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.