In one of my early write up in this blog, I paid a glowing tribute to Jamyang Norbu la, as a fighter, as a political scientist. In this one I have to pick on him for his unruly imagination and unsubstantiated claims on Samdhong Rinpoche's inner thoughts.
This article attacks Samdhong Rimpoche's policy and underscores the reasons for his fiasco as a Kalon Tripa. While JN pretends to comments on exile Tibetan's democracy, he left no stone unturned to lash against Samdhong Rinpche. For example, while speculating on the rational of Samdhong Rimpoche's rejected resignation, he said cynically "An informed acquaintance of mine told me he suspected that Rimpoche’s resignation might actually have been a ploy to raise the amendment issue. Such a development would allow Rimpoche to launch the campaign for his third term (maybe fourth,fifth or sixth)while still in office, giving him a definite advantage over future competitors. To be fair, Rimpoche himself has publicly stated that he was against any amendment of the Exile Charter for this purpose". This acquaintance might not be any other than himself.
JN kept on saying that he doesn't think in contrary to his acquaintances assumption, that the resignation is a political ruse rather than a internal strife. See the whole article here..
http://http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=25483&article=WAITING+FOR+MANGTSO+-+By+Jamyang+Norbu
If anyone doubt Samdhong Rimpoche's sincerity, then the critic is simply playing a devil's advocate. There must be an underlying motivation for hauling such unfounded subjective personal assumption. The accusation heaped upon Samdhong was unreasonable, baseless. Samdhong runs the exile government with the principle of transparency, honesty, truth and nonviolence as a hallmark of all his activities. These ideals are reflected in all his policies, decisions in exile government. His personal life too is a metaphor of virtues and simple living and high thinking. Samdhong Rinpoche is a man of morality with impeccable personal integrity. So the vested personal interest driven of the critic's hand can not overshadow the great brightness of the sun, so goes the Tibetan saying.
JN,s article is a food for thought as always. I enjoy the clarity of this thoughts and the lucidity of his prose. However, there are cases, where he transgresses the red line. Where some of his allegation and claims are questionable. In one instance, JN jabbed at His Holiness the Dalai Lama in person as what he claimed is that the later turned a blind eyes to the mob violence against outspoken critics for exposing some of the social illness in Tibetan society. This is in stark contrast to just what another budding writer, Bhuchong D sonam wrote recently in his book review of Thupten Samphel's debute novel "Falling Through the Roof'.
"...In August 1972, Dawa Norbu wrote in the editorial of Tibetan Review that “…Tibetan leadership in exile tends to be more interested in spiritual pursuits than in the mundane affairs of a people who is gasping for its national existence.” In a fanatic twist of meaning, a small section of the exile community took this as a blasphemous and to be against the Dalai Lama. They chased Norbu with sticks, stones and a few fuming women flapped their aprons in the air, a traditional sign of absolute disgust generally reserved for Communist China. Only the sane voice of the Dalai Lama saved Norbu’s scalp. Jamyang Norbu, an outspoken public intellectual and a prolific writer, also suffered the same public wrath for his bold creative expression".
One also have to consider how many times His Holiness Dalai Lama are informed of these sporadic squabbles in Tibetan society, and is it worthwhile for him to publicly comment on each and every minor flare up in the society. When a small group of Tibetan voice their opposition against JN's writings and others, nobody can shut them up. They are in democratic society, and they have every right to express their displeasure in any form except physical violence for what JN advocates. Flapping their aprons and jeering at JN is a demonstration of the intensity of people's feelings towards certain ideas or thoughts. These demonstrators are not gifted with the ability to write like JN, so their expression came in an alternative physical forms.
As political commentator, he can advocate his political ideology and views, that is his rights in a democratic society. The very fact that Tibetan in exile, compliment or at least tolerant his blasphemous actions itself point to the maturity of the exile democracy. As much as he is critical of the exile government and its policies, I too do not view his perspectives at its face value. JN's argument that exile Tibetan democracy lacks the semblance of western democracy is a flawed argument, or to say he is a committing a bandwagon.
Western democracy is one model of the system, and there is no reason for us to follow it simply because it is so popular. To say there is only one democracy in the world, and every nations or entite should follow it in all respect is is unhighly undemoractic . Tibetan exile government is run by a democratic system with Tibetan charateristics. It is functioning as such, given the circumstance and the time, that no other system can do better.
The most relevant and well known definition of democracy is "by the people , for the people and of the people". Exile democracy meets this criteria at its best, with the direction of the Kalon Tripa by the people, and formation of the assembly of Tibetan people's deputies. As the system of Dalai Lama institution is the most unique to Tibetan people, and it is a system that Tibetan hold dear to their hearts. Any question of its relevance to modern society, can be decided by the will and wishes of Tibetan people themselves through a democratic exercise of rights. As HH the Dalai Lama himself repeatedly told to media, it is upto the Tibetan people, whether the institution of the Dalai Lama should be continued or not.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama bestowed democracy to Tibetan people, he sees it the finest and best system of governance. The Dalai Lama also unequivocally announced there should be a separation of politics and religion. So it is evident that the exile democracy is in an evolutionary process and work in progress. It is moving on at a pace that suits the current Tibetan exile politics, therefore there is no need of a democratic revolution at the moment. Unlike America, where the founders of the nation built a genius system of democracy, which even can be run by a fool, whereas in exile, Tibetan people have wisely elected a genius person who runs a flawed system. Dhondup Tsering la wrote a fitting rebuttal to JN, here is the link http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/7728
This article attacks Samdhong Rimpoche's policy and underscores the reasons for his fiasco as a Kalon Tripa. While JN pretends to comments on exile Tibetan's democracy, he left no stone unturned to lash against Samdhong Rinpche. For example, while speculating on the rational of Samdhong Rimpoche's rejected resignation, he said cynically "An informed acquaintance of mine told me he suspected that Rimpoche’s resignation might actually have been a ploy to raise the amendment issue. Such a development would allow Rimpoche to launch the campaign for his third term (maybe fourth,fifth or sixth)while still in office, giving him a definite advantage over future competitors. To be fair, Rimpoche himself has publicly stated that he was against any amendment of the Exile Charter for this purpose". This acquaintance might not be any other than himself.
