We enjoyed freedom and contentment.”¹

Hollywood version of Tibet

The romantic notion of idyllic Tibet where men, women and children lived in perfect harmony was reinforced in the West by Hollywood movies produced by talented directors such as Bernardo Bertolucci's Little Buddha (1993) and Martin Scorsese's Kundun (1997) and Jean-Jacques Annaud’s Seven Years in Tibet. In these excellently directed and lavishly produced films there are powerful messages suggesting ‘exaggerated reverence, with heavy-handed depictions of Tibetans, especially Tibetan monks, as solemn, holy and kind instead of as ordinary people who quarrel and joke around.’ The Western World also idealized Tibetan culture as pure and otherworldly. As Jamyang Norbu, a Tibetan immigrant and writer living in Tennessee, said: ''In the West, the response to Tibetan culture is so worshipful and romantic. There are elements in Tibetan culture that have all this magical, medieval stuff that Westerners love. The New Age thing. The Tibetan thing has style -- the color, the costumes. To a great extent, we exist only in the imagination of Western fantasists.''²

The slavish adoration of all things Tibetan finds articulation in the novel Lost Horizon, written by James Hilton who popularized Shangri-La – a place of perfect serenity. The novel tells a story of some Englishmen whose plane crashed in the Himalayas found peace and tranquility in the company of lamas who engaged them with philosophical conversation over endless cups of tea. This myth of Tibet – a veritable Shangri-La - entered Western consciousness and struck a sympathetic chord. This impression of Tibet as a Utopian world untainted by greed or corruption excited the imagination of western people and formed the basis of public opinion supporting the Tibetan struggle against China.

Exploitative class structure

But did the popular opinion about Tibet as a Shangri-La have any basis in reality? Were there any historical records to support the claim that it was Shangri-La ruled by the wise lamas? A careful and scrupulous reading of Tibetan History reveals a radically different picture. Far from being a Shangri-La Tibet was crushed from within by a viciously exploitative class structure. “Until 1959, when the Dalai Lama last presided over Tibet,” writes Michael Parenti, “ most of the arable land was still organized into manorial estates worked by serfs. “³ Even a writer sympathetic to the old order allows that "a great deal of real estate belonged to the monasteries, and most of them amassed great riches . . .. In addition, individual monks and lamas were able to accumulate great wealth through active participation in trade, commerce, and money lending."⁴

In old Tibet, there were a number of small farmers who eked out a living under extremely difficult circumstances. These were the lucky ones as they were free peasants. The middle class was in the region of ten thousand comprising small traders, merchants, and shopkeepers. Thousands were beggars and some slaves who owned nothing. But staggering parts of the population - some 700000 out of 1250000 were serfs.⁵ The serfs and other poor peasants had no education or medical care. They slaved for the lama and the secular landed aristocracy. They had no rights and were subject to the whims of the lords. The plight of the serfs is chronicled in the Timely Rain: Travels in New Tibet and also in other scholarly books such as Tom Grunfeld’s The Making of Modern Tibet, M.E. Sharpe, 1996; Anna Louise Strong, Tibetan Interviews, Peking New World Press, 1929.

Hell on Earth

The exploitative regime of the Lamas was enforced through terror and wide spread use of torture. For runaway serfs and thieves the summary punishments were given such as eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation. Notes Parenti “ In 1959, Anna Louise Strong visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, gouging out eyes, and breaking off hands. There were instruments for slicing off kneecaps and heels, or hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling.”⁶ The testimonies of the victims of torture are heart rending as they are enduring chronicles of man’s inhumanity to man.

The religious teaching of Karma was used to keep the iniquitous social order in place. The pernicious doctrine taught that the poor had themselves to blame as they justly suffered for their sins committed in past lives. The rich enjoyed the affluence and prosperity as a reward for their virtuous deeds in the past. This religious dogma prevented any challenge to the social order and preserved a status quo for the benefit of the Lama elites.

Enter the Red Dragon

In 1950 the Chinese communists occupied Tibet and crushed the ill-equipped Tibetan army. In 1951 the Seventeen Point agreement was signed and Tibet was officially incorporated into the People's Republic of China. Dalai Lama was given self- government in Tibet with the Chinese government retaining control over military and foreign relations. In Eastern Kham and Amdo (Quingai) considered being outside the purview of the Tibetan Government, the Chinese initiated land reforms. Most lands there were taken away from noblemen and monasteries and re-distributed to serfs. This aroused resentment among the landed class in Tibet. The Chinese accusation was that Tibet under the Dalai Lama was regressive in nature and opposed all attempts to modernize a serf society. The Chinese abolished serfdom and introduced social reforms by reducing usurious interest rates and built hospitals and roads. “Contrary to popular belief in the West," writes Goldstein, the Chinese "took care to show respect for Tibetan culture and religion. No aristocratic or monastic property was confiscated, and feudal lords continued to reign over their hereditarily bound peasants.”⁷

Meanwhile the relationship between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese communists worsened. In Eastern Kham and Amdo(Qinghai) the landed class with the monks started a rebellion in June 1956, which eventually spread to Lhasa. The Chinese crushed the Tibetan resistance with extreme violence in 1959. After the Lhasa rebellion in 1959, the Chinese government lowered the level of autonomy of Central Tibet, and implemented full-scale land redistribution in all areas of Tibet.

