Some thoughts on the recent name change from Kalon Tripa to Sikyong

Some Thoughts on the recent name from Kalon Tripa to Sikyong

In order to understand the latest name change, it is important to know the rationale behind 2011’s name change from Tibetan-Government-in-Exile, TGIE (in Tibetan – Bhoe Shung Gaden Phodrang) to ‘Bhoemi-Driktsu’. My thesis is that the main reason behind the latest change of the name from Kalon Tripa (KT) to Sikyong is due to KT’s erstwhile contextual relationship with the name TGIE (in Tibetan language). So these two terms (TGIE in Tibetan and KT) are contextually inter-related, but are separate conceptually. Nevertheless, because of their (KT & TGIE) separate conceptual existence, I think the latest name change (from KT to Sikyong) is unnecessary.

As well known, our administration in exile, since early period, officially and formally took the name of Central Tibetan Administration, CTA (not a government, but sounds more like an alternative political administration in the likes of Palestine Liberation Organization, detaching the violent aspect of it) based upon international politics and real politik compulsions. But, CTA kept the name TGIE in Tibetan language because of two main reasons: (1) Though CTA is not officially and formally recognized as government of Tibet, but for all practical and moral purposes, it is the legitimate political representative of entire Tibetans across the world; (2) secondly, the Tibetan name for the CTA (Bhoe-Shung-Gaden-Phodrang-Chogle-Namgyal) does not technically and conceptually mean what the English word ‘Tibetan-Government-in-Exile’ would suggests. They are similar, but not the same. As explained by DL and Samdhong Rinpoche previously, ‘Shung’ in Tibetan means more than what English word ‘government’ implies. Similarly ‘Gaden-Phodrang Shung’ implies Tibet’s erstwhile feudal or ecclesiastical unique form or system of rule, which really cannot be described using modern international relations and law’s terminologies and standards. Therefore, it technically does not mean a government-in-exile in modern understanding. But for all practical purpose, CTA acts and unofficially regarded as a government-in-exile by others, based upon its strong popular, political and moral legitimacy.
Now the last year’s name change from TGIE (in Tibetan) to “U-Bhoemi-Driktsu” is an attempt to correct the Tibetan version of “TGIE” and make it conform to the official title ‘CTA’. The reasons behind this change are mainly twofold: (1) DL’s devolution of political authority and the automatic need to change terminologies attached to DL’s 350 years of unique historic political rule or authority. Especially the term ‘Gaden-Phodrang’ (which is DL’s personal residence or palace or religious office) had to change if DL does not remain at the helm of Tibetan political affairs. When we detach this term from the title, then only ‘Bhoe’ (Tibet) and ‘Shung’ (roughly government) remains, which could be misused and misinterpreted by China as “Tibet’s Government”, and thus embarrassing host Indian government and other Tibet supporting nations. Whether there are pressures from India or any other nations to change the name remains to be seen; (2) The changed nature of the Tibetan administration (CTA) after devolution, and the changing International situation and politics vis-à-vis China (which greatly favors China). Other factors also plays important role, such as: post-ideological world scenario; rigid and sovereignty based world order; rising intolerance towards secession and those challenging state sovereignty; post-911 world obsession with security; CTA’s need to change and evolve with the changing time, if it has to survive on the long term basis and resolve Tibet issue; CTA’s perceptual need to seek legitimacy after Dalai Lama’s exit. Due to all abovementioned reasons, I think the name change of TGIE (in Tibetan) last year was a legitimate act on the part of CTA.