JN kept on saying that he doesn't think in contrary to his acquaintances assumption, that the resignation is a political ruse rather than a internal strife. See the whole article here..
http://http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=25483&article=WAITING+FOR+MANGTSO+-+By+Jamyang+Norbu
If anyone doubt Samdhong Rimpoche's sincerity, then the critic is simply playing a devil's advocate. There must be an underlying motivation for hauling such unfounded subjective personal assumption. The accusation heaped upon Samdhong was unreasonable, baseless. Samdhong runs the exile government with the principle of transparency, honesty, truth and nonviolence as a hallmark of all his activities. These ideals are reflected in all his policies, decisions in exile government. His personal life too is a metaphor of virtues and simple living and high thinking. Samdhong Rinpoche is a man of morality with impeccable personal integrity. So the vested personal interest driven of the critic's hand can not overshadow the great brightness of the sun, so goes the Tibetan saying.
JN,s article is a food for thought as always. I enjoy the clarity of this thoughts and the lucidity of his prose. However, there are cases, where he transgresses the red line. Where some of his allegation and claims are questionable. In one instance, JN jabbed at His Holiness the Dalai Lama in person as what he claimed is that the later turned a blind eyes to the mob violence against outspoken critics for exposing some of the social illness in Tibetan society. This is in stark contrast to just what another budding writer, Bhuchong D sonam wrote recently in his book review of Thupten Samphel's debute novel "Falling Through the Roof'.
"...In August 1972, Dawa Norbu wrote in the editorial of Tibetan Review that “…Tibetan leadership in exile tends to be more interested in spiritual pursuits than in the mundane affairs of a people who is gasping for its national existence.” In a fanatic twist of meaning, a small section of the exile community took this as a blasphemous and to be against the Dalai Lama. They chased Norbu with sticks, stones and a few fuming women flapped their aprons in the air, a traditional sign of absolute disgust generally reserved for Communist China. Only the sane voice of the Dalai Lama saved Norbu’s scalp. Jamyang Norbu, an outspoken public intellectual and a prolific writer, also suffered the same public wrath for his bold creative expression".
One also have to consider how many times His Holiness Dalai Lama are informed of these sporadic squabbles in Tibetan society, and is it worthwhile for him to publicly comment on each and every minor flare up in the society. When a small group of Tibetan voice their opposition against JN's writings and others, nobody can shut them up. They are in democratic society, and they have every right to express their displeasure in any form except physical violence for what JN advocates. Flapping their aprons and jeering at JN is a demonstration of the intensity of people's feelings towards certain ideas or thoughts. These demonstrators are not gifted with the ability to write like JN, so their expression came in an alternative physical forms.
As political commentator, he can advocate his political ideology and views, that is his rights in a democratic society. The very fact that Tibetan in exile, compliment or at least tolerant his blasphemous actions itself point to the maturity of the exile democracy. As much as he is critical of the exile government and its policies, I too do not view his perspectives at its face value. JN's argument that exile Tibetan democracy lacks the semblance of western democracy is a flawed argument, or to say he is a committing a bandwagon.
Western democracy is one model of the system, and there is no reason for us to follow it simply because it is so popular. To say there is only one democracy in the world, and every nations or entite should follow it in all respect is is unhighly undemoractic . Tibetan exile government is run by a democratic system with Tibetan charateristics. It is functioning as such, given the circumstance and the time, that no other system can do better.
The most relevant and well known definition of democracy is "by the people , for the people and of the people". Exile democracy meets this criteria at its best, with the direction of the Kalon Tripa by the people, and formation of the assembly of Tibetan people's deputies. As the system of Dalai Lama institution is the most unique to Tibetan people, and it is a system that Tibetan hold dear to their hearts. Any question of its relevance to modern society, can be decided by the will and wishes of Tibetan people themselves through a democratic exercise of rights. As HH the Dalai Lama himself repeatedly told to media, it is upto the Tibetan people, whether the institution of the Dalai Lama should be continued or not.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama bestowed democracy to Tibetan people, he sees it the finest and best system of governance. The Dalai Lama also unequivocally announced there should be a separation of politics and religion. So it is evident that the exile democracy is in an evolutionary process and work in progress. It is moving on at a pace that suits the current Tibetan exile politics, therefore there is no need of a democratic revolution at the moment. Unlike America, where the founders of the nation built a genius system of democracy, which even can be run by a fool, whereas in exile, Tibetan people have wisely elected a genius person who runs a flawed system. Dhondup Tsering la wrote a fitting rebuttal to JN, here is the link http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/7728
No comments:
Post a Comment