Tibet as a pawn in the Cold War

The American involvement in the Tibetan struggle arose due to geopolitical concerns about the ideology of communism that was hostile to interests of capitalism. American foreign policy strategists, less inspired by thoughts of benevolence, saw a golden opportunity to halt the spread of communism by actively supporting Dalai Lama. The CIA involvement with the bands of Tibetan fighters dates back to 1956 when the Tibetan fighters attacked the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army. The CIA gave this group military training, support camps in Nepal and supply of arms. A propaganda unit called the American Society for a Free Asia – a CIA front- espoused the cause of free Tibet.

The Dalai Lama’s eldest brother, Thubtan Norbu, played an active role in this society.⁸ The CIA bankrolled the exiled Tibetan community throughout the sixties to the tune of $1.7 million a year according to the documents released by the State Department in 1998. The CIA also gave the Dalai Lama annual payments of $186000. These facts were reported in the Los Angeles Times (15-9-1998) and also in New York Times (1-10-1998) by the publication of the article ‘CIA Gave Aid to Tibetan Exiles in '60s, Files Show’ written by Jim Mann. The documents released by the State Department are also analysed in a book written by Morrison titled The CIA's Secret War in Tibet.

The armed resistance movement petered out in 1972 when the CIA abruptly withdrew support. Both President Nixon and Dr. Henry Kissinger saw that rapprochement with China served US geopolitical interests. The Tibetans were left high and dry. There is another important reason, not discussed in mainstream media, why the resistance failed: because large sections of Tibetan society who were serfs did not join the armed struggle against the Chinese. Unlike other liberation struggles against imperial invasions, the Tibetan resistance was confined to the land owning aristocracy and monks who lost the most during the Chinese occupation. The non- involvement of the class of peasants/ serfs spelt the death knell of the resistance.⁹

The bitterness of the 14th Dalai Lama was evident, as he knew that the US involvement in Tibet was a game to thwart the expansion of Communist China. It had nothing to do with the plight of the Tibetan people. While thanking the CIA for its support in the Tibetan struggle he told John Kenneth Knaus, an ex-CIA official, that “the U.S. Government had involved itself in his country's affairs not to help Tibet but only as a cold war tactic to challenge the Chinese.''

Today the financial support for Dalai Lama flows from the National Endowment for Democracy and other conduits. The US Congress has allotted annually a sum of $2 million for Tibetans in India with additional budget of millions for the democratic activities for the Tibetan Exile Community. Heather Cottin, in "George Soros, Imperial Wizard," CovertAction Quarterly no. 74 (Fall 2002) has also alleged that the Dalai Lama also gets money from financier George Soros, who now runs the CIA-created Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and other institutes.

Writing on the Wall

Beneath the smiling face of the 14th Dalai Lama that we see on TV interviews and at public functions there is a worried man. The worries of Dalai Lama are founded on painful realities confronting Tibet. In recent times the Han Chinese constituting 95% of the immense Chinese population have settled in large numbers dominating the Tibetan economy. The Han Chinese views the Tibetans with contempt. The economic levers are in the hands of the Chinese, which has aroused the antagonism of the local Tibetans. The culture of Tibet is in danger of being effaced by the demographic shift in favour of the Han Chinese.

The dark shadow cast by China as an emerging super power has blunted the bargaining power of Tibet in her quest for independence. In recent times China has meshed with the globalised economy as a supplier of low cost goods to US and the world. With US slipping into recession and real wages declining, the flood of cheap goods to meet declining purchasing power in US may stem the consumer protest in that country. Hence, apart from posturing and making rhetorical speeches, the US establishment may find no reason to rock the Chinese boat. The US occupation of Iraq against international law, which has cost precious lives, has turned public opinion against military intervention in general. Moreover, the financial crisis in US and declining dollar has limited the capacity of US to militarily intervene in Tibet. The Government in exile of Dalai Lama has no support in US to overthrow the Chinese from Tibet and risk the prospect of a third world war.

The option of Dalai Lama is restricted to negotiate with China for autonomy while being a part of China. The conciliatory efforts made by the Dalai Lama to the Chinese leadership in Beijing would be the best step forward to ensure that the freedom of worship and human rights are restored in the best traditions of democracy.

“For every complicated problem,” said Mencken, “there is a solution that is simple, direct, understandable, and wrong.” For the people who support the Free Tibet movement the myth of the Shangri-La must be laid to rest and there must be international pressure to model Tibet as a democracy. Few Tibetans would like the return of the corrupt aristocratic clans who fled with the Dalai Lama in 1959. Many Tibetan farmers would not like to give up the land distributed to them during the Chinese land reforms. Slaves who suffered terribly under the feudal overlords would not like the return to slavery. These voices must be heard and respected. Otherwise the freedom loving people of Tibet would be replacing the yoke of Chinese Occupation with the yoke of theocratic despotism of the Lamas. A fate that must be avoided at any cost.

----------

1 Dalai Lama quoted in Donald Lopez Jr., Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West (Chicago and London: Chicago University Press, 1998), 205.

2 Tibet (Hold the Shangri-La)- BARBARA STEWART Published: March 19, 2000- the New York Times.

3 Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth- Michael Parenti.

4 Pradyumna P. Karan, The Changing Face of Tibet: The Impact of Chinese Communist Ideology on the Landscape (Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1976), 64.

5 Stuart Gelder and Roma Gelder, The Timely Rain: Travels in New Tibet (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1964) page 110.

6 Anna Louise Strong, Tibetan Interviews (Peking: New World Press, 1929) quoted in Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth.

7 Melvyn C. Goldstein, The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), page 52.

8 Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison, The CIA's Secret War in Tibet (Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 2002); 9 Hugh Deane, "The Cold War in Tibet," CovertAction Quarterly (Winter 1987).