Coming back to the latest (2012) name change from KT to Sikyong, it is the title Kalon Tripa’s contextual relationship with DL’s erstwhile Gaden-Phodrang administration or rule that ultimately compelled it to change (from KT to Sikyong). Kalon Tripa was a title used and very much attached contextually to Tibet’s old regime (including both pre and post 1959 DL’s Gaden-Phodrang Shung or administration until 2011) and therefore over the period of time, it came to somewhat resemble modern day’s title of Prime Ministership. Though technically KT does not exactly mean Prime Minister, but for all practical purposes it acts and was informally regarded as one by others. Therefore, with the latest change in name from KT to Sikyong, I think the last remnant of the previous regime or administration was disconnected. Nevertheless, I believe that due to KT’s conceptual difference with TGIE (in Tibetan) and the English term ‘prime minister’ that the title (KT) should have been retained. KT in Tibetan is a unique title (and obscure one) that cannot be described in modern language of politics and international relations, and therefore there should not have been an impending need to change the name. Though KT reminds us of the erstwhile TGIE (in Tibetan), it is this very obscurity of the term ‘KT’ and its direct link and connection with the previous avatar (DL’s Gaden-Phodrang-Shung) that holds the present regime more intact and receives former’s historic and moral legitimacy.

*note – These thoughts are expressed without having seen the rationales presented in the discussions within ATPD for the latest name change.

Why Tibet’s self-immolations must stop?

Why Tibet’s self-immolations must stop?

Clarifications: 

- Tibetan self-immolations are result of China’s atrocious, insensitive and failed policies in Tibet.
- Are self-immolations natural reaction of Tibetans to China’s atrocious policies and rule in Tibet, or is it well-meaning strategy by Tibetans to highlight their genuine sufferings and suppressed aspirations under Chinese rule?  My limited understanding of the issue points to the latter, which will be the basis of my reasons behind the assertion “why self-immolations must stop”.
- The main reason behind this assertion is based on believe that self-immolations (now with more than 40 cases) did not capture enough international attention and reactions.

Reasons why self-immolations must stop:

- Tibet’s self-immolations have not captured the imaginations of international community, the way it did in the case of Arab spring. Why?
- Because self-immolations in other parts of the world became a catalyst or reason behind the rise of movements such as Arab spring, India’s Mandal Commission agitation etc. In other words self-immolations created movements, which captured international attention and concerns. Tibet’s self-immolations, despite tremendous courage and sacrifice, did not result in any apparent political or social movements or uprisings. At the most, Tibet’s self-immolations created more self-immolations.
- In 2008 Tibet uprising, the killings of hundreds of Tibetans at the hands of Chinese authority resulted in the international hue and cry over the abuse of human rights and atrocities in Tibet. So, Chinese state was directly accountable to the deaths of those Tibetans. There was a clear and apparent case of abuse of human rights and illegality in the act of Chinese state. In the case of self-immolations, Chinese state did not directly cause those deaths, as they were results of self-immolations. Thus, international community, though sympathetic to Tibetans, could not directly hold Chinese state accountable for those deaths. At the most, an indirect causal relation could be attributed to China’s illegitimate rule in Tibet.
- Why Tibet’s self-immolations did not create larger movements within China? In Arab states, there was a general atmosphere ripe for democratization, pan Arab sense of brotherhood and shared aspirations to overthrow dictatorships. In the case of Tibet’s self-immolations, despite few supporting statements from Chinese intellectuals, majority of the mainland Chinese people did not really share a sense of brotherhood and concerns for Tibetans. Further, general conditions within larger Chinese society at the moment may not be ripe for democratization and political reforms.
- International Law argument: Unlike in the case of 2008 killings, Tibetan self-immolations are not enough for international community to cross the boundary Sovereignty (at least notionally) and condemn Chinese acts.
- Thus it seems to me that international community acts (or reacts) either to those instances of apparent killings as a result of uprising or when there are large movements or uprisings as a result of self-immolations. Sadly, in the case of recent Tibetan self-immolations, neither of these two situations had taken place.
- Therefore, if self-immolations are well-meaning strategy (which I think it is) by Tibetans to highlight their genuine concerns and aspirations under 50 years of Chinese rule, then I’m afraid it seems that the strategy did not result in what it set out to do. Therefore, self-immolations must stop. I did not use “must be stopped” because I don’t know who is really capable (whether morally or legally) of stopping these acts from taking